Who's Christian here?

[Davegod75]

Originally posted by: DVK916

Originally posted by: Davegod75

Originally posted by: IAteYourMother

Originally posted by: SithSolo1
I believe in God and pray but I don't attend church, what does that make me?

Christian... assuming you believe in the Jesus christ thing

whoa...I think this is why Christians get a bad name these days. People are lumping them into anyone who believes in God and prays. This is not true.

To call yourself a Christian there are some very big things you must believe

1. God exists in a trinty, Father, Son(jJsus), Holy Spirit
2. Jesus was sent to earth to die for our sins.
3. Jesus rose from the dead therefore defeatings death and sin

where in the bible is the Holy Trinity mentioned.

the concept is all over the bible. I think GiantsFan has pointed out several verses

 

[Electric Amish]

Originally posted by: Davegod75

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: Electric Amish
I still don't understand how the Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter-Day Saints (Mormon) is not considered "Christian".... :roll:

Have you ever read their ridiculously twisted views of the Bible?

Please explain???

Yeah, Nik, I attended LDS services until I was 16 years old and never heard or saw anything that was any crazier than any other religion. We were taught way more from the Bible than the Book of Mormon during our Sunday School classes.

 

[DVK916]

Amazing how some Christians like LDS and JWs insist that the Holy Trinity isn't in the bible, while Protestants and Catholics insists that it is all over the bible. Same book, yet radically different understandings of it.

 

[MrNutz]

Originally posted by: DVK916
Amazing how some Christians like LDS and JWs insist that the Holy Trinity isn't in the bible, while Protestants and Catholics insists that it is all over the bible. Same book, yet radically different understandings of it.

Great point! - The Bible was written for anyone to read it; but most importantly, for anyone to read it. Doesn't make any sense? Then why argue about something in the nandy forums? Why not just seek the answer for yourself? The complete book is at your fingertips!

"But if from there you seek the LORD your God, you will find him if you look for him with all your heart and with all your soul." - Text

 

[Stojakapimp]

Originally posted by: MrNutz

Originally posted by: DVK916
Amazing how some Christians like LDS and JWs insist that the Holy Trinity isn't in the bible, while Protestants and Catholics insists that it is all over the bible. Same book, yet radically different understandings of it.

Great point! - The Bible was written for anyone to read it; but most importantly, for anyone to read it. Doesn't make any sense? Then why argue about something in the nandy forums? Why not just seek the answer for yourself? The complete book is at your fingertips!

"But if from there you seek the LORD your God, you will find him if you look for him with all your heart and with all your soul." - Text

There's another hot topic there, is the concept of sola scriptura...but that's another topic

 

[gooseman]

I consider myself a Christian.

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: Davegod75

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: Giantsfan24

Because there is one God in three persons. Look at my isiaiah reference. There is no room to wiggle. ONE God and since later in isaiah it says that god alone saves, and cross that with Acts 4:12...Jesus =God

One:

1. Being a single entity, unit, object, or living being.
2. Characterized by unity; undivided: They spoke with one voice.
3.
1. Of the same kind or quality: two animals of one species.
2. Forming a single entity of two or more components: three chemicals combining into one solution.
4. Being a single member or element of a group, category, or kind: I'm just one player on the team.
5. Being a single thing in contrast with or relation to another or others of its kind: One day is just like the next.
6. Occurring or existing as something indefinite, as in time or position: He will come one day.
7. Occurring or existing as something particular but unspecified, as in time past: late one evening.
8. Informal. Used as an intensive: That is one fine dog.
9. Being the only individual of a specified or implied kind: the one person I could marry; the one horse that can win this race.

So with all those definitions of one, which one is the Lord referring to?

1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

Now it specifically states there are three. Now three doesn't have any other definitions that I know of, so unless 3=1 somehow, I'm going to go with the idea that one means unity in purpose, not unity in number.

very last part of the verse answers your question

Actually, no it only shows that them being 'one' could likely refer to unity of purpose, not unity of person. References to 'us', the Lord praying to his father, and the fact that it specifically states there are 3, would tell me the perhaps 'one' does not refer to unity of person.

If you can explain to me how 3 = 1, I'd be happy to listen. Sorry, just don't see it.

 

[Xylitol]

JESUS CHRIST IS MY SAVIOR!

 

[psteng19]

Originally posted by: engineereeyore
If you can explain to me how 3 = 1, I'd be happy to listen. Sorry, just don't see it.

It just is, don't question it. And it's 3 in 1, not 3 = 1.

There are many things that we can't comprehend in our very limited knowledge.
Just because we don't or can't understand it doesn't mean it's not true.

We are like ants when compared to the omniscient God.
An ant understands that if it does not eat it will die.
You think it understands advanced calculus, and since it does not understand it, it cannot be true?

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: psteng19

Originally posted by: engineereeyore
If you can explain to me how 3 = 1, I'd be happy to listen. Sorry, just don't see it.

It just is, don't question it. And it's 3 in 1, not 3 = 1.

There are many things that we can't comprehend in our very limited knowledge.
Just because we don't or can't understand it doesn't mean it's not true.

We are like ants when compared to the omniscient God.
An ant understands that if it does not eat it will die.
You think it understands advanced calculus, and since it does not understand it, it cannot be true?

1) One means unity of purpose. Everything makes sense and no violation occurs.

2) One means unity of being. We don't understand and things seem weird.

I've heard it said that the simpliest explanation, though not always the most practical, is usually the answer (or something like that). The first one seems a whole lot more simpler to me and in no way violates anything in the scriptures.

But again, your belief is your own. I'm simply trying to help people understand why we interpret things the way we do. I'm not trying to convert anyone, only provide some explanation.

 

[JulesMaximus]

NM

 

[Krazefinn]

Yup, Martin Luther began the protestant schism during dark ages from catholicism on basis of 87 thesis for sola scriptura ( scripture only as source of gods law to man). Nailed it to the door. And Guutenberg, Calvin, others advanced the idea of translating and spreading the bible for all to "rightly divide the pages, comparing verse to verse, precept to precept". Christ nailed the commandments to the cross, not to do away with them but to fulfill (the punishment for breaking them). christ amplified, discussed the meaning of the decalogue, and didnt say "they no longer exist". Rome did that pre ad321.
"Call no man father, because there is but one Father, and he is in Heaven..." He called the pope blasphemous for changing laws and times, usurping the role of God on earth. there is some evidence that catholicism has its roots in pre-deluvian history vis-avis queen astoreth, wife of Nimrod the hunter who constructed babel, established worship of the sun (and later SUNday)
Luther also protested fact the roman church was martyring anyone reading or disseminating the scriptures. Dogma had it tied to the church in chains, written in Latin, and translated by priest to the unwashed masses. he also protested the purchases of indulgences, passage of loved dead ones from purgatory, and other elements that made roman church the most welathy, and only religio-political christian entity in existence. Rome also mixed the ancient various pagan traditions with its christian interpretations, simply to increase her coffers: more was paid to each dicese that way, and became source of great competition between roman men of power and popes, yielding to incredibly ostentatious chruches, art, even secret orgies, sacrifices, and otherwise personally leading a double life: outwardly one of ascetic piety, inwardly indulgent into vicarious and decadent human lusts.

Islam is another example of religio-political affiliation, and God never intended that anyone take away each persona own right to choose. Such affiliation fueled by fanaticism and xenophobia literally also usurps Gods role, and has resulted in more death, destruction, war and sorrow than any other in human history. Israel (although sharing Abraham with Islam in ancestry) wanted to extend a genetic exclusiivity, precluding salvation to anyone who was not offspring of true-blooded jewish matriarch, and was also a religio-political alliance. Not going to delve into the mystics or far eastern teachings/religions here...

And yet its all about love? They say the same about mohhamad.

C'mon people, can't we just get along, and allow others to make their own choice, assured by free moral agency? You cannot pound the truth into someone using the bible as hammer. Or blow them up in the name of (albeit distorted application) of koran?

it is documented that there are more than 20,000 CHRISTIAN denominations in the west, and precious few accept the whole bible, and only the bible, as their canonical truth. Too many pick and choose, despites exortations that nary "not one jot or tittle is changed", nothing needs to be added, and certainly nothing denied from source of truth.

So if you believe in the greater controversy of good vs evil, evil has apparently produced many deceiving counterfeits, causing untold confusion. yet if there is but one source for humans to consult for Gods truth, why have we not yet understood, if you believe in this scenario, that a simple redux to study said single source, compare texts in context, and abide by the very few laws, allow others what god allows (free choice), the one truth would be apparent to "him who hath ears, let him see". And as "THE"source, it is the most published and sold, most controversial and denied, as well as near-universally ascribed to, which also exacted horrible negative sanctions for its memre possession (ie fed to lions, used as torches, burned at stake, hung, drawn and quartered, enslaved, (its all historical fact)
and yet it endures as all time ever best seller. Would a book of lies and fables be so reviled, yet so enduring and prolific. Despite being written over 3500 yrs by many dozens of different authors, it still endures. If it is THE WORD OF GOD, it has certainly earned the title. if its just fables, why the millenia-long attempt to discredit, destroy, change, add, etc? That makes no sense if its fiction, it simply points to larger forces at work...

HERE"S cliffs. meant to foster study, question, discussion, read it if you are interested....its all there. And I bel;eive still very relevant. But also misunderstood (where is the prosperity gopsel there? there are myriad of modern teachings that have NO SOUND biblical rationale). Sure makes christians look less than educable...and I'm a christian, of the spiritual denomination.

 

[msi1337]

I am on JC's side!!

non-denom here!

 

[spc hink]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Threads like this make me want to abolish ATOT for good. :roll:

Posts like this make me want to eat a ham sandwich.

 

[psteng19]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Threads like this make me want to abolish ATOT for good. :roll:

Jules, I always thought you were a cool guy but this is your third crap in this thread.
If you don't like the thread, why do you keep coming back?
Just stay out. No one's forcing you to participate.

 

[MBrown]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Threads like this make me want to abolish ATOT for good. :roll:

Dont crap this thread.

 

[DVK916]

Originally posted by: Krazefinn
Yup, Martin Luther began the protestant schism during dark ages from catholicism on basis of 87 thesis for sola scriptura ( scripture only as source of gods law to man). Nailed it to the door. And Guutenberg, Calvin, others advanced the idea of translating and spreading the bible for all to "rightly divide the pages, comparing verse to verse, precept to precept". Christ nailed the commandments to the cross, not to do away with them but to fulfill (the punishment for breaking them). christ amplified, discussed the meaning of the decalogue, and didnt say "they no longer exist". Rome did that pre ad321.
"Call no man father, because there is but one Father, and he is in Heaven..." He called the pope blasphemous for changing laws and times, usurping the role of God on earth. there is some evidence that catholicism has its roots in pre-deluvian history vis-avis queen astoreth, wife of Nimrod the hunter who constructed babel, established worship of the sun (and later SUNday)
Luther also protested fact the roman church was martyring anyone reading or disseminating the scriptures. Dogma had it tied to the church in chains, written in Latin, and translated by priest to the unwashed masses. he also protested the purchases of indulgences, passage of loved dead ones from purgatory, and other elements that made roman church the most welathy, and only religio-political christian entity in existence. Rome also mixed the ancient various pagan traditions with its christian interpretations, simply to increase her coffers: more was paid to each dicese that way, and became source of great competition between roman men of power and popes, yielding to incredibly ostentatious chruches, art, even secret orgies, sacrifices, and otherwise personally leading a double life: outwardly one of ascetic piety, inwardly indulgent into vicarious and decadent human lusts.

Islam is another example of religio-political affiliation, and God never intended that anyone take away each persona own right to choose. Such affiliation fueled by fanaticism and xenophobia literally also usurps Gods role, and has resulted in more death, destruction, war and sorrow than any other in human history. Israel (although sharing Abraham with Islam in ancestry) wanted to extend a genetic exclusiivity, precluding salvation to anyone who was not offspring of true-blooded jewish matriarch, and was also a religio-political alliance. Not going to delve into the mystics or far eastern teachings/religions here...

And yet its all about love? They say the same about mohhamad.

C'mon people, can't we just get along, and allow others to make their own choice, assured by free moral agency? You cannot pound the truth into someone using the bible as hammer. Or blow them up in the name of (albeit distorted application) of koran?

it is documented that there are more than 20,000 CHRISTIAN denominations in the west, and precious few accept the whole bible, and only the bible, as their canonical truth. Too many pick and choose, despites exortations that nary "not one jot or tittle is changed", nothing needs to be added, and certainly nothing denied from source of truth.

So if you believe in the greater controversy of good vs evil, evil has apparently produced many deceiving counterfeits, causing untold confusion. yet if there is but one source for humans to consult for Gods truth, why have we not yet understood, if you believe in this scenario, that a simple redux to study said single source, compare texts in context, and abide by the very few laws, allow others what god allows (free choice), the one truth would be apparent to "him who hath ears, let him see". And as "THE"source, it is the most published and sold, most controversial and denied, as well as near-universally ascribed to, which also exacted horrible negative sanctions for its memre possession (ie fed to lions, used as torches, burned at stake, hung, drawn and quartered, enslaved, (its all historical fact)
and yet it endures as all time ever best seller. Would a book of lies and fables be so reviled, yet so enduring and prolific. Despite being written over 3500 yrs by many dozens of different authors, it still endures. If it is THE WORD OF GOD, it has certainly earned the title. if its just fables, why the millenia-long attempt to discredit, destroy, change, add, etc? That makes no sense if its fiction, it simply points to larger forces at work...

HERE"S cliffs. meant to foster study, question, discussion, read it if you are interested....its all there. And I bel;eive still very relevant. But also misunderstood (where is the prosperity gopsel there? there are myriad of modern teachings that have NO SOUND biblical rationale). Sure makes christians look less than educable...and I'm a christian, of the spiritual denomination.

You know today many protestants would considured many of the founders of protestantism to be non Christians. Forexample both Calvin and Martin Luther believed in Marys Perpetual Virginity, and Martin Luther accepted the beliefe of Immaculate Conception, and he refered to Mary as being the Holy Mother of God. Infact today some Lutherans accept the Immaculate Conception and refer to Mary as being the Holy Mother of God.

 

[MBrown]

Can I just say this? If feels good to see that I am not the only Christian on ATOT or any other forum. Anybody else feel that way?

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: MBrown
Can I just say this? If feels good to see that I am not the only Christian on ATOT or any other forum. Anybody else feel that way?

:thumbsup: Always nice to know you're not alone.

 

[psteng19]

Originally posted by: MBrown
Can I just say this? If feels good to see that I am not the only Christian on ATOT or any other forum. Anybody else feel that way?

I wonder if there's any pastors on ATOT.

 

[Giantsfan24]

Originally posted by: DVK916

You know today many protestants would considured many of the founders of protestantism to be non Christians. Forexample both Calvin and Martin Luther believed in Marys Perpetual Virginity, and Martin Luther accepted the beliefe of Immaculate Conception, and he refered to Mary as being the Holy Mother of God. Infact today some Lutherans accept the Immaculate Conception and refer to Mary as being the Holy Mother of God.

The belief in Mry's perpetual virginity does not make you a non christian. Its when you pray to her and believe she intercesses for us is whe you start getting into some dangerous territory. Do I believe there are true Christians in the Catholic church, absolutely. But it is not for me to judge because I cannot see the heart. I can only compare what someone says against scripture and have faith God will guide me if I am truly open to Him.

 

[IAteYourMother]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Threads like this make me want to abolish ATOT for good. :roll:

what's wrong with this thread?

 

[Krazefinn]

Some believe Luther moderated his revolutionary thinking, and failed to go all the way. his own personal beliefs wer far ahead of the ex-officio ascribed to him. he had friends in high places, both roman, political, and personal, who may have encouraged him to not further risk near-assured death at stake for such heretical questioning of statusquo authority.

 

[JulesMaximus]

NM

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: psteng19

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Threads like this make me want to abolish ATOT for good. :roll:

Jules, I always thought you were a cool guy but this is your third crap in this thread.
If you don't like the thread, why do you keep coming back?
Just stay out. No one's forcing you to participate.

I will crap any thread I please. I just get sick of seeing this one on the front page that's all.

If you don't like my comments please feel free to ignore them.

Well if you want to abolish ATOT all together, why do you keep looking at its front page? If you hate it so much, why do you look? Just curious.