wannabefree, as a believer to a believer I want to say to be careful of believing what you want to believe. You need to prove it to yourself and be open to what truth or untruth reveals. I don't mean for this to be a personal jab. Just a friendly reminder that if something is true, then there is nothing to hide. Get deeply into research and investigate why Paul said what he did and WHY. WAS he being overly rules oriented? Or was he speaking against a specific action that happened in a particular church?
Christ Alone
JoinedPosts by Christ Alone
-
51
Stronger Christian presence on JWN?
by Christ Alone ini've only been a member here for a short time, but it seems like there are more christians on the board lately.
for the first few months that i was on jwn, it appeared that there were very few that argued in favor of a creator and belief in the bible in particular.
there seems to be several more that have recently joined...or at least posted more regularly regarding belief.
-
-
-
58
Why did the Early Church Accept the Four NT Gospels and Reject the Gnostic Gospels?
by Christ Alone inthis has been a subject that has been explored by many secular scholars today.
bart ehrman is one of them.
the divinci code had this to say about why the gospels were chosen:.
-
-
Christ Alone
Thanks, Chariklo. I would expect those closest to the events of Jesus to quote the Gnostic Gospels as truth if they were in use and believed at that time. But the fact is, they didn't. Many of these writings were either not written at the time of their writing, or were specifically rejected because they were not the writings of the apostles.
But even after all the evidence that the early Church did not recognize anything written by the apostles or direct associates of the apostles, there are still those that, when you speak of the gospels, will ask "Which ones? There are several, you know."
-
46
I Still Can't Celebrate Xmas. Can You? Christians vs Atheists
by Malsonilla inwhile in the organization we learned one bit of truth regarding christmas; that it was originally a pagan observance, the summer solstice, adopted by christians much later in church history, and has nothing to do with jesus christ whatsoever.
no biggy for most true believers who left the organization who have slipped into (or fell back into) the grind of commercialized christmas with all the trappings and traditions of ritual binge spending that takes them even farther away from jesus than christmas' pagan roots ever could.
these true believers might say something like, "i know xmas has its roots in paganism, but we celebrate anyway because of x y z", perhaps echoing or paroting the frustrating responses we use to hear from "worldly" goats/folks when we would explain to them how christmas is not a christian observance whatsoever.
-
-
Christ Alone
As for Jesus, does he even get a mention these days?, maybe if you live in the American Bible belt but I would think here in the UK, hes probably
banned by now so as not to upset the Muslims, (or so we are told by a third party).
You must not know many Christians... All the Christians I know (adults) love Christmas as a time to turn their attention to Christ's birth. If Jesus is not the reason you are celebrating Christmas, then you might as well not celebrate. If you are celebrating merely for the giving and getting of gifts, then you might as well give it up and eliminate the stress.
Christmas should not be about anger, fighting, stress, etc. It should be about love and peace. It should be about our appreciation for Jesus giving up His place in heaven to become a man, be rejected by man, and die for those that rejected and abused Him.
The UK is becoming an increasingly atheist place. But it's not just the Bible belt that focus on Jesus. Christians everywhere use this time to focus on Jesus. Maybe they are unfortunately not vocal enough and the secular side of Christmas takes center stage. Maybe that should be a wake up call to Christians everywhere.
-
58
Why did the Early Church Accept the Four NT Gospels and Reject the Gnostic Gospels?
by Christ Alone inthis has been a subject that has been explored by many secular scholars today.
bart ehrman is one of them.
the divinci code had this to say about why the gospels were chosen:.
-
-
Christ Alone
This has been a subject that has been explored by many secular scholars today. Bart Ehrman is one of them. The Divinci Code had this to say about why the gospels were chosen:
"Because Constantine upgraded Jesus' status almost four centuries after Jesus' death, thousands of documents already existed chronicling His life as a mortal man. To rewrite the history books, Constantine knew he would need a bold stroke. Constantine commissioned and financed a new Bible, which omitted those gospels that spoke of Christ's human traits and embellished those gospels that made Him godlike. The earlier gospels were outlawed, gathered up, and burned."
This comment has largely been discredited, although some still hold to this view without doing the research. That the Council of Nicea in 325 reviewed 80 gospels and decided to adopt only the 4 is nonsense. The gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John had long since been adopted by the church as the only authoritative Gospels.
What was the view of the early church, including the church fathers, about the 4 gospels and the reason they are to be considered canonical, while the gnostic gospels were to be rejected?
The understanding of the early church was that Jesus had given only his apostles, the twelve and Paul, the authority to to proclaim Jesus' identity and mission to the world. They were eyewitnesses of His resurrection, they were given understanding by Jesus Himself regarding His claims and teachings, and Jesus appointed Paul to be the thirteenth apostle and made him an eyewitness to the fact that Jesus had been resurrected. The apostles were to test the truth of any and all who claimed to speak for Jesus.
The early church also believed that the apostles were the only ones that had the authority to speak and write for Jesus. Clement (c. 95) said: "The apostles have preached the gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ has done so from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ."
Ignatius (c. 105) also said that the Christians were to study and be established in the doctrines of the Lord and the apostles.
Polycarp (c. 117) said: "Let us therefore so serve God with fear and all reverence as He Himself gave commandment and the apostles who preached the gospel to us and the prophets who proclaimed beforehand the coming of our Lord."
Irenaueus (c. 180) said, "For the Lord of all gave to His apostles the power of the gospel through whom also we have known the truth, that is, the doctrine of the Son of God." He also said: "...the apostles, likewise being disciples of the truth, are above all falsehood."
Irenaeus also said of Polycarp: "Polycarp was instructed by apostles, and he spoke with many who had seen Christ."
Tertullian (c 197) said: "The apostles were ignorant of nothing and they preached nothing that contradicted one another."
The early church only accepted only what the apostles taught. The four NT Gospels were written in the first century, and then collected by the church as the only authoritative gospels from the apostles. They did not accept anything that was written after the apostles died. The earliest of the Gnostic Gospels was the Gospel of Thomas. This has been dated to 150 AD, far after the other gospels were already written and in use by the church.
Reading the Gnostic Gospels has been very interesting. Almost immediately one notices that they stand in contrast to the style, content, and teachings of the NT Gospels. They rarely have any reference to any date, time, or place.
All of the Gnostic Gospels have a set of common ideas or themes that run through them. That is why they are labeled "Gnostic" texts. They don't merely describe another Christianity. They read like they are an attempt to specifically subvert the core teachings of Christanity. While reading them it almost seemed purposeful to me. Not merely describing things differently, but attempting to argue against the NT gospels. This could be why Irenaeus wrote that he was writing against heresies because there were those who draw away many under a pretense of knowledge. Epiphanius spoke of "practicing Gnostics", which is how we received the name given to these writings.
These Gnostic texts are not "secret" like some would claim. The early church fathers knew about these texts 1500 yeas ago and were exposing them as false.
The early church rejected the Gnostics because they contradicted the teaching of the apostles.
Ignatius c. 105
How much more will this be the case with anyone who by wicked doctrine corrupts the faith of God, for which Jesus Christ was crucified! Such a one becomes defiled. He will go away into everlasting fire, and so will everyone that listens to him (Ephesians 16)…But if, as some that are without God, that is, the unbelieving, say, He became man in appearance [only], that He did not in reality take unto Him a body, that He died in appearance [merely], and did not in very deed suffer, then for what reason am I now in bonds, and long to be exposed to the wild beasts? In such a case, I die in vain, and am guilty of falsehood against the cross of the Lord. (Trallians 10)Irenaeus c.180
How the Valentinians pervert the Scriptures to support their own pious opinions…This, then, is their system, which neither the prophets announced, nor the Lord taught, nor the apostles delivered. However, they boast that they have a perfect knowledge, beyond all others. They gather their views from other sources than the Scriptures. (Against Heresies 1.8)The early church also stated that the four NT gospels refute the Gnostics.
Irenaeus c.180
The Ebionites, who use only Matthew’s Gospel, are refuted out of this very same work, making false suppositions with regard to the Lord. But Marcion, mutilating the Gospel according to Luke, is still proved to be a blasphemer of the only existing God, from those passages which he still retains. Those, again, who separate Jesus from Christ, alleging that Christ remained impassible, but that it was Jesus who suffered, prefer the Gospel by Mark. However, if they read it with a love of truth, they would have their errors rectified. Those persons, moreover, who follow Valentinus, make copious use of the Gospel according to John to illustrate their conjunctions. However, they, too, will be proved to be totally in error. (Against Heresies 3.7)There is no evidence that I can find that any of the early church fathers accepted anything BUT the 4 NT Gospels.
Ben Witherington, Professor of NT at Asbury Theological Seminary put it very good:
“Before we turn to these documents, it is important to state a crucial principle of historical study: It is always more likely that those sources that come from eyewitnesses or those who were in contact with eyewitnesses will provide us with the best data about an ancient person than documents that were composed several centuries later, as were the Gnostic Gospels. There would need to be clear and compelling evidence corroborated by several later sources for us to take the word of later documents that Jesus was married. There is no such evidence, even in the Gnostic Gospels.” (The Gospel Code, p.32)
“The essential question is, ‘What were the earliest documents (and what do they say)?’ The answer is the New Testament itself. We have no documents earlier than these, and as any good historian knows, the documents closest to the source of a movement are likely to be most revealing about its origins. The documents written by eyewitnesses or those in contact with eyewitnesses are our primary sources, and these documents happen to be in the New Testament, plus a few other likely first-century documents, such as the Didache and 1 Clement.” (The Gospel Code, p.118)
-
86
WHAT ARE YOUR MOST VIVID, ODD, or FUNNY Memories of Conventions and Assemblies of Jehovah's Witnesses?
by Balaamsass inshare with us memories of the bizarre, funny, strange, what you hated, what you miss...we all have them.
(question..why the big to do between terms- convention and assembly .
-
-
Christ Alone
I'm sure anyone at THIS convention would relate this story:
-
18
What would Jesus do?
by Christ Alone inlet's not get into an argument over if jesus was historical or not.. i'd just like to know how you think the jesus of the 4 gospels would act and do things in our modern world.
who would he talk to?
what sorts of miracles would he perform?
-
-
Christ Alone
I like one poster's idea (can't remember who it was) that Jesus would go to the conventions and assemblies of JWs and overturn the new credit card contribution machines!
-
51
Stronger Christian presence on JWN?
by Christ Alone ini've only been a member here for a short time, but it seems like there are more christians on the board lately.
for the first few months that i was on jwn, it appeared that there were very few that argued in favor of a creator and belief in the bible in particular.
there seems to be several more that have recently joined...or at least posted more regularly regarding belief.
-
-
Christ Alone
Will a stronger Christian presence result in more blessings from the Father being poured out upon the forum?
Why should that concern you? You don't believe in the Father or His blessings anyway, so it shouldn't matter. I'm just saying that I am enjoying the stronger Christian presence so that the group balances out. We can get a wider range of views than just the large number of non believer posts against just a couple believers. I'm not minimizing the non believer view in any way. I just think it's nice to have a variety of posters that can bring their perspectives to the table. When there are only 3 believers contributing to a thread against 20 non believers, it makes relating your own views and answers to questions a bit more difficult. The 3 can't comment on all the issues brought up by the non believers, so much of the non believer argument goes unanswered.
The same vice versa. If there were 20 believers to 3 non believers, the conversation would also be one sided and unbalanced.
-
18
What would Jesus do?
by Christ Alone inlet's not get into an argument over if jesus was historical or not.. i'd just like to know how you think the jesus of the 4 gospels would act and do things in our modern world.
who would he talk to?
what sorts of miracles would he perform?
-
-
Christ Alone
Here are a few images that I came across that I thought were interesting:
-
18
What would Jesus do?
by Christ Alone inlet's not get into an argument over if jesus was historical or not.. i'd just like to know how you think the jesus of the 4 gospels would act and do things in our modern world.
who would he talk to?
what sorts of miracles would he perform?
-
-
Christ Alone
Here is an interesting article that was published in Newsweek about Jesus and how He would've responded to today's culture. It's written from a Catholic perspective, and is very well done.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/04/01/andrew-sullivan-christianity-in-crisis.html
Andrew Sullivan makes some fantastic observations of both church and state in this article. I think everyone will enjoy reading it. Here's some excerpts that I thought were profound:
"Jesus’ doctrines were the practical commandments, the truly radical ideas that immediately leap out in the simple stories he told and which he exemplified in everything he did. Not simply love one another, but love your enemy and forgive those who harm you; give up all material wealth; love the ineffable Being behind all things, and know that this Being is actually your truest Father, in whose image you were made. Above all: give up power over others, because power, if it is to be effective, ultimately requires the threat of violence, and violence is incompatible with the total acceptance and love of all other human beings that is at the sacred heart of Jesus’ teaching. That’s why, in his final apolitical act, Jesus never defended his innocence at trial, never resisted his crucifixion, and even turned to those nailing his hands to the wood on the cross and forgave them, and loved them."
" Whether or not you believe, as I do, in Jesus’ divinity and resurrection—and in the importance of celebrating both on Easter Sunday—Jefferson’s point is crucially important. Because it was Jesus’ point. What does it matter how strictly you proclaim your belief in various doctrines if you do not live as these doctrines demand? What is politics if not a dangerous temptation toward controlling others rather than reforming oneself? If we return to what Jesus actually asked us to do and to be—rather than the unknowable intricacies of what we believe he was—he actually emerges more powerfully and more purely."
"Jefferson’s vision of a simpler, purer, apolitical Christianity couldn’t be further from the 21st-century American reality. We inhabit a polity now saturated with religion. On one side, the Republican base is made up of evangelical Protestants who believe that religion must consume and influence every aspect of public life. On the other side, the last Democratic primary had candidates profess their faith in public forums, and more recently President Obama appeared at the National Prayer Breakfast, invoking Jesus to defend his plan for universal health care. The crisis of Christianity is perhaps best captured in the new meaning of the word “secular.” It once meant belief in separating the spheres of faith and politics; it now means, for many, simply atheism. The ability to be faithful in a religious space and reasonable in a political one has atrophied before our eyes."
" All of which is to say something so obvious it is almost taboo: Christianity itself is in crisis. It seems no accident to me that so many Christians now embrace materialist self-help rather than ascetic self-denial—or that most Catholics, even regular churchgoers, have tuned out the hierarchy in embarrassment or disgust. Given this crisis, it is no surprise that the fastest-growing segment of belief among the young is atheism, which has leapt in popularity in the new millennium. Nor is it a shock that so many have turned away from organized Christianity and toward “spirituality,” co-opting or adapting the practices of meditation or yoga, or wandering as lapsed Catholics in an inquisitive spiritual desert. The thirst for God is still there. How could it not be, when the profoundest human questions— Why does the universe exist rather than nothing? How did humanity come to be on this remote blue speck of a planet? What happens to us after death? —remain as pressing and mysterious as they’ve always been?"
" Jefferson feared that the alternative to a Christianity founded on “internal persuasion” was a revival of the brutal, bloody wars of religion that America was founded to escape. And what he grasped in his sacrilegious mutilation of a sacred text was the core simplicity of Jesus’ message of renunciation. He believed that stripped of the doctrines of the Incarnation, Resurrection, and the various miracles, the message of Jesus was the deepest miracle. And that it was radically simple. It was explained in stories, parables, and metaphors—not theological doctrines of immense complexity. It was proven by his willingness to submit himself to an unjustified execution. The cross itself was not the point; nor was the intense physical suffering he endured. The point was how he conducted himself through it all—calm, loving, accepting, radically surrendering even the basic control of his own body and telling us that this was what it means to truly transcend our world and be with God. Jesus, like Francis, was a homeless person, as were his closest followers. He possessed nothing—and thereby everything."
" I have no concrete idea how Christianity will wrestle free of its current crisis, of its distractions and temptations, and above all its enmeshment with the things of this world. But I do know it won’t happen by even more furious denunciations of others, by focusing on politics rather than prayer, by concerning ourselves with the sex lives and heretical thoughts of others rather than with the constant struggle to liberate ourselves from what keeps us from God. What Jefferson saw in Jesus of Nazareth was utterly compatible with reason and with the future; what Saint Francis trusted in was the simple, terrifying love of God for Creation itself. That never ends.
This Christianity comes not from the head or the gut, but from the soul. It is as meek as it is quietly liberating. It does not seize the moment; it lets it be. It doesn’t seek worldly recognition, or success, and it flees from power and wealth. It is the religion of unachievement. And it is not afraid. In the anxious, crammed lives of our modern twittering souls, in the materialist obsessions we cling to for security in recession, in a world where sectarian extremism threatens to unleash mass destruction, this sheer Christianity, seeking truth without the expectation of resolution, simply living each day doing what we can to fulfill God’s will, is more vital than ever. It may, in fact, be the only spiritual transformation that can in the end transcend the nagging emptiness of our late-capitalist lives, or the cult of distracting contemporaneity, or the threat of apocalyptic war where Jesus once walked. You see attempts to find this everywhere—from experimental spirituality to resurgent fundamentalism. Something inside is telling us we need radical spiritual change.
But the essence of this change has been with us, and defining our own civilization, for two millennia. And one day soon, when politics and doctrine and pride recede, it will rise again."
-
51
Stronger Christian presence on JWN?
by Christ Alone ini've only been a member here for a short time, but it seems like there are more christians on the board lately.
for the first few months that i was on jwn, it appeared that there were very few that argued in favor of a creator and belief in the bible in particular.
there seems to be several more that have recently joined...or at least posted more regularly regarding belief.
-
-
Christ Alone
It would be interesting to have a exJW muslim on this board. That'd be an interesting change of pace too. I've heard of a few exJWs going the Muslim route. I know we have some New Agers here too, but I don't think I've ever seen a Buddhist post here...
