| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Provoker" |
| Date: |
15 Jun 2007 05:52:56 PM |
| Object: |
Is there no one to defend the faith? |
What if the Judeo/Christian scriptures wre purposely misinterpreted
for the political purposes of Rome, so long ago that the basis of
today's version of Christianity is completely false?
Ridiculous you say?
I happen to believe it to be true, because what the "church" teaches,
and Christians believe, is not consistant with what the bible
teaches.
I and am willing to make my case from the bible, but I have yet to
find a poster here who will continue in discussion with anyone who
does not accept the very doctrines which I believe are false, even
though I accept scripture as the source of bible truth.
I contend that all post-4th-century-AD Christianity is based, not on
the bible, but on the Creed established at the nicean council of
325AD, and conveniently worded bible verses have been used out of
context, to "prove" the false doctrines of that creed. This false
basis so confuses the scriptures that Christians cannot come to
doctrinal agreement, and are a house divided.
Is there anyone here who knows the bible well enough to enter into
civil, honest, bible discussion on this subject?
.
|
|
| User: "L. T. David" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there no one to defend the faith? |
15 Jun 2007 10:29:58 PM |
|
|
"Provoker" <provoker42@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1181947976.801764.301860@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
What if the Judeo/Christian scriptures wre purposely misinterpreted
for the political purposes of Rome, so long ago that the basis of
today's version of Christianity is completely false?
Ridiculous you say?
I happen to believe it to be true, because what the "church" teaches,
and Christians believe, is not consistant with what the bible
teaches.
I and am willing to make my case from the bible, but I have yet to
find a poster here who will continue in discussion with anyone who
does not accept the very doctrines which I believe are false, even
though I accept scripture as the source of bible truth.
I contend that all post-4th-century-AD Christianity is based, not on
the bible, but on the Creed established at the nicean council of
325AD, and conveniently worded bible verses have been used out of
context, to "prove" the false doctrines of that creed. This false
basis so confuses the scriptures that Christians cannot come to
doctrinal agreement, and are a house divided.
Is there anyone here who knows the bible well enough to enter into
civil, honest, bible discussion on this subject?
What is your problem with the Nicene Creed, Provoker, and how different is
it from the Christian scripture? Don't come out with some texts from the
Tanach, that Jewish, gone, archaic. Can you give us some examples with NT
verses of course.
Do you have a copy of the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Philip, the Q
Document and of some other Gospels the Catholic churches considered
heretical at the time? There were more than 4 churches if there were more
than 4 Gospels, don't you think? Those churches the Catholic churches
considered heretical were like you, they accepted their scripture as the
source of bible truth. Was there a bible in the 4th century Provocator?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Provoker" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there no one to defend the faith? |
16 Jun 2007 09:44:34 AM |
|
|
On Jun 15, 11:29 pm, "L. T. David" <LTD.Cap...@newsnet.com> wrote:
What is your problem with the Nicene Creed, Provoker, and how different is
it from the Christian scripture? Don't come out with some texts from the
Tanach, that Jewish, gone, archaic. Can you give us some examples with NT
verses of course.
Do you have a copy of the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Philip, the Q
Document and of some other Gospels the Catholic churches considered
heretical at the time? There were more than 4 churches if there were more
than 4 Gospels, don't you think? Those churches the Catholic churches
considered heretical were like you, they accepted their scripture as the
source of bible truth. Was there a bible in the 4th century Provocator?
Hello L. T:
Thank you for responding.
The first problem I have with the Nicean creed is that it's doctrines
were established by a democratic vote among the bishops of the Roman
empire, who were so doctrinally divided that the fighting between
their different factions was causing civil unrest in the Roman empire.
It stands to reason that only one of the opposing religious groups
could possibly have all the true doctrines, and that one group would
obviously have been in the minority. Any false doctrines which were
shared by a majority of the religious factions, automaticly became
included in universal orthodoxy by democratic vote.
It is my opinion that an honest person should not simply accept the
preconceptions of the majority of bishops at the Nicean council, but
should determine for himself what the bible teaches.
The Nicean creed is an official document of an organization to which I
do not belong, and I have no interest in the negative discussion of
that organization or it's creed. I am only interested in the positive
discussion of the bible.
Because the Nicean creed is not consistent with scripture, the
doctrines of the church have to be presented as a mystery that can
only be understood by those with the spirit of God, and that belief
accounts for any inconsistencies between scripture and doctrine.
Today the mystery arguement is bolstered with single verses taken out
of context, and 1500 years of orthodoxy is the big stumbling block to
our seeing the truth.
Doctrine should not be established by interpreting single verses or
single passages, but by interpreting the story that all the verses
combine to tell. When one recognizes the story which runs through the
bible, then he will understand the greater context within which all
the single verses or passages were written.
The story which maintains continuity through the whole bible is the
gospel of the kingdom which God preached first to Abraham, and was
still being preached by the apostles more than 1000 years later:
***All nations will be blessed, with peace on earth, good will to men,
by a great nation(kingdom) situated on all the land between the
Euphrates and the river of Egypt***.
.
|
|
|
| User: "L. T. David" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there no one to defend the faith? |
16 Jun 2007 09:39:58 PM |
|
|
"Provoker" <provoker42@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1182005074.088615.310260@u2g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 15, 11:29 pm, "L. T. David" <LTD.Cap...@newsnet.com> wrote:
What is your problem with the Nicene Creed, Provoker, and how different
is
it from the Christian scripture? Don't come out with some texts from the
Tanach, that Jewish, gone, archaic. Can you give us some examples with NT
verses of course.
Do you have a copy of the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Philip, the Q
Document and of some other Gospels the Catholic churches considered
heretical at the time? There were more than 4 churches if there were more
than 4 Gospels, don't you think? Those churches the Catholic churches
considered heretical were like you, they accepted their scripture as the
source of bible truth. Was there a bible in the 4th century Provocator?
Hello L. T:
Thank you for responding.
The first problem I have with the Nicean creed is that it's doctrines
were established by a democratic vote among the bishops of the Roman
empire, who were so doctrinally divided that the fighting between
their different factions was causing civil unrest in the Roman empire.
It stands to reason that only one of the opposing religious groups
could possibly have all the true doctrines, and that one group would
obviously have been in the minority. Any false doctrines which were
shared by a majority of the religious factions, automaticly became
included in universal orthodoxy by democratic vote.
It is my opinion that an honest person should not simply accept the
preconceptions of the majority of bishops at the Nicean council, but
should determine for himself what the bible teaches.
The Nicean creed is an official document of an organization to which I
do not belong, and I have no interest in the negative discussion of
that organization or it's creed. I am only interested in the positive
discussion of the bible.
Because the Nicean creed is not consistent with scripture, the
doctrines of the church have to be presented as a mystery that can
only be understood by those with the spirit of God, and that belief
accounts for any inconsistencies between scripture and doctrine.
Today the mystery arguement is bolstered with single verses taken out
of context, and 1500 years of orthodoxy is the big stumbling block to
our seeing the truth.
Doctrine should not be established by interpreting single verses or
single passages, but by interpreting the story that all the verses
combine to tell. When one recognizes the story which runs through the
bible, then he will understand the greater context within which all
the single verses or passages were written.
The story which maintains continuity through the whole bible is the
gospel of the kingdom which God preached first to Abraham, and was
still being preached by the apostles more than 1000 years later:
***All nations will be blessed, with peace on earth, good will to men,
by a great nation(kingdom) situated on all the land between the
Euphrates and the river of Egypt***.
Your kind of posts I would expect from a Jehovah Witness. Were you once a
member of that group?
You claim that if one understood the narratives of the Bible, one would
understand that there is a continuity in the Bible and further understand
the meaning of every single verses in it. Of course there is a continuity in
the story of the Bible, for the Jews in the Tanach and for the Christians in
the NT. It was intentionally written that way. There is no miracle there,
Provoker.
You state that the Apostles preached the same message that God told Abraham
some 1000 years after Abraham.
May I remind you that you cannot estimate the time Abraham existed because
Abraham is the character of a story which was written or rewritten by Jewish
priests in the 4th century BC. An inspired story, not a historical account.
The OT stories concern the mosaic Law. They were written to explain and
glorify the Law and so people would believe in Yawhe, the god of the Jews.
The OT, Jews call the Tanach, was considered by them as the final authority
in matters of faith. It no longer is since they have added to it 2 Talmuds
in the 2nd century BC they consider as verbal tradition and also inspired by
God.
I think you are old enough to understand that calling the Bible 'Word of
God' simply means that the men/women who wrote it were inspired by God. Were
they really? The tales, those narratives they wrote, are certainly
interesting.
Catholics and Orthodox as well as most if not all of the Protestant churches
do belief in the Nicene Creed. Now who are you to tell them that you found
something that contradicts that belief? For them, most of what the Creed
contains was divinely inspired.
The narratives of the Tanach were written for teachers of the Jewish law. It
was not intended for Jews on street corners or in workshops. The Christian
NT narratives were written:
"that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by
believing you may have life in his name." (John 20:31).
.
|
|
|
| User: "Provoker" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there no one to defend the faith? |
18 Jun 2007 12:20:48 PM |
|
|
Hello LT:
You appear to be trying to second guess me, but it would be better if
you simply responded to what I actually write, because none of my
opinions is based on the doctrinal teachings of any religious
organization. I do not judge the truth, or historical accuracy, of
the
bible, but I simply claim that there is a heretofore unrecognized
story
running through the bible, which is the greater context in which to
understand specific portions of text. I interpret specific text by
using the most likely meaning which allows it to fit smoothly into
the
story, without awkwardness or contradiction. To my mind, that is
the
most honest way to read the bible in context.
I do not see any significance in knowing exactly when, or even if,
Abraham actually existed, but Abraham's importance to the bible
story,
is found in his place in the chronological order of events recorded
in
the bible, because chronology is what turns a list of events into a
flowing story, which then becomes context within which to understand
any
specific passage.
While most people attempt to glean a separate moral from each
biblical
event, I read all the events of the bible, as one long story with one
specific greater moral, which is the reason that scripture was
written.
The Nicean creed is apparently supposed to be a list of key bible
principles, but a reading of the bible, in the context of it's own
flowing story, does not support the Nicean creed, in my opinion.
Who am I to tell anyone that the Nicean creed is wrong? I am
nobody!
However truth is where you find it, and while creeds are established
according to how many people believe something, truth is not
established
that way. If it was, the largest denomination would automaticly be
the
true church:-)
On Jun 16, 10:39 pm, "L. T. David" <LTD.Cap...@newsnet.com> wrote:
"Provoker" <provoke...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1182005074.088615.310260@u2g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 15, 11:29 pm, "L. T. David" <LTD.Cap...@newsnet.com> wrote:
What is your problem with the Nicene Creed, Provoker, and how
different
is
it from the Christian scripture? Don't come out with some texts
from the
Tanach, that Jewish, gone, archaic. Can you give us some examples
with NT
verses of course.
Do you have a copy of the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Philip,
the Q
Document and of some other Gospels the Catholic churches considered
heretical at the time? There were more than 4 churches if there
were more
than 4 Gospels, don't you think? Those churches the Catholic
churches
considered heretical were like you, they accepted their scripture
as the
source of bible truth. Was there a bible in the 4th century
Provocator?
Hello L. T:
Thank you for responding.
The first problem I have with the Nicean creed is that it's
doctrines
were established by a democratic vote among the bishops of the Roman
empire, who were so doctrinally divided that the fighting between
their different factions was causing civil unrest in the Roman
empire.
It stands to reason that only one of the opposing religious groups
could possibly have all the true doctrines, and that one group would
obviously have been in the minority. Any false doctrines which were
shared by a majority of the religious factions, automaticly became
included in universal orthodoxy by democratic vote.
It is my opinion that an honest person should not simply accept the
preconceptions of the majority of bishops at the Nicean council, but
should determine for himself what the bible teaches.
The Nicean creed is an official document of an organization to which
I
do not belong, and I have no interest in the negative discussion of
that organization or it's creed. I am only interested in the
positive
discussion of the bible.
Because the Nicean creed is not consistent with scripture, the
doctrines of the church have to be presented as a mystery that can
only be understood by those with the spirit of God, and that belief
accounts for any inconsistencies between scripture and doctrine.
Today the mystery arguement is bolstered with single verses taken
out
of context, and 1500 years of orthodoxy is the big stumbling block
to
our seeing the truth.
Doctrine should not be established by interpreting single verses or
single passages, but by interpreting the story that all the verses
combine to tell. When one recognizes the story which runs through
the
bible, then he will understand the greater context within which all
the single verses or passages were written.
The story which maintains continuity through the whole bible is the
gospel of the kingdom which God preached first to Abraham, and was
still being preached by the apostles more than 1000 years later:
***All nations will be blessed, with peace on earth, good will to
men,
by a great nation(kingdom) situated on all the land between the
Euphrates and the river of Egypt***.
Your kind of posts I would expect from a Jehovah Witness. Were you
once a
member of that group?
You claim that if one understood the narratives of the Bible, one
would
understand that there is a continuity in the Bible and further
understand
the meaning of every single verses in it. Of course there is a
continuity in
the story of the Bible, for the Jews in the Tanach and for the
Christians in
the NT. It was intentionally written that way. There is no miracle
there,
Provoker.
You state that the Apostles preached the same message that God told
Abraham
some 1000 years after Abraham.
May I remind you that you cannot estimate the time Abraham existed
because
Abraham is the character of a story which was written or rewritten by
Jewish
priests in the 4th century BC. An inspired story, not a historical
account.
The OT stories concern the mosaic Law. They were written to explain
and
glorify the Law and so people would believe in Yawhe, the god of the
Jews.
The OT, Jews call the Tanach, was considered by them as the final
authority
in matters of faith. It no longer is since they have added to it 2
Talmuds
in the 2nd century BC they consider as verbal tradition and also
inspired by
God.
I think you are old enough to understand that calling the Bible 'Word
of
God' simply means that the men/women who wrote it were inspired by
God. Were
they really? The tales, those narratives they wrote, are certainly
interesting.
Catholics and Orthodox as well as most if not all of the Protestant
churches
do belief in the Nicene Creed. Now who are you to tell them that you
found
something that contradicts that belief? For them, most of what the
Creed
contains was divinely inspired.
The narratives of the Tanach were written for teachers of the Jewish
law. It
was not intended for Jews on street corners or in workshops. The
Christian
NT narratives were written:
"that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and
that by
believing you may have life in his name." (John 20:31).
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "old man joe" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there no one to defend the faith? |
17 Jun 2007 03:07:28 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 15:52:56 -0700, Provoker <provoker42@gmail.com>
wrote:
What if the Judeo/Christian scriptures wre purposely misinterpreted
for the political purposes of Rome, so long ago that the basis of
today's version of Christianity is completely false?
Ridiculous you say?
I happen to believe it to be true, because what the "church" teaches,
and Christians believe, is not consistant with what the bible
teaches.
I and am willing to make my case from the bible, but I have yet to
find a poster here who will continue in discussion with anyone who
does not accept the very doctrines which I believe are false, even
though I accept scripture as the source of bible truth.
I contend that all post-4th-century-AD Christianity is based, not on
the bible, but on the Creed established at the nicean council of
325AD, and conveniently worded bible verses have been used out of
context, to "prove" the false doctrines of that creed. This false
basis so confuses the scriptures that Christians cannot come to
doctrinal agreement, and are a house divided.
Is there anyone here who knows the bible well enough to enter into
civil, honest, bible discussion on this subject?
Martin Luther made the same point and found that the dead do not
hear the voice of the Living God.
Catholics are not Christians... they are Marianists and Papists... a
Christian is a Christ-follower in the born from above sense of the
word.
a Catholic is one of the least Biblically knowledgeable people on
earth professing a form of godliness... it is a religion of
convenience and ignorance... just visiting their Newsgroups you will
find them devoid of any Biblical subject matter... just worldly
chatter.
************************************************
" believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved "
Acts 16:31
" and as many as had been appointed to eternal life, believed."
Acts 13:48
.
|
|
|
| User: "Provoker" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there no one to defend the faith? |
18 Jun 2007 12:30:35 PM |
|
|
Hello Joe:
Thank you for your response.
All of the prostestant churches are simple sects of Roman
Catholicism. The reformation did not actually address the real errors
of the Catholic church, and so the reformation was simply an exercise
in rearranging the deck chairs on a sinking ship.
All versions of Christianity, even the one's you consider to be cults,
still embrace the fundamental errors on which the Universal religion
of the Roman empire was based.
I would be happy to discuss this subject with you at any time:-)
On Jun 17, 4:07 am, old man joe <n...@home.com> wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 15:52:56 -0700, Provoker <provoke...@gmail.com>
wrote:
What if the Judeo/Christian scriptures wre purposely misinterpreted
for the political purposes of Rome, so long ago that the basis of
today's version of Christianity is completely false?
Ridiculous you say?
I happen to believe it to be true, because what the "church" teaches,
and Christians believe, is not consistant with what the bible
teaches.
I and am willing to make my case from the bible, but I have yet to
find a poster here who will continue in discussion with anyone who
does not accept the very doctrines which I believe are false, even
though I accept scripture as the source of bible truth.
I contend that all post-4th-century-AD Christianity is based, not on
the bible, but on the Creed established at the nicean council of
325AD, and conveniently worded bible verses have been used out of
context, to "prove" the false doctrines of that creed. This false
basis so confuses the scriptures that Christians cannot come to
doctrinal agreement, and are a house divided.
Is there anyone here who knows the bible well enough to enter into
civil, honest, bible discussion on this subject?
Martin Luther made the same point and found that the dead do not
hear the voice of the Living God.
Catholics are not Christians... they are Marianists and Papists... a
Christian is a Christ-follower in the born from above sense of the
word.
a Catholic is one of the least Biblically knowledgeable people on
earth professing a form of godliness... it is a religion of
convenience and ignorance... just visiting their Newsgroups you will
find them devoid of any Biblical subject matter... just worldly
chatter.
************************************************
" believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved "
Acts 16:31
" and as many as had been appointed to eternal life, believed."
Acts 13:48- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
