When did we become Christians?

[Aardverk]

Completely inapplicable to the first believers...and modern believers, like Classik and myself. In fact, the priesthood and the Roman Empire were the very reasons NOT to become a Christian in the early decades of the church. But many did become Christians anyway despite them leading/forcing people away from becoming Christians.

An interesting distinction but the question was, 'what led to our becoming Christian' and most 'Christians' discount many of the early 'Christians' because most of them believed completely different things to post Nicea Christians. Indeed, if you wish to call pre-Nicea 'Christians' - 'Christians' then I am a Christian too Jethro! Somehow I don't think you would accept that ;) Those heretic 'Christians' who did not accept the Nicene Creed were later tortured and executed by the 'good and true' Christians

In the beginning decades of the church, it was actually uneducated people who challenged the priests who were against Christianity and became Christians anyway.

I'm not sure what you regard as the beginning decades? There were wildly different versions of Christianity before 325AD and I don't think you would want to associate yourself with them/me

Your ignorance of the origins of the earth and it's occupants hasn't led you to being Christian. So, why should it for us?

I don't know what you mean by my ignorance Jethro? Is that just an insult or do you have something specific in mind?

Faith comes from the voice of God Himself speaking into the heart .....

That is what I was taught as a child. The problem with that idea is that IF God does not talk to you directly, you can't be expected to have faith - can you. I don't think God is capricious. Do you?

In my humble opinion, and using the dictionary definition, true faith can only exist in the absence of evidence. If God were to reveal himself, there would no longer be any need for faith, for suffering, for selective redemption, etc, etc. I can't help thinking there is something wrong with the notion of wicked people being 'selected' because they heard voices in their heads and virtuous people being condemned because they did not hear voices and, using their God given brains, had no reason to believe. Do you agree?

That voice is not refuted by arguments and contentions about written words.....

Oh, I think you are wrong there; I've heard many, many arguments ;)

.... the Bible has been tested and tried and found to be the very Word of God .....

Because it says so in the Bible? Is there any other evidence that I have missed or are we relying on people hearing voices in their heads again?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

An interesting distinction but the question was, 'what led to our becoming Christian'

I know what the question is, and I know what you said about what leads to our becoming Christian. I pointed out that for me and Classik neither of those things had any bearing on our becoming Christians. I don't think Classik has a Catholic background, but he can clarify for us if necessary.

...and most 'Christians' discount many of the early 'Christians' because most of them believed completely different things to post Nicea Christians.

I've never, ever heard that most Christians discount the early Christians. Quite the opposite among the Protestants I rub shoulders with. Many desire to be like the early Church.

Indeed, if you wish to call pre-Nicea 'Christians' - 'Christians' then I am a Christian too Jethro! Somehow I don't think you would accept that ;)

Even Paul, right in the scriptures themselves, speaks of the wolves that would come into the flock and devour it. History shows us that it did not take terribly long for that to happen and for the church at large to become corrupt. If you are talking about being a part of that church and the 'Christians' that populated that church then maybe you are/were a 'Christian' in that sense. Many, many people are included in that number. I call it the 'church of the world'...the corrupted church and kingdom of God that even Christ himself said would grow and grow, puffed up with the leaven of the world, "until it worked all through the dough" (Matthew 13:33 NIV1984).

Those heretic 'Christians' who did not accept the Nicene Creed were later tortured and executed by the 'good and true' Christians

I see even you know they were not 'good and true' Christians, but rather the Christians who populate the godless, spiritless church of the world and don't belong to Christ at all. Their acts show them to not be of Christ at all. I don't see how you can use what unbelievers do in the church, corrupting and ruining it, to somehow discredit the real church full of real Christians.

I'm not sure what you regard as the beginning decades? There were wildly different versions of Christianity before 325AD and I don't think you would want to associate yourself with them/me

Again, if you're talking about the corruption that Paul and Jesus spoke about and which did in fact pollute the church after the time of the Disciples then, 'yes', I don't want to associate with them...or you, if that includes you. We are warned to not associate with anyone who calls themselves a brother but who practices sin (because they haver redefined sin, or whatever the reason) and who rejects the teachings of God.

I don't know what you mean by my ignorance Jethro? Is that just an insult or do you have something specific in mind?

Did you mean it as an insult when you used it?

You said ignorance of the earth, and how it got populated (or something like that) was the reason why we became Christians. I figure since you're ignorant (not knowledgeable about) the origins of the earth and how it got populated along with the rest of us you might become a Biblical Christian, too? But your ignorance did not do that, so why is that a reason why we became Christians?

That is what I was taught as a child. The problem with that idea is that IF God does not talk to you directly, you can't be expected to have faith...

Now maybe you can begin to understand what a gracious and merciful gift to mankind salvation is. It depends on God's mercy and compassion, not on the abilities of the person. But some take confidence in their abilities.

- can you. I don't think God is capricious. Do you?

No. God has a specific purpose for everything. Paul talks about all this in Romans 9.

In my humble opinion, and using the dictionary definition, true faith can only exist in the absence of evidence. If God were to reveal himself, there would no longer be any need for faith, for suffering, for selective redemption, etc, etc.

Where did you get this from? Who said faith is having NO evidence????

The Bible says faith is the evidence--the assurance--of things we can not see.

"Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." (Hebrews 11: NASB)

See it? The God given ability to believe what you can not see--IOW, your faith--IS the evidence and assurance of what you can't see and are hoping for. The 'knowing that's it's true' that God grants to a person about sin, righteousness, and the Judgment to come IS the evidence that it's all real. But if a person rejects the evidence, the conviction that God's gives to show them it's all real how can they believe and be saved? It's impossible to reject the very avenue through which God shows himself to man--the conviction of sin and the forgiveness of that sin through Jesus Christ--and then expect to be able to believe the truth about sin and forgiveness. It's only logical! This is why I say, if a person is still engaged in the great debate about sin and God's justice in judging it they are rejecting the very testimony that he has given by the Holy Spirit to show men it's all real.

I can't help thinking there is something wrong with the notion of wicked people being 'selected' because they heard voices in their heads and virtuous people being condemned because they did not hear voices and, using their God given brains, had no reason to believe. Do you agree?

How can I agree with that? Why should I agree with that?

Even Jesus, the Jesus you say you revere and follow, talked about 'voices':

"My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me..." (John 10:27 NASB)


And if you're taking confidence in being righteous better read what else Jesus has to say:

"12It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick."

13 "For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.†(Matthew 9:12,13 NIV1984)

So which are you? Someone Jesus came to call, or someone Jesus did not come to call?

Oh, I think you are wrong there; I've heard many, many arguments ;)

That's not what I said.

The many arguments against the voice of God do not somehow refute or change the truth and validity of the voice of God sent into the world. But many voices will challenge what God has said, like when the serpent said to Adam and Eve, 'did God really say that?' (my paraphrase). That evil work of eroding the faith God has sent into the world and questioning and challenging what he says about sin and his justice continues to this day.

 

[Classik]

No Catholic background

 

[Aardverk]

Sorry Jethro, I simply can't take the time or space to answer all of your points. If I miss something important, do let me know.

I know what the question is, and I know what you said about what leads to our becoming Christian. I pointed out that for me and Classik neither of those things had any bearing on our becoming Christians.

I don't understand your point BUT all current Western Christians have a 'Catholic background'. You can even make a case to claim that the Orthodox church does too.

I've never, ever heard that most Christians discount the early Christians.

Really? They are commonly referred to as 'heretics' Jethro - surely you have heard of them? With the sole exception of the Aryans, when Arius was banished from the Council, ALL other Christian faiths were banned in 325AD. The best know Heretic denomination is the Cathars but there were many more denominations, some of which struggled on in secret for centuries. I have heard it claimed recently that there are still plenty of Lollards around. I quite like the idea of Lollardy ;)

I see even you know they were not 'good and true' Christians....

The point is that they claimed to be 'good and true' Christians - same as many do today. I am simply pointing out the folly of someone being cock-sure of themselves
.

Again, if you're talking about the corruption that Paul and Jesus spoke about .........

Again, surely you know that there are many who believe that Paul corrupted the loving, peaceful and tolerant teaching of Jesus?

Did you mean it as an insult when you used it?

You directly referred to MY ignorance. I have never made any mention of YOUR ignorance.

I figure since you're ignorant (not knowledgeable about) the origins of the earth and how it got populated along with the rest of us you might become a Biblical Christian, too? But your ignorance did not do that, so why is that a reason why we became Christians?

There is absolutely irrefutable evidence of the development of the Earth (tectonic plates, mountain formation, subduction etc) that was unimaginable to early 'natural philosophers' so they produced their own explanations, many of which are mildly amusing - such as phlogiston

Similarly, genes are a fact of life that we now take for granted. We can trace our genes, ALL of us, back to one female in central Africa. Eve maybe. We also know with a pretty reliable methodology (not perfect) when she lived. Again, the early 'natural philosophers' had not the faintest idea of genetics nor had they any way whatsoever of dating 'Eve' - so, they made it up.

However you want to interpret and date events from the bible, anyone with even a mediocre education and an open mind will know that there is no way that the events described tie up with the facts that we know. Please note carefully that I am not trying to provide an alternative explanation, that would take far too long, I am simply leading up to, what I meant by 'ignorance'. In MOST fields of human knowledge, ANYONE from 2,000 years ago, or more, would certainly be regarded as 'ignorant' by their modern counter-part. I hope that is clear enough.

Who said faith is having NO evidence????

Not what I said Jethro. I said, "faith can only exist in the absence of evidence" I also referred you to a dictionary but you obviously thought better of that :halo

That evil work of eroding the faith God has sent into the world and questioning and challenging what he says about sin and his justice continues to this day.

There is also a lot of good work being done in challenging those modern day 'Pharisees' who think they know it all and are the chosen ones. Faith comes in many forms Jethro, not just your particular version.