by designs 149 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
We all may have slight different views about certain things, but we ALL agree on this:
Christ is the Son of God, He is our Lord and Saviour, He was ressurected and lives on, He is the Word of God and He is the path to God, the source of everlasting life.
Modern Christians all agree on this. That wasn't always the case ;)
Modern Christians all agree on this. That wasn't always the case ;)
Actually, on those points, I think it was.
Some debated Christ's nature, but not that he was Son of God Or Lord or Saviour or the Word of God.
people that follow jesus telling other people that follow jesus they are utterly wrong.
Dear Psacto's disagreement withstanding (peace to you, dear Paul!)... I don't follow "Jesus" so this wouldn't really apply to me, dear EP (again, peace to you!. So...
Modern Christians all agree on this. That wasn't always the case ;)
The term "modern" Christians assumes not-so-modern Christians, does it not? How can one BE a christian, modern or otherwise, and NOT agree that Christ (the leader of Christians) was the Son of God and our Lord and Saviour, was resurrected, is the path to God... and the Source of everlasting life? That is the foundation of the belief of a christian (although it is the anointing... with holy spirit... which anointing they receive from that One, who is the Holy Spirit... that MAKES them a "christian").
You ARE correct, though, as to the discrepancy about Christ being the Word of God. It is those who modernly CALL themselves "christians" (which means little) who have replaced him as that Word... with the Bible. Those before (say, pre-Nicene Council) didn't have a Bible (save the Septuagint, which was tampered with and didn't include the NT writings) to so replace him WITH. True, they had the scriptures (Moses, the Psalms, and the Prophets), but they didn't consider those the Word of God. They considered them "the Writings"... of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalmists... which spoke about and/or bore WITNESS to that Word, Christ.
Just as he, Christ, who IS the Word of God (and the One who GAVE Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalmists the things THEY wrote) considered them.
Just keepin' it real for you, EP. Now go on and wipe that [new] smirk off yer face - LOLOLOL!
Peace to you both!
A slave of Christ,
SA
Some debated Christ's nature, but not that he was Son of God Or Lord or Saviour or the Word of God.
That is exactly what they debated. Some thought he was just a man, some thought he WAS god, some thought he was a man and the spirit of God entered into him at baptism and left when he was executed (hence his crying "why have you forsaken me), some thought he was a NEW god distinct and separate from the god of the OT, some thought he was a human adopted by God.
That is exactly what they debated.
Many who CALLED themselves "christians" (but weren't) may have debated this issue, dear one, but not Christians (at least, not as you suggest). By means of their anointing (which made them "christians"), they knew exactly what his nature was... because they received that nature into themselves. True, they put it out there... and those who believed, believed. And those who didn't, didn't. They may have discussed it with those who asked... or to whom Christ, the Spirit, led them... but they wouldn't have debated it. At least, not in the manner you suggest.
Following Christ and/or his teachings does not make one a christian, dear one. It makes one a "disciple." And Christians are disciples of Christ, true. But disciples (even of Christ) are not necessarily christians. Indeed, some who were disciples never became christians.
Contrary to popular belief... and [very] false teachings... the two are NOT synonymous.
Again, peace to you!
A slave of Christ,
SA
I don't follow "Jesus" so this wouldn't really apply to me, dear EP (again, peace to you!
Is your lord not the Son of God? The Jesus in of the Bible? By whatever name you choose, if you don't get down with the Jesus, the Christ, you aren't a Christian.
The term "modern" Christians assumes not-so-modern Christians, does it not? How can one BE a christian, modern or otherwise, and NOT agree that Christ (the leader of Christians) was the Son of God and our Lord and Saviour, was resurrected, is the path to God... and the Source of everlasting life?
Because all of the writings about Jesus were written down from hundreds or oral traditions circulating around after his death. Jesus meant many things to many groups, some of which weren't compatible at ALL with the other views. Writings were changed, created or forged to support one view over another and, over time, the view that jesus was the literal son of God born of a virgin, the sacrificial death, etc., the tenets of modern christianity, won out over the others and became orthodoxy.
You are taking what has been the view for 1500 years and presupposing that is the RIGHT view because it won. It didn't win out until almost 300 years after jesus was killed. Prior to that, there were as many views, ideas about and versions of jesus as there were days of the year.
Many who CALLED themselves "christians" (but weren't) may have debated this issue, dear one, but not Christians (at least, not as you suggest).
Shel, you are saying other people that believed in Christ weren't Christians weren't REALLY chrisitians because they didn't beleive the same way, which is EXACTLY what was happening 1800 years ago. It's called the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.
I know it's comforting to think that, after all this time, you have the "true" christ, but the fact, after all this time, nothing has changed, there are still 20 different versions and different groups all claiming to be christian telling other people that they aren't because they think differently just goes directly to the fact that, nothing has changed.
By means of their anointing (which made them "christians"), they knew exactly what his nature was... because they received that nature into themselves.
Again, that's the version of Jesus that "won". There were hundreds of other versions, some which directly opposed this view.
There are four Gospels (which do not agree on the same accounts) that were chosen to tell us the story of Jesus. Since there is not a single consensus book I must conclude that we were not meant to know his exact words and therefore are forced to paint a pitcure within our minds using all four "incorrect" stories. We are being forced to extract an unspoken message instead of hanging on mere words.
Even as merely a man that died for his idealism his story is a story worth being retold.
-Sab
There are four Gospels (which do not agree on the same accounts) that were chosen to tell us the story of Jesus.
They were chosen, written, changed, modified and picked to support a particular view.
I must conclude that we were not meant to know his exact words
Meant by why?
Is your lord not the Son of God?
Indeed, he is, dear EP (again, peace to you!)!
The Jesus in of the Bible?
Nope. He is JaheShua…or Joshua, if you prefer… about whom some words and information is included in the Bible. As well as in other writings. All of those are very limited, however, as to the full person he is.
By whatever name you choose
I didn't choose his name, dear one. It was the name he told me was his and that he preferred. What am I supposed to say, "Well, everyone else calls you 'Jesus', so I will, too, and you'll just have to deal with that"? Ummmm, I have just a little bit too much respect (and love) for him to do that. I call him what he directed me to call him. Anyone with a problem really ought to take it up with him, not me.
if you don't get down with the Jesus, the Christ, you aren't a Christian.
Well, that’s one man’s opinion. Many men, in fact. Doesn't make it right, though...
Because all of the writings about Jesus were written down from hundreds or oral traditions circulating around after his death.
Agreed. But that is not how one gets to know him. That is how one who DOESN ’T know him comes to know OF him. Not the same thing, though...
Jesus meant many things to many groups, some of which weren't compatible at ALL with the other views.
Agreed. "Jesus" still does...
Writings were changed, created or forged to support one view over another and, over time, the view that jesus was the literal son of God born of a virgin, the sacrificial death, etc., the tenets of modern christianity, won out over the others and became orthodoxy.
I’m not so sure that that’s exactly how things occurred, dear one, but even if it did my understanding of the truth of these things… or rather, the corroboration for my understanding of the truth of these things... came directly from him. Who am I to argue? ("Oh, no, Lord, you're wrong because others' stories say such and so about you, and of course, THEY know better than you about you, so...")
You are taking what has been the view for 1500 years and presupposing that is the RIGHT view because it won.
No, seriously, I’m not. I am supposing it’s right because he said it was... within the past 15 years (for me, anyway). That's pretty recent, IMHO.
It didn't win out until almost 300 years after jesus was killed. Prior to that, there were as many views, ideas about and versions of jesus as there were days of the year.
Even before he was born, actually, and he addressed that, too. When he was here in the flesh... and when I asked him. Seriously, dear EP, do you really think I would NOT ask him whether such and so was true or not?? Or which of the various “stories” were accurate? I was concerned with knowing him… and knowing truth. That they turned out to be the same thing didn’t preclude me from asking as to various facts ABOUT him.
Shel, you are saying other people that believed in Christ weren't Christians weren't REALLY chrisitians because they didn't beleive the same way,
No, that’s not what I said, at all. I said that believing in Christ didn’t make them christians (it doesn’t – the demons believe in Christ; are they christians??). To be a christian, one must be anointed by holy spirit. THAT is what MAKES one a christian… a “christ” (anointed/chosen) "person" (ian). (C'mon, man, at least read what's IN the writings on the matter, if you can't hear for yourself or trust that I'm not lying to you!). That's why my Lord is recorded to have said that there would be FALSE christs. What did you think the term meant? False... is the OPPOSITE... of TRUE, is it not? If there are false christs, then, there must be true ones...
which is EXACTLY what was happening 1800 years ago. It's called the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.
Ummmm... I don’t think it’s quite the same thing, truly.
I know it's comforting to think that, after all this time, you have the "true" christ, but the fact, after all this time, nothing has changed, there are still 20 different versions and different groups all claiming to be christian telling other people that they aren't because they think differently just goes directly to the fact that, nothing has changed.
Oh, you DO, do you ("know it's comforting")? (SA accepts EP's little "pat" on the head - LOLOLOL!) Well, my Lord said that it would occur that way, did he not? So it should be no huge surprise. As Paul (?) wrote, the entire creation is awaiting the REVEALING of the sons of God. If we were revealed NOW , there would be no divisions. As it stands, however, the Christ does indeed “exist divided”, but not by his Body. They are in union with him, by MEANS of the anointing… and a house divided against ITSELF cannot stand. His house, then, is NOT divided. The division exists among those who, as I quoted him saying before, “say they are Jews, but are not.” A Jew is one descended from the tribe of Judah/Benjamin. Just because one SAYS one is Jew does not MAKE one a Jew. Just because one claims to be Israel does not make one OF Israel . Just because one claims to be a christian… does not make one a christian. When it states that one is not a Jew who is one on the OUTSIDE… it means that one is not a Jew simply because one wears blue fringe, studies the Torah, or worships at the temple/synagogue. One is a Jew… because of the BLOOD that is in him… or his joining to the GOD of the Jews, by means of acceptance and adherence to the LAW of the Jews… which is manifested by CIRCUMCISION.
Same thing with christians. One is a christian because of the BLOOD that is in one: the blood of God, holy spirit, which they receive from Christ, who "begets" them by means of such "blood"... through which they become adopted as sons (because most are of the nations). Which adoption PLACES such one under the “New” law… which is manifested by (1) the gifts of that spirit, and (2) being taught by MEANS of that spirit (you know, as a father teaches his son?).
He is not a Jew, then, or Israelite… or christian… who is one on the OUTSIDE (which is WHY there are so many divisions)… but one on the INSIDE.
Again, that's the version of Jesus that "won". There were hundreds of other versions, some which directly opposed this view.
Agreed, but while there are, as you say, hundreds [of versions], there really is only one truth. Because there is only one Truth. Sure, we all say we have it (well, some of us say, rightfully, that we have HIM... and he us), but that it will have to be seen which of us is right is what it is: a bit of a waiting game.
No problem here, though, as I can wait. I am no longer living my life in anticipation of an unknown date and time... or in anticipation of some "event." Nor do I spend it “searching” the scriptures and trying to decipher just who and what they’re talking about. Because I now know... and because my "reward" is simply the great joy and pleasure that comes from knowing such remarkable persons. And I share what I know because (1) my Lord directs me to, whether others hear or refrain, (2) I love him, and (3) it is what I would want someone to do for me… even if I choose to refrain. At least they bothered… and gave me [another] choice than the “orthodoxy." Which hasn't exactly exhibited a pristeen track record.
I hope that clears things up, dear EP.
As always, peace to you!
A slave of Christ,
SA
