While that is, indeed, the common belief, several of those beliefs are mistaken. For example; man is not perfect physically, mentally or spiritually.
Today sulfites are used to clarify wine. Ancient wine was murky. And we use high speed high grade yeasts. They had to rely on the natural yeasts on the skin of the fruit. About the only difference. Wine is wine.
So what makes alcohol an uncrossable line? The Bible has mostly bad things to say about drunkenness, it seems to me wine without alcohol wouldn't be objectionable to Bible people. I seem to recall some verse or other saying it doesn't matter what you eat or drink.
Mormonism is very tricky. They use the same words as Christianity but have very different meanings. I had a friend do a "comparison glossary" on the subject.Words like "grace, God, Holy Spirit, salvation " and many more. It is futile to discuss with them. I have other friends that have come out of Mormonism that give very good insight to the deception.
It was an irrelevancy that you brought up outside of any actual argument. There's no way to interpret that other than as being ad hom. I'm just pointing out that yours is only one of several "precise" definitions of a religion based on the Bible. I'm not debating - I'm just pointing out that specific fact. I'd rather have us all recognize that there are a number of religions and that we are founded on religious plurality.
1) Correct that the beliefs of early Christians did not coincide with the current Trinity Doctrine - a doctrine thrust upon Christianity by Emperor Constantine for political purposes. What is absurd is your denial that the debate over the divinity of Christ did not exist given this was the whole point of the various councils previous mentioned. 2) In the early Church Baptism was done in the name of Jesus .. not "Father, Son, Holy Ghost" 3) The idea that Jesus was the Logos (emissary between man and God as stated in the first paragraph of John) does not undermine the Position of Jesus as mediator. The information given in this website : https://www.ucg.org/studienhilfen/b...he-surprising-origins-of-the-trinity-doctrine is well referenced and correct. What is bogus is your ad hom fallacy - claiming the website is bogus but not citing one thing I have posted from that site that is incorrect. The fact of the matter is that you can not handle the history of the Church and the fact that the Trinity - as we know it now- was decided by trial and error.
Or perhaps the clergy intended to keep the laity in the dark about some things so as to preserve the codependent relationship.
I made wine in my youth, I only used grapes, nothing else. It worked. Once, a freind had a dusty case of natural grape juice that he wanted to get rid of, I drank one and it had turned into wine just sitting there.
"This is a Christian Nation. More than half a century ago that declaration was written into the decrees of the highest court in this land," President Harry Truman "Of the many influences that have shaped the United States of America into a distinctive Nation and people, none may be said to be more fundamental and enduring than the Bible"- President Ronald Reagan " We are a Christian people... not because the law demands it, not to give exclusive benefits, or to avoidlegal disabilities, but from choice and education; and in a landthus universally Christian, what is to be expected, what desired, but that we shall pay due regard to Christianity."- Senate Judiciaryy Report, Jan 19, 1853 "The Bible is the best of all books, for it is the word of God and teaches us the way to be happy in thi world and the next.Continue therefore to read it and to regulate your life by it's precepts. Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege of our Christian nation, to select and prefer Christians for their rulers. - John Jay Co- author of the Federalist Papers. First Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Just a few examples that many would disagree with you.
The majority of Americans self identify as being part of one of the branches of Christianity. I've never disputed that. However, the progress in government that made us unique didn't come from the Bible. It came from years of secular advancement of government. For example, you can't find anything about the rights of individuals in the Bible - the Bible is about our duty, not our rights. So you found some politicians who said the bible is good! And, Truman's quote was in correspondence with the Pope. I would suggest care before assuming you know where is argument was heading. Was he defending his nuclear holocaust? Considering the Korean war? Selling the Pope on the United Nations? Or, was he just polishing up America for the Pope?
It's closer to the truth to say the laity is too arrogant and superstitious to accept some of the things they could be told if they'd listen.
Good point ! Your comment made me remember this; Luke 24:13-35 King James Version (KJV) 13 And, behold, two of them went that same day to a village called Emmaus, which was from Jerusalem about threescore furlongs. 14 And they talked together of all these things which had happened. 15 And it came to pass, that, while they communed together and reasoned, Jesus himself drew near, and went with them. 16 But their eyes were holden that they should not know him. 17 And he said unto them, What manner of communications are these that ye have one to another, as ye walk, and are sad? 18 And the one of them, whose name was Cleopas, answering said unto him, Art thou only a stranger in Jerusalem, and hast not known the things which are come to pass there in these days? 19 And he said unto them, What things? And they said unto him, Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, which was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people: 20 And how the chief priests and our rulers delivered him to be condemned to death, and have crucified him. 21 But we trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel: and beside all this, to day is the third day since these things were done. 22 Yea, and certain women also of our company made us astonished, which were early at the sepulchre; 23 And when they found not his body, they came, saying, that they had also seen a vision of angels, which said that he was alive. 24 And certain of them which were with us went to the sepulchre, and found it even so as the women had said: but him they saw not. 25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: 26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? 27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. 28 And they drew nigh unto the village, whither they went: and he made as though he would have gone further. 29 But they constrained him, saying, Abide with us: for it is toward evening, and the day is far spent. And he went in to tarry with them. 30 And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them. 31 And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight. 32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures? 33 And they rose up the same hour, and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them, 34 Saying, The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon. 35 And they told what things were done in the way, and how he was known of them in breaking of bread.
You don't know what you are talking about. If you did you'd know for yourself that the UCG website is bogus and I wouldn't have to tell you that. I didn't say that the debate over the divinity of Christ did not exist. I said your claim that most of Christianity didn't believe it was bogus. That's a straw man fallacy you made there, by the way. In the early Church baptism was done in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Matthew 28:19 "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" "And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Matthew 28:19 in living water. But if you have not living water, baptize into other water; and if you can not in cold, in warm. But if you have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whatever others can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before." Didache Chapter 7.
They asked Jesus if he was the only one who didn't know what had happened and he was the only one who DID know what happened.
I read the article you posted and I couldn't help but notice that most of your talking points are right out of the UCG's playbook. You should have read the Bible, then you would know that in the first century baptism was done in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. You would also have seen hints at Trinitarian theology. I've also been reading up on the UCG - founded in 1995, they are even newer than the JW's. You should have just thrown in with them. I recommended a book for you and can recommend more if you like but I see that you are a true believer. Some free advice: you will never learn anything new reading people who only reinforce your prejudices.
The dispute over the deity of Christ is perhaps the oldest heresy out there. It was the specific target of many of the early church fathers, apologists, and creeds. I have quoted the Nicene Creed, some of irenaeus' works in 'Against Heresies', and others. It has NEVER been an accepted 'variable' within Christian orthodoxy. It is a departure from the True Faith, and all the evidence from 2000 years of history confirms that view. Only a deceiver, or deluded fool, with an agenda of deception and revisionism would attempt to promote this HERESY as Christian orthodoxy. It is clearly spelled out in the biblical manuscripts, the early teachings of apologists, and just about every creed or statement of faith that has been made in orthodox Christian circles. Christ's deity is the crux of Christianity. It is The Central Point.. of orthodox Christian beliefs. All this 'debate' has done is illustrate the problem of deception, false teaching, and lies, that have been a CONSTANT in the history of Christianity. That problem was a continuous warning in the early manuscripts, and from all teachers of sound doctrine since the time of Christ. 2Tim4:3For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 4They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. 1Tim4:1 The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. Col2:2 My goal is that they may be encouraged in heart and united in love, so that they may have the full riches of complete understanding, in order that they may know the mystery of God, namely, Christ, 3in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. 4I tell you this so that no one may deceive you by fine-sounding arguments... 8See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces of this world rather than on Christ. 9For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, 10and in Christ you have been brought to fullness. He is the head over every power and authority.
Hiya Max.. long time no see. That is the result of the Fall. Originally , man was created perfect.. without flaw or sin. The fall brought death and corruption.. that is the biblical perspective.
Agreed that is the Biblical perspective, but much of Genesis is more parable and legend than fact. The time between Adam and Moses is over 2500 years. Ergo, that's a lot of campfire stories being passed around until Moses wrote them all down.
I did not start this as a comparative religions thread, but as a definition of historical, biblical, orthodox Christianity. There are many beliefs, opinions, and faiths, about the Mysteries of the universe. But there is only ONE precise, exact definition of Christianity. All the rest are 'not Christianity', regardless of the label.
Again I will respectively disagree with you. The Bible is all about individual liberty as well as responsibility. "Standfast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ has set us free, and be not entangled again in the youke of bondage." We have seen the types of individual liberty other godless regimmes have won for it's people. Alex De Tocqueville was a historian andpolitical journalist that observed America in the early 1800's. You should read some of his writings. Here is an example: "The greatest part of....America was people who...brought with them into the New World a form of Christianity which I cannot better describe than by styling it a democratic and republican religion. This sect contributedpowerfully to the establishment of of democracy and a republic, and from the earliest settlement of the emigrants politics and religion contracted an alliance which has never been dissolved. There is no country in the whole world in which Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America and there can be no greater proof of its utility, and of the conformity to human nature, than that its influence is most powerfully felt over the most enlightened and free nation of the earth." The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty so intimately in their minds that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other." You must bear in mind that Americans stood in that liberty having broken away from "State sponsored religion" which denied such liberties in order to control.
If you are referring to a belief in Christ's existence, then agreed. Anything more is a bit more complex. The history of Christianity includes all sorts of varying beliefs. The books of the Bible weren't canonized until centuries later. Much of modern Christianity is based upon the writings of people who came after Jesus. Specifically Paul and whoever wrote Revelations. IMO, much of what Paul wrote was in conflict with what is quoted about Jesus in the Gospels.
I don't see a scriptural basis for 'clergy/laity' distinctions. There are gifts, within the ecclesia, but you don't choose them, as a profession. They choose you. So my view on this is simpler: There is Truth. There are lies. Seekers of Truth NEED the guidance and enabling of the Spirit. Unspiritually minded people are prone to believe lies. Credentials are not much help in this quest. Historical facts will support the Truth, if anyone is looking for it. But if itching ears want to be entertained, lies will drown out the Truth.
Outstanding post. There is NO DOUBT as to the influence of the bible and Christianity in the American experiment. It is revisionism to paint the American founders as irreligious skeptics. They were NOT attempting a theocracy, with any religious belief as a basis, but a secular state.. along the lines of the reformer's writings from centuries earlier. True Christianity is not a political movement in the world, like many other religious worldviews, such as Islam and Marxism. It is a declaration of loyalty to a Spiritual government.. a reigning King, who lives among (and within) the people who have been 'called out', of this world. That was the point in the OP: Citizenship The redeemed souls are now God's people. They have been likened to the children of God, His beloved bride, and a home for His dwelling. They are no longer of this fallen world, even though they still live in it. Their primary loyalties are to God and His government, not to any earthly institution of man.
1. I dispute the 'varying beliefs' charge. There have been many deceptions.. departures from Christian orthodoxy, but the central doctrines of Christianity are unchanged, as given by the Founder. 2. The nt manuscripts were in use since they were written. They were not canonized until later, but that was to have a credible, historical guide for Christian orthodoxy. The individual manuscripts were already functioning in that capacity. The canonization process merely recognized that reality, and provided historical scholarship for their validity. 3. 'Modern' biblical Christianity is unchanged. The existence of lies does not negate the truth. The historical line of orthodoxy is complete and unbroken, throughout history. 4. There is no conflict. Paul's writings did not conflict with the other canonized manuscripts. That is a false narrative, promoted by enemies of Christianity , not historical scholarship.
