Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
  • The Gospel of Jesus Christ

    Heard of "The Gospel"? Want to know more?

    There is salvation in no other, for there is not another name under heaven having been given among men, by which it behooves us to be saved."

Theology and Doctrines

Donations

Total amount
$1,592.00
Goal
$5,080.00
I read most of threads on this forum, and a lot of replies to the different questions about what the Bible teaches and scripture meanings.

Many members who reply to these threads seem to not like theology or doctrine. Be it systematic, Biblical, dogmatic or other teachings. Even biblical backgrounds or surveys are frowned upon.

A lot of responses say we should not trust these teachings, they are doctrines of men, or do not trust Pastoral preaching. Some go as far as saying all we need in the Bible and Holy Spirit will teach us all we need to know.

Are we not to trust the teachings of the men who the Lord put in position to preach and teach?

I myself love doctrine and theology and will always look into these teachings to get a more thorough understanding of a teaching.

Let me be clear that all doctrines should be filtered by the standard of the written word.

The point of this post is to find out the thoughts of other members why Christians should not study Theology or doctrines concerning the Bible. Especially if these teaching are against what they hold to be truth.

Grace and peace tou you.
 
Are we not to trust the teachings of the men who the Lord put in position to preach and teach?
Did the Lord put men in a position to preach and teach; and abuse children? What about the pastors, ministers, etc (preachers) who embezzle money from their Church's. Did the Lord "ordain" such men; or did some other man make that decision?

All knowledge holds value, so learning doctrines and Theology can be a good thing; even in determining what is true or false. But I believe you also must toss a dash of "common sense" into that mix; not just blindly accept what any other men have written or said. Over the past 2,000 years there have been a lot of men "guided by the Holy Spirit" who have written and said a great many things interpreting that Bible; but that does not make any of it true.
 
I read most of threads on this forum, and a lot of replies to the different questions about what the Bible teaches and scripture meanings.

Many members who reply to these threads seem to not like theology or doctrine. Be it systematic, Biblical, dogmatic or other teachings. Even biblical backgrounds or surveys are frowned upon.
Many hate the very doctrine that is given to correct them. This is seen in the ignorance of confessions of faith, and creeds.
A lot of responses say we should not trust these teachings, they are doctrines of men, or do not trust Pastoral preaching. Some go as far as saying all we need in the Bible and Holy Spirit will teach us all we need to know.
The most ignorant posts say this.
Are we not to trust the teachings of the men who the Lord put in position to preach and teach?
They look for loop holes not to believe. Because there are false teachers, which scripture warns against,they suggest we cannot trust anyone.
I myself love doctrine and theology and will always look into these teachings to get a more thorough understanding of a teaching.
Sound teaching leads to Jesus
Let me be clear that all doctrines should be filtered by the standard of the written word.
sound teachers and confessions do that.
The point of this post is to find out the thoughts of other members why Christians should not study Theology or doctrines concerning the Bible. Especially if these teaching are against what they hold to be truth.

Grace and peace tou you.
 
I read most of threads on this forum, and a lot of replies to the different questions about what the Bible teaches and scripture meanings.

Many members who reply to these threads seem to not like theology or doctrine. Be it systematic, Biblical, dogmatic or other teachings. Even biblical backgrounds or surveys are frowned upon.

A lot of responses say we should not trust these teachings, they are doctrines of men, or do not trust Pastoral preaching. Some go as far as saying all we need in the Bible and Holy Spirit will teach us all we need to know.

Are we not to trust the teachings of the men who the Lord put in position to preach and teach?

I myself love doctrine and theology and will always look into these teachings to get a more thorough understanding of a teaching.

Let me be clear that all doctrines should be filtered by the standard of the written word.

The point of this post is to find out the thoughts of other members why Christians should not study Theology or doctrines concerning the Bible. Especially if these teaching are against what they hold to be truth.

Grace and peace tou you.

Sadly there are several reasons. Some don’t like to learn—the forever baby. Some think it more spiritual to be taught directly by the spirit, to be wise in their own eyes. Some are put off indirect teaching, by Christian failures. Did the lord call Demas? Did he call Frederick Van Eyk? Treasure within earthen vessels sometimes cracks the vessels, and some folk go terribly wrong—Lord Acton spoke of such. The called can stumble. The baby is the treasure, not the bathwater.

Thus the teaching of our spiritual leaders (Eph.5)—and I’d add women to the list—can be true even if the teachers are disloyal, as indeed all Christians, being human, can be. Paul strove with only partial success to encourage Christians to avoid vices and attain virtues. And I think it true to say that while all teachers and disciples are blind in part, probably students are generally blinder than the teachers, so hearing the teachers can make less blind (Heb.5:12). And teachers can learn from teachers.

Hence the importance for students to look to teachers. Relying on the spirit seldom works because the spirit seldom teaches—he sets up human teachers to do that. The biblical Berean principle remains of weighing up what is taught, and prophets too should be assessed. But neither teaching nor assessment will be perfect in the bigger picture. We have approximations, but striving to gain better approximations is good.

I like these words from John Wesley: “Condemn no one for not thinking as you think. Let everyone enjoy the full and free liberty of thinking for themself. Let everyone use their own judgment, since everyone must give an account of themself to God. Abhor every approach, in any kind or degree, to the spirit of persecution. If you cannot reason nor persuade a person into the truth, never attempt to force them into it. If love will not compel them to come, leave them to God, the judge of all.”
 
There are good teachers, pastors, ministers, etc. and there are some not so good. People tend to be easily coerced. This is how mob mentality can flourish so easily. We fail to use a little independent thinking and study. I think Scripture addresses some of this and instructs us to use discernment at all times and to weigh what we think against God's Holy Word.

1 John 4:1 ESV
Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world.
Romans 12:2 NKJV
Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Then Paul goes on to say...
Romans 12:3-16 NKJV
3 For I say, through the grace given to me, to everyone who is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think soberly, as God has dealt to each one a measure of faith.
4 For as we have many members in one body, but all the members do not have the same function,
5 so we, being many, are one body in Christ, and individually members of one another.
6 Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, let us use them: if prophecy, let us prophesy in proportion to our faith;
7 or ministry, let us use it in our ministering; he who teaches, in teaching;
8 he who exhorts, in exhortation; he who gives, with liberality; he who leads, with diligence; he who shows mercy, with cheerfulness.
9 Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil. Cling to what is good.
10 Be kindly affectionate to one another with brotherly love, in honor giving preference to one another;
11 not lagging in diligence, fervent in spirit, serving the Lord;
12 rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation, continuing steadfastly in prayer;
13 distributing to the needs of the saints, given to hospitality.
14 Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse.
15 Rejoice with those who rejoice, and weep with those who weep.
16 Be of the same mind toward one another. Do not set your mind on high things, but associate with the humble. Do not be wise in your own opinion.


We are to look closely at ourselves...
2 Corinthians 13:5-6 NKJV
Examine yourselves as to whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Do you not know yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?—unless indeed you are disqualified. But I trust that you will know that we are not disqualified.

And what is the benchmark of all this testing?
2 Timothy 3:16-17 NKJV
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
 
Are we not to trust the teachings of the men who the Lord put in position to preach and teach?


The Lord gave His apostles whom He chose, and taught His teaching to, for them to pass on His doctrine to their disciples.

Any “teaching” from a person who claims to be a Pastor, or Teacher, or Prophet, Apostle or Evangelist, that goes against what scripture clearly teaches, should be rejected as false.

One such teaching that God chose some people, “the elect”, to be saved and the rest of mankind He chose to be doomed to eternal damnation in the lake of fire is a FALSE TEACHING OF MAN!


The elect refers to being elected for “purpose not elected for salvation.

The elect primarily refers to the Jews —

Paul says it this way:

Therefore I endure all things for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.
2 Timothy 2:10

Paul desired the Jews, his fellow countrymen to also obtain salvation.


This is just one of many scriptures that show God does not show partiality to any group of people.

Elect refers to the Jews, people who were chosen by God for a purpose, which included being the lineage through which the Messiah would be born into this world.


For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh, who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises; of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen.
But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel, nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, “In Isaac your seed shall be called.” That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed. For this is the word of promise: “At this time I will come and Sarah shall have a son.” And not only this, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one man, even by our father Isaac (for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls), it was said to her, “The older shall serve the younger.” As it is written, “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.” Romans 9:3-13


  • that the purpose of God according to election might stand

Again, the context of Romans 9 and the election narrative is about election according to purpose, NOT ELECTION FOR SALVATION.





JLB
 
Any “teaching” from a person who claims to be a Pastor, or Teacher, or Prophet, Apostle or Evangelist, that goes against what scripture clearly teaches, should be rejected as false.
One such teaching that God chose some people, “the elect”, to be saved and the rest of mankind He chose to be doomed to eternal damnation in the lake of fire is a FALSE TEACHING OF MAN!
In this post, it is the false understanding of a "man", nothing wrong with the teaching
The elect refers to being elected for “purpose not elected for salvation.
Election is unto salvation.Once saved then the elect saint has good works that have been ordained for them to walk in.
The elect primarily refers to the Jews —
in the Ot, this could be said, but the gospel goes to all men now jn12;32
Paul says it this way:
Paul was mentioned as the Apostle to the GENTILES
Therefore I endure all things for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.
2 Timothy 2:10
Written in the context of the gospel of the kingdom being spread to the Gentiles!
that the purpose of God according to election might stand
What purpose was being spoken of?
Again, the context of Romans 9 and the election narrative is about election according to purpose, NOT ELECTION FOR SALVATION.
Paul explains god's purpose here;
18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only,
but also of the Gentiles?

Maybe if you read the whole chapter you would not have missed it???






 
In this post, it is the false understanding of a "man", nothing wrong with the teaching

Election is unto salvation.Once saved then the elect saint has good works that have been ordained for them to walk in.

in the Ot, this could be said, but the gospel goes to all men now jn12;32

Paul was mentioned as the Apostle to the GENTILES

Written in the context of the gospel of the kingdom being spread to the Gentiles!


What purpose was being spoken of?

Paul explains god's purpose here;
18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only,
but also of the Gentiles?

Maybe if you read the whole chapter you would not have missed it???
Thank you.
 
Election is unto salvation.Once saved then the elect saint has good works that have been ordained for them to walk in.
In 2 Timothy 2:10, notice what it says.

Therefore I endure all things for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.

The wording here indicates that not all of the elect are saved. "They also may obtain the salvation" is clearly pointing to some time in the future.
 
In 2 Timothy 2:10, notice what it says.

Therefore I endure all things for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.

The wording here indicates that not all of the elect are saved. "They also may obtain the salvation" is clearly pointing to some time in the future.
Correct. Election unto salvation takes place in the Covenant of Redemption ,before the world was created.
God effectually draws all those elected, in time ,through the means of grace He has ordained.
He is longsuffering with the ungodly until all the elect are born, and effectually drawn to Jesus. He is not willing that any of them perish;

2pet3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
Every single elect person will be saved before the last day.
 
I read most of threads on this forum, and a lot of replies to the different questions about what the Bible teaches and scripture meanings.

Many members who reply to these threads seem to not like theology or doctrine. Be it systematic, Biblical, dogmatic or other teachings. Even biblical backgrounds or surveys are frowned upon.

A lot of responses say we should not trust these teachings, they are doctrines of men, or do not trust Pastoral preaching. Some go as far as saying all we need in the Bible and Holy Spirit will teach us all we need to know.

Are we not to trust the teachings of the men who the Lord put in position to preach and teach?

I myself love doctrine and theology and will always look into these teachings to get a more thorough understanding of a teaching.

Let me be clear that all doctrines should be filtered by the standard of the written word.

The point of this post is to find out the thoughts of other members why Christians should not study Theology or doctrines concerning the Bible. Especially if these teaching are against what they hold to be truth.

Grace and peace tou you.


Yes I do not like theology, etc.
**been there done that**
Right now I am waking up to many things I wish I had known decades ago,
But alas for countless reasons I did not understand.
Now in my old age, 68 , Ive finally just now beginning to grasp things.
Yeah, slowwww learnere, always have been.
Not bragging, Repeat NOT braging
I have maybe like 500 bks, not sure,, another 100+++ on wish/dream list.
Have no idea how/wehn /IF I will read most. Leaving that up to God. I have very poor bision, again leaving that up to God.
**Knowledge puffth up**
WEll I am a longgggggg ways to the knowldge I hope/want to acheive.
said alllllll that to say this
readstudyreadstudyreadstudy
after you aquire some study,,, then come back w here w theology/doctrines whatever.

There are millions of abstracts/journals etc that I will never get the chance to study,,as I am loaded as is and many are in foreign languages.
saying that to say, to understand TODAY can only be known by knowing what (psychically/psychological) happened in the past.
= History is everything. I am reading the history of american protestantism now. UNREAL.. , ,,Just mind blowing. 19th C especially. ,,,,did you know religion/protestantism was dying countless times in the past...Not just today,, but in the past it was near death many times. I had no idea about this history.
Doctrines doigmas/theology is stuff I avoid.
These are 3 things that are principle playrers in the now death of religion/protestantism.
Look at the churches in your area, , no one in their 20's. Pews not even 1/2 full. Most look like ghost towns.
40 yrs ago here in New Orleans, churches had members , nearly filling the pews,,,,, Not any more.
Its accerating fast. catholic churches all over Orlaens patish closing,, In the 1960's packed like sardines at the 10AM mass.
Jeff Parish still has a good 10AM attendance,,,due to alot of hispanics in this parish.
Doctrines/dogmas/theology are things few are interested today. Its old wine skins.
God will not pour His New Wine in old wineskins.
Why would He?
 
I read most of threads on this forum, and a lot of replies to the different questions about what the Bible teaches and scripture meanings.

Many members who reply to these threads seem to not like theology or doctrine. Be it systematic, Biblical, dogmatic or other teachings. Even biblical backgrounds or surveys are frowned upon.

A lot of responses say we should not trust these teachings, they are doctrines of men, or do not trust Pastoral preaching. Some go as far as saying all we need in the Bible and Holy Spirit will teach us all we need to know.

Are we not to trust the teachings of the men who the Lord put in position to preach and teach?

I myself love doctrine and theology and will always look into these teachings to get a more thorough understanding of a teaching.

Let me be clear that all doctrines should be filtered by the standard of the written word.

The point of this post is to find out the thoughts of other members why Christians should not study Theology or doctrines concerning the Bible. Especially if these teaching are against what they hold to be truth.

Grace and peace tou you.



Theology and biblical studies and Christian history are all good studies….but you have to be wary of what people are pushing on you. You should consider doctrines as you would a commentary …. something for your consideration.

After a life long study I can tell you that most false beliefs can be contributed to doctrines. Or well known religious words or phrases that are promoted just like advertising….catchy words or phrases and have caused great harm to biblical understanding and even the reality of history.

How many Christians believe that wedding ceremonies are required by the Bible to be married??…..When the Bible Old and or New Testament does not require weddings and the word(s) wedding or wedding ceremonies do not appear in the scriptures?

Why is this? What caused this? One of the contributing factors was the occurrence of a non-scriptural word….fornication. The word Fornication was cooked up after the 4th century and was accepted in Christianity as the truth….Used by early translators as a generic word for sexual immorality, replacing the specific Greek words for specific sexual immorality with an additional meaning that two unmarried people having sex is a sin.

This was like a can of worms of false beliefs that went in different directions and caused sin and condemnation and people driving people away from Christianity.

Look they are shacking up!
They are living in sin!
They are having bastard children!

Well I hope that on Judgment Day Christ has mercy on the ignorant that condemned people and drove them away from Christianity.

The Truth
For thousands of years in Judaism and Christianity marriages were formed by a man and a woman having sex….no ceremony.

The Protestants in the mid 1500’s made it a requirement to have a wedding ceremony to be married and later added the requirement for a church wedding….and shortly after the Catholic Church followed their lead. Is it a doctrine or is it a tradition? Either way a good idea. I love weddings. But still, not having a wedding is not a biblical sin.

If it is not biblical where did they get the idea?
One way or another all wedding ceremonies come from Pagan sources.....customs.
Another misconception is that when the Pagans converted to Christianity that they abandoned everything to do with their Pagan culture….not true.
Early on when these “Gentiles” where converting to Christianity, they came from all directions from different regions and different cultures….and they did not abandon all their Pagan customs. Wedding ceremonies was a popular Pagan custom and all along Gentile Christians were having wedding ceremonies….just not required.
Even today various Pagan rituals are imbedded in most Christian weddings ceremonies.

Just one word---fornication….dreamed up from thin air set Christianity on its ear. These false beliefs catch on and people remember them better than the scriptures. And this is just one of many false beliefs that has caused harm and sin and misunderstandings in Christianity. And some coming from doctrines...
The one God formula for the Trinity is another.
Original Sin is another.

Then you have the translations that made adjustment to the scriptures for various reasons ….deletions….additions…. modifications.

Some people will do it on their own, by taking a scripture and make a religion out of it even thou it is not congruent to the rest of the Bible….Ya got to be careful of doctrines because they are designed to make you believe something…..that someone else believes….which is fine if it is true….If you want to see some messed up doctrines, look at some the doctrines the Catholics cooked up.

Drinking is a sin!!!
You could almost call Judaism and Christianity a drinking religion. A drinking culture telling you not to be drunk or a drunkard means something different than what most people understand.
Christ drank with others.
Drinking wine was part of a very important Christian ritual.
Christ used vineyards in his parables.
Paul told timothy to drink wine on his travels for a very good reasons…As you traveled back then each well had it own flora.....Animal decaying in it….bird dropping….bugs….etc. Mixing water with wine helped neutralize the contaminates in the water.
Christianity built several symbologies from the wine, the grapes, the grapevines etc.
The belief that people back then were drinking grape juice a lot is in error, unless they were drinking it from the press….all presses were called winepresses and grape juice does not last in the summer….harvest time....try it.
 
Theology and biblical studies and Christian history are all good studies….but you have to be wary of what people are pushing on you. You should consider doctrines as you would a commentary …. something for your consideration.

After a life long study I can tell you that most false beliefs can be contributed to doctrines. Or well known religious words or phrases that are promoted just like advertising….catchy words or phrases and have caused great harm to biblical understanding and even the reality of history.

How many Christians believe that wedding ceremonies are required by the Bible to be married??…..When the Bible Old and or New Testament does not require weddings and the word(s) wedding or wedding ceremonies do not appear in the scriptures?

Why is this? What caused this? One of the contributing factors was the occurrence of a non-scriptural word….fornication. The word Fornication was cooked up after the 4th century and was accepted in Christianity as the truth….Used by early translators as a generic word for sexual immorality, replacing the specific Greek words for specific sexual immorality with an additional meaning that two unmarried people having sex is a sin.

This was like a can of worms of false beliefs that went in different directions and caused sin and condemnation and people driving people away from Christianity.

Look they are shacking up!
They are living in sin!
They are having bastard children!

Well I hope that on Judgment Day Christ has mercy on the ignorant that condemned people and drove them away from Christianity.

The Truth
For thousands of years in Judaism and Christianity marriages were formed by a man and a woman having sex….no ceremony.

The Protestants in the mid 1500’s made it a requirement to have a wedding ceremony to be married and later added the requirement for a church wedding….and shortly after the Catholic Church followed their lead. Is it a doctrine or is it a tradition? Either way a good idea. I love weddings. But still, not having a wedding is not a biblical sin.

If it is not biblical where did they get the idea?
One way or another all wedding ceremonies come from Pagan sources.....customs.
Another misconception is that when the Pagans converted to Christianity that they abandoned everything to do with their Pagan culture….not true.
Early on when these “Gentiles” where converting to Christianity, they came from all directions from different regions and different cultures….and they did not abandon all their Pagan customs. Wedding ceremonies was a popular Pagan custom and all along Gentile Christians were having wedding ceremonies….just not required.
Even today various Pagan rituals are imbedded in most Christian weddings ceremonies.

Just one word---fornication….dreamed up from thin air set Christianity on its ear. These false beliefs catch on and people remember them better than the scriptures. And this is just one of many false beliefs that has caused harm and sin and misunderstandings in Christianity. And some coming from doctrines...
The one God formula for the Trinity is another.
Original Sin is another.

Then you have the translations that made adjustment to the scriptures for various reasons ….deletions….additions…. modifications.

Some people will do it on their own, by taking a scripture and make a religion out of it even thou it is not congruent to the rest of the Bible….Ya got to be careful of doctrines because they are designed to make you believe something…..that someone else believes….which is fine if it is true….If you want to see some messed up doctrines, look at some the doctrines the Catholics cooked up.

Drinking is a sin!!!
You could almost call Judaism and Christianity a drinking religion. A drinking culture telling you not to be drunk or a drunkard means something different than what most people understand.
Christ drank with others.
Drinking wine was part of a very important Christian ritual.
Christ used vineyards in his parables.
Paul told timothy to drink wine on his travels for a very good reasons…As you traveled back then each well had it own flora.....Animal decaying in it….bird dropping….bugs….etc. Mixing water with wine helped neutralize the contaminates in the water.
Christianity built several symbologies from the wine, the grapes, the grapevines etc.
The belief that people back then were drinking grape juice a lot is in error, unless they were drinking it from the press….all presses were called winepresses and grape juice does not last in the summer….harvest time....try it.


I can see you are well read on subjects.
On some of your comments i agree.
I am collecting abstracts/books on paganism and christianity, early middle ages etc.
The nazis , most I assume actually would say if you asked them **what religion are you of??** **Oh I am christian of the protestant sects,,we like to sing Christmas Carols during the season*** They reallu believed they were **christians**
Yet their lives were as pagan as one could get.
On fornication,, not sure what you are getting at. The bible is clear about sex w/o love comitment involved.
Like you , well actually unlike you I HATE DESPISE **marriage events** Big marriages ALWAYS end up as divorces.
LOve makes a union, a ceremony is not necessary.
On Original sin, I have my own views on that,,, involves many angles, have to bring in some Jung here. But thats for another time.
If there is no such thing as original sin,, then why does everyone have hangups????
Try to explain that.
Some of my ideas can not be expressed on this forum,, i am walking on thin ice whatever I say at the moment.
The mods are watching me like a hawk,, i am under the mircoscope.
But agree w doctrines, we can all see where all that led the RCC, its like death to the soul
Shalom
 
On fornication,, not sure what you are getting at. The bible is clear about sex w/o love comitment involved.
Like you , well actually unlike you I HATE DESPISE **marriage events** Big marriages ALWAYS end up as divorces.
LOve makes a union, a ceremony is not necessary.

I am going to answer this separately.
I did not say anything about sex without love. That is actually the point people that fall in love and make love and stay together are married. But the truth changes a lot. Casual sex is not only a sin but the way people look at it sets up a sequence of worse sins. People thinking that casual sex does not marry you think they can get forgiveness and it is done and over with but no…your married and if have sex with some else it is adultery. And it just get worse from there. It is clear that God intended for people that have sex to stay together Here is the long explanation for fornication, if you have any questions let me know….

Fornication
This word is another prime example of why we should not make up words and stick them in the Bible, because they cause misunderstandings and false beliefs that can span over a thousand years and ultimately cause people to sin. The word fornication is not in the scriptures nor is its definition.

Fornication is based on concept of porneia which mostly pertains to prostitutes. Which was not a negative term in the Greco-Roman culture. But the Christian religion thought differently. The New Testament was written mostly in Greek, a Pagan Language. When the Apostles were writing the New Testament they were tasked with using a Pagan language that did not reflect Christian morals. So the Christians adjusted the Greek words and definitions to convey their thoughts. There are variances to the Greek word porneia that define various sexual activities throughout the New Testament …. all of which are in the scriptures and all of which Christianity considers sinful.

The false beliefs associated with the word fornication started a long long time ago. If you noticed there was no wedding ceremony or vows in Eden. And then you can read the rest of the Bible and find no requirement for wedding ceremonies or vows. Yep! That is right the Bible does not state a requirement for a wedding ceremony to be married in the Old or New Testament. People formed marriages as God described… For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. Genesis 2:24 Neither the Old or New Testament state a requirement for wedding ceremonies. It was about1500 years after the biblical period that Christianity as in the Protestants developed a requirement for weddings ceremonies and vows, and that is a fact. You think; What about the Wedding in Cana? Actually the words wed or wedding does not appear anywhere in the scriptures. The event in Cana was called a marriage. More on this in the “History of Marriage.” But for the record the Protestant requirement for a wedding ceremony was a good thing. But still not a biblical requirement.

Today a lot of modern translations lump all these sexual activities under the phrase sexual immorality. But back in the older translations they lumped all these Greek words for sinful sexual activities into the word fornication. But then they added another meaning to fornication….saying that if two single people have sex it is a sin. Which is false….as I have explained wedding ceremonies were not required until the mid 1500’s.

Now for the details on the languages, definitions, and history…..
noun
πορνεία
prostitution, whoring, harlotry, whoredom,
συνουσία
fornication, coition, intercourse, copulation
From the Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance
illicit sexual intercourse
adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc. sexual intercourse with close relatives; Lev. Sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman; Mk. 10:11-12 The worship of idols of the defilement of idolatry, as incurred by eating the sacrifices offered to idols etc

But Fornication is not a translational error it is man-made word that made its way into the 15th through the 17th century English translations of the Bible, but still this word did not originate in these Bibles.

When the Greek text was translated into the Latin Vulgate, (circa 404 AD)
the word porneia and its variants were translated to the Latin word fornica which does not mean sex or prostitutes but rather where they would gather and wait for their customers. Then it was translated to the English word fornication and was used in the original Tyndale, Geneva, and King James Version of the Bible.

Like I said, part of the problem was that the New Testament was an attempt to write Christian moral standards using a Pagan language…ie the Greek language that did not have words that reflected Christian standards. The Greeks - Romans did not have the same moral standards that Christians had. For example; If you told a Roman solider that he sinned, it meant that his arrow missed the target….no moral implication. So the Christians writers were taking Greek words and adjusting them to have moral definitions. Why?

Well in this case, in the Greco-Roman culture various sexual activities were not considered immoral. It did not matter if it was temple prostitutes or orgies. Married Roman men were free to have sex with who they wanted …female or male. By Christian standards this was a disgusting arrangement. In the Roman culture adultery was not a sin, rather it was illegal to have sex with someone else’s wife. So Christian writers were tasked with conveying sexual morality to a culture that was without sexual morals and their language reflected the absence of the words to describe sexual immorality. Now was all this confusing to the translators of the scriptures, it is a matter of debate.

Like I said, Porneia in the Greek society is mostly a reference to prostitution which was not wrong in their culture. For example pornography, is an ancient Greek word that means writings or paintings of prostitutes and they where not even considered vulgar, many Roman homes had murals of sex acts and or prostitutes on their walls.

So then in the actual scriptures the Greek word Porneia and its variances appear several times. In all cases the Christian writers were using them to point out some form of sexual immorality.
Examples:
πορνείας·… porneias … Sexual immorality
πορνείᾳ … porneiai … Sexual immorality in the plural
πορνεῦσαι … To commit sexual immorality involving sexual acts
πορνείαν … Idolatry involving sexual acts
πόρνος … A person that practices sexual immorality
πόρνοι … Refering to as a group of the sexually immoral
πορνεῖαι … inflectional, more or less dirty thoughts

Appearing in these scriptures….
Matthew 5:32, 5:19, Mark 7:21, John 8:4, Acts 15:20, 5:29, 21:25, Romans 1:29* 1st Corinthians 5:1, 5:9, 5:10, 6:13, 6:18, 7:2, 10:8, 2nd Corinthians 12:21, Galatians 5:19, Ephesians 5:3, Colossians 3:5, 1st Thessalonians 4:3, Jude 1:7, Revelation 2:14, 2:14, 2:20, 2:21, 9:21, 14:8, 17:2, 17:4, 18:3, 18:19, 19:2

But in no case does sexual immorality simply apply to two unmarried people having sex, for a very good reason. The New Testament does not have a lot to say about romantic love. But to say that Porneia-fornication, is sex outside of wedlock would be inaccurate, since the Bible has no requirements for wedding ceremonies or vows. For most of our history marriages were formed by the union alone. In other words when a couple joined this consummated the marriage. And so it was for most of our known history …two unmarried people would have sex to be married.

Definitely not to say people…families did not celebrate a marriage….like the marriage at Cana. In fact the story of the marriage at Cana picks up at the reception. The Bible tells us nothing about the marriage, not even who was getting married or why it was important to Christ and His mother.

The evolution of the word Fornicate or Fornication
Fornicate comes from a Latin root word fornix, which means arch or vaulted ceiling. In Ancient Rome, it was known that prostitutes would wait for their customers out of the hot sun or rain in areas that had cover… vaulted ceilings. The Latin word fornix became a euphemism for brothels and the Latin verb fornicare referred to a man visiting a brothel. Meaning a man being serviced by prostitutes.
So then St. Jerome’s Latin Vulgate translation of the scriptures used a variant of that….fornicatio and lumped all the Greek variances of porneia under that word. The first recorded use of the word fornicate in English is in the 14th century, in a poem called the Cursor Mundi.

The first English Bibles to use the word fornication was the Bishop’s Bible---Church of England 1568, the Catholic Bible called the Douay-Rheims Bible (early 1600’s) and then the Protestant Bibles followed suite examples; the Tyndale Bible Geneva Bible and the King James Version of the Bible, 16th and 17th centuries respectively.

Continued....
 
So the bottom line, marriages in the Bible and most of history were formed by the physical act of joining. This is a biblical and historical fact. Even if the Hebrew families held a marriage celebration, there was no Hebrew word for wed or wedding nor any biblically stated requirement for ceremonies or vows....just the Bridal Chamber where the couple consummated their marriage. Modern Jews still use a symbolic bridal chamber that is more of a canopy called the Chuppah where the bride and groom stand during the ceremony.

The fact that it is the union that forms a marriage still exists in civil laws. In most states and countries a couple that does not have sex after the wedding ceremony (consummate) can get their marriage annulled.

Fornication is a well known case study in how man-made terms and phrases that are false can have a powerful and detrimental and long lasting affect on not only the meaning of the scriptures and perceptions but also the understanding of history itself. The word fornication is one of the reasons why a lot of Christians believe that wedding ceremonies were required in the Old and New Testament. As well as justify the condemnation of couples that have lived together for years.

For example; a man and a woman fall in love and have sex and then from there on remain together, from the biblical perceptive, they are married. But Christians, believing various false beliefs can condemn them because of the definition of fornication, which is …two people that have not had a wedding ceremony are having sex and living together, and ergo the term “shacking up or living in sin.”

Then people believing that they are “living in sin” may make the couple feel unwelcome in church and could turn them away from Christianity. Which are the only sins that occurred here. The sin of gossip, the sin of falsely accusing people of a sin, and the sin of turning them away Christianity. And then calling their children bastards. Well on Judgment Day Christ says to Bill, You condemned Tim and his wife for not having a marriage ceremony and living together and turned them away from me and their souls were lost….so what am I to do with you?

Had a preacher tell me once that the normal attraction that couples in love feel for each other is lust and so all marriages are formed by lust. Of course he was wrong but this is actually a long standing false belief. Strangely enough there was a time when the Church believed that the desire a husband and wife had for each other was a sin. In affect contradicting God because He described the process that is correct…. For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. God designed men and women to be attracted to each other, fall in love and form marriages and families. No sin occurs in the process that God designed. And no, the babies are not full of sin because of Original Sin…. another false belief.

There is also the belief that the fruit of the tree mentioned in the scriptures was an apple and the apple was symbolic of sex and sin, so the fall of mankind was linked to women and sex. So then according to Augustine (circa 354-430 AD) the sex act being designated as sinful would mean that the sin of Adam and Eve would be passed on to babies, through women, calling it Original Sin. Which is another manmade term that does not appear in the Bible, but has been taught to Christians. Original Sin is another false belief. This produced the belief that babies can go to hell. And was one of the reasons for coming up with infant baptizing. False belief can cause people to do weird things….Augustine was a sexual deviant completely out of control. He confesses that in his own writings and because he could not control himself he thought no one could control themselves and eventually believed women and sex were of the devil….and thus the idea of Original Son was born and the primer for the witch hunts.

It is better explained that Adam and Eve and their offspring promulgated the nature of humans which do not have the awareness and wisdom of God so they make mistakes and are slow to learn morality. Case in point; From Adam and Eve to the time of Christ people were making mistakes and subscribing to a moral code that was weak on morality….the Mosaic Law. For even in Christ time and well past it, Jews and Christians had slaves and were selling their daughters as sex slaves….concubines and this is a double edged sin. Some of us are old enough to remember when most men wanted to marry virgins….The early Jews and Christians took it a step back from this because their definition of fresh or clean girls meant before they started menstruating. Which means that a lot of the concubines and wives were taken before that. Which we would call sex with minors. (The minimum age for marriage under Jewish law for girls was 12 years old----the Jewish Virtual Library.)

And Jews and Christians were still marrying multiple wives and had slaves well after the biblical period. Physical and historical proof that even the most moral of peoples are slow to learn higher morals.

All in context though….the scriptures never put a moratorium on polygamy or concubinage so technically this was not a biblical sin, which Martin Luther pointed out when he said he could not condemn polygamy because the Bible did not condemn it. But still the Christian conscience should have realized all this was wrong.

So of course couples in love that couple up and stay together and have children are married and are as good a Christians as anybody and should be welcomed in church. Again this is where false beliefs do harm to Christianity by turning people away from Christ and commit sins by unjustly condemning people thereby piling hot coals on their own heads. And if they are welcomed in a church and associate with Christians, there is a good chance they will have a church wedding ceremony. Sometimes patience is love.

And then of course the rest of the Christian standards regarding sexual immorality are correct. Adultery, Homosexuality, prostitution, and casual sex are all serious sins. Casual sex is just as serious a sin as the rest of them.

Some think that the sins of casual sex are not as serious but as it turns out casual sex is one of those swords that has many edges. If you go out carousing with the intent to find a piece for the night….you sinned before you left. If you have sex with someone and do not remain together, that is a sin but you are still married. And if you have sex with someone after that ….it is adultery.

The Truth that makes it all makes sense is that God intended for sex to be enjoyed between a man and woman that love each other to form a bond…. Functionally sex is for making babies. It is the intimacy and the children that holds the marriage together.
 
I am going to answer this separately.
So much of what you wrote really strikes a chord with me; thank you.

Most of what I remember is considered unorthodox in mainstream Christianity; and I'm ok with that. I would like to point out the whole Christian stance against "pagan belief's" is also misconstrued as it has been presented in the Bible; and yes Christianity has adopted a whole range of "pagan belief's". Christmas is a good example; based on the "pagan" celebration of the winter solstice.

When the Protestant Reformation began; the Roman Church considered those people to be "pagan" as well, because they rejected the Roman teachings. For centuries the Roman Church considered themselves as the "only true followers of God"; and all others were simply going to "burn in Hell".
 
So the bottom line, marriages in the Bible and most of history were formed by the physical act of joining. This is a biblical and historical fact. Even if the Hebrew families held a marriage celebration, there was no Hebrew word for wed or wedding nor any biblically stated requirement for ceremonies or vows....just the Bridal Chamber where the couple consummated their marriage. Modern Jews still use a symbolic bridal chamber that is more of a canopy called the Chuppah where the bride and groom stand during the ceremony.

The fact that it is the union that forms a marriage still exists in civil laws. In most states and countries a couple that does not have sex after the wedding ceremony (consummate) can get their marriage annulled.

Fornication is a well known case study in how man-made terms and phrases that are false can have a powerful and detrimental and long lasting affect on not only the meaning of the scriptures and perceptions but also the understanding of history itself. The word fornication is one of the reasons why a lot of Christians believe that wedding ceremonies were required in the Old and New Testament. As well as justify the condemnation of couples that have lived together for years.

For example; a man and a woman fall in love and have sex and then from there on remain together, from the biblical perceptive, they are married. But Christians, believing various false beliefs can condemn them because of the definition of fornication, which is …two people that have not had a wedding ceremony are having sex and living together, and ergo the term “shacking up or living in sin.”

Then people believing that they are “living in sin” may make the couple feel unwelcome in church and could turn them away from Christianity. Which are the only sins that occurred here. The sin of gossip, the sin of falsely accusing people of a sin, and the sin of turning them away Christianity. And then calling their children bastards. Well on Judgment Day Christ says to Bill, You condemned Tim and his wife for not having a marriage ceremony and living together and turned them away from me and their souls were lost….so what am I to do with you?

Had a preacher tell me once that the normal attraction that couples in love feel for each other is lust and so all marriages are formed by lust. Of course he was wrong but this is actually a long standing false belief. Strangely enough there was a time when the Church believed that the desire a husband and wife had for each other was a sin. In affect contradicting God because He described the process that is correct…. For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. God designed men and women to be attracted to each other, fall in love and form marriages and families. No sin occurs in the process that God designed. And no, the babies are not full of sin because of Original Sin…. another false belief.

There is also the belief that the fruit of the tree mentioned in the scriptures was an apple and the apple was symbolic of sex and sin, so the fall of mankind was linked to women and sex. So then according to Augustine (circa 354-430 AD) the sex act being designated as sinful would mean that the sin of Adam and Eve would be passed on to babies, through women, calling it Original Sin. Which is another manmade term that does not appear in the Bible, but has been taught to Christians. Original Sin is another false belief. This produced the belief that babies can go to hell. And was one of the reasons for coming up with infant baptizing. False belief can cause people to do weird things….Augustine was a sexual deviant completely out of control. He confesses that in his own writings and because he could not control himself he thought no one could control themselves and eventually believed women and sex were of the devil….and thus the idea of Original Son was born and the primer for the witch hunts.

It is better explained that Adam and Eve and their offspring promulgated the nature of humans which do not have the awareness and wisdom of God so they make mistakes and are slow to learn morality. Case in point; From Adam and Eve to the time of Christ people were making mistakes and subscribing to a moral code that was weak on morality….the Mosaic Law. For even in Christ time and well past it, Jews and Christians had slaves and were selling their daughters as sex slaves….concubines and this is a double edged sin. Some of us are old enough to remember when most men wanted to marry virgins….The early Jews and Christians took it a step back from this because their definition of fresh or clean girls meant before they started menstruating. Which means that a lot of the concubines and wives were taken before that. Which we would call sex with minors. (The minimum age for marriage under Jewish law for girls was 12 years old----the Jewish Virtual Library.)

And Jews and Christians were still marrying multiple wives and had slaves well after the biblical period. Physical and historical proof that even the most moral of peoples are slow to learn higher morals.

All in context though….the scriptures never put a moratorium on polygamy or concubinage so technically this was not a biblical sin, which Martin Luther pointed out when he said he could not condemn polygamy because the Bible did not condemn it. But still the Christian conscience should have realized all this was wrong.

So of course couples in love that couple up and stay together and have children are married and are as good a Christians as anybody and should be welcomed in church. Again this is where false beliefs do harm to Christianity by turning people away from Christ and commit sins by unjustly condemning people thereby piling hot coals on their own heads. And if they are welcomed in a church and associate with Christians, there is a good chance they will have a church wedding ceremony. Sometimes patience is love.

And then of course the rest of the Christian standards regarding sexual immorality are correct. Adultery, Homosexuality, prostitution, and casual sex are all serious sins. Casual sex is just as serious a sin as the rest of them.

Some think that the sins of casual sex are not as serious but as it turns out casual sex is one of those swords that has many edges. If you go out carousing with the intent to find a piece for the night….you sinned before you left. If you have sex with someone and do not remain together, that is a sin but you are still married. And if you have sex with someone after that ….it is adultery.

The Truth that makes it all makes sense is that God intended for sex to be enjoyed between a man and woman that love each other to form a bond…. Functionally sex is for making babies. It is the intimacy and the children that holds the marriage together.


There is some i fully agree with = sex is not dirty,, as imaged in old and some new christianity/theology..
But did you know the Cathras, considered sex to be off limits to their higher spiritual members... and I am sure the anabaptsist also considered sex to be very sacred = not for pleasure
I LOVE THe Cathars,, though some of their ideas I can not espose with
The old gnostics also held that procreation only added to the mess we are in.
This too I hold as truth..
But again can not go into as this is a christian site and will not allow for full free speech that might offend orthodox christain ideas,,,
I am very surprised the mods have allowed you to write the above posts...
Nothing you said really a=offends me, but then I am not the moderator. They might not be as **open minded** as myself.
Again some of your resaerch I can agree, while others we will argue. Like procreation.
YUeah yeah I know exactly what God told Adam.
This is how both jews and christians translate this verse
**Be Fruitful and Multiply***
= **Have sexual relations and populate the earth***
No I did not need the gnostics not the Cathars to help me undersytand what God says here.
Again I have the world (minus the few gnostics on earth)) to say I am absolutely nuts for understanding the verse as
**Be fruitfiul,
1st Become spiritual Full of good Holy Fruits,, then if you do so, then and only then I will bless the union witha beautiful spiritual baby
I came across something in Philo of Alexandria the other day that confirmed my hunch on that verse,, But then again Philo allorgizes EVERY VERSE..
also xame across some paper on Augustine against the gnostics,, where Augy had to change his beliefs and say **yeah one should become spiritual 1st,, then procreation is acceptabnle to God*** as he did not want his ideas on that verse to appear **carnal** He had to match the Manichieans's understanding of that verse so as to appear as EQUALs to the Mani's in spiritual understanding..
Of course jews and christians would not understand the verse that way,, as this world has been such past 8000+ yrs, = Just procreate, all is ok.
I am not going to ddebate on this understanding, no time and no interest trying to change anyone.
Of course the verse will be understood in a basic carnal sense, = its so much easy to say, God says have realtions, lets multiply..
Never ever take the scriptures so starightforward. WE are in realtion w a being who ,,as you know can not be comprehended on any FULL UNDERSTANDING,, God has His Mysteries as you know.

All great men in the bible had multiple wives, mistresses(girl friends** Even Sarah told Abraham, yeah go ahead w my servant, this way we can have a baby..
Yet as we know the highest form of union of a ,man and women is when God grants the couple a spiritual baby.
This world would be a great place to live if everyone on earth was a spiritual connect being to God =
Be FRUITFULL ,, then and only then multiply.
Just did not work out God';s way
As Old Frainkie sings
**And I did it myyyyy OWNNN wayyy**
 
Are we not to trust the teachings of the men who the Lord put in position to preach and teac

I myself love doctrine and theology and will always look into these teachings to get a more thorough understanding of a teaching.

Let me be clear that all doctrines should be filtered by the standard of the written word.
I agree. We can all read. We should examine what we're being told by scripture and keep in mind we're reading a translation.
 
So much of what you wrote really strikes a chord with me; thank you.

Most of what I remember is considered unorthodox in mainstream Christianity; and I'm ok with that. I would like to point out the whole Christian stance against "pagan belief's" is also misconstrued as it has been presented in the Bible; and yes Christianity has adopted a whole range of "pagan belief's". Christmas is a good example; based on the "pagan" celebration of the winter solstice.

When the Protestant Reformation began; the Roman Church considered those people to be "pagan" as well, because they rejected the Roman teachings. For centuries the Roman Church considered themselves as the "only true followers of God"; and all others were simply going to "burn in Hell".


That is the history of Christianity.....the Jewish-Christians died out pretty quickly....and the Gentile-Christians took the helm.
I have not found any Jewish-Christian writings after the 1st century.
 
That is the history of Christianity.....the Jewish-Christians died out pretty quickly....and the Gentile-Christians took the helm.
I have not found any Jewish-Christian writings after the 1st century.
The Jewish-Christians were almost completely wiped out; as was any/and all writings they possessed.....and it was not the pharisees who managed that, it was the Roman empire who tracked as many as they could and put them to the sword. The Roman empire never wanted anyone to know the truth of any of it; only the "truth" the Roman Church leaders saw fit to give.

The first Bible published was only in Latin; a language most people did not know or understand. Even when translated to English (and other languages) Catholics were discouraged from reading the Bible for themselves up until about 3 (or maybe 4) decades ago. Only the priest could read, understand; and then give the "Churches" understanding of the Scriptures to the faithful.

From my experience, every religious organizations doctrine is "absolute"; and must never be questioned by anyone who claims to follow that particular doctrine. As for an outsider asking questions about any of it; that is simply not tolerated.
 

Donations

Total amount
$1,592.00
Goal
$5,080.00
Back
Top