Aren't Catholics Christians, too?

[thesmee1]

I knew a baptist who referred to catholics as 'papists,' and not true christians. So to ask the question again, or better yet, rephrase it, are catholics, anglicans, and othodox christians, christians?

[taltos]

Yes, but not in the minds of some of the fundamentalist sects that are offshoots of the Baptists.

[BruschiOnTap]

It cracks me up when 'protestants' moan about Catholicism. Everything they believe sprang from Catholicism at some point. If protestantism really wanted to be legit, it would reject all endorsed Catholic teachings/ideas (including saints, church history, biblical translations, creeds, holidays, etc.) pending scholarly review of pre-church Christianity. Instead Methodists still recite the Nicene Creed and the Apostles' Creed and most denominations still do the rite of communion at least once a month and believe Easter falls on the Catholic-appointed day of the year...

Luther and his followers didn't go far enough, IMO. Puritanism was the only protestant movement I have much respect for but I think that's collectively the most terrible set of ideas to force on people.

[thesmee1]

It cracks me up when 'protestants' moan about Catholicism. Everything they believe sprang from Catholicism at some point. If protestantism really wanted to be legit, it would reject all endorsed Catholic teachings/ideas (including saints, church history, biblical translations, creeds, holidays, etc.) pending scholarly review of pre-church Christianity. Instead Methodists still recite the Nicene Creed and the Apostles' Creed and most denominations still do the rite of communion at least once a month and believe Easter falls on the Catholic-appointed day of the year...

Luther and his followers didn't go far enough, IMO. Puritanism was the only protestant movement I have much respect for but I think that's collectively the most terrible set of ideas to force on people.

That's what I mean. I can read the Bible, and get one interpretation. My neighbor can read it, and get something totally different out of it. If you want to live by it, that's cool, but 3 to be 4 seems to think if you're not 'born again' and live by the Bible word for word, you can face eternity treading lava.

Luther definitely was a revolutionary, but in what way didn't he go far enough? I thought ex-communication was pushing the envelope a bit, for those times.

[3 to be 4]

well, as for me, I totally reject that prejudice against Catholics. I found that a lot in the south, especially amongst Southern Baptists.
If a Catholic believes that Jesus died for their sins, is the Son of God, raised 3 days later, everything else is denominational difference.
So just to make it clear, its not across the board that Fundementalists or Evangelicals or whatever you want to label them, us, whatever, have this negative view toward Catholicism.
I certainly dont, and anyone who makes such an assumption about Christians are very mistaken

[thesmee1]

I understand where you're coming from,3 to be 4. It's just that some folks from the interdenominational church seem to get over zealous. I have a question, though. How do you feel about evangelizing overseas? A few years back, 2 women were taken hostage over in Afghanistan because of evangelizing. My opinion of that is that they never should've been there in the first place.

[fleabassist1]

Catholic's where the first Christians, wern't they?

[3 to be 4]

I understand where you're coming from,3 to be 4. It's just that some folks from the interdenominational church seem to get over zealous. I have a question, though. How do you feel about evangelizing overseas? A few years back, 2 women were taken hostage over in Afghanistan because of evangelizing. My opinion of that is that they never should've been there in the first place.

well, its certainly not always safe, but that is the passion many people have and its what the Lord leads them to do, so i admire them very much.

Now if you mean, by them being over there, and getting captured, so that our soldiers then have to risk themselves to try saving them that is a very valid point. Its almost a political question at that point. If they asked by the military to not do that in war situation for the safety of all concerned then they probably should heed that warning.

[thesmee1]

Catholic's where the first Christians, wern't they?

I want to say that the Coptic Christians were the first. I'm probably wrong, though. I believe they have a sect over in Egypt. I find this fascinating though, that the majority of the fundamentalists, ( not all, ) believe that their way is the only way, and that all others are doomed. I have a friend who's a fundamentalist. I'm Catholic, and she invited me to visit her church, which I did. It was an evening service, and a kid about 12 was going to be baptized. The pastor asked him why he wanted to be baptized, and he replied, ' I saw the movie " Left Behind " and I don't want to be left behind.'

I sat there in utter shock that his parents would let him watch that movie at his age, and that this child was so scared from retribution from God that he felt compelled to do this. Myself, I think God made all these different religions to make the world interesting. Of course their are ultra- right wingers in all things that we do, including religion.

[thesmee1]

well, its certainly not always safe, but that is the passion many people have and its what the Lord leads them to do, so i admire them very much.

Now if you mean, by them being over there, and getting captured, so that our soldiers then have to risk themselves to try saving them that is a very valid point. Its almost a political question at that point. If they asked by the military to not do that in war situation for the safety of all concerned then they probably should heed that warning.


Some times passion over rules common sense. Like right wing evangelicals, right wing Islamists are very passionate and take their version of the Bible literally. How do you convert them?

I'd also like to hear your views on Buddhism (sp?).

[3 to be 4]

I want to say that the Coptic Christians were the first. I'm probably wrong, though. I believe they have a sect over in Egypt. I find this fascinating though, that the majority of the fundamentalists, ( not all, ) believe that their way is the only way, and that all others are doomed. I have a friend who's a fundamentalist. I'm Catholic, and she invited me to visit her church, which I did. It was an evening service, and a kid about 12 was going to be baptized. The pastor asked him why he wanted to be baptized, and he replied, ' I saw the movie " Left Behind " and I don't want to be left behind.'

I sat there in utter shock that his parents would let him watch that movie at his age, and that this child was so scared from retribution from God that he felt compelled to do this. Myself, I think God made all these different religions to make the world interesting. Of course their are ultra- right wingers in all things that we do, including religion.

careful with labeling and generalizing. Many people who believe in the Word of the Bible and of Heaven and Hell are liberals. 40% of self-proclaimed Christians are Democrats. 80% of Black Christians are Democrats. Have you ever gone to a blow the roof off Gospel singing Black Church? Those people are hardly "right-wingers" and believe me, you are going to hear the Pastor talking very clearly about Heaven and Hell.

I am also not impressed by isolated examples of "I saw this" or "I saw that".

this society is totally permeated with far more outrageous behavior by secular parents who allow their children to be exposed to violence,sex, and downright evil messages that are now accepted as "normal".

I went to a "community theatre" production to see my teenage neice and had the privilage of watching kids ages 12 through 18 perform a play about kids stabbing each other, drowning each other, hanging small children, and mixing it in jokes about "oooh careful, we dont want offend any Christians out there"
this was before I became a Christian and I knew it was Satanic!
and the most shocking part? everyone in the audience accept me and my elderly mother thought it was all wonderful and hysterical.

so you want stories of evil you've witnessed, read your headlines everyday.

and it goes much farther than parents sitting around watching South Park with their 10 year old kids. People are out to lunch. And the kids today have no chance without the goodness of God in them. maybe if you are 22 or 28 you cant see it because you grew up with it and think its normal.

But give me that kid 12 year old who loves the Lord and 100 like him over 100 kids raised by the standards of this society where evil is funny, life is discarded without thought, and decency and humanity a joke.

[thesmee1]

careful with labeling and generalizing. Many people who believe in the Word of the Bible and of Heaven and Hell are liberals. 40% of self-proclaimed Christians are Democrats. 80% of Black Christians are Democrats. Have you ever gone to a blow the roof off Gospel singing Black Church? Those people are hardly "right-wingers" and believe me, you are going to hear the Pastor talking very clearly about Heaven and Hell.

I am also not impressed by isolated examples of "I saw this" or "I saw that".

this society is totally permeated with far more outrageous behavior by secular parents who allow their children to be exposed to violence,sex, and downright evil messages that are now accepted as "normal".

I went to a "community theatre" production to see my teenage neice and had the privilage of watching kids ages 12 through 18 perform a play about kids stabbing each other, drowning each other, hanging small children, and mixing it in jokes about "oooh careful, we dont want offend any Christians out there"
this was before I became a Christian and I knew it was Satanic!
and the most shocking part? everyone in the audience accept me and my elderly mother thought it was all wonderful and hysterical.

so you want stories of evil you've witnessed, read your headlines everyday.

and it goes much farther than parents sitting around watching South Park with their 10 year old kids. People are out to lunch. And the kids today have no chance without the goodness of God in them. maybe if you are 22 or 28 you cant see it because you grew up with it and think its normal.

But give me that kid 12 year old who loves the Lord and 100 like him over 100 kids raised by the standards of this society where evil is funny, life is discarded without thought, and decency and humanity a joke.


I didn't mean to offend and generalize 3. If I came across as such, I do apologize. I'd like to know how you, yourself, would change things in a more positive way.

Also, you never answered my question in regards to Buddhism. How do you and most evangelicals feel about it?

[thesmee1]

You can't answer my question, can you? You know there's an agenda by the fundamentalists against Buddhists. Evangelicals are intolerant towards the most pacifist,quiet religion. Why? I don't understand it, and need some clarification.

[fleabassist1]

I want to say that the Coptic Christians were the first. I'm probably wrong, though. I believe they have a sect over in Egypt. I find this fascinating though, that the majority of the fundamentalists, ( not all, ) believe that their way is the only way, and that all others are doomed. I have a friend who's a fundamentalist. I'm Catholic, and she invited me to visit her church, which I did. It was an evening service, and a kid about 12 was going to be baptized. The pastor asked him why he wanted to be baptized, and he replied, ' I saw the movie " Left Behind " and I don't want to be left behind.'

I sat there in utter shock that his parents would let him watch that movie at his age, and that this child was so scared from retribution from God that he felt compelled to do this. Myself, I think God made all these different religions to make the world interesting. Of course their are ultra- right wingers in all things that we do, including religion.


That is the "Forceful" Christian nature I was talking about on the other thread. It may not be them all, but it definitly is present. I know that as a kid I was forced to believe, because if I didn't I would be doomed to hell.

[3 to be 4]

You can't answer my question, can you? You know there's an agenda by the fundamentalists against Buddhists. Evangelicals are intolerant towards the most pacifist,quiet religion. Why? I don't understand it, and need some clarification.

wasnt avoiding you. I had to go to work.

i have no agenda against anybody. I talk about Jesus Christ. I dont spend time railing against other religions.

explain the "Evangelicals are intolerant towards the most pacifist, quiet religion" who? when?

i wasnt "offended" necessarily by your other post, just pointing out that you have to careful about making sweeping generalizations about all Evangelicals.

for instance, i have no use for the Pat Robertsons and the loud mouth political tv preachers. they dont speak for me. thats just an example.

I believe in the Word of God, that Jesus Christ died for our sins, is the Son of God, rose again 3 days later. He lives through the Holy Spirit, and he will return to claim his people.

You believe that and you spend eternity with him. You dont and you dont.

But "intolerant" of other religions? not in any actions by me.

[wistahpatsfan]

wasnt avoiding you. I had to go to work.

i have no agenda against anybody. I talk about Jesus Christ. I dont spend time railing against other religions.

32B4's right.
I've never heard him criticize any other religion. He's only saying what he believes. All religions by their nature demand that any adherent to that religion believe that their religion is the only possible truth. How else can it be a serious religion?

[3 to be 4]

32B4's right.
I've never heard him criticize any other religion. He's only saying what he believes. All religions by their nature demand that any adherent to that religion believe that their religion is the only possible truth. How else can it be a serious religion?

that is what im saying. Im talking of the good news of Jesus Christ.
Belief is a conviction. If others feels its an attack maybe their hearts are in conflict.
But that is for them to deal with.
In one thread I offered scriptural reasons for other Jews to consider that Jesus was the Messiah talked of. Jewish people could disagree if they wanted. But I wasnt attacking them.
If a Catholic believes in Jesus Christ they are just as Saved as the next Christian. People of other faiths, whatever it is, I respect you. But I am comissioned by my faith to spread the word of God. I do so without disrespect or hostility or insult.

But because of my faith I cannot keep silent and let souls slip away. Life is too short and ive lost people in my own family this year, including my mother, and regret not talking of the Lord to her more. As nobody can know what is in anothers heart between they and God, I pray she in her last moments reached out to Him. Thats all I can do.

The enemy of God would like Christians such as myself to simply blend in, not offend, be lukewarm, water down the Gospel as to not hurt others feelings. Of course he does, because then his mission is accomplished. Another soul seperated from God and captured into darkness.

it would be easy to be that ordinary, run of the mill, Christian of the world. But that is not what Jesus asked of us. That is not what the disciples, who went to horrible deaths, did. And that is what Christians of today are supposed to do. Go to church on Sunday, blend into the sinning world unnoticed, and just take the rewards of Salvation.

That is not a loving, Christ like thing to do. And if you read the New Testament thoroughly, you will see where im coming from.

Mty motives are only of Christs love. Reject it if you feel you must. But its important you understand where im coming from.

[wistahpatsfan]

...it would be easy to be that ordinary, run of the mill, Christian of the world. But that is not what Jesus asked of us. That is not what the disciples, who went to horrible deaths, did. And that is what Christians of today are supposed to do. Go to church on Sunday, blend into the sinning world unnoticed, and just take the rewards of Salvation.

That is not a loving, Christ like thing to do. And if you read the New Testament thoroughly, you will see where im coming from.

Mty motives are only of Christs love. Reject it if you feel you must. But its important you understand where im coming from.

I totally understand you. I read the NT inside and out, up and down. I've read many essays in its interpretation. Aquinas, Campbell, some the best. I still don't believe in supernatural gods controlling time, fate, and the lives of men. I know you do, and your conviction and testimony is cool with me because you are as devout as I am. You just happen to be wrong and I am right. When discussing religion, that's about the size of it.

I do recognize and respect your devoutness. One of my best friends is a devout Rastafarian, and we enjoy much mutual respect for each other.

[3 to be 4]

I totally understand you. I read the NT inside and out, up and down. I've read many essays in its interpretation. Aquinas, Campbell, some the best. I still don't believe in supernatural gods controlling time, fate, and the lives of men. I know you do, and your conviction and testimony is cool with me because you are as devout as I am. You just happen to be wrong and I am right. When discussing religion, that's about the size of it.

I do recognize and respect your devoutness. One of my best friends is a devout Rastafarian, and we enjoy much mutual respect for each other.

thats very cool. I appreciate the civility of what you said and how you said it. I wish that is how the discourse could be more often. You sound like someone who is very secure in who you are and what you believe.

But as I said earlier, I do understand the hostility from most non-believers and where it comes from, although im still amazed by the level of hostility it generates amongst New Englanders.

Thanks for disagreeing with me without calling me names. its refreshing! :)

[BruschiOnTap]

That's what I mean. I can read the Bible, and get one interpretation. My neighbor can read it, and get something totally different out of it. If you want to live by it, that's cool, but 3 to be 4 seems to think if you're not 'born again' and live by the Bible word for word, you can face eternity treading lava.

Luther definitely was a revolutionary, but in what way didn't he go far enough? I thought ex-communication was pushing the envelope a bit, for those times.

Well, it was pretty easy to be excommunicated back in the day... I guess Luther went far enough but most people who followed didn't. It probably wasn't possible back then, but I think protestants who came after him should have treated the Catholic church as the hollow institution it always was and rejected its Bible translations, creeds, ceremonies, and traditions (including church on Sunday and the method for reckoning Easter). However, they probably had no knowledge of what came before the Roman church, like the Celtic church, Coptics, Gnostics, etc. I am a non-Christian (and anti-organized religion) and hate partisanism in general, but to see protestant and catholic church leaders co-mingling bothers me greatly. nobody should ever forgive the Roman church for its crimes against humanity or allow it to wear a mantle of authority for all pre-16th century religious matters.

[Tunescribe]

32B4's right.
I've never heard him criticize any other religion. He's only saying what he believes. All religions by their nature demand that any adherent to that religion believe that their religion is the only possible truth. How else can it be a serious religion?

That's a pretty serious indictment of all religion, in a nutshell. He doesn't actively criticize other religions because he assumes they're paths to hell and won't deny it. What's genuinely frightening, and dangerous, about 3 to be 4's specific brand of fundamentalist religionism is the dehumanizing factor of believing that all souls are damned to hell by God unless they adopt Jesus as their personal deity. The radical belief aspect of any fundamentalist religion, which has nothing to do with genuine spirituality, is responsible for much of the world's suffering down through the ages. It will continue to be until religionists like 3 to be 4 discover spirituality through direct communion with God.

[3 to be 4]

That's a pretty serious indictment of all religion, in a nutshell. He doesn't actively criticize other religions because he assumes they're paths to hell and won't deny it. What's genuinely frightening, and dangerous, about 3 to be 4's specific brand of fundamentalist religionism is the dehumanizing factor of believing that all souls are damned to hell by God unless they adopt Jesus as their personal deity. The radical belief aspect of any fundamentalist religion, which has nothing to do with genuine spirituality, is responsible for much of the world's suffering down through the ages. It will continue to be until religionists like 3 to be 4 discover spirituality through direct communion with God.


I do have direct communion with God. I know you'd like to continually throw out that lie ,despite my constant correction of your mistatements about what Born again Christians like myself believe, because it throws the discussion out of whack. Its a great debating skill. One guy says, I believe in National Health Care. The other guy says, my opponant wishes us to all be communists, and the first guy has to take the time to explain how hes not a communist.
fine,your a brilliant intellectual. And either you dont listen or you are a liar.

so fine, all Born again Christians, Evangelicals, Fundementalists, we want to infict suffering all over the world. You are the one who sounds like a lunatic.

[wistahpatsfan]

... What's genuinely frightening, and dangerous, about 3 to be 4's specific brand of fundamentalist religionism is the dehumanizing factor of believing that all souls are damned to hell by God unless they adopt Jesus as their personal deity. The radical belief aspect of any fundamentalist religion, which has nothing to do with genuine spirituality, is responsible for much of the world's suffering down through the ages. It will continue to be until religionists like 3 to be 4 discover spirituality through direct communion with God.
There's nothing "genuinely frightening and dangerous" about any religion. Religions are meaningless and fruitless if you want them to be. You can make them a central part of your life, no more differently than some people make gossip, consumerism, the NFL season, or mountain climbing a central part of their lives. Just because some people actively hate and oppose religion doesn't define it in any way. As our coach says, "It is what it is." No need to insult someone because they have some set of beliefs.

Religion is only an excuse some people use for hatred and misery in human history, when the truth is, people don't need a motivation to be evil (and I mean that in a secular way, as I don't believe in supernatural evil) to each other. When we look for a rationalization of the man's inhumanity to man, religion is an easy and innacurate explaination. You have to look deeper. Laziness and greed is the cause of it much more often than other religions.

[Tunescribe]

I do have direct communion with God. I know you'd like to continually throw out that lie ,despite my constant correction of your mistatements about what Born again Christians like myself believe, because it throws the discussion out of whack. Its a great debating skill. One guy says, I believe in National Health Care. The other guy says, my opponant wishes us to all be communists, and the first guy has to take the time to explain how hes not a communist.
fine,your a brilliant intellectual. And either you dont listen or you are a liar.

so fine, all Born again Christians, Evangelicals, Fundementalists, we want to infict suffering all over the world. You are the one who sounds like a lunatic.

OF COURSE fundamental religionists don't "want" to inflict pain and suffering, yet it is the byproduct of their zealous mission to "spread the word and save souls." If you deny this, you deny history.

And while we're at it, please tell us once again where loving, true-hearted, dedicated followers of these religions end up when they leave this earth: Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Rastafarians, Islamists, non-born-again Christians, Unitarian Universalists, etc., etc. -- in other words, most of the world's souls. They end up burning in agony in hell for all eternity, right?

A case in point: Ira Goldstein was a pious Hasidic Jew. Ira lived a wonderful life; he was a loving father and dedicated husband. He tithed his temple, he prayed daily and developed a personal relationship with God, living a life of grace and peace through direct spiritual guidance. Ira spent countless hours in community service and giving to charity to ease the suffering of his fellow man. He adopted a sick child from an orphanage half a world away and nurtured it as his own. On his deathbed, Ira was surrounded by many loved ones who were in awe of how much better he left the earth for being here. Yet, they knew that as much love as Ira spread in acts and deeds to his family and fellow man, he loved God even more. HOWEVER: According to YOU, or your interpretation of the Bible, Ira Goldstein is now twisting in horrible pain in the flames of hell for all eternity at the hands of God.

Try something for just a moment, 3 to be 4: Set your Bible aside for a second and clear your heart. Open it up to God, and ask: "Is Ira Goldstein and other loving souls like him truly burning in hell?"

You call it a "lie," but the reason I seriously doubt you have a personal relationship with God is constantly being reinforced by what you espouse. You have a GREAT relationship with the mechanics of your religion and what your literal interpretation of the Bible directs you to believe. But are you a spiritual man who truly knows God? I don't think so. If you believe Ira Goldstein and others like him are burning in hell on God's directive, there is absolutely no way you can.

[Tunescribe]

There's nothing "genuinely frightening and dangerous" about any religion. Religions are meaningless and fruitless if you want them to be. You can make them a central part of your life, no more differently than some people make gossip, consumerism, the NFL season, or mountain climbing a central part of their lives. Just because some people actively hate and oppose religion doesn't define it in any way. As our coach says, "It is what it is." No need to insult someone because they have some set of beliefs.

Religion is only an excuse some people use for hatred and misery in human history, when the truth is, people don't need a motivation to be evil (and I mean that in a secular way, as I don't believe in supernatural evil) to each other. When we look for a rationalization of the man's inhumanity to man, religion is an easy and innacurate explaination. You have to look deeper. Laziness and greed is the cause of it much more often than other religions.

I think you misinterpret my point somewhat, but I find myself also disagreeing with some of what you say. Religious zealots (fundamentalist Christians and Islamic extremists alike), feel justified in questionable acts because they genuinely believe they are doing God's will. THAT is where it can be dangerous. But you're right, it's not the religion per se, it's how it is interpreted and how those interpretations are applied. Much damage has been done to this world in the name of evangelical Christianity, which has more to do with the mechanics of religionism than genuine spirituality. I also know people whose lives have been harmed by this.

I did not set out to insult anyone, epecially solely on the basis of their beliefs. But if you go back through other threads in this forum you'll find ample intolerance, judgment and insult-lobbing by the person you're trying to defend.

[3 to be 4]

OF COURSE fundamental religionists don't "want" to inflict pain and suffering, yet it is the byproduct of their zealous mission to "spread the word and save souls." If you deny this, you deny history.

And while we're at it, please tell us once again where loving, true-hearted, dedicated followers of these religions end up when they leave this earth: Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Rastafarians, Islamists, non-born-again Christians, Unitarian Universalists, etc., etc. -- in other words, most of the world's souls. They end up burning in agony in hell for all eternity, right?

A case in point: Ira Goldstein was a pious Hasidic Jew. Ira lived a wonderful life; he was a loving father and dedicated husband. He tithed his temple, he prayed daily and developed a personal relationship with God, living a life of grace and peace through direct spiritual guidance. Ira spent countless hours in community service and giving to charity to ease the suffering of his fellow man. He adopted a sick child from an orphanage half a world away and nurtured it as his own. On his deathbed, Ira was surrounded by many loved ones who were in awe of how much better he left the earth for being here. Yet, they knew that as much love as Ira spread in acts and deeds to his family and fellow man, he loved God even more. HOWEVER: According to YOU, or your interpretation of the Bible, Ira Goldstein is twisting in horrible pain in the flames of hell for all eternity at the hands of God.

Try something for just a moment, 3 to be 4: Set your Bible aside for a second and clear your heart. Open it up to God, and ask: "Is Ira Goldstein and other loving souls like him truly burning in hell?"

You call it a "lie," but the reason I seriously doubt you have a personal relationship with God is constantly being reinforced by what you espouse. You have a GREAT relationship with the mechanics of your religion and what your literal interpretation of the Bible directs you to believe. But are you a spiritual man who truly knows God? I don't think so. If you believe Ira Goldstein and others like him are burning in hell, there is absolutely no way you can.

ok then, you have determined that no Born Again Christian has a personal relationship God. Thats quite the sweeping thought process.

Dont even try to "explain" to me the painful scenarios of good people and what happens. I have had two parents pass away.

As far as Ira Goldstein, he is the reason we spread the Gospel, so that a good person like Him can spend eternity with God in Heaven. You act as if its the believers fault that Hell exists, like we want people to go there. As if we are evil and cruel. When in fact, we believe there is a path to Heaven, and we are doing everything we can to get everyone there. To not say anything, to let souls be lost, that would be the evil and cruel thing.

It would be like saying the people who believe smoking is harmful are cruel for telling someone they are going to get lung cancer if they dont stop smoking a pack a day. "But that smoker was a good person"

im expecting you'll spend your response tearing that analogy down by pointing out smoking being harmful is scientic while believing in Jesus Christ as the way is only faith. But the point is, to a believer, we believe its a fact, as much as a scientist believes their theories are a fact.

To make it a moral issue that Christians believe Christ is the way and are cruel people for believing that is just a bigoted and hateful generalization on your part. Maybe if we were the ones doing the sending to hell I could understand it, but as we are the ones trying to fill the lifeboats, its way out of line.

Ever see the old Poseidon Adventutre? Gene Hackman believed all those people should climb up the Christmas Tree ( ironic) and follow his way to safety. The people below thought he was crazy. Was his character mean and cruel for telling those people they would surely die if they stayed?

A Born Again Christians motivations are like that of Hackmans character. We are not creating the bad news. We are believing in the truth of what we see and are trying to save others. And it doesnt matter if the masses are hollaring at us "You're crazy". It doesnt change what we know for ourselves to be truth.

Perhaps the one who is cruel in your Ira example arent the people who are trying to save him, its the God of our beliefs, or rather, if a God was as we believe, you feel that is a cruel God.

Then fine, tunescribe, dont believe in that God. It is your right. But I must tell you I believe you are missing the point. I believe that God has provided the escape, the path to heaven, the payment of sin, he has pointed the way for us all. He only has one requirement that so many find to be such a big hurdle. And in return we have everlasting life in Heaven with Him. No pain. No sorrow. pretty good deal.

If a building is on fire, and someone shows you the way out, is it cruel for that person to shout out at the hesitant one "if you stay here you'll die!"

your issue shouldnt be with the ones trying to save souls. If they turn out to be wrong, then they are simply wrong. They're motives and actions arent heartless and they not lacking a spriritual life.

more likely, your issue is with the God of their understanding. And if you have lost loved ones who werent believers in Christ, this is all probably pushing your buttons. The anger you express would be a natural cover for the thought that if this "lunatic" idea of how we get to Heaven is correct, then what of those loved ones. So the messenger of that Gospel would naturally offend you as you would have to deal with that possibility.

I know that place. I had to deal with that pain. And what got me through it is the knowledge that NONE of us knows what is going on in another persons heart and their relationship with God. By brother recently gave me a Bible that belonged to my father. I never knew my father had a Bible. It gave me hope that at the last moment he reached out. I have that hope about my mother. there is that hope for Ira.

On the flip side, people can go to church every sunday, give their money, help people, sing in the chorus. And not, in their heart, know the Lord.

only God knows these things. So it is very incorrect to tell others about what kind of spiritual connection they have with their God. Certainly not millions of Born Again Christians. I dont tell you that you arent spiritual or have a connection with God.

You keep coming back to this thread. Maybe you need to work out some things around this issue. Maybe the anger and focus on Hell is because of the possibility I raised above. I dont know.

But contrary to myth that be a good Christian people are not supposed to react or have strong emotions and if they get worked up they arent really with Christ, the fact is a strong Christian doesnt sit there and let the Word of God be lampooned or abused. We fight for our Lord.
It is simplistic and bigoted to imply and say outright what you do about people, millions and millions of them, who interpret the Bible as they do.

You focus on the seperation from God, the burning building, and think it cruel to want to get the people out. You do Satan a big favor.

My focus is on the escape from that, on the eternity with God He wants us all to have with Him.

hey, if me and people like me are wrong, we get a terrific surprise and Heaven is a lot more populated than we ever imagined.

if you're wrong...................

[3 to be 4]

I think you misinterpret my point somewhat, but I find myself also disagreeing with some of what you say. Religious zealots (fundamentalist Christians and Islamic extremists alike), feel justified in questionable acts because they genuinely believe they are doing God's will. THAT is where it can be dangerous. But you're right, it's not the religion per se, it's how it is interpreted and how those interpretations are applied. Much damage has been done to this world in the name of evangelical Christianity, which has more to do with the mechanics of religionism than genuine spirituality. I also know people whose lives have been harmed by this.

I did not set out to insult anyone, epecially solely on the basis of their beliefs. But if you go back through other threads in this forum you'll find ample intolerance, judgment and insult-lobbing by the person you're trying to defend.

"Much damage has been done to this world in the name of evangelical Christianity"
no intoleance, judgement, or insult-lobbing there. Just the love of Tunescribe.:rolleyes:

[Tunescribe]

"Much damage has been done to this world in the name of evangelical Christianity"
no intoleance, judgement, or insult-lobbing there. Just the love of Tunescribe.:rolleyes:

Oh come on, you can do better than that. I was stating an incontrovertible fact backed by history. If you consider that intolerance/judgment/insult-lobbing, you need to brush up on your Christian history.

[3 to be 4]

Oh come on, you can do better than that. I was stating an incontrovertible fact backed by history. If you consider that intolerance/judgment/insult-lobbing, you need to brush up on your Christian history.

im not debating that no damage has been done in the name of Christianity.
Ive dealt with that issue in previous threads. its a tired old fallback, a copout and excuse for non-believers to totally dismiss the REAL message of Jesus Christ.
People who obviously werent following the teaching of Christ commited those acts.
To imply that the Evangelical Christians who are populating Casting Crowns or Mercy Me concerts are somehow a danger to start commiting genocide is an idiotic and hateful and bigoted conclusion.

are you also not going to befriend any Japanese people because of World War II?

there, is that better?

[Tunescribe]

ok then, you have determined that no Born Again Christian has a personal relationship God. Thats quite the sweeping thought process.

Dont even try to "explain" to me the painful scenarios of good people and what happens. I have had two parents pass away.

As far as Ira Goldstein, he is the reason we spread the Gospel, so that a good person like Him can spend eternity with God in Heaven. You act as if its the believers fault that Hell exists, like we want people to go there. As if we are evil and cruel. When in fact, we believe there is a path to Heaven, and we are doing everything we can to get everyone there. To not say anything, to let souls be lost, that would be the evil and cruel thing.

It would be like saying the people who believe smoking is harmful are cruel for telling someone they are going to get lung cancer if they dont stop smoking a pack a day. "But that smoker was a good person"

im expecting you'll spend your response tearing that analogy down by pointing out smoking being harmful is scientic while believing in Jesus Christ as the way is only faith. But the point is, to a believer, we believe its a fact, as much as a scientist believes their theories are a fact.

To make it a moral issue that Christians believe Christ is the way and are cruel people for believing that is just a bigoted and hateful generalization on your part. Maybe if we were the ones doing the sending to hell I could understand it, but as we are the ones trying to fill the lifeboats, its way out of line.

Ever see the old Poseidon Adventutre? Gene Hackman believed all those people should climb up the Christmas Tree ( ironic) and follow his way to safety. The people below thought he was crazy. Was his character mean and cruel for telling those people they would surely die if they stayed?

A Born Again Christians motivations are like that of Hackmans character. We are not creating the bad news. We are believing in the truth of what we see and are trying to save others. And it doesnt matter if the masses are hollaring at us "You're crazy". It doesnt change what we know for ourselves to be truth.

Perhaps the one who is cruel in your Ira example arent the people who are trying to save him, its the God of our beliefs, or rather, if a God was as we believe, you feel that is a cruel God.

Then fine, tunescribe, dont believe in that God. It is your right. But I must tell you I believe you are missing the point. I believe that God has provided the escape, the path to heaven, the payment of sin, he has pointed the way for us all. He only has one requirement that so many find to be such a big hurdle. And in return we have everlasting life in Heaven with Him. No pain. No sorrow. pretty good deal.

If a building is on fire, and someone shows you the way out, is it cruel for that person to shout out at the hesitant one "if you stay here you'll die!"

your issue shouldnt be with the ones trying to save souls. If they turn out to be wrong, then they are simply wrong. They're motives and actions arent heartless and they not lacking a spriritual life.

more likely, your issue is with the God of their understanding. And if you have lost loved ones who werent believers in Christ, this is all probably pushing your buttons. The anger you express would be a natural cover for the thought that if this "lunatic" idea of how we get to Heaven is correct, then what of those loved ones. So the messenger of that Gospel would naturally offend you as you would have to deal with that possibility.

I know that place. I had to deal with that pain. And what got me through it is the knowledge that NONE of us knows what is going on in another persons heart and their relationship with God. By brother recently gave me a Bible that belonged to my father. I never knew my father had a Bible. It gave me hope that at the last moment he reached out. I have that hope about my mother. there is that hope for Ira.

On the flip side, people can go to church every sunday, give their money, help people, sing in the chorus. And not, in their heart, know the Lord.

only God knows these things. So it is very incorrect to tell others about what kind of spiritual connection they have with their God. Certainly not millions of Born Again Christians. I dont tell you that you arent spiritual or have a connection with God.

You keep coming back to this thread. Maybe you need to work out some things around this issue. Maybe the anger and focus on Hell is because of the possibility I raised above. I dont know.

But contrary to myth that be a good Christian people are not supposed to react or have strong emotions and if they get worked up they arent really with Christ, the fact is a strong Christian doesnt sit there and let the Word of God be lampooned or abused. We fight for our Lord.
It is simplistic and bigoted to imply and say outright what you do about people, millions and millions of them, who interpret the Bible as they do.

You focus on the seperation from God, the burning building, and think it cruel to want to get the people out. You do Satan a big favor.

My focus is on the escape from that, on the eternity with God He wants us all to have with Him.

hey, if me and people like me are wrong, we get a terrific surprise and Heaven is a lot more populated than we ever imagined.

if you're wrong...................

I keep coming back to this thread, in part, because you're helping me understand the evangelical religionist mindset. I'm certainly not angry about any of this discussion, or worried or fearful on a personal level. But I do feel it is important that people of your persuasion (fundamental religionists) do not gain significant political power or positions of high authority. G.W. Bush's orientation there has been somewhat muted/ambiguous since he's been in office, but many of his actions seem to have pointed in that direction. Thank God that the recent congressional elections will mean that he's more or less kept in check for the balance of his tenure.

So, you really, truly, believe Ira Goldstein is burning in hell? I know he didn't convert on his deathbed. He was humbly dedicated to God through his Jewish faith.

[Tunescribe]

im not debating that no damage has been done in the name of Christianity.
Ive dealt with that issue in previous threads. its a tired old fallback, a copout and excuse for non-believers to totally dismiss the REAL message of Jesus Christ.
People who obviously werent following the teaching of Christ commited those acts.
To imply that the Evangelical Christians who are populating Casting Crowns or Mercy Me concerts are somehow a danger to start commiting genocide is an idiotic and hateful and bigoted conclusion.

are you also not going to befriend any Japanese people because of World War II?

there, is that better?

Now you're just being silly. But, I do see a glimmer of hope in the fact that you're emphasizing Jesus' message (as in teachings) and not being overfocused, as usual, on his exclusionary divinity.

[3 to be 4]

I keep coming back to this thread, in part, because you're helping me understand the evangelical religionist mindset. I'm certainly not angry about any of this discussion, or worried or fearful on a personal level. But I do feel it is important that people of your persuasion (fundamental religionists) do not gain significant political power or positions of high authority. G.W. Bush's orientation there has been somewhat muted/ambiguous since he's been in office, but many of his actions seem to have pointed in that direction. Thank God that the recent congressional elections will mean that he's more or less kept in check for the balance of his tenure.

So, you really, truly, believe Ira Goldstein is burning in hell? I know he didn't convert on his deathbed. He was humbly dedicated to God through his Jewish faith.

I dont care for GW Bush or many of the politically minded right wing Evangelicals. And there are many Christians who believe that Jesus is Lord, died for our sins, raised 3 days later, is the way to Heaven, and are Democrats. a good 40% of Evangelicals. And about 80% of Black Christians. But that doesnt get reported as its an easier generalization to make Christians into right wingers. This stops many non-believers from accepting Christ. The lie from the devil that if they did, they'd have to follow Pat Robertson or something. As ive said before, ever been to a Black Church?

as for Ira Goldstein. I really hope he is not. Neither I or you can know. Scripture tells us, Nobody goes to the Father except through His Son.

good works dont get us there, because none of us deserve it. We are Saved only by the blood of Jesus. And then we are glorified in Him.

You still are so focused on the Hell part, you totally miss out on the Good news. You totally miss out on the Salvation God has provided.

Ever hear the old joke:
A man is on his roof, flood waters are rising. A boat comes to rescue him
"No thanks, God will save me" A helicopter comes "No thanks, God will save me" Finally, he drowns. When he gets to Heaven he asks God, "Lord, why didnt you save me??" God answers "I sent a boat, I sent a helicopter..."

God is providing a means of rescue. He sent His son who fulfilled 300 prophesis from the Old Testament. He healed the sick, He gave sight to the blind, His miracles were witnessed but dismissed by the religious because he healed on the Sabbath. Jesus died on the Cross. And the resurrected Jesus was witnessed and those who witnessed went to agonizing deaths proclaiming what they saw.

God provides rescue. He provides Salvation. All he wants is our acceptance of his gift. Our belief in what He did for us. Then we have everything. We are His forever.

But we are responsible for our choice. I dont want people to miss out on accepting the gift, but that gift of belief cannot be forced. There is no such thing as forced conversion. Conversion is a matter of the heart, not a paper you are forced to sign. So those who ever engaged in that behavior were not of Christ. They did not have the Holy Spirit because a true believer in Christs teachings knows its not what you say, its whats in your heart, and you cant force someone to believe anything.

I want for people like Ira to accept the Salvation Jesus provided. And God wants it. But each one of his makes our own choice.

its not God cruelty. God offered a way.

Man rejects it. I thank God everyday I dont have to worry about my place with Him. But that is not enough. I want everyone to have a place with God forever.

I want the Ira Goldsteins of the world to be with God forever. I want my mother and father to be with God forever.

This is real for me, Tune. I dont glibly say, lucky me I have it, and you guys dont.

I believe this with all my heart. And its means the world to me. Its personal to me. Its not just the Ira's. Its my father and mother. Its friends that I know. Its my sister. My brother. real people that I love. And others that I dont.

You can interpret the Bible differently from me. But try to understand where im coming from and where, I believe, most any Christian who believes in Jesus Christ is coming from.

We dont do what we do to make your life uneasy. We dont do it to offend you. We dont do it to be a "danger" to the world.

i ask you again, those people at the Casting Crown concert, or the ones in other music videos i post, the ones crying their hearts out to Jesus, you think they are out to persecute the world? really?

We do it because its what we believe with every ounce of our being and we are comissioned by the Lord we trust in to share this Gospel with every soul we can reach. Because failure to do so costs souls.

we are on a rescue mission, and you blame us for the ones who refused to be rescued.

disagree with the interpretation, but move to understand the heart and the motives of those for who have scorn.

I keep doing this, here and other places, because the Holy Spirit has moved me to do so, because although 990 out of 1,000 may not agree with me, if I can stand firm and keep the Gospel alive until 990 becomes 980, thats 10 souls that are saved. Even if its one, that one more than if I didnt. And that one is worth more to God than any money I have, any time I could have spent, anything I will ever be involved with. Any ridicule or any name I could be called.

I do it because thats how much God loves me, and His calling for me and every other Christian is to take that love out to you.

I dont really know you, I dont like the things you say about me. But I still love you and everyone else here not to give up looking for whoever may be the one.

theres a song that says "What if it takes 15 times to hear about Jesus? What if im the 3rd, or the 7th...."

This market doesnt hear much about the real Jesus Christ. it hears about religion. But not the Jesus of the Bible.

maybe I can be the 3rd time someone hears this message, to forget about Religion, or Christianity, or people in fancy suits going to big fancy churches. and seek out Jesus Christ. Read his words in Matthew, Mark,Luke, and John.
Seek Him out in prayer, and keep the focus on Him, and He'll change your life, and give you eternity.

Reach out to the one who died so that you might live.

the Gospel means the Good News. Its a Good message. Jesus loves you and with Him there is eternal life.

Good night everybody.

[thesmee1]

I keep coming back to this thread, in part, because you're helping me understand the evangelical religionist mindset. I'm certainly not angry about any of this discussion, or worried or fearful on a personal level. But I do feel it is important that people of your persuasion (fundamental religionists) do not gain significant political power or positions of high authority. G.W. Bush's orientation there has been somewhat muted/ambiguous since he's been in office, but many of his actions seem to have pointed in that direction. Thank God that the recent congressional elections will mean that he's more or less kept in check for the balance of his tenure.

So, you really, truly, believe Ira Goldstein is burning in hell? I know he didn't convert on his deathbed. He was humbly dedicated to God through his Jewish faith.


Thank you, Tunescribe, that was what I was trying to get across to 3 to be 4. If you are not a part of the fundamentalist movement, as a Catholic, I'm going to hell. 3 to be 4, spirituality isn't how many times you read the Bible, because I have a cousin who can quote it word for word. How she interprets it, and how I do, are two different things. It's how you live your life. It's the lessons you learn in this life that make you stronger spiritually. I don't bash fundamentalism because that's where 3 to be 4 finds his peace, just don't scare people and children of other faiths thinking if their way is different, they're going to hell. And God Bless Ira Goldstein.

[thesmee1]

Well, it was pretty easy to be excommunicated back in the day... I guess Luther went far enough but most people who followed didn't. It probably wasn't possible back then, but I think protestants who came after him should have treated the Catholic church as the hollow institution it always was and rejected its Bible translations, creeds, ceremonies, and traditions (including church on Sunday and the method for reckoning Easter). However, they probably had no knowledge of what came before the Roman church, like the Celtic church, Coptics, Gnostics, etc. I am a non-Christian (and anti-organized religion) and hate partisanism in general, but to see protestant and catholic church leaders co-mingling bothers me greatly. nobody should ever forgive the Roman church for its crimes against humanity or allow it to wear a mantle of authority for all pre-16th century religious matters.


I think even back then, people were creatures of habit. They kept the creeds and traditions so that people could feel better about leaving the roman church, and still keeping the idea of being 'religious.' It wasn't the same, but it was close. To them, that was cool. It was like having the best of both worlds.

The Catholic church always had it's thumb pushed down on the poor and uneducated, and it still does. They don't question crimes against humanity, because to them, the church is infallible. Even in antiquated times.

Notice that the majority of Catholics are from third world countries, and latin america. They don't question the ban on birth control, and divorce? Forget it.
it's the same today as it was eons ago.

[3 to be 4]

Thank you, Tunescribe, that was what I was trying to get across to 3 to be 4. If you are not a part of the fundamentalist movement, as a Catholic, I'm going to hell. 3 to be 4, spirituality isn't how many times you read the Bible, because I have a cousin who can quote it word for word. How she interprets it, and how I do, are two different things. It's how you live your life. It's the lessons you learn in this life that make you stronger spiritually. I don't bash fundamentalism because that's where 3 to be 4 finds his peace, just don't scare people and children of other faiths thinking if their way is different, they're going to hell. And God Bless Ira Goldstein.

That is totally false, thesmee1

A Catholic who believe in Jesus Christ is going to Heaven. Anybody who believes in Jesus Christ is the Son of God, died for our sins, and raised from the dead 3 days later is going to Heaven. Most Evangelicals, anybody who understands scripture knows this.
There are some fundementalists, i ran into a few in South Carolina, mostly Southern Baptists, who have this bigoted and unbiblical prejudice towards Catholics. Its not the Christian teaching.

So please, I believe I explained this before, dont keep saying I believe that.

one more point. I dont spend a lot of time defining what Hell is as my focus is on the rewards of Heaven. others here keep saying "Burning in Hell. Its not clear if thats exactly how it is, no more than anyone can claim they know exactly what Heaven is. But I do believe Hell is an eternal seperation. A spiritual place there is no peace, only darkness.

So again, If a building in is on fire and I know of an escape, im not going to sit there and watch you die in it. To be silent is cruel and sinful.

The world we live in is a lot scarier than the comfort, hope, and promise God provides.

[BruschiOnTap]

I think even back then, people were creatures of habit. They kept the creeds and traditions so that people could feel better about leaving the roman church, and still keeping the idea of being 'religious.' It wasn't the same, but it was close. To them, that was cool. It was like having the best of both worlds.

The Catholic church always had it's thumb pushed down on the poor and uneducated, and it still does. They don't question crimes against humanity, because to them, the church is infallible. Even in antiquated times.

Notice that the majority of Catholics are from third world countries, and latin america. They don't question the ban on birth control, and divorce? Forget it.
it's the same today as it was eons ago.

You make a good point, it's tough to get followers without making change palatable.

The Roman church today, thank goodness, is a shell of its former self, but its sway in poor countries is, sadly, still powerful. People can believe what they want, but the church is hurting the global population by still denouncing birth control. Of course, if the poor masses used condoms, there would be fewer people putting money in the collection plate...

[Tunescribe]

People can believe what they want, but the church is hurting the global population by still denouncing birth control. Of course, if the poor masses used condoms, there would be fewer people putting money in the collection plate...

It's a huge problem in South America. Little kids everywhere, abject poverty, and destruction of the rainforest. I've been there and it is heartbreaking, all in the name of Catholicism.

[thesmee1]

It's a huge problem in South America. Little kids everywhere, abject poverty, and destruction of the rainforest. I've been there and it is heartbreaking, all in the name of Catholicism.


Not that I'm bashing Catholicism, but that is what they do. The more enlightened the culture, the less of a hold they have on people. It's just like in the dark ages. Multiply and propagate, yet when you can't afford the children you're propagating, that becomes an issue, especially if you're uneducated and really don't know any better, or don't want to know any better. I had an aunt that practiced the rythmn method and she rythmned out 6 kids.

In my view the church needs to be brought into the current millenium. Over population is a problem, not like in the dark and middle ages. Like right now. I'd like to see Benedict address this. I'm not advocating abortion, because I couldn't do it myself. But if a woman was raped, it would be her choice. I can't judge, because in the end, God or Infinite Wisdom judges all.

[thesmee1]

It's a huge problem in South America. Little kids everywhere, abject poverty, and destruction of the rainforest. I've been there and it is heartbreaking, all in the name of Catholicism.


I had 2 children and at 45 I had my tubes done. Being Catholic, I felt guilty about that, because at 46, my mother had me. Right now, 2 kids are enough. Why not give that option to others and the church endorsing it? We'll never see it in our lifetimes, sadly.

[thesmee1]

That is totally false, thesmee1

A Catholic who believe in Jesus Christ is going to Heaven. Anybody who believes in Jesus Christ is the Son of God, died for our sins, and raised from the dead 3 days later is going to Heaven. Most Evangelicals, anybody who understands scripture knows this.
There are some fundementalists, i ran into a few in South Carolina, mostly Southern Baptists, who have this bigoted and unbiblical prejudice towards Catholics. Its not the Christian teaching.

So please, I believe I explained this before, dont keep saying I believe that.

one more point. I dont spend a lot of time defining what Hell is as my focus is on the rewards of Heaven. others here keep saying "Burning in Hell. Its not clear if thats exactly how it is, no more than anyone can claim they know exactly what Heaven is. But I do believe Hell is an eternal seperation. A spiritual place there is no peace, only darkness.

So again, If a building in is on fire and I know of an escape, im not going to sit there and watch you die in it. To be silent is cruel and sinful.

The world we live in is a lot scarier than the comfort, hope, and promise God provides.

3, I'm not singling you out in particular, and I'm sorry if I made you feel this way. Perhaps my meaning isn't coming out right. What I'm saying is that the majority of Protestants, including Fundamentalists, ( not necessarily you,) feel that way. Am I right in that presumption?

[3 to be 4]

3, I'm not singling you out in particular, and I'm sorry if I made you feel this way. Perhaps my meaning isn't coming out right. What I'm saying is that the majority of Protestants, including Fundamentalists, ( not necessarily you,) feel that way. Am I right in that presumption?

I thank you for your apology.

I dont believe a majority feel that way. A small misguided minority do. I go to a church of 1,200 Evangelicals and i have never heard anything like that. Nor did I hear this amongst the people I knew in the Black Churches of South Carolina or the Non-denominational Church I went to there. I did run across it in the Southern Baptist circle and its one of the reasons I wouldnt go there.

I also believe its irresponsible for a society not to talk about birth control and if a woman has an unwanted pregnancy the option of adoption.

Young people must be reasonably talked to about the consequences of pregnancy, birth control must be made available, care must be provided to poor woman and children and this country must talk more about adoption than it does the abortion vs abstinance.

Abortion is the saddest, most horrific thing imaginable. People in my office were passing out the 3D pictures of a womans unborn baby. When you see that, it makes the urge to do more to talk up adoption, safety nets for the poor, anything that can be done, to reduce a practice that is poisoning our culture.

[Tunescribe]

Abortion is the saddest, most horrific thing imaginable.

Worse than twisting in utter agony in hell for all eternity? (Yeah, a cheap shot but couldn't resist. ;) )

[3 to be 4]

Worse than twisting in utter agony in hell for all eternity? (Yeah, a cheap shot but couldn't resist. ;) )

most horrific thing on earth then.

[thesmee1]

Ok, 3, I'm not feigning ignorance. I'm really, really ignorant about this. What is the difference of the belief system between the Evangelicals and Baptists?I dont need a long manifesto, just a simple outline, if that's possible, will do.

[3 to be 4]

Ok, 3, I'm not feigning ignorance. I'm really, really ignorant about this. What is the difference of the belief system between the Evangelicals and Baptists?I dont need a long manifesto, just a simple outline, if that's possible, will do.

to be honest, im not hung up on denominations because its unbiblical. We are supposed to be one body of Christ, free of division. There is room for people will different gifts and talents to worship as one. so I am not an expert on every blank of each ones platform.

But this is from Wikipedia:
Baptists
Theologically, most Baptists emphasize a believer's baptism by full immersion, which is performed on non-infants after a public profession of faith in Jesus as Saviour. Baptists traditionally do not baptize infants, as do most Christian denominations, because of their belief that a person must be old enough to make a public profession of faith in order to be baptized. Another feature of most Baptist churches is that they operate on the congregational governance system, which gives autonomy to individual local Baptist churches. Baptists have traditionally avoided the "top-down" hierarchy which is found in many Christian denominations, such as the Roman Catholic and Anglican churches. However, Baptist churches will often associate in organizations such as the Southern Baptist Convention in the United States, which is the largest Baptist association in the world, and the second-largest Christian denomination in the USA, after the Roman Catholic church.

Evangelical
The word evangelicalism usually refers to religious practices and traditions which are found in conservative, almost always Protestant Christianity. Evangelicalism is typified by an emphasis on evangelism, a personal experience of conversion, biblically oriented faith and a belief in the relevance of Christian faith to cultural issues. In the late 20th century and early 21st century, Protestant people, churches and social movements have often been called evangelical in contrast to Protestant liberalism

so a Baptist can be Evangelical. But a Evangelical isnt always Baptist. In other words Evangelical refers to basic belief that Jesus is Son of God, died for our sins, rose from the grave, we belief in full immersion baptism etc.

Baptists believe in all that but are more of its own denomination that is more controlling and self contained. Evangelicals in general believe once you are baptised you are part of the body anywhere. Baptists often require a commitment to a particular church, in fact that you get Baptised there. I found it much more controlling and "religious". And in the south full of judgement on other denominations.

Many, not all, but many Southern Baptists will tell you often that Catholicism is of the devil. I find that absurd and offensive.

anyways, it did kind of go long but...............

[thesmee1]

Not long at all, 3. You've been very helpful in showing me the differences and yet the subtle similarities of both faiths. Thank you.

[PatsFanInVa]

I want to say that the Coptic Christians were the first. I'm probably wrong, though. I believe they have a sect over in Egypt. I find this fascinating though, that the majority of the fundamentalists, ( not all, ) believe that their way is the only way, and that all others are doomed. I have a friend who's a fundamentalist. I'm Catholic, and she invited me to visit her church, which I did. It was an evening service, and a kid about 12 was going to be baptized. The pastor asked him why he wanted to be baptized, and he replied, ' I saw the movie " Left Behind " and I don't want to be left behind.'

I sat there in utter shock that his parents would let him watch that movie at his age, and that this child was so scared from retribution from God that he felt compelled to do this. Myself, I think God made all these different religions to make the world interesting. Of course their are ultra- right wingers in all things that we do, including religion.

Saw the interesting question about the first Christians, and the interesting "left behind" note... wait til he plays the video game!

Anyway, in terms of surviving churches, my understanding is the Armenians claim the oldest roots, followed by the Ethiopian Orthodox. I believe "Coptic" is different, since "Copt" is a word for Egyptian Christian (although I believe I've also heard of the Ethiopian Coptic church.)

I think Catholicism diverged from Orthodoxy rather than the other way around, but the schism was over very minor liturgical matters.

As to the earliest Christians, we do not know for certain. We do know that the surviving Christianity is Pauline Christianity; as to what came before, you have to interpret to say the Pauline tradition dominated, and you have to interpret to say definitively that they did not. What we know is that the Paulines won.

At the very earliest phase, you have to wonder what different communities believed, in the lapse between Jesus' ministry and the commitment of the gospels to writing some decades after. In the upheaval of the '60s and '70s, you have to think it was much more important that Jesus return, than it would be in the business-as-usual 30s. So, the gospels are markedly concerned with the parousia. After all, the end of the world looked to be at hand! What better time?

Anyway, these are the observations of an avowed outsider to Christianity, so please take them for what they are, historical-based observations, not faith based observations. I do think the question of "what was an early Christian?" is interesting.

I would love to be a fly on the wall to hear what J. thought of the whole thing... "Oh for my sake! Would you just act nice toward each other and forget about the whole 'coming back' thing..."

PFnV

[thesmee1]

Saw the interesting question about the first Christians, and the interesting "left behind" note... wait til he plays the video game!

Anyway, in terms of surviving churches, my understanding is the Armenians claim the oldest roots, followed by the Ethiopian Orthodox. I believe "Coptic" is different, since "Copt" is a word for Egyptian Christian (although I believe I've also heard of the Ethiopian Coptic church.)

I think Catholicism diverged from Orthodoxy rather than the other way around, but the schism was over very minor liturgical matters.

As to the earliest Christians, we do not know for certain. We do know that the surviving Christianity is Pauline Christianity; as to what came before, you have to interpret to say the Pauline tradition dominated, and you have to interpret to say definitively that they did not. What we know is that the Paulines won.

At the very earliest phase, you have to wonder what different communities believed, in the lapse between Jesus' ministry and the commitment of the gospels to writing some decades after. In the upheaval of the '60s and '70s, you have to think it was much more important that Jesus return, than it would be in the business-as-usual 30s. So, the gospels are markedly concerned with the parousia. After all, the end of the world looked to be at hand! What better time?

Anyway, these are the observations of an avowed outsider to Christianity, so please take them for what they are, historical-based observations, not faith based observations. I do think the question of "what was an early Christian?" is interesting.

I would love to be a fly on the wall to hear what J. thought of the whole thing... "Oh for my sake! Would you just act nice toward each other and forget about the whole 'coming back' thing..."

PFnV

I find your post quite informative. I was always under the assumption that the copts were one of the originals. The one church I haven't visited and have always wanted to was an orthodox church. I'm sure some people don't like the pomp of a catholic or orthodox service, but in some way, I like it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, and more often than not, I am, but didn't the orthodox christians come into being because of Paul? Versus the Catholics with Peter?

[thesmee1]

http://maryourmother.net/Eastern.html

I didn't realize how diverse the Catholic church was/ is.

[PatsFanInVa]

Thesmee, I just did about an hour of posting that got eaten.

You turned out to be right on the Coptic church, on looking at several pages... Coptic is listed as Egyptian/Ethiopian, dating from ce350, the same time as the Armenian church. Basically, the Ethiopian Orthodox used to get their bishop from Alexandria, but Alexandria started slacking in providing this bishop, so in the 20th century they won the right to name their own bishop.

So yeah, when the Ethiopian Orthodox church is saying it is the second oldest church (on a page I visited yesterday,) they're saying their tradition is second oldest. Oh and by the way, we're talking about the Coptic tradition...although its the Ethiopian Orthodox tradition the page was calling that.

http://www.waupun.k12.wi.us/Policy/other/dickhut/religions/20%20Branches%20of%20Christ.html

On the Orthodox/Catholic split, it was in 1054, so its about a millenium late for Peter and Paul. Pauline Christianity, though, is pretty much all surviving Christianity, the Christian "mainstream" as it was recognized and reinforced during the time of Paul and further systematized in subsequent councils, particularly Nicea.

This is not to say, however, that Christianity under Peter, which may have been quite heterodox, was necessarily doctrinally very different from Paul's ideas, whence came (for instance) Acts and the Letters of Paul. All we can really say without too much dispute is that Paul and his followers were concerned, as evidenced by the texts from that time, with recording and collecting texts, and systematizing Christian belief and practice. It is more accurate to say that Peter did not concern himself with Christian "Branding" and consistency to the extent that Paul did, so during Peter's leadership, there was an oral Christianity which may or may not be fully and faithfully duplicated in the written Christianity that succeeded Peter's death (Paul's ascendency.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Christianity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_Christianity

During the time from Jesus' death, for instance, the gospels did not yet exist in their current form, although source documents may have been floating around. This makes "WWJD" a much more interesting question.

Anyway, I'm aware that early Christian history tends to piss off current Christian dogmatists, so I'll let the Wiki pages serve as jumping off points (of course, any page on religion has "disputed neutrality" warnings on Wikipedia.) You can look these up elsewhere as well, but I would definitely complement sources like Catholic Encyclopedia with sources like Wikipedia, or better yet, Sanders' Jesus and Judaism.

Realize when you're reading sacred documents, that the sacred has a history, and that religions have an interest in that history being as sacred as the text it produces (this is not an exclusively Christian phenomenon, of course.)

The Jesus of history may or may not have been what we cobble together out of the 4 canonical gospels, but the beginning of finding that answer is the knowledge that Pauline Christianity shaped what survives in those gospels; and that later at Nicea, other competing doctrines were again culled out.

Question: Was the Jesus who walked the earth identical to the Jesus of faith?

Happy reading!

[thesmee1]

Thesmee, I just did about an hour of posting that got eaten.

You turned out to be right on the Coptic church, on looking at several pages... Coptic is listed as Egyptian/Ethiopian, dating from ce350, the same time as the Armenian church. Basically, the Ethiopian Orthodox used to get their bishop from Alexandria, but Alexandria started slacking in providing this bishop, so in the 20th century they won the right to name their own bishop.

So yeah, when the Ethiopian Orthodox church is saying it is the second oldest church (on a page I visited yesterday,) they're saying their tradition is second oldest. Oh and by the way, we're talking about the Coptic tradition...although its the Ethiopian Orthodox tradition the page was calling that.

http://www.waupun.k12.wi.us/Policy/other/dickhut/religions/20%20Branches%20of%20Christ.html

On the Orthodox/Catholic split, it was in 1054, so its about a millenium late for Peter and Paul. Pauline Christianity, though, is pretty much all surviving Christianity, the Christian "mainstream" as it was recognized and reinforced during the time of Paul and further systematized in subsequent councils, particularly Nicea.

This is not to say, however, that Christianity under Peter, which may have been quite heterodox, was necessarily doctrinally very different from Paul's ideas, whence came (for instance) Acts and the Letters of Paul. All we can really say without too much dispute is that Paul and his followers were concerned, as evidenced by the texts from that time, with recording and collecting texts, and systematizing Christian belief and practice. It is more accurate to say that Peter did not concern himself with Christian "Branding" and consistency to the extent that Paul did, so during Peter's leadership, there was an oral Christianity which may or may not be fully and faithfully duplicated in the written Christianity that succeeded Peter's death (Paul's ascendency.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Christianity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_Christianity

During the time from Jesus' death, for instance, the gospels did not yet exist in their current form, although source documents may have been floating around. This makes "WWJD" a much more interesting question.

Anyway, I'm aware that early Christian history tends to piss off current Christian dogmatists, so I'll let the Wiki pages serve as jumping off points (of course, any page on religion has "disputed neutrality" warnings on Wikipedia.) You can look these up elsewhere as well, but I would definitely complement sources like Catholic Encyclopedia with sources like Wikipedia, or better yet, Sanders' Jesus and Judaism.

Realize when you're reading sacred documents, that the sacred has a history, and that religions have an interest in that history being as sacred as the text it produces (this is not an exclusively Christian phenomenon, of course.)

The Jesus of history may or may not have been what we cobble together out of the 4 canonical gospels, but the beginning of finding that answer is the knowledge that Pauline Christianity shaped what survives in those gospels; and that later at Nicea, other competing doctrines were again culled out.

Question: Was the Jesus who walked the earth identical to the Jesus of faith?

Happy reading!

Thanks! No kidding you can get lost in some of this stuff. How I myself interpret Jesus and his works through the Bible, is that he was a teacher, who lived as he spoke. Did he work miracles? Maybe. That's what having faith is all about, I guess.

Question: What were the differences between Paul and Peter that they formed two different, yet very similar sects of Christianity?

[PatsFanInVa]

Thesmee,

Simple answer? I don't know.

Received wisdom (though received from respected "New Testament" scholars)?

Paul understood that Christianity needed to be preached to the gentiles, and Peter thought Christianity was basically a form of Judaism. Gross oversimplification, from "received wisdom," some years ago. But I think Paul's works bear out the distinction.

Real answer: IF you buy that certain "sayings" materials could not be excised from popular memory, then the "sayings" material from the gospels looks much more trustworthy than the editorial addititions. (For instance, he did thus and such that this prophecy would be fulfilled -- well, Jesus didn't say that. A writer of a gospel said that.)

I think during Peter's time the popular imagination had a broad idea of what Jesus preached, and one or another narrative that explained the meaning of Jesus' passion.

In Paul's time, gospels were written which set down the meaning of Jesus' death. This eventually overshadowed Jesus' meaning in life. Remember, on the day Peter died, the Temple was still standing; the crisis that was to rend Judaism had not fully hit. Once the Temple was destroyed (c. 67 CE, if memory serves,) the meaning of Jesus' death can become something very different (i.e., "replacement theology.")

I personally think Jesus thought he was speaking primarily if not exclusively to Jews, though he was a forward-looking and expansive thinker. I further think he hand-picked Peter to found and lead the church. I don't think he thought that, for instance, Christianity would do away with circumcision and kashruth (remember "every jot, every iota..."?)

I don't really think I have a guess as to whether Peter was waiting for Jesus' return, but certainly in most Paulline documents the return is very important.

Again, these are the guesses of an outsider, based on a good deal of study from the point of view of "best guesses" rather than faith. First and foremost, this is the point of view of a non-believer in the Christian bible.

If you don't believe, you look first at the history, and you are most concerned with the actual personages, and the schools of thought of the times, as best you can make them out. If you do believe, these are less important, and can be reconstructed as necessary to fit the belief system. You trumpet the certainty of the bible as received and do not entertain historical questions, which, after all, are not the point of the book. But if the book is not the point of view of the man (Jesus), you do it all in vain.

I only have questions, not answers, and I have them of my own faith as well. Life in God's service, in my world, is a process of asking and answering the questions, not a process of loudly proclaiming the answers regardless of the dictates of history.

If they come easy, or if they come hard, may your answers and your questions fulfil you!

PFnV

[Miss Gomezcat]

Isn't Christianity, by definition, worship of Jesus Christ and by that definition, aren't they all Christians?

BTW, I was very confused as a student when I shared a house with a Catholic lady from Northern Ireland. She talked about people of a 'different religion' and it took ages for me to realise that she simply meant Protestants. I had thought that Christians were Christians.

[PatsFanInVa]

Miss Gomez, it depends who you're talking to. Here on the top edge of the American South, you see ads in papers for employment, where the prospective employer is looking for a "Christian" caregiver, or driver, or garderner (etc.)

It's one of those "you know what we mean, we know what we mean, don't bother" types of deals... "Christian" is used in these ads to mean protestants, and is likely to also cull out the mainline Protestant churches in favor of evangelical and charismatic movements.

Christianity describes all the sects, sure, but I have heard "Oh yes, he's a Christian..." "Oh I thought he was a Catholic..." or the equivalent of that conversation a number of times here.

Interesting trick - call yourself by the large group name, define your behavior by that name ("No, I don't dance, I'm a Christian," for example,) and watch as the name becomes narrowly construed. I've actually talked to Catholics who are confused when I talk about Catholics being Christians, because they're not used to the broad application of the word, so prevalent has the narrow definition become.

PFnV

[mcbee]

Here is what I don't get or like about Christianity, specifically evangelicals. And I was raised in a very conservative, evangelical church.

Anyway, so suppose one hears the story of Christ and all, but just isn't moved by it. You don't believe it. It's pretty much impossible to "make yourself" believe something. It's also very cultural. People in Japan, when hearing the story, probably have a harder time "accepting it" than Western people, for example. Even though Japanese are very nice people, they have 1,000 years of ancestors who were not christians, and thus are in hell. Nice!
Also Jesus was in the Middle East...did he forget about ministering to them? He damned their ancestors to hell because they didn't "know him", but there's no way they could have.

Now, Christians I've spoken to about this say, somewhat parochially, that non-Christians by definition are "lost" and "miserable sinners". Which is a funny thing to say about the Japanese as their culture has withstood the test of time and crime in Japan is miniscule when compared to the US, a Christian country for the most part. I've had one relative explain to me that there's simply no way for a non-Christian to be anything other than a sad, miserable, sinner. No happiness without Jesus. And people, or cultures, who act very happy, productive, etc...we'll they're just faking it. Or the devil makes it SEEM they are useful and happy, but they're not. He's trying to TRICK you.

This is just pure insanity, to me. I mention the Japanese because I have several friends/ business associates from there and they are some of the kindest, most polite people you could ever meet. Of course, they're all going to hell though. To be tortured. For eternity. Well, I mean God (the all loving God Jesus) gave them a choice. They blew it. Tsk-tsk, too bad. So the god of Love will torture them. Sounds fair!!

I mean suppose you're japanese and everyone you've known, parents, relatives, friends, teachers, professors has been a non-christian. Together you have built this incredible country, rich in history, very intelligent prosperous, hard working people. You hear the story of Jesus and just kind of shrug your shoulders "oh well, every country and people has its own religion, this is no different". You are told that you HAVE to believe it or be tortured. And of course, all your ancestors are in hell too. Because they were the wretched of the earth. You simply don't believe it. You don't find the story credible. Well, according to Christians, those people who didn't "believe" are to be tortured.

This doesn't sound quite fair to me. People with different cultural backgrounds OF COURSE are going to have a harder time believing this crap than the western people who have been "christians" for 1,0000 years or so. It's easy to "believe" when your parents tell you to as a small child and tell you that "grandma" is in heaven. How about when you hear this non-sense as an adult and that all your ancestors (Japanese put a big emphasis on ancestors and family honor) are in hell? It's an insult, and it's ridiculous.

So there you have it. Be "lucky" enough or stupid enough to be able to believe this story, and you go to heaven! Be critical enough or from a different enough culture and you're going to be tortured for all eternity. Really nice god there.

And for the record, Japanese don't believe that people who don't follow Buddhism are going to be tortured or in hell.

[Harry Boy]

Catholics don't have to worry, according to them they are the only ones going to heaven.

A Baptist arrived in heaven and there was an Angel there to greet him and show him around, the Angel said "you can go anywhere you want to in the Kingdom Of Heaven except through that green door over there" the Baptist asked, "why am I not allowed in there Mr Angel" the Angel replied, "thats where the Catholics are and we don't want to upset them, you see, they think they are the only ones up here".
:bricks:
Our Father Who Art In Heaven

[thesmee1]

Catholics don't have to worry, according to them they are the only ones going to heaven.

A Baptist arrived in heaven and there was an Angel there to greet him and show him around, the Angel said "you can go anywhere you want to in the Kingdom Of Heaven except through that green door over there" the Baptist asked, "why am I not allowed in there Mr Angel" the Angel replied, "thats where the Catholics are and we don't want to upset them, you see, they think they are the only ones up here".
:bricks:
Our Father Who Art In Heaven

Lol, it reminds me when I was a kid, I was spending the weekend at a friends house, who happened to be a Baptist. My mother told me not to visit that church with them or I would not go to heaven. It scared the day lights out of me then, but I think the older catholics feel that way, Harry. I think the more enlightened and educated Catholics become, the less hold the Vatican has on them. Like in previous posts, the Vatican held sway in the lives of the uneducated and illiterate, ( ie., poor.) Way back in ancient times, and to some extent, today.

[Harry Boy]

Lol, it reminds me when I was a kid, I was spending the weekend at a friends house, who happened to be a Baptist. My mother told me not to visit that church with them or I would not go to heaven. It scared the day lights out of me then, but I think the older catholics feel that way, Harry. I think the more enlightened and educated Catholics become, the less hold the Vatican has on them. Like in previous posts, the Vatican held sway in the lives of the uneducated and illiterate, ( ie., poor.) Way back in ancient times, and to some extent, today.
Very True, young Catholics today are nowhere near as prejudiced as they were in my day.

[thesmee1]

Very True, young Catholics today are nowhere near as prejudiced as they were in my day.

When my father died, the local catholic church never acknowledged his death. The local protestant church sent her a beautiful floral display. This changed her ignorance about other religions. She became enlightened. Sometimes it's the little things that do it.

The young catholics that are in the 40's, 50's and 60's are showing their children how to be enlightened. Some get it, some don't..

[PatsFanInVa]

My funny little hunny was raised Catholic, but got Jewisher the longer she knew me, and now identifies as a reform Jew.

When she was much younger, she had a kid out of wedlock, and the local church would (naturally) not let him be baptised in the normal baptismal font, and couldn't be in the scheduled "group" baptism they did weekly... he had to have some sort of "back of the church" font of his very own, with nobody else there. It was incredibly hurtful to her, but I've met the guy, now a grown man and a good man, and he does not retain any notion that he's a "bastard." If anything it's a "back of the mind" knowledge that doesn't go to the front, from what I can tell. Just a fact, like he has brown hair.

Would that have been different, had she fought her instinct to say "screw this!" and attended church regularly instead? I don't know... just an old story, about the church as it once was, in a particular place.

PFnV

[The Predator]

As to the earliest Christians, we do not know for certain. We do know that the surviving Christianity is Pauline Christianity; as to what came before, you have to interpret to say the Pauline tradition dominated, and you have to interpret to say definitively that they did not. What we know is that the Paulines won.

PFnV

I don't know very much about this stuff, but something makes sense to me. Christians are followers of Christ. Many Christians agree about the importance or even authority of the Bible. If we want to know when the earliest Christians came on the scene, why don't we read the Bible?

Acts 11:26
And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

I am not sure if it can be refuted (I have tried) that the use of this word was the first time it ever showed up in written history. The Bible (whether we believe Christianity or not) is a history book.

Most believe that the book of Acts was penned by a guy named Dr. Luke aroud 60AD. The events in Acts 11 seem to take place within a few years of Jesus death.

A Biblical conclusion would seem that the first Christians were the disciples of Jesus within a few years of his death. There is no church name or denomination.

[The Predator]

Thesmee,

Simple answer? I don't know.

Received wisdom (though received from respected "New Testament" scholars)?

Paul understood that Christianity needed to be preached to the gentiles, and Peter thought Christianity was basically a form of Judaism. Gross oversimplification, from "received wisdom," some years ago. But I think Paul's works bear out the distinction.

Real answer: IF you buy that certain "sayings" materials could not be excised from popular memory, then the "sayings" material from the gospels looks much more trustworthy than the editorial addititions. (For instance, he did thus and such that this prophecy would be fulfilled -- well, Jesus didn't say that. A writer of a gospel said that.)

I think during Peter's time the popular imagination had a broad idea of what Jesus preached, and one or another narrative that explained the meaning of Jesus' passion.

In Paul's time, gospels were written which set down the meaning of Jesus' death. This eventually overshadowed Jesus' meaning in life. Remember, on the day Peter died, the Temple was still standing; the crisis that was to rend Judaism had not fully hit. Once the Temple was destroyed (c. 67 CE, if memory serves,) the meaning of Jesus' death can become something very different (i.e., "replacement theology.")

I personally think Jesus thought he was speaking primarily if not exclusively to Jews, though he was a forward-looking and expansive thinker. I further think he hand-picked Peter to found and lead the church. I don't think he thought that, for instance, Christianity would do away with circumcision and kashruth (remember "every jot, every iota..."?)

I don't really think I have a guess as to whether Peter was waiting for Jesus' return, but certainly in most Paulline documents the return is very important.

Again, these are the guesses of an outsider, based on a good deal of study from the point of view of "best guesses" rather than faith. First and foremost, this is the point of view of a non-believer in the Christian bible.

If you don't believe, you look first at the history, and you are most concerned with the actual personages, and the schools of thought of the times, as best you can make them out. If you do believe, these are less important, and can be reconstructed as necessary to fit the belief system. You trumpet the certainty of the bible as received and do not entertain historical questions, which, after all, are not the point of the book. But if the book is not the point of view of the man (Jesus), you do it all in vain.

I only have questions, not answers, and I have them of my own faith as well. Life in God's service, in my world, is a process of asking and answering the questions, not a process of loudly proclaiming the answers regardless of the dictates of history.

If they come easy, or if they come hard, may your answers and your questions fulfil you!

PFnV
Then an angel sends Peter to a Roman in Acts 10 who is not by blood a Jew (Gentile). Peter goes and the results were a convert to Peter's teaching. Then Peter has to go to the church in Jerusalem to defend his actions. So it is incorrect to say Peter focussed on the Jews.

[PatsFanInVa]

Predator, I would argue your proof that Peter focused on gentiles (as Paul did,) on the following counts:

1) A single conversion among gentiles is not the same thing as a focus on the conversion of gentiles; therefore, a single conversion of a gentile does not prove Peter to be concerned with converting gentiles vis a vis converting Jews. This is if we take the bible as a history book, pure and simple, as you suggested in your penultimate post.

2) We can not only accept the bible on face value. It is the history as written, edited, and selected by those who survived to create the organized early Christian church. For example, one account of the "Great Commission" from the resurrection in Matthew, is missing from older extent copies of the Christian bible. This sort of thing does not alter the fact that Christianity is what it is today; it only points to the historical nature of text redaction.

Therefore, were it in the interests of the early church to portray Peter's concern with conversion of gentiles, we would expect the early church to select such a story for inclusion.

This neither confirms nor denies the account in Christian scripture; it simply notes that the Christian scripture, as written and compiled by the early church, can not be trusted without question as an objective authority on matters germane to that church.

In other words, any sacred writings of a religion are written and collected in historical times and places, not in vacuums. Scripture can tell us what the faith is supposed to embrace, according to he who records the scripture. It can not tell us, unequivocally and in a vacuum, the historical truth.

As to Acts, the traditional view is that Paul's friend named Luke wrote Acts; Many feel this was not the case, and that it was written later. I think I ascribed Acts to Paul, and if so, I do stand corrected. Luke's authorship is not, however, an uncontested fact either.

What is well known is that Acts falls squarely into Pauline Christianity.

Sources commenting on early Christianity, who view the early church in many ways, can be examined here (among other places):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Church

As always in the case of religion, this Wikipedia page's neutrality is questioned.

A final note -- those who claim there was a section of Judaizers in the Jerusalem church point to James the Just as the wellspring of that point of view. What we do know is that Paul was "apostle to the Gentiles," and Peter was concerned with the Jerusalem church; whether Peter believed in the emerging Pauline "mainstream" is uncertain.

Anyway, as I always say, I am an interested outsider, so please take all my commentary in that spirit. I have no "dog in this fight," but I do have an avid interest in truth in general (not to be confused with a corner on it.)

PFnV

[PatsFanInVa]

Predator, by the way, your common-sense thought that "Christians are followers of Christ" is exactly right, as far as I am concerned... the depiction of one group or another as "not real christians" is divisive, and (were I Christian,) I would consider it incredibly hurtful, not to mention hypocritical, on the part of the "real" Christian who so judges me.

Of course, those who use the "real" Christian rubric can ground their actions in early church actions and teachings against heresy.

Based on the quotes of Jesus himself, those who believe in him are all believers -- later to be called Christians.

PFnV

[The Predator]

Predator, I would argue your proof that Peter focused on gentiles (as Paul did,) on the following counts:

1) A single conversion among gentiles is not the same thing as a focus on the conversion of gentiles; therefore, a single conversion of a gentile does not prove Peter to be concerned with converting gentiles vis a vis converting Jews. This is if we take the bible as a history book, pure and simple, as you suggested in your penultimate post.

2) We can not only accept the bible on face value. It is the history as written, edited, and selected by those who survived to create the organized early Christian church. For example, one account of the "Great Commission" from the resurrection in Matthew, is missing from older extent copies of the Christian bible. This sort of thing does not alter the fact that Christianity is what it is today; it only points to the historical nature of text redaction.

Therefore, were it in the interests of the early church to portray Peter's concern with conversion of gentiles, we would expect the early church to select such a story for inclusion.

This neither confirms nor denies the account in Christian scripture; it simply notes that the Christian scripture, as written and compiled by the early church, can not be trusted without question as an objective authority on matters germane to that church.

In other words, any sacred writings of a religion are written and collected in historical times and places, not in vacuums. Scripture can tell us what the faith is supposed to embrace, according to he who records the scripture. It can not tell us, unequivocally and in a vacuum, the historical truth.

As to Acts, the traditional view is that Paul's friend named Luke wrote Acts; Many feel this was not the case, and that it was written later. I think I ascribed Acts to Paul, and if so, I do stand corrected. Luke's authorship is not, however, an uncontested fact either.

What is well known is that Acts falls squarely into Pauline Christianity.

Sources commenting on early Christianity, who view the early church in many ways, can be examined here (among other places):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Church

As always in the case of religion, this Wikipedia page's neutrality is questioned.

A final note -- those who claim there was a section of Judaizers in the Jerusalem church point to James the Just as the wellspring of that point of view. What we do know is that Paul was "apostle to the Gentiles," and Peter was concerned with the Jerusalem church; whether Peter believed in the emerging Pauline "mainstream" is uncertain.

Anyway, as I always say, I am an interested outsider, so please take all my commentary in that spirit. I have no "dog in this fight," but I do have an avid interest in truth in general (not to be confused with a corner on it.)

PFnV

TY PFVA for the responses but I do need to point out a few things that don't make sense about them. I certainly do not view your reply as hostile. No matter who we are, we need to learn and grow.

1. I am not sure if you read the part of Acts that I quoted, but its seems like you have not.:( If you read the part you would see that one single person was not converted. In fact it was Cornelius and all those who heard Peter. That would have at least been the Romans family, some servants, and possibly friends who came to see Peter. This is not the emphasis of Acts 10 the way I read it. In fact verses 34-48 Peter actually opens up a gateway for his mesage to be be brought to the Gentile nation. These are Peter's words. Again, I am not a scholar, but I just read what that it said. In chapter 11 some Jews have a cow about Peter proclaiming the message to the Gentile nation. If your theory were true, then why did the Jews have a fit? One person would not have been an issue because the Jews has many proselytes.

2. I actually agree that the Bible cannot be accepted on face value because it must be a matter of ones faith. I believe you are very incorrect claiming that part of Matthew's great commission is missing. Could you please provide the textual varient codes from the manuscripts that have the missing parts? What we can do is dig up that manuscript information and see how or why it is missing. What Koine Greek text are you using to make this claim and who is the editor?

3. The majority of textual critics agree that Luke penned Acts. The reason it was not Paul? Paul is not a doctor. In the Gospel of Luke the author uses amazing medical terms and has a totally unique writing style. Just like any author has his own style Luke has his. His education level, grammar, and vocabulary was very different than Paul. The Gospel of Luke is a dead on match with the book of Acts. The similarities force the writer to be the same.

4. As far as the accusations against someone named James the Just are totally unfounded. James, the half brother of Jesus was an elder in Jerusalem. He was also the author of the New Testament book of James. All one needs to do is read that book to see that such a claim is invalid.

Thanks for the conversation. I learned a lot too.

[PatsFanInVa]

1. I am not sure if you read the part of Acts that I quoted, but its seems like you have not.:( If you read the part you would see that one single person was not converted. In fact it was Cornelius and all those who heard Peter. That would have at least been the Romans family, some servants, and possibly friends who came to see Peter. This is not the emphasis of Acts 10 the way I read it. In fact verses 34-48 Peter actually opens up a gateway for his mesage to be be brought to the Gentile nation. These are Peter's words. Again, I am not a scholar, but I just read what that it said. In chapter 11 some Jews have a cow about Peter proclaiming the message to the Gentile nation. If your theory were true, then why did the Jews have a fit? One person would not have been an issue because the Jews has many proselytes.

2. I actually agree that the Bible cannot be accepted on face value because it must be a matter of ones faith. I believe you are very incorrect claiming that part of Matthew's great commission is missing. Could you please provide the textual varient codes from the manuscripts that have the missing parts? What we can do is dig up that manuscript information and see how or why it is missing. What Koine Greek text are you using to make this claim and who is the editor?

3. The majority of textual critics agree that Luke penned Acts. The reason it was not Paul? Paul is not a doctor. In the Gospel of Luke the author uses amazing medical terms and has a totally unique writing style. Just like any author has his own style Luke has his. His education level, grammar, and vocabulary was very different than Paul. The Gospel of Luke is a dead on match with the book of Acts. The similarities force the writer to be the same.

4. As far as the accusations against someone named James the Just are totally unfounded. James, the half brother of Jesus was an elder in Jerusalem. He was also the author of the New Testament book of James. All one needs to do is read that book to see that such a claim is invalid.

Thanks for the conversation. I learned a lot too.

Predator, the learning is mutual. I basically studied the gospels way more closely than Acts, and you are correct, I read more about Acts than of it, both prior to and after your post. But of course, I'll hang on to a vestige of a point regarding Peter. I don't think of this as a personality based schism, rather more a dearth of knowledge about whether there was an uncontested early Christian mainstream. "On this rock [Peter]," Jesus will build his church; yet it is Paul who seems to establish the Christian system of belief. But one point at a time...

1) Conceded, again without reading, that the story says it is a whole family of gentiles. I will accept for the sake of argument, that for the believer, the story establishes that Peter's viewpoint came around to be the equivalent of Paul's, to wit, that the Christian message should be equally offered to and established for all, regardless of origin. There's also no real reason to believe Peter opposed this decision, since during the lifetimes of Peter and Paul, Peter was at least supposed to have the last word, and had Peter actively opposed this decision, we would know it.

Although the story may or may not be embellishment, I do not say that Peter could not conceive of gentiles converting. I do think he left it primarily to Paul, and given these two items of information, I could well imagine that propping up Peter's being "on board", especially in light of Paul's wrath against "Judaizers" in Galatians, was important by the time of Acts, which again, is dated anywhere from 80-200 ce (with most scholars siding with 80.) I think the letters are the earliest bits we have, at least the ones that have a consensus on Pauline authorship (such as Galatians.) More importantly, Acts may come after the decisions made at Javneh (Jamnia,) possibly at a "Council of Jamnia," which essentially declared Christianity un-Jewish, thereby making Peter's putative fondness for converting gentiles much more necessary. I also checked Peter's dates, and only then realized that at least according to tradition, Paul never attained church primacy. The post was Peter's until both died, by some accounts on the same day.

So I'll drop the use of Peter to talk about the early church, and add a mea culpa. He was in charge, yet Acts lurches over from Peter to Paul halfway through; We have the story you cite, but we also have Paul as the key figure who preaches against Judaizing within Christianity.

Paul refers to himself specifically as an apostle to the gentiles:

Romans 11:13 (New American Standard Bible, Copyright © 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation)

But I am speaking to you who are Gentiles. Inasmuch then as (A)I am an apostle of Gentiles, I magnify my ministry,

And again, most clearly, in Galatians 2:7-9 (ibid)

7But on the contrary, seeing that I had been (P)entrusted with the (Q)gospel to the uncircumcised, just as (R)Peter had been to the circumcised

8(for He who effectually worked for Peter in his (S)apostleship to the circumcised effectually worked for me also to the Gentiles),

9and recognizing (T)the grace that had been given to me, (U)James and (V)Cephas and John, who were (W)reputed to be (X)pillars, gave to me and (Y)Barnabas the (Z)right hand of fellowship, so that we might (AA)go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.

In Galatians 2:11-14, Paul "Opposed [Peter] to his face" over Peter's own hypocritical adherence to Judaizing behavior:

Peter (Cephas) Opposed by Paul
11But when (AC)Cephas came to (AD)Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.
12For prior to the coming of certain men from (AE)James, he used to (AF)eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, (AG)fearing the party of the circumcision.

13The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even (AH)Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy.

14But when I saw that they (AI)were not straightforward about (AJ)the truth of the gospel, I said to (AK)Cephas in the presence of all, "If you, being a Jew, (AL)live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?

Now, I do not study these documents in the Greek, but in translation. You can tell me if there is something to the translation which distorts the meaning of the documents, but it looks as if Peter has a mission to the Jews, and Paul to the Gentiles. It also looks like Paul "won this one," and swayed Peter to abandon his previous stance of "compel(ling) the Gentiles to live like Jews." I'll also be glad to talk about these passages in other versions of the same texts.

But I will drop the Peter argument here, and move on, since this post is almost certainly over the limit... I will call point 1 conceded in part, but also consider it established that Paul affected some change in Peter regarding his identification with Judaizers within Christianity.

Moving on to#2 in post 2!

[PatsFanInVa]

...I believe you are very incorrect claiming that part of Matthew's great commission is missing. Could you please provide the textual varient codes from the manuscripts that have the missing parts? What we can do is dig up that manuscript information and see how or why it is missing...

I'm again going to concede that I do not read Greek koine, or any other kind of Greek. There is a great discussion of the "sudden" end of Mark in the Greek after 16:8, on the wikipedia link below. I am fascinated, but I want to stick to the main premise.

But I'll give you what I've essentially read and repeated -

The particular passage is Mark 16. Once again, I'll give you a wikipedia link on what the scholars say about this bit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_16

The concensus is that there are a lot of preexistent resurrection stories representing different traditions, which are tacked on later. One such story involves the Great Commission (that is, not just to save the "lost sheep of Israel," as mentioned to Matthew, but to save EVERYBODY)...

Mark 16:9-20 seems not to be original. These bits do not appear in the codex vaticanus and the co