I can't speak for all Christians Weaver, but that is most certainly what I believe...Agree with Noodle, the Crucifixion would have been one heck of a scam if not...Further, the name itself implies the belief...Christian, KWIM?

Mrs. W

Edited because I can't spell Crucifixion to save my life without looking! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />

Weaver,

In all seriousness though...kidding aside there ARE different schools of belief and interpretations of some parts of the bible.

And in some cases to such an extreme that one camp may not recognise another as legit in their claim of salvation...other cases they are minor disagreements.

The fundamental belief in fundamentalism is that Jesus was who he said he was.

He said he was God and he said straight up that no one comes to the father except through him.

So to ask if Christ-ianity means you believe that Jesus is the only way to god....well....in a word..yes.

I once asked the base Chaplain (non-denominational, Christian base Chapel) who was teaching the youth group I belonged to if he believed in heaven and he said no, not in the literal sense as a place we all go to. So if no belief in heaven he couldn't have taken any of it literally, including the crucifiction and resurection.

I grew up in a Presbyterian church (whenever off of base)and Jesus was not the focus. God was, but not Jesus.

I am trying to give you an understanding of my confusion now, after being on this board and reading these views. I'm not being coy. Really trying to understand if I am the only person out there who considered themself a Christian who does not believe that Jesus is the only path to God. I was never taught that and have never believed that.

This board is one of the first places I ever heard it (my cousin was actually the first and she had just started attending a Baptist church). Now of course I hear it all the time, from all different people I run into.

I'm jus ttrying to work something out in my own mind, so thanks for putting up with me.

Why is that obvious and where did you come up with that idea?

So I go back to what keeps striking me but nobody here has really answered.

FH you use scripture to argue your point. Who wrote that scripture??????? What credibility does that person have????

Were they the second cousin twice removed from a guy that saw it?

What was their background. Lets say we went by todays standards.

If someone said they witnessed a miracle their would be scientists out there researching to see if possibly something happened that are unexplainable.

In some cases the event is unexplainable by science therfore if a person of faith wanted to beleive it was a mirracle, I guess they could.

Lets take the burning bush for instance. At the time it happened it could look like a miracle. Today there would be a scientist saying well when the sun was in the sky it was reflected off of that rock which increased the intensity and focus of the heat. That in turn was reflected to this spot where the bush was sitting at the time. Based on where the bush was located the crackling and popping echoing off of the walls sounded like a booming voice.

Of course this is just an example of what I am talking about I don't want to argue the validity of all the miracles just making a point.

The standard of proof today is much higher then it was then.

Plus the technology we have today.

What that leaves me with is that each person has their own preset beliefs and opinion.

So if MM, FH, Weaver and FNM all witnessed the same event, went home and wrote it down. You would get a completely different story. Then of course each persons credibility would be checked to make sure they don't just like to tell stories.

Then again it was written then translated. Lost in translation is a scary thought on this one.

In my regards to what God wants from people. I think above and beyond everything God wants people to be good people.

To treat others the way you want to be treated. To be a genuinly good person.

A person that avoids sin as much as humanly possible. Then to repent when they do.

I see many people who claim to be good christians contining to sin then asking for forgiveness.

I think God would rather have a person that didn't thump a bible but lived a good life over a person that thumped on the bible and didn't. But they could quote scripture, they went to church, they confessed their multitude of sins. So they get a free ticket in.

I don't see a God like that.

Not suprised you walked away from that confused Weaver...having sat through many an on post Christmahannakwanza ceremony myself I can attest to my own experience with "chaplains" having been humanist counselors and that is pretty much to the letter your belief structure.

The scriptures are the historical record of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.

If you discount one of them or two of them...why not all three?

Trying to pick and choose that way is to create your OWN religion based on your own preferences and what makes you feel comfortable and good.

It really denies any authority other than your own and sets you in the position of God.

According to the scripture being rejected in a literal sense this is not a new idea.

We recognise the author of that plan by the name of Satan.

I will be like the most high god et all.

Weaver - this may be one of the areas of confusion. Jesus was able "to talk to God, to be one with God " not because of any "human ego problem," but because He WAS God, the second person of the Trinity.




This is another example of the exact opposite of what Scripture teaches. If you'd care to explore this a little, we could spend a little time on it. Our ego has nothing to do with being separated from God, that is a product of sin. The ego, or more correctly, "Pride," does produce sinful responses, but it is sin itself(our fallen nature that has been inherited from Adam and Eve) that is the "agent" of separation.

Man himself is incapable of saving himself. That is why Jesus was necessary, in fulfillment of God's promise to "work salvation for us Himself."




Okay, there was a time in my life when I called myself an Agnostic. So perhaps I can understand a little of what you are feeling. But therein, too, lies the danger. It is not a "feeling" that makes anyone a Christian. It is not "knowledge" that makes anyone a Christian.

People "become" Christians because God has elected them to be His children and the Holy Spirit performs a work in the hearts of those elect so that they can be, and will be, receptive to the truth about Jesus Christ. Accepting that one is a sinner, hopelessly lost on their own, and that Jesus is our Lord and Savior who can provide the means to have our sins forgiven is HOW one becomes a Christian. Accepting Him and surrendering ourselves to Him as our Lord and Savior is all that is needed to actually BE a Christian. From then on, we begin to grow in our knowledge and understanding through studying and examining the Word of God. We grow from infancy to adulthood, from immaturity to maturity...in the lifelong process of Sanctification...guided by the Holy Spirit who indwells all who have been truly born again. But the Holy Spirit indwells no one who is not born again.



MM can answer your question directly, but you taking parts of the Scripture that apply to believers and attempting to make them apply to everyone. Don't make the mistake of equating a "moral code" that has been given to everyone with promises made exclusively to believers.




No, you don't sound like a "nut." You sound like someone who is definitely confused about Christianity, perhaps even seeking answers to questions that might help part the confusion and bring you to a better understanding of God's plan for mankind.

So, are you monotheistic or polytheistic? Is Jesus one of three gods or is he a personification of one aspect of one god?

(I was taught the latter, in not so many words).

I think the beliefs that Jesus is or isn't God stem from the differences in between interpretations of statement's of Jesus like "I and my Father are one". Fundamentalists appear 2 interpret that 2 mean "I am God", whereas other Christian religions interpret it 2 mean "I am one with God."

-ol' 2long

Weaver - phrased the way you phrased the question, the answer is "no." If you'd care to explore what the Scripture does teach and who Jesus really is, I'd be happy to spend some time on that with you.

But the "bottom line" is that there are many groups out there that call themselves "Christian," but who do not accept the biblical fundamentals of what defines what a "real Christian" is. Appropriating a name is not the same thing as being the "authentic version."

The "short answer" to your final question is that Jesus Christ IS the only way to be reconciled to God. He is the "narrow gate," and only those who enter in through that narrow gate will have eternal life with God, having all of their sins forgiven on their behalf because of what Jesus did. It is accepting that gift, not anything we do to earn our way in, that is the primary difference.

Dr.2Long - you are far too intelligent to feign confusion about what I mean. It seems far more likely that you are trying to start yet another fight, though I don't know why.

So let simply answer your question to remove any confusion or doubt you might truly have..

There is ONE God, who exists as three individuals, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. They are NOT three "individual gods," but are ONE God, each with roles that they perform in concert with each other.




There are NO Christian religions that believe it to mean "I am one with God," thereby lowering Jesus to the level of a created being, but not Himself being the Son of God, the second person of the Trinity.

There ARE several religions that appropriate the title "Christian," but they are NOT by biblical definition Christian. They are wolves in sheeps clothing, heresies and fabrications of human minds. They are no more a Geologist than I am, if I should choose to call myself a Geologist because I like rocks and like the sound of the title.

Frog - perhaps no one is responding to your questions because you have already indicated that you have your mind made up. What would be the point in responding?

Your attacks upon the Scripture are nothing new. There is a ton of stuff out there for your review if your are serious about your questions, but you are not. All you seem to want to do is to bash Christianity, and I have better things to spend my time on than indulging your desires for verbal sparring.

You are entitled to believe whatever it is that you want to believe. You don't answer to me, MM, or anyone other than God Himself.

But in partial answer to your question, "What credibility does that person have????" , Jesus had all the authority and all the credibility and HE made it quite clear that all Scripture came from God.

Ditto FH frog...

The are books available offering support for historical accuracy number in the hundreds if not thousands.

If you read...say...even ten of them...such a tiny percentage and asked again I'd certainly be willing to compare notes and discuss it with you.

It's hard to regard it as much more than shallow scoffery otherwise and the effort it takes to research and dig up that sort of reply really isn't worth it to me if the person asking isn't really invested in my perspective.

See the difference is sort of like this...

1 I have investigated this and here are the problems I have with it = worth my time and effort.

2 I'm just sure this thing I have done no personal investigation of is a crock based on the superficial arguaments I have just now thought up = not so much.

weaver,

Since Jesus claimed to be God and since He said that He is the only way to have fellowship with God the Father, either He is what he claimed to be or a liar. If the former, what He said must be believed and if the latter, He should be ignored as a madman.

C.S.Lewis says it this way, Jesus either was and is who He claimed to be... or a lunatic on a par with a man who claims he is a poached egg. You can shut him up as a madman or choose to follow Him. You cannot call Him a "good teacher" since His claims prevent that.

This is exactly why Christians are considered "intolerant" in a "pluralistic" society. If Jesus is right, then any other way to God is invalid.

As for denominational differences, nearly all of them are what could be considered minor points. There are, however, churches that call themselves "Christian" that deny the basics of orthodox Christianity and therefor should not be considered Christian in their teachings. Sun Myung Moon's followers (Unification Church) call themselves Christian, but consider their founder to be "the Christ" rather than the Jesus of the bible.

frog,

Isn't it amazing to you that the crackling and popping of the bush set on fire by the sun reflecting and focusing in exactly the right way off of a rock, which was in exactly the right position on the day that Moses was walking on that particular mountain at that exact time of day was interpreted as laws and commands by the man who was educated as an adopted son of Pharaoh?

Detractors of miracles often begin with the assumption that miracles cannot exist because there must always be a naturalistic explanation for anything that happens. The result is that, even in absence of evidence for an event being natural, the conclusion is that the cause is unknown rather than supernatural, since it is not in the naturalist's nature to accept the supernatural.

In court, a witness can be challenged by the opposition and questions of his voracity or the validity of his claims can be called into question. This is often done by pointing out the inconsistencies of his claims or by showing that he has previously lied. When the father of modern archeology, Sir William Ramsey set out to disprove the bible by showing its inaccuracies, he discovered instead that where ever the bible could be confirmed, one way or the other, that the bible proved to be correct and modern scientific thought was often incorrect. Sir William became a Christian BECAUSE of his research.

Events of subsequent years have shown time and time again that when something is mentioned in historical context within the bible, and when evidence becomes available to prove or disprove that historical reference, that evidence has shown the bible to be accurate. If the bible can be verified in this way on points where extra-biblical evidence is available, why should it not be believed in areas where no proof is possible either for or against.

My faith and belief in the bible and in Jesus are because of the evidence, not in spite of it. Faith does not mean blind acceptance in the face of evidence to the contrary.

The bible was written by men, most agree that the number was over 40, spread over in excess of 1600 years and penned in at least 4 languages. Yet they all tell the story of a God who created the universe, created Man in His own image (debate on what this means precisely can be ongoing) and when that Man, because God created him with a free will chose to turn from God, the Creator provided a way, through one off events throughout history, to rebuild the relationship so that He and Man could once more be in fellowship.

The bible says of itself that it is inspired by God. The word means "breathed into" by God. The implication is that the men writing things down were not acting without guidance and making up things to attribute to the God they themselves feared and worshipped, but that the guidance came from God Himself.

The Gospel of Luke and the book Acts of the Apostles were written by a man who claimed to be an eyewitness to many of the things he wrote about. His descriptions of travels of the early evangelists contain many historical points that have only been rediscovered in the last 50 years. Some of those claims were thought to be false because no evidence had been found, but when the evidence was found, it supported the claims of Luke and contradicted the previously held view of the experts.

That's enough for now...

Mark

PS It just takes me too long to write an answer while I am at work. The thread is moving faster than I am. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" />

FH,

It is a legitimate question I have.


I see that trying to figure this out is useless with you. You will just keep saying the same thing Because I said so.

Jesus wasnt' ALIVE when a lot of the bible was written.

That is the truth so address that. Please. I am having a problem with the bible.

Noodle I am not saying it to say it. I was an alter boy, I grew up going to church and bible study. The whole 9 yards.

Then I took some courses in college and it never ever dawned on me in my whole life as a psuedo christian because I am/was Catholic an as MM pointed out Catholisism is wrong.

That the bible was not written by Jesus. It was written well before his birth and some well after his death.

FH I think you Quoted Malachi or someone did and that is attributed to possibly Isaiah.

You may not think that is a big deal but it is to me.

This is not a one off situation either. I am not questioning the validity of the bible or the scripture necessarily. I am saying today in the Year 2007 people require more proof and scientific evidence then they did back then. People today require reference material, proof etc.

I could not imagine today someone saying this happened and everyone believing it without knowing the source.

Pure and simple FH in some cases the source is missing.

You can continue to say Jesus said so but if Jesus wasn't there when it was written then he couldn't approve the final work product.

Well, if that's what you think, that's what you think. Freaky thinking though, IMHO.


I'm not confused.


The latter, then.


No comment.


Most definitely, no comment.

You guys have fun!

-ol' 2long

Mark thank you. So when I question FH statement which is basically "Jesus said so" Historically speaking that is an impossibility.

Your explanation, which by the way at my tender age is probably one of the best I ever heard.


Thank you.

The burning bush as I said was an example of a miracle. I do not need to or want to debate them.

My point is the standard at which these miracles were excepted.

Many things that 2000 years ago seemed like a miracle are very easily explained today.

Unexplained events wheich are now explained etc.

Then also the burden of knowing who wrote the account as well.

Mark thank you for taking the time what you wrote makes sense.

frog,

Quote:"Many things that 2000 years ago seemed like a miracle are very easily explained today."

Name one and explain it to me.


I understand that knowledge and technology are today way beyond what was current then, but there still is no technology that can explain away specific miracles such as a bilnd man seeing after Jesus spit on the ground to make mud, spread it on his eyes and told him to wash it off. There is nothing today that can explain a man who had been disabled for most of his life "laughing and leaping and praising God." What do we have today that can stand outside a tomb where the onlookers are reluctant to open it because the dead man insidde has been there so long he is begining to stink and say "Come forth" and have the once dead man exit his tomb and live for many more years.

Just a few of my examples to consider.

FWIW, There are quotes in the bible that are attributed to Jesus himself. Though not written directly by Him, they are often repeated by multiple authors regarding the same event and time. There are also consistencies within his teachings from one gospel to another that cannot be explained away as mere coincidence. So if the bible says, "Jesus said" thus and such, it seems to me that He said it, since no logical reason seems to be forthcoming that can explain why more than one person, writing at different times would conspire to say the kind of things that were claimed He said.

If I read an account of a speech given by FDR during WWII, since I wasn't there to hear him, should I believe the accounts of what he said? OR what about Lincoln's address at Gettysburg? Can we believe he said what is written about that speech?

To assume that people of previous generations were less accurate in their reporting of events and words of the one they followed around for 3 years, at great expense to themselves I might add, is a jump I just can't make. People were no less intelligent 2000 years ago than they are today and were perfectly capable of writing down what Jesus had said as they heard it at the time it was spoken.

Keep in mind that being a follower of Christ in the first century almost guaranteed that you would be tortured and put to a horrible death.

Charles Colson tells of the days in the Nixon Whitehouse following "Watergate." He has stated that here were the most powerful men on the planet with all the resources of the U.S. government at their disposal and they couldn't keep a conspiracy secret for very long. And yet, those who wrote the New Testament, clung to their story to the very end, which for most came by way of being put to death in the most horrific of ways imaginable. How many men do you know that would die for what they knew to be a lie?

Send me an email and I can send you a copy of notes I have from a study I taught on some of these topics a few years ago. Or, we can start a new thread and go from there. Your choice...

My email is in my profile.

I will not likely see any replies to this till morning, since tonight we do not have to babysit our DGD and W and I have PLANS.

Mark

Mortarman - funny this thread popped up. I had a freind ask me last night to check here for a question she has.

She was married to a man that became violent - threatened her life - tried to kill her -etc. (btw - navy seal...)

She ran from it for many years, feared for her life, but remained faithful to the covenant. Two or three years ago they had a child. She now has another life to protect, and her XH was still violent. Friends of theirs told her she should sleep with a gun. She sought counsel (at church) and eventually divorced him.

She has a friend that told her she can not re-marry according to scripture, but I think the "taking it to the church and the church ruling" issue applies here.

I am not sure how far she took it "to the church", and if the church ruled on him.

Does anyone want to weigh in on this issue?

far

Far - it's a question the church has debated forever. I think it is important to be convinced before God that what you do is right. Scripture is unclear on re-marriage after divorce. If her conscience doesn't condemn her then it is OK. Under the circumstances you describe, I don't think my conscience would condemn me.

Air Travel would be considered a miracle 2000 years ago.
Cars would be considered the same.
Many things we have today would be considered a miracle 2000 years ago.
Oh the internet would be considered a miracle.
Not to mention what a Skilled Magician could do.

Imagine if you will a David Blain or a magician that we have today. If they could perform the slight of hand or illusions they do for a people not a savy as we are today. Some may think they perform miracles.

Making fire appear out of their hand. Making things dissappear and reappear.

People have regained their site afer being blind without the intervention of technology after this as well.
Which in itself is a miracle. But the specific incident you speak of if true is indeed a miracle.

This is not the one and only documented incident in the history of man that this has happened.

Just like the cripple is not the one and only incident of a paralyzed person regaining the ability to walk. Without science.


So if there is no logical reason for many people over a span of time to repeat the same untruth it must be True.

I understand your point that there seems to be a unified message in all of the writings. A theme if you will that bonds these teaching over time as though "the same person dictated the message" to different authors if you will. Over a great period of time.


If I read an account of FDR speech that was written 50 years later by someone that wasn't there I might want a little furter verification or I might say that it would be nearly impossible to give a full detail without errors.
Because as you say people then were just as smart as they are now.

I would surly doubt their ability to remember word for word the exact account. Just like the fish I caught 20 years ago is now 6 feet long and 2 feet wide.

The same could be say about being Jewish during WWII. So being a follower of christ at the time meant a person had faith again it did not prove anything more then that.

Not to say it is ever remotely the same but people followed Manson, Koresh and others. Their followers beleived them to be god or a diciple of God. We scoff at them today. It is not they know anything to be a lie. Just because they beleive it to be true and worth dying for does not make it true.

Mark thank you for your replies. I do appreciate it. I don't want to go too far into the topic. I see that you are very intelligent and added that to the Faith that you have.

You have studied the origins of the bible, the people that wrote it etc.

You do not just throw out the typical because Jesus said so that many do.

Conversing with a Christian that actually knows what you know is refreshing.

Thank you.

frog - sorry but I don't have the time to indulge you. If you are really serious about your questions, feel free to do some searching of my past posts. Many of these issues have been discussed at length in the past.

But your questions and the tone of your posts indicates someone who is not at all serious about their questions. So on the off-chance that I could be wrong about your motives, let me answer just one of your questions/statements of "fact."


"Jesus wasnt' ALIVE when a lot of the bible was written."

Jesus most certainly was alive when all of the Bible was written. In His preincarnate existence Jesus was known as the Word. Jesus was the "one" who created all things.

Here is the relevant passage;
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it." (John 1:1-5 NKJV)

Jesus is God the Son, eternally existing, and therefore, most definitely alive when the Bible was written, both Old and New Testaments.

IF you really are serious, let me suggest a book to you that will answer virtually all of your questions. It is called Evidence That Demands A Verdict, by Josh McDowell.