How come in Christianity....

[glen]

Originally posted by: azazyel

Originally posted by: glen
Flyermax2k3

You people are ready to crucify me because of my beliefs, and that's fine with me.

Your piety and willingness to make allusions between yourself and the Messiah are most typically associated with the descriptions in the Bible of Satan.

The Bible of Satan? WTF is that?


Come down.
Get off your f*ckin cross.
We need the f*ckin space to nail the next fool martyr

So, it is not ok for me to accuwse him of being Pious, but it is ok for you to accuse me of it?

 

[TheBDB]

Originally posted by: Rayden
In everyone's heart they know there is a God. This is what the Bible says.

Oh well if the Bible says it.....I have now seen the light!!! Praise Jesus!!

 

[JustAnAverageGuy]

One thing that's always bothered me.

Who said "god" was the REAL god other than the people that wrote the book. What if the god that really existed was Zeus or something.

/grabs double protection flamesuit.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: azazyel

Originally posted by: glen
Flyermax2k3

You people are ready to crucify me because of my beliefs, and that's fine with me.

Your piety and willingness to make allusions between yourself and the Messiah are most typically associated with the descriptions in the Bible of Satan.

The Bible of Satan? WTF is that?


Come down.
Get off your f*ckin cross.
We need the f*ckin space to nail the next fool martyr

Your reading comprehension sucks.

Here...I'll reword glen's statement so you can understand it:

"Your piety and willingness to make allusions between yourself and the Messiah are most typically associated with the descriptions of Satan in the Bible"

 

[azazyel]

Originally posted by: glen

Originally posted by: azazyel

Originally posted by: glen
Flyermax2k3

You people are ready to crucify me because of my beliefs, and that's fine with me.

Your piety and willingness to make allusions between yourself and the Messiah are most typically associated with the descriptions in the Bible of Satan.

The Bible of Satan? WTF is that?


Come down.
Get off your f*ckin cross.
We need the f*ckin space to nail the next fool martyr

So, it is not ok for me to accuwse him of being Pious, but it is ok for you to accuse me of it?

From a tool song

"Come down.
Get off your f*ckin cross.
We need the f*ckin space to nail the next fool martyr"

I thought it was more fitting than retort to his Crusify me thing. Sorry, it wasn't directed at you Glen.

 

[imported_Papi]

be·lieve ( P ) Pronunciation Key (b-lv)
v. be·lieved, be·liev·ing, be·lieves
v. tr.
To accept as true or real: Do you believe the news stories?
To credit with veracity: I believe you.
To expect or suppose; think: I believe they will arrive shortly.

v. intr.
To have firm faith, especially religious faith.
To have faith, confidence, or trust: I believe in your ability to solve the problem.
To have confidence in the truth or value of something: We believe in free speech.
To have an opinion; think: They have already left, I believe.

Idioms:
believe (one's) ears
To trust what one has heard.
believe (one's) eyes
To trust what one has seen.

___________

So, is to believe an emotion or a consious desision?

 

[Howard]

Originally posted by: kranky
I believe that God knows best what to do about people who have never heard the Gospel, and it's not up to me to condemn anyone.

:beer:

 

[Mani]

I see organized religion as a convenient mental crutch borne out of necessity. Some people feel the need to look forward to a mythical place where they prance around in the clouds and eat honey if they just make it to the end believing in a guy who watches over them in the sky. If you're life isn't going the way you want it, it is certainly nice to think there's a utopian paradise waiting for you in the afterlife. It also keeps people docile and controllable which is why religion has been a tool of governments since their inception.

Frankly, I think it's amazing that such fantastical ideas as a boat with every species on earth on it or virgins waiting in heaven are still believed in this day and age. Worse that these fairy tales are used to divide and polarize people of different religions. What most fail to realize is that when you take many of the core beliefs of major religions, the messages are the same. Belief in something greater than yourself, the value of helping your fellow man, and the importance of truth in all things. I think people need to focus more on the common ground between religions than the differences. Then we may have something we can all believe in.

But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

 

[sxr7171]

Originally posted by: Mani
I see organized religion as a convenient mental crutch borne out of necessity. Some people feel the need to look forward to a mythical place where they prance around in the clouds and eat honey if they just make it to the end believing in a guy who watches over them in the sky. If you're life isn't going the way you want it, it is certainly nice to think there's a utopian paradise waiting for you in the afterlife. It also keeps people docile and controllable which is why religion has been a tool of governments since their inception.

Frankly, I think it's amazing that such fantastical ideas as a boat with every species on earth on it or virgins waiting in heaven are still believed in this day and age. Worse that these fairy tales are used to divide and polarize people of different religions. What most fail to realize is that when you take many of the core beliefs of major religions, the messages are the same. Belief in something greater than yourself, the value of helping your fellow man, and the importance of truth in all things. I think people need to focus more on the common ground between religions than the differences. Then we may have something we can all believe in.

But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

Which religion has virgins in heaven? I might need to convert.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: sxr7171

Originally posted by: Mani
I see organized religion as a convenient mental crutch borne out of necessity. Some people feel the need to look forward to a mythical place where they prance around in the clouds and eat honey if they just make it to the end believing in a guy who watches over them in the sky. If you're life isn't going the way you want it, it is certainly nice to think there's a utopian paradise waiting for you in the afterlife. It also keeps people docile and controllable which is why religion has been a tool of governments since their inception.

Frankly, I think it's amazing that such fantastical ideas as a boat with every species on earth on it or virgins waiting in heaven are still believed in this day and age. Worse that these fairy tales are used to divide and polarize people of different religions. What most fail to realize is that when you take many of the core beliefs of major religions, the messages are the same. Belief in something greater than yourself, the value of helping your fellow man, and the importance of truth in all things. I think people need to focus more on the common ground between religions than the differences. Then we may have something we can all believe in.

But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

Which religion has virgins in heaven? I might need to convert.

Certain radical forms of Islam. Blow yourself up and you get bonus virgins!!!

 

[Riprorin]

Acts 4:8 - 12

Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them: "Rulers and elders of the people! If we are being called to account today for an act of kindness shown to a cripple and are asked how he was healed, then know this, you and all the people of Israel: It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed. He is
" 'the stone you builders rejected,
which has become the capstone. "

"Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved."


Buddah left his wife and children to search for the "truth". Just before he died, he was still looking. His remains lay in 8 different tombs.

Mohammed was a warrior who had blood on his hands. As far as I know, he has only one tomb.

Both may have been great guys, but I'd rather worship a religious leader who's tomb is empty.

Matthew 7
28When Jesus had finished saying these things, the crowds were amazed at his teaching, 29because he taught as one who had authority, and not as their teachers of the law.

Matthew 9
32While they were going out, a man who was demon-possessed and could not talk was brought to Jesus. 33And when the demon was driven out, the man who had been mute spoke. The crowd was amazed and said, "Nothing like this has ever been seen in Israel."

A Prophet Without Honor

Matthew 13
A Prophet Without Honor

53When Jesus had finished these parables, he moved on from there. 54Coming to his hometown, he began teaching the people in their synagogue, and they were amazed. "Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers?" they asked.

Mark 2
11"I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home." 12He got up, took his mat and walked out in full view of them all. This amazed everyone and they praised God, saying, "We have never seen anything like this!"

Matthew 9
5Which is easier: to say, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Get up and walk'? 6But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins...." Then he said to the paralytic, "Get up, take your mat and go home." 7And the man got up and went home.

No religious leader has ever forgiven sin because only God can forgive sin. Jesus is unlike any other religious leader.

 

[mAdD INDIAN]

Just to add to Hindusim..(dunno if its been posted already or not)..but every Hindu practices it diffferently. They all od differnet things..which is leads me to my next statement...I believe that Hinduism is more of a philosphy than a religion. It's not very strict or structured as other religions, and everyone has a different way of doing things.

 

[Athanasius]

azazyel:

Regarding the Gospel of Thomas, I do not think it will be included in the canonical books as a general rule. Not that it should not be considered. In fact, there is at least one branch of the Orthodox Church that already accepts the Gospel of Thomas. One should not view the question of canonicity as a settled issue; it is not and never can be because canonicity is a question of historical evidences and historical evidences never reach the level of mathematical, repeatable certainty.

But the early Church tended to revolve around four issues as it evaluated the books that were possibly considered apostolic or canonical:

1) Was it written by an apostle or a close associate of an apostle.
2) Was it consistent with the existing canonical books.
3) Did it have widespread circulation in the early church so that it could be viewed as "universal."
4) Did it resonate with the inner witness of the Holy Spirit.

Granted, #4 is subjective, but the other three are reasonable and objective historical criteria. But the Gospel of Thomas does not meet #3. It could meet #1, and I am not familiar with anything in the Gospel of Thomas that contradicts #2, but the fact is that the Gospel of Thomas was not widely distributed. It is not listed in the Muratorian Canon (circa 165 AD), in Origen of Alexandria's lists (circa 240 AD), by the historian Eusebius (circa 320 AD), in the Easter letter of Athanasius (367 AD) or in the canonical lists published by the Councilof Carthage (397 AD).

It seems clear that the early church simply was not familiar with the existence of the Gospel of Thomas. It could be canonical, but it lacks the objective basis for declaring it canonical.

By the way, I have the Gospel of Thomas and have read it several times. It is really very short, containing 114 sayings reported to be from Jesus. But it really isn't a Gospel at all; there is no narrative, no historical context. It does have many sayings that are found in the other Gospels. Furthermore, though there is a paucity of manuscripts,the few that we have can be dated very early, some perhaps as early as 100-150 AD.

But that doesn't mean it should be elevated to the level of canonical books. There are other excellent Christian writings. These writings are also dated very early and have more widespread circulation than the Gospel of Thomas. These include the Shepherd of Hermas, the Didiache ("Teaching"), the Letter of Barnabas, and the writings of Clement, Ignatius, Papias.

What all of these works do is support the historical authenticity of the books that are canonical, since they quote, allude to, or parallel the New Testament books so often.

 

[azazyel]

Originally posted by: Athanasius
azazyel:

Regarding the Gospel of Thomas, I do not think it will be included in the canonical books as a general rule. Not that it should not be considered. In fact, there is at least one branch of the Orthodox Church that already accepts the Gospel of Thomas. One should not view the question of canonicity as a settled issue; it is not and never can be because canonicity is a question of historical evidences and historical evidences never reach the level of mathematical, repeatable certainty.

But the early Church tended to revolve around four issues as it evaluated the books that were possibly considered apostolic or canonical:

1) Was it written by an apostle or a close associate of an apostle.
2) Was it consistent with the existing canonical books.
3) Did it have widespread circulation in the early church so that it could be viewed as "universal."
4) Did it resonate with the inner witness of the Holy Spirit.

Granted, #4 is subjective, but the other three are reasonable and objective historical criteria. But the Gospel of Thomas does not meet #3. It could meet #1, and I am not familiar with anything in the Gospel of Thomas that contradicts #2, but the fact is that the Gospel of Thomas was not widely distributed. It is not listed in the Muratorian Canon (circa 165 AD), in Origen of Alexandria's lists (circa 240 AD), by the historian Eusebius (circa 320 AD), in the Easter letter of Athanasius (367 AD) or in the canonical lists published by the Councilof Carthage (397 AD).

It seems clear that the early church simply was not familiar with the existence of the Gospel of Thomas. It could be canonical, but it lacks the objective basis for declaring it canonical.

By the way, I have the Gospel of Thomas and have read it several times. It is really very short, containing 114 sayings reported to be from Jesus. But it really isn't a Gospel at all; there is no narrative, no historical context. It does have many sayings that are found in the other Gospels. Furthermore, though there is a paucity of manuscripts,the few that we have can be dated very early, some perhaps as early as 100-150 AD.

But that doesn't mean it should be elevated to the level of canonical books. There are other excellent Christian writings. These writings are also dated very early and have more widespread circulation than the Gospel of Thomas. These include the Shepherd of Hermas, the Didiache ("Teaching"), the Letter of Barnabas, and the writings of Clement, Ignatius, Papias.

What all of these works do is support the historical authenticity of the books that are canonical, since they quote, allude to, or parallel the New Testament books so often.

Good post, and your right it is just a sayings gospel but I was just humored about Flyermax2k3's post that if it wasn't in the bible then it wasn't worthy of his attention. So, what do you feel about the possible existance of the Q gospel?

 

[Athanasius]

Hi azazyel:

About "Q," I find it sad that so much emphasis is put on a document that we don't have rather than on the ones we do have, including non-canonical documents like the Gospel of Thomas, Hermas, Didache, etc.
We don't really know (even by historical evidences) whether there ever was a single "Q" that served as a common source for the other Gospel accounts. If there was a "Q," it fits into the same category as the following four things:

1. The Kerygma
2. The Testimonia
3. The Logia
4. The Oral Tradition

The Kerygma is the basic oral proclammation of what Christ is believed to have done for us. It is rooted in the the belief that:

1. The age of divine grace and fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies has dawned
2. This age has come through Jesus' death and resurrection
3. The humanity of Jesus has ascended to heaven and been exalted by God as the object of our faith
4. The Holy Spirit has been given through Jesus Christ as a sign of Jesus' authority and as a superior demonstration of God's grace than any written code or law could have been.
5. This age of fulfillment/ divine grace will end when Jesus returns
6. Therefore repent while this age of grace lasts.

You can find these themes laced throughout the Apostles' preaching recorded in the book of Acts and in the Apostles' teaching recorded in the epistles.

The Testimonia refers to common Old Testament prooftexts used in the Kerygma and in early, post-New testament Christian writings.

The Logia ("Sayings") refer to statements Jesus made but that are not preserved in existing traditions. Some very early Christians refer to them. One "Saying" of Jesus that is not in the existing Gospels but did survive is found in Acts 20:35, "It is more blessed to give than to receive."

The Oral Tradition refers to the words of the Apostles and first Christians. Their testimonies were greatly valued as superior to written accounts because of their claim to be witnesses. As in a courtroom setting, eyewitness testimony is invaluable. In historical truths, it is irreplaceable,because historical truths cannot be mathematically verified or repeated. It was only as eyewitnesses began to age and die out that there was a real push to produce/preserve written manuscripts to maintain historical record for what they claimed to have seen.

From these four sources, the Gospels of the New Testament were born. If "Q" exists, it kind of fits in to #2, as would the Gospel of Thomas. But why focus on some supposed "silver bullet" called "Q" when the evidence we already have is more than sufficient to explain the Gosepl accounts, their similarities, and their different perspectives?

It is an academically intriguing concept, but to me changes very little of the historical picture whether it exists or not. If it were ever found and authenticated, then we would have something objective to consider, and I might have to rethink my opinion. That's OK; I've been wrong so many times that being right doesn't matter as much to me as it used to

BTW, I know you were just kind of "tweaking noses," when you mentioned Q. The amazing thing is that, unless I totally misread the intent of your post, the mischievous glee with which you "tweak" shined through. But then that kind of fits your handle, does it not?

 

[cm123]

Originally posted by: xEDIT409
How come in Christianity, they believe that if one is not Christian or if they do not follow Jesus... something along those lines... they will go to hell?

I'm in a World Religions class, and today, we had a Minister come in as a guest speaker. When he said this, I asked him,

"Well sir, I'm Hindu, and so is my entire family. Back in India, my grandparents live in a remote agricultural village where Christianity or any other relgion except Hinduism and maybe Islam, don't exist. My grandparents are the nicest people I have ever met. They both used to be elementary teachers, they've contributed much of their time and money to their community, and overall, they're very good people. So which leads to my question... are they going to hell because they don't even know Christianity is a religon?

His response: "I'm very sorry to say, but, yes, they will be going to hell"

My reaction: :disgust: +

+ :Q + (A mix of those)

I wish I knew the bible well enough to point to where this is covered, it is, all will be given a chance before Jesus that have not known him.

I would never say a pastor is wrong, however email a few churchs as to this, I think you will find comfort in your findings.

http://www.ntcministries.org/location.asp

The link above is of a church that I once did computer (consultant) work for, they are also a school & college, they teach the class your taking as well. Great contact for you as they are they kind of church that offers support in area's like this through 800 phone, email in person etc...