The REAL number one problem in Christian theology

[childeye]

you are wrong,we are grafted in the jewish faith.our very bible is written from a very jewish perspective!

that is what the whole argument over revalation is about.,proper understanding of jewish thoughts as they original twelve were all jews not gentiles.

sadly you make the mistake of many a churches today. its the gentiles now not the jews.no we are doing what they should have when we come in to the plan. judaism while not we we do but if you really read the ot and what the nt says they mirror each other.paul quotes the ot all day long and its expanded upon when he talks about it.
our God isnt a gentile god but a jewish god. to whom did he reveal himself the most to in the ot? the isrealites! yes the gentiles aka noahides,ie nahor,abel, seth , enoch were used but God made a nation from abraham. and used that nation just as you said.,but your statement doesnt negate what the jews did FIRST.

I am not going to get into a carnal contest over who owns God since obviously no one does. How am I mistaken? The Jews do not exist to bring forth the Christ? As I said, thank God for you. I do not glory in the Jew, I glory in God. How is this wrong? My heritage is not to be coveted by you nor yours by me. Let us be thankful for what God has given each of us. Your portrayal of me is completely false. You must have a chip on your shoulder and are taking it out on me.

 

[jasoncran]

I am not going to get into a carnal contest over who owns God since obviously no one does. How am I mistaken? The Jews do not exist to bring forth the Christ? As I said, thank God for you. I do not glory in the Jew, I glory in God. How is this wrong? My heritage is not to be coveted by you nor yours by me. Let us be thankful for what God has given each of us.

yes, but you claimed that they had it last. i say nay, why because we call God by hebrew names if we use the old names and the name jesus is a hebrew one that is why i say that. he claimed them first and by doing so they could say they are his children and he was their God and also the God of jacob(isreal) do we not say not my GOD.

so that is what mean. he went to the gentiles after the jews rejected him(not all just the leadership).

we that believe are his people and he is our god. that is what i am saying.those jews that believed in him in the ot and now like the gentiles could only claim hims as God. only a faithful jew could claim and God as in

Iam the God of ABRAHAM,ISAAC AND JACOB. they could could claim him as God.

 

[Brother Lawrence]

BL, you force me to be blunt, so here goes. It is you and those who have subscribed to the tenets of mainstream christendom who have it confused. The basis for what most believe about the church come from what the church teaches and THEN with the church-given preconceptions imbeded in mind both consciously as well as on a subconscious level the parishioner uses what scripture he or she can find not to discover truth, but rather to support what it is they already believe, want to believe, or have been taught.

As far as what the Church is, you may in fact be better qualified to define it than I since it appears that you are a stunch member of one of the many thousands that put forth their own brand of doctrine LOOSELY derived from the scriptures. Virtually ALL of them make the claim that they are the "gateway" that individuals must go through or betteryet the "vessel" that one must get in so that the individual can get to God and the blessings promised to those who belong to God's Anointed One. Such doctrine in light of what is actually taught in scripture is both borderline idolatrous and blasphemous against the message of scripture.

Now instead of me continuing on what the church is or claims, let's consider reality as layed out by scripture so that what the so called church can be seen in scripture's light thus showing the masses what it is not!

Where did you get the word "Christendom" from? Did you hear that at the Kingdom Hall?

A. The Church is NOT what Jesus was speaking of in Matthew 18:16 despite the fact the translators decided or were prompted to use the word 'church' in the passage.

The "church" is the congregation, not a building. Swing and a miss.

B. The Church does not exhibit signs of being filled with God's Holy Breath any more than any other benevolent organization that exists.

Who says so?

C. The Church is divided, what Jesus established in both indivisible and invulnerable to curse of sin and death.

The church is NOT divided. The church does, however, distance itself from impostors and liars who call themselves the church.

D. The Church is not in Heaven.

No, it is here doing it's work.

E. The Church began AFTER the time of Jesus fulfilling what he promised and his apostles had no part in the formation of the "early church".

BS. Matthew 16:18.

F. The Church is not spoken of in the Bible directly.

See above.

G. The word "church" has a different meaning than the words Jesus and his envoys used to describe what Jesus had established.

Not if you know what it really means.

And I get really tired of people like you telling me what I believe. Just stick to what YOU believe. I will talk about what I believe.

 

[childeye]

yes, but you claimed that they had it last. i say nay, why because we call God by hebrew names if we use the old names and the name jesus is a hebrew one that is why i say that. he claimed them first and by doing so they could say they are his children and he was their God and also the God of jacob(isreal) do we not say not my GOD.

so that is what mean. he went to the gentiles after the jews rejected him(not all just the leadership).

we that believe are his people and he is our god. that is what i am saying.those jews that believed in him in the ot and now like the gentiles could only claim hims as God. only a faithful jew could claim and God as in

Iam the God of ABRAHAM,ISAAC AND JACOB. they could could claim him as God.

I claimed that who had what last? I agree the Jews were are a chosen people. I take no credit for believing. You know that. It's like tasting candy after eating dirt for all your life. He is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob before I was ever born. This does not mean they own Him. I am not cutting you down or at least I don't mean to.

 

[jasoncran]

I claimed that who had what last? I agree the Jews were are a chosen people. I take no credit for believing. You know that. He was the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob before I was ever born. I am not cutting you down or at least I don't mean to.

when you made the statement of esau then jacob and i adressed that and you still said that the jews didnt have it is when i adressed the issue. i am not offended just correcting a missunderstanding. that is all.

you are correct though the primary function of the isreal poeples was for the bringing forth of the redeemer.

 

[childeye]

when you made the statement of esau then jacob and i adressed that and you still said that the jews didnt have it is when i adressed the issue. i am not offended just correcting a missunderstanding. that is all.

you are correct though the primary function of the isreal poeples was for the bringing forth of the redeemer.

I just reread the exchanges, I never said you or they had it last, you just imply I did. I don't even know what you mean by it. As for Jacob and Esau I was refering to Old Testament and New Testament, one being of the letter and one being the newness of the Spirit that fulfills the letter as if to say without the Spirit the letter is only words.

 

[jasoncran]

I just reread the exchanges, I never said you or they had it last, you just imply I did. I don't even know what you mean by it. As for Jacob and Esau I was refering to Old Testament and New Testament, one being of the letter and one being the newness of the Spirit that fulfills the letter as if to say without the Spirit the letter is only words.

poor analogy. if you said a passing of the baton i would agree. but esau isnt what the tanakh is and was. the tanakh which we all read is called to us the old testament isnt it still inspired? yes. paul when he wrote this"all scripture is benefical.." didnt have the bible of today, so that was to his readers the tanakh later it came to include the bible we have.

 

[childeye]

poor analogy. if you said a passing of the baton i would agree. but esau isnt what the tanakh is and was. the tanakh which we all read is called to us the old testament isnt it still inspired? yes. paul when he wrote this"all scripture is benefical.." didnt have the bible of today, so that was to his readers the tanakh later it came to include the bible we have.

I don't equate the Tanakh with Esau, I equate Esau with a blessing that was his but went to Jacob by which Esau in the end was blessed by Jacob having it. Hence Esau said in where have You loved me? And God said in that I loved Jacob. The point being that Esau was in fact loved by Jacob getting the blessing.

 

[jasoncran]

I don't equate the Tanakh with Esau, I equate Esau with a blessing that was his but went to Jacob by which Esau in the end was blessed by Jacob having it. Hence Esau said in where have You loved me? And God said in that I loved Jacob. The point being that Esau was in fact loved.

i wouldnt equate it that way as god planned the esau was going to do that according to calvinism.

he knew that isreal would do that but he allowed isreal to walk away. if you really want to get into this, read up on the tanakh and match up paul;s statement with the isiah, hoshea and what they said and its almost word for word. nothing new just expounded on it by God using him to teach.


the new testament is a COMPLETION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT/TANAKH.not a replacement.jacob was the inheritor of the birthright and also promise.

jews that were faithful and died in him are listed in part in hebrews as ensamples. why is that?

 

[childeye]

i wouldnt equate it that way as god planned the esau was going to do that according to calvinism.

he knew that isreal would do that but he allowed isreal to walk away. if you really want to get into this, read up on the tanakh and match up paul;s statement with the isiah, hoshea and what they said and its almost word for word. nothing new just expounded on it by God using him to teach.


the new testament is a COMPLETION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT/TANAKH.not a replacement.jacob was the inheritor of the birthright and also promise.

jews that were faithful and died in him are listed in part in hebrews as ensamples. why is that?

I don't doubt Paul said what was already said. There is nothing new under the sun. But only do I say the words are just words without the Spirit of Christ which the words are all about. The question should be why did God give the letter before He gave the Spirit? I don't care what Calvin said nor have I bothered. I want to know God for myself so I ask Him for myself in the name of Jesus.

 

[jasoncran]

I don't doubt Paul said what was already said. There is nothing new under the sun. But only do I say the words are just words without the Spirit of Christ which the words are all about. The question should be why did God give the letter before He gave the Spirit?

theres more to the torah then just the laws, ever read the whole ot testament? the kings and chronicles and the psalms?

and the prophets?you assumed that the tanakh is the pentateuch? no sir its more. its all of the ot. surely the book of the song of solomon isnt dead as in the letter of the law. and grace existed then.

and noah found grace in the eyes of God. in the torah

and moses. if ye hearken unto the law then shall the lord giveth thee grace to you and your children.hmmmm

yes i know what you mean but the ot writers know of grace otherwise it would have no meaning to them.

 

[childeye]

theres more to the torah then just the laws, ever read the whole ot testament? the kings and chronicles and the psalms?

and the prophets?you assumed that the tanakh is the pentateuch? no sir its more. its all of the ot. surely the book of the song of solomon isnt dead as in the letter of the law. and grace existed then.

and noah found grace in the eyes of God. in the torah

and moses. if ye hearken unto the law then shall the lord giveth thee grace to you and your children.hmmmm

yes i know what you mean but the ot writers know of grace otherwise it would have no meaning to them.

Look, I'm sure you know more about it than I do. I'm sorry if I've led you to believe I think there is no grace in the Old Testament.

 

[francisdesales]

So what exactly is the "REAL" number one problem in Christian theology? I am not picking it up from these exchanges...

Regards

 

[jasoncran]

Look, I'm sure you know more about it than I do. I'm sorry if I've led you to believe I think there is no grace in the Old Testament.

its a common mistake that christians make when they havent read the old testament . i read the ot first then when to john, as i was lead to by the lord.

christ is all over the ot.

 

[Ashua]

What will it take to get people who do not believe in Christianity to stop posing as Christians?

Mass persecution and tribulation.

 

[Brother Lawrence]

So what exactly is the "REAL" number one problem in Christian theology? I am not picking it up from these exchanges...

Regards

What will it take to get people who do not believe in Christianity to stop posing as Christians?

It's not really a theological problem per se, but I notice it more and more - cultists and new age type people are calling themselves "Christian" while espousing non-Christian or even anti-Christian "theology".

 

[francisdesales]

It's not really a theological problem per se, but I notice it more and more - cultists and new age type people are calling themselves "Christian" while espousing non-Christian or even anti-Christian "theology".

Yes, some people equate a "good moral life" with Christianity. There are no doctrines or particular beliefs that are particularly Christian, to them - they are "traditions of men". Things like the Trinity and Jesus is true God and true man.

Thus, Mormons, JW's, and a variety of "me and jesus" folk think they are Christian because they love each other - just as the pagans do - and have some vague belief in Jesus (which varies widely to what exactly that belief encompasses...)

So much for Jesus stressing truth. Why not just invent your own?

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Mass persecution and tribulation.

Good point. Make Christianity illegal and the posers will go away...

 

[Brother Lawrence]

Yes, some people equate a "good moral life" with Christianity. There are no doctrines or particular beliefs that are particularly Christian, to them - they are "traditions of men". Things like the Trinity and Jesus is true God and true man.

Thus, Mormons, JW's, and a variety of "me and jesus" folk think they are Christian because they love each other - just as the pagans do - and have some vague belief in Jesus (which varies widely to what exactly that belief encompasses...)

So much for Jesus stressing truth. Why not just invent your own?

Regards

And that "good moral life" you speak of is defined by them, not by the Christ they claim to follow.

I have been on forums like this one trying to explain Christianity to the curious while these people pollute the water with their heresies. God only knows how many souls they have led to the hell they say doesn't exist.

Would it surprise anybody if Jesus said "depart from me, I never knew you" to the people who think he is Michael the Archangel?

There is no reason for people to be ignorant or deluded. There are books I would never have been able to obtain years ago available for free on the internet. All you need is a desire to learn the truth, which is what I started with many years ago.

 

[TRUTH over TRADITION]

I have been on forums like this one trying to explain Christianity to the curious while these people pollute the water with their heresies. God only knows how many souls they have led to the hell they say doesn't exist.

Would it surprise anybody if Jesus said "depart from me, I never knew you" to the people who think he is Michael the Archangel?

There is no reason for people to be ignorant or deluded. There are books I would never have been able to obtain years ago available for free on the internet. All you need is a desire to learn the truth, which is what I started with many years ago.

So based on the way you worded the above statements it is obvious to the reader that you are confident that the beliefs you espouse are in fact equal to truth. Here's a news flash, many of the people you accuse of heresy hold the same conviction, so what is used to determine who's conviction is in fact closer to the truth?
Saying that there is no reason for folks to be ignorant and especially no reason for them to be deluded is not a statement that is backed by observable reality. Confusing abounds by those seeking truth through religion because in religion, and I am specifically speaking of the self proclaimed christian religion, massive confusion and desention has existed for centuries.
So as you try to "explain" christianity please understand that what you are explaining is very likely YOUR TAKE and the BRAND of so called christianity you believe to be correct. As such, know that what you are espousing is very subjective and to depict others as heretics because they feel your stance is incorrect and can supply biblical support for what they believe does nothing but make you appear to be somewhat of a bigot. Now to be fair, were I to do the same to you I would be guilty of the same bigotted behavior that oftentimes us "saved" folks are perhaps unwhitingly guilty of as we hold up our beliefs as the standard.

Since we are all hopefully truth seekers, why not try to approach things in a slightly different manner? Instead of saying, "I have the truth, here it is, believe it or be damned;" why not have the attitude of humility Jesus spoke so highly of and use one another to help us all ensure that we come to a correct understanding of what is taught in scripture. That will require us not being instantly dismissive of ideas we do not hold and actually hearing out others and examining the supporting evidence they put forth with as open a mind as possible to see how their view stands up to the grand context of scripture. We may all need to have others "proof read" the thesis of belief we have individually before we are so brash as to put it forth as truth that all others must accept. It is likely that none of us has it all right and even more likely that none of us has it all wrong, so why not cooperate so that WE ALL can get closer to the truth.

So here's what I propose and challenge each of us including myself to do:
Try to put on paper your full understanding of the gospel message and what it intails and place that "personal thesis" on the forum for all to view so that we can both learn from and aid in one another's understanding. As we comment on what others put forth how about we mention both the positive and correct things they say as well as what we disagree with so that a spirit of love and cooperation can rule as opposed to bitter rancor and total opposition.