gotigrz's Christianity topic, part 2 Options

[gotigrz]

Someone i think badman or merica actually asked ed in person and he admitted being a christian. im pretty sure his is a little more of an open faith (i remember a recent interview where he stated that praying doesnt do much good in the world) I know he thinks the bible is the best source of morality and guide for mankind but im not clear if he believes in the divinity of jesus or that he was born of a virgin etc...

well, if ed said that he was a Christian, then he does believe in the virgin birth, the dying on the cross, and the resurrection 3 days later. that is the criteria of being a Christian. nobody says, .. "yeah, i'm a Christian, but that whole virgin birth thing is just crazy."

when ed said that about prayer not doing much good (i heard the interview)... he was referring to prayer that he thinks isn't really "prayer". he was saying that when you are truly in prayer with God that you are like one with Him, and that most people just close their eyes and ask for something. and, that THAT isn't doing much good cause that's what most people do and look at the world around us. PRAYER... aka... truly talking to God is VERY powerful.

[gotigrz]

[quote] Paul warns that the branch is just grafted on and can easily be torn off. He also warns that if the olive tree dies, so does the branch.[/quote]

i think this is directly related to the fact that most Christians believe that if Israel is brought down then that will be when Jesus will come back. but, i don't think we can rush such a thing... i believe that there is an "end time" and that "time" will happen when all prophecies have been fulfilled... God's time.

[quote]He affirns the ongoing covenant with God and the Jews. This is the basis for Pope John Paul's numerous official statements that Jews are in an enduring, irrevocable covenant with God and that they do not need to be converted because the Jewish religion is salvic for Jews.[/quote]

i so hope this is right. i don't want ANYONE to live an eternal life separated from God. not even osama bin laden. Matthew 20:16 says "the first will be last and the last will be first"... this is just my opinion, but i think that may imply that the Jews were first to know God, but may be the last to accept Him, Jesus. and, the gentiles were the last to know Him but the first to accept Him. just my opinion, not basis of fact.


[quote]
The only reason why Christians are not first required to become Jewish and follow all of the Jewish laws is because of the theology of Paul. There is a story in both the letters of Paul and in Acts about an encounter between Paul and Peter. It was an argument over Jewish dietary laws. James strongly reprimanded Peter (one of the many reasons why scholars think that it was actually James who was initially in charge) for dining with unclean Gentiles with Paul. Paul then describes major arguments he had with Peter and James over these issues. Many of Paul's letters are actually debates about the importance of "the law" (i.e. Jewish laws and identity) verses faith superceding the law.[/quote]

i really do think faith supersedes the law, here. i mean, even Jesus was looked down upon from many for eating with tax collectors. Jesus was tested many times and always put those in their place by showing them that there is ALWAYS a "right" thing to do no matter if it breaks "laws". the law says to keep the sabbath holy and not work, but Jesus said if your donkey is in a ditch and it requires you to work to get it out... you have to get it out. this is not an excuse to ignore "law" but that all laws are bendable. honestly, i don't honor the sabbath the way i should... my family usually goes out to eat after church... that is enabling the restaurant worker to work... if i don't go... they can't work. i know it would take more than just me for this to happen, but i know that my actions should not be based on what others do, but instead on what God would have me to do.

[quote]... James, who is referred to at least a half a dozen times in the new testament as "the brother of Jesus", and is referenced even more times as the "beloved desciple", actually knew Jesus and he seemed to think that good works is the important thing for being with God. Peul, who never met Jesus, thought faith alone was enough.
[/quote]

interesting... i, for one, don't think that faith w/o works is enough. honestly, i just don't think you can have TRUE faith w/o works. if you truly love your spouse... you will act like it. if you just say you love them to get what's beneficial to you... that relationship WILL fail. and, honestly this thread, alone, has made me realize that i need to do a lot of work on my relationship with God... for that, i thank anyone who has replied with honest reply's cause that can only help me. i just wish i could help someone, too.


[quote]
The famous statement in John 3:16 "I am the eway, the truth and the light, no one comes to the father except through me." [/quote]

i don't mean to be a stickler, cause you are obviously very well read on this subject, but John 3:16 is "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, and that whosoever believes in Him, shall not perish, but have everlasting life"...


[quote]Of course, I do understand that you believe that the 4 gospels are divinely inspired and literally true. I don't believe that.[/quote]

i know that the men that wrote the gospels were not God. they were not perfect... there are details in the gospels that, in my mind, don't contradict, but just differ... if i told you and another person that i had $100 and the two of you went and told people that i had $100, but one of you said i had 5 $20's and the other said i had 2 $50's... does that make the fact that i have $100 any less true. my point being is that there may be some differences in the gospels, but i believe that to be only because fallible men wrote them. but, i firmly believe that the main point of the gospels is to let others know that Jesus is the Christ, and that He did resurrect. details may vary, but the subject is still the same.

[quote]Many think that Matthew (only Matthew) added this to the story to try to provide evidence that it must have been a miracle because there were guards outside the tomb.[/quote]

well, i think it's a fact that either Jesus' body was stolen or was resurrected. if it was stolen, then it only makes sense that it would have been stolen by the ones who wanted to keep the resurrection story alive, and that would have been Jesus' followers. but, Jesus followers later said to have been willing to give up their life for Jesus after His death... now... would you be willing to give up your life for something that you KNOW not to be true? if Jesus' body was stolen then it wasn't by the ones wanting Jesus out of the picture. the romans stealing Jesus' body would only validate the story of the resurrection even if it were not really true.

[quote]There are many other factual discrepancies between the gospels. They can't all be literally true.[/quote]

like i said, the differences are details that don't change the validity of the stories. in a way, it kind of humanizes it. this tells me that each had their own interpretation of what happened and that each were not told... "this is what you are to say"... i think they all told a story just like any human today would tell a story. the main objective is the same with minor details differing, all the while, not changing the objective.

and, fishoutofwater,... i must say you are very smart in this subject. i applaud you for that. did you take religion?

This post has been edited by gotigrz: Mar 31 2010, 1:38 pm