My views on religion

Post Reply New Topic

Says mitch8817,
"He was the son of the Lord of the universe, who wouldn't say that they saw him?"
Good to see you finally recognise Jesus! As I said these people had no reason to lie. The romans and the jews did not believe in Jesus that is why they had him crucified. These people had the power to let Jesus walk free but they chose not too. They let a criminal go free instead. Why? Were they scared like you to have faith in someone other than themselves?

Thus, while Papias was collecting his information (c. 90), Aristion and the elder John (who were Jesus’ disciples) were still alive and teaching in Asia minor, and Papias gathered information from people who had known them.[30] Another Father, Quadratus, who wrote an apology to the emperor Hadrian, stated:
The words of our Savior were always present, for they were true: those who were healed, those who rose from the dead, those who were not only seen in the act of being healed or raised, but were also always present, not merely when the Savior was living on earth, but also for a considerable time after his departure, so that some of them survived even to our own times.
By “our Savior” Quadratus means Jesus, and by “our times” he presumably refers to his early life, rather than when he wrote (117-124), which would be a reference contemporary with Papias.
[edit] Josephus

Josephus on Jesus
Flavius Josephus (c. 37–c. 100), a Jew and Roman citizen who worked under the patronage of the Flavians, wrote the Antiquities of the Jews in 93. In it, Jesus is mentioned twice. In the second very brief mentioning, Josephus calls James, "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ". This is considered by the majority of scholars to be authentic,

More notably, in the Testimonium Flavianum, it is written:
About this time came Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it is appropriate to call him a man. For he was a performer of paradoxical feats, a teacher of people who accept the unusual with pleasure, and he won over many of the Jews and also many Greeks. He was the Christ. When Pilate, upon the accusation of the first men amongst us, condemned him to be crucified, those who had formerly loved him did not cease [to follow him], for he appeared to them on the third day, living again, as the divine prophets foretold, along with a myriad of other marvellous things concerning him. And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day.

The words speak for themselves. "reflect on what I am saying, for the lord will give you insight into all this"[2 Timonthy 2:7]

Froggo.

FROGGO, let me make this clear: I am not afraid to have faith in something. But then, I suppose those religiously inclined are quite familiar with fear...

Second, you know what I meant in saying that "He was the son of the Lord of the universe, who wouldn't say that they saw him?". You are only lessening yourself with that childishness.

Thirdly, if you want to start speaking about the history of your religion then present the other side too. Remember? All that death and murder and conversions.

Firstly, thank you to both Mitch8817 and Froggo for your fascinating and well argued posts. In honesty I must restate my own Christianity and therefore probable bias. Nevertheless, this ongoing discussion has raised some very interesting points, though I suspect that my response may be fairly feeble. Mitch8817's mention of the paradox of divine omniscience and human free will is a very good question, though one I will probably not be able to rebut tonight, and in any case perhaps it would be better to live with the tension and struggle with the question for a while. You are right to remind Froggo (and indeed all of us) of the other side of Christian history. I am not sure if Froggo was intending to be sarcastic in his enthusiasm about your ostensible conversion, but he has a point that neither Tacitus nor Suetonius were Christians. However I am not sure about the eye witness of Christ thing (at least Suetonius and I suspect Tacitus were born too late for starters. Perhaps they spoke to older eye witnesses?) Certainly Tacitus wrote about Christians, though that is rather different. As you say neither had motives to twist accounts in favour of Christ, but then I am not sure that they do. At least the second of the Josephus quotes does have its authenticity questioned by many scholars, though you may wish to dismiss this as revisionism (as a university lecturer of mine, herself no Christian, though an expert on Jewish and Christian history, once observed, "Scholars are a fairly suspicious lot.")

Thank you for the C. S. Lewis quote Froggo. I think this looks like the beginning of a beautiful discussion. And possibly friendship.

The earliest traditions of Christianity only included our own deaths, murders (Martyrdom) and the abundant conversions by those who were impressed by the gospel message and signs & wonders. If you want to blame us for what the Roman state religion did, then I can blame you for the wrongs the Australian government has done! When did you stop killing Aborigines?

The Roman state religion did its best to suppress Christianity in the empire. It broke up New Testament churches. It suppressed signs & wonders. It suppressed exorcism. Personal divine guidance was unacceptable. It suppressed the Christian Bible. There wasn't much left of real Christianity when they got done. What they exhibited wasn't Christian compassion, either. But they called themselves "Christian."

Jesus' early church had all of these things and more. These are making a comeback in the last century in "Pentecostal" churches and the "small group" movement. Even the Roman church is having to let some of these things back into their organization, due to the competition.

Einstein was Jewish, so by definition, he never accepted Christ as his savior. As far as I know, his strong identify as a Jew did not prevent him from also believing in evolution. Faith or belief in a Higher Power is not necessarily incompatible with the scientific evidence that the earliest forms of life evolved millions of years ago, becoming more complex, and cummulating with humanity.

I am a Reform Jew; I enjoy the music, the rituals, the traditions, and I also believe that it is a great miracle to be alive and to give thanks to that force that has granted me that gift. I can understand the atheistic perspective, because much of my near and dear kin are atheists or agnostics. However, I believe that religion can expand one's experience and deepen it and make one a better person. Personally, however, I don't have much patience with dogma that states that One Way is Better than Another Way.

While yes the early, pre-established church, part of Christianity's history was as you say, (though judging by Paul's letters and Luke's second volume the Acts of the Apostles, his first being the Gospel bearing his name, the early church had its share of problems and false teaching) your assessment that this had all but destroyed real Christianity by the time of Constantine (and this had only begun to be remedied in comparatively recent times - though that reminds me of one of the more compelling defenses of the Roman) apppears to raise serious questions about God's faithfulness. I would tend to agree that post-Constantine there was a downhill slide, but this seems to be associated with becoming an established church tied to the Roman state (or indeed any state - I am not on strong ground here as an Anglican!). With regard to Pentecostalism, how would you respond to Paul's argument in his first (canonical; it appears he may have written earlier from the information in the two extant letters themselves) letter to the church in Corinth, where he exhorts that speaking in tongues should only be two or three at a time, and never without interpretation? Interpretation of tongues and discernment of spirits (differentiating between what is from God and what is from Satan or for that matter from the human psyche or soul) would be useful gifts to have. Small groups (Bible studies) are a good idea. However, the Roman Catholic Church has had a number of movements for internal reform of doctrine and practice predating the sixteenth century Refomation, so your glib remarks about a cynical response to a competing "market" church, while certainly a case for some considerable inflluence from developments in the the other denonimations thus giving a degree of truth to the claim, semm out of place. By the way, apparently Pentecostal and evangelical churches are growing in Latin America at the expense of the Roman Catholic Church. I am not sure why I cast this bit in.

Hi everyone this is starting to become intresting, Froggo.

I am not one eyed as it were, before I came to God through a pentacostel church I studied evolution and the facts just don't work for me. I believe they will never be able to be proven so I began to study the bible. I went to bible study and church much to the suprise of all who knew this devout aitheist. There I opened my mind to other ideas that can also be very challenging. Religion has a lot of blood on it's hands but so does everyone else. I am not proud of the whitch trials and the crusades. One thing I know today is, wherever there are people being downtrodden you will usually find christians offering food and aid to helpless people. To me there is just more creditability in the "according to it's own kind" theory, which is the dead end that most evolution theories stop at. And if this is true then there must be a creator. This is my belief, what is Darwinian Evolution?
Darwinian Evolution was started by Charles Darwin to explain the origin of species around the world, apart from intelligent design. His main motivation for his science was to distance the creation of the world, and all it contains, from a master designer, or God. He tried to explain how creatures came about through an evolutionary process over millions of years. He expounds that everything can be explained via scientific observance apart from a master creator, or God. Why don’t we begin with some definitions, since words mean things.

Science. What is the definition of science? Here is what Websters’ Dictionary states:
“based on using, or in accordance with, the principles and methods of science; systematic and exact; designing the method of research in which a hypothesis, formulated after systematic, objective collection of data, is tested empirically.”
Here we have the definition of science. What is this definition really stating? The real definition of science is a method of research in which a hypothesis is formulated using a systematic, objective collection of data. This means that a scientist is able to prove his/her hypothesis by observing an experiment in a laboratory and being able to prove the results by repeating the data and coming up with the same results time and time again. If one takes this to the natural field, then one would have to be able to observe that process over and over again and coming up with the same results each and every time. This means that we can only prove what we can observe at that moment in time.
Thus how can one call Darwinian Evolution science when one states that something occurred millions or billions of years ago when they were unable to observe that action occurring at that particular time? This is contrary to the very definition of science. Let us go to the very heart of Darwinian Evolution.

There are six basic concepts of Darwinian Evolution.
1) Cosmic Evolution-Big Bang makes hydrogen
2) Chemical Evolution-higher elements evolve
3) Evolution of stars and planets from gas
4) Organic Evolution-life from rocks
5) Macro-Evolution-changes between kinds of plants and animals
6) Micro-Evolution-changes within kinds
Out of all of these six basic concepts, only one (#6) can be observed and called science, from the very definition of science. The first five are believed by faith alone.

Let us now go to the so-called evidence of the Darwinian Evolutionary scientists.
A) Lucy has been now been proven to only be a three foot tall chimpanzee.
B) Heidelberg Man was build from the jaw bone of a man.
C) Nebraska Man was built up from the tooth of an extinct pig.
D) Piltdown Man was found to be the jawbone from a modern ape
E) Peking Man was suppose to be 500,000 years old, but was found to be a fake and all evidence has since disappeared.
F) Neanderthan Man was found to be a skeleton from an old man that suffered from arthritis.
G) New Guinea Man dates back to 1970.
H) Cro-Magnon Man has been dated with man dating only back thousands of years.
The age of fossils has been found to be in error by hundreds of millions of years due to the circular reasoning used for carbon dating. When one brings in a fossil to be examined the scientist asks for an approximate date by where they can start dating that particular fossil. For example, one skeptic buried a pig bone in their back yard for 20 years and brought it to a prominent laboratory to be examined and he told the scientist that it was found in rock dating 200,000 years old. The scientists dated that pig bone to be over 100,000 years old!
The evolutionary scientists have used the argument of gill slits in a human embryo trying to prove that man evolved via a fish stage millions of years ago. The fact is that Earnst Haeckel made up the drawings in 1869 and have proven to be false. The “gills” are folds of skin.
Another argument used are “Vestigial” organs. These are being used to try and prove that we evolved from animals with tails. This also was proven to be false as these are simply nine muscles that attach to the tail bone and are not vestigial.
Still another argument still being used is that whales have a vestigial pelvis, proving that they evolved from a land dwelling creature. This also has been proven to be false as the “vestigial pelvis” is simply bones serving as anchor points for their muscles.
Still another argument used is the “gluon”. These scientists have said that gluons hold the atom together. Another lie. Gluons are a made-up dream. No one has ever seen them or measured them. They are a desperate theory to explain something that no one has been able to explain. We still, to this day, cannot explain why atoms simply do not explode. We cannot explain what holds them together.

Here are the facts of the atom: The electrons of the atom whirl around the nucleus billions of times every millionth of a second and that that nucleus of the atom consists of particles called neutrons and protons. Neutrons have no electrical charge and are therefore neutral, BUT protons have positive charges. One law of electricity is like charges repel each other. Since all the protons in the nucleus are positively charged, they should repel each other and scatter into space. No scientist in the world can explain this phenomenon.

In the 100+ years since Darwin’s death there have been literally millions of fossils found. NOT ONE of these fossils have proven that one species of animal or man has evolved from another species. The artistic masterpieces in museums all over the country show a number of species, starting from a chimpanzee all the way to man, with man in various stages of development, with absolutely no evidence that these “intermediary men” even exist.
Now why should those who really desire to know the truth believe scientists who have been lying to us for hundreds of years? The fake men that were mentioned above to prove Darwinian Evolution are still being printed in high school text books!
This is what makes those who believe in Intelligent Design so angry. Because scientists have been deceiving the public for so many years. As of this date; Darwinian Evolution is based upon faith, not fact.

Those of us who believe that the Bible is the truth also cannot prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that matter, man, plants and animals came to be in the six days of creation. BUT, we have One who was there and He mentioned that His Father DID create ALL things in six literal days. How? No one will ever know. How does one create something out of nothing? For us mere humans it is unthinkable and unknowable. Science will never be able to prove how all matter came to exist, and we have to be o.k. with that unknowable knowledge. In fact, if one studies botany then one will find out that after hundreds of years of the study of plants, then one realizes that we cannot even fully explain photosynthesis!

Now here is what we believe, for those of us who believe that the Bible is the Word of God. His Word to man is infallible. One MUST understand that the Bible is NOT a science book, nor was it ever intended to be. The Bible is God’s Word to man about redemption. The redemption of a people, the Hebrews, chosen by God to bring God’s message of salvation to the Nations. The Bible is God’s Word to man to bring ALL men, and women, to repentance so as to escape the wrath of Father God when His Son, Jesus Christ, returns to the earth to judge the living and the dead. As it is written:
“The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering towards us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.” 2 Peter 3:9

Here are the scriptures concerning creation:
“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters then God said; Let there be light, and there was light” Genesis 1:2
Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree the yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth” and it was so. Gen 1:11
So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kinds. And God saw that it was good. Gen 1:21
And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps upon the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. Gen 1:25
Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” Gen 1:26
Notice that it states that GOD created everything that we see. Not some “big bang” This is opposed to our current Darwinian Evolutionary scientists. Also notice that God created everything “ACCORDING TO ITS OWN KIND”. They did not evolve. That is why scientists have not been able to find any intermediary fossils. THERE ARE NONE.
Now, you may argue, “Well, this does not prove anything, it is just a book.” You are partly right. We cannot prove, as the definition of science states, but the Bible is not just another book. Now comes the strongest evidence.
Who is Jesus Christ? What did He say about Himself? Is He crazy? Is He a liar? Is He the Lord of the universe? Just who is this man? What does the Bible say about Him? Why don’t we start in the book of Isaiah the prophet.
“For unto us a child is born. Unto us a son is given; and the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.” Isaiah 9:6
“He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by Him (that is Jesus Christ) all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist.” Colossians 1:15-17
“looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ.” Titus 2:13
The above scriptures are what others have said about Jesus Christ. But what does He say about Himself? Is He God in the flesh? Why would we mention that Jesus is God? What does this have to do with Darwinian Evolution vs Intelligent Design? Actually, it has much to do with the subject. The reason being is that Jesus Christ Himself mentioned scriptures out of 37 books of the 39 books of the Old Testament. He mentioned more scriptures from the book of Genesis than any other single book.
He talks about creation being six days of work and one day of rest. He talks about Adam and Eve being created exactly how it is mentioned in the book of Genesis. But more importantly, He was an eyewitness to the creation of the heavens and the earth. Not only that but He created all matter that we explore today (See Colossians 1:15-17). So, He being the Creator, why would He say that it took six days to create?
Why would He quote the book of Genesis, the exact wording that we have today, and say that it is perfect? Is there any other human being who witnessed the creation? Do any of the Darwinian Evolution scientists claim to have been an eyewitness to the creation of the heavens and the earth? At this point you will have to either concede that Jesus Christ is a phony, that the Bible is not true, that scientists are smarter than God, OR that Jesus Christ is God, that He created ALL matter and that the Bible is the Word of God. You will have to decide for yourselves.
Here is Jesus Christ speaking:
“..that all should honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him. Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life.” John 5:23-24
“And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up on the last day.” John 6:40
“Not that anyone has seen the Father, except He who is from God, He has seen the Father. Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life.” John 6:46-47
Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM” John 8:58
And God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.” And He said, “Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, I AM has sent me to you.” Exodus 3:14
Then Jesus cried out and said, “He who believes in Me, believes not in Me but in Him who sent me. And he who sees Me sees Him who sent Me.” John 12:44-45
Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes to the Father except through Me.” John 14:6
Philip said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is sufficient for us.” Jesus said to him “Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, “Show us the Father?”
Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works. Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father in Me, or else believe Me for the sake of the works themselves.” John 14:8-11
He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him.” John 14:21
“And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one.” John 17:22
These scriptures speak of a man who claimed to be God Almighty walking around as a man. When Jesus said “Before Abraham was, I AM.” He was quoting out of Exodus 3:14, where Moses was talking to God Almighty on the mountain. If you study the text the Jews were going to kill Jesus by stoning Him to death, for He claimed to be God and this was the sin of blasphemy, unless He was really God.
So you will need to make up your mind; is Jesus Christ God Almighty or not? If you believe that He is who He says He is, then you will have to just believe that He created all matter, all life, everything that we see and study in the natural world. Just because we are unable to explain it apart from His creative work does not mean that man & animals just “evolved”? We can try to explain away things and make up fossils to try and prove that there is no God, but just because we don’t believe in Him does not make it true that He is not real.

Please if you have another alternate theory post it here. Mitch8817 says there are hundreds and hints at an alternate belief. I challenge you to lay down your cards here for all to see!

"for we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do" [Ephesians 2:10] , Froggo.

You seem to conflate under "Darwinian Evolution" a number of things that Charles Darwin himself would have been utterly ignorant of. I would also question whether his hypothesis was primarily motivated by a desire to disprove God. I am not sure that he actually stopped believing in God, though presumably he did cease to believe the literal truth of Genesis chapter 1, which you may argue would have certain consequences for his other beliefs.

You may have a point about how different truths hang together, one belief (here one belief as in belief concerning a particular aspect of a faith, not the whole of one such belief system) having consequences for apparently disparate beliefs. Certainly one may wish to ask certain tough questions to liberal and evangelical Christians alike at this point with regard to consistency. While your Scripture quotations are well-referenced, you did not provide any references for your claims that various ancestral hominids had been conclusively disproven, nor for the scientific information on embryonic anatomy. Sorry to be so hard on a fellow Christian, or indeed on any one. The discussion is indeed becoming very interesting.

Interesting point about the hypothetical nature of the gluon. To be fair, given the apparent paradox of the atom, a hypothesis is what scientists may tentatively propose (rather than assert as fact) while they are seeking to accumulate more evidence that may utterly disprove, modify or confirm such a hypothesis, the latter leading it to become a theory. Still not necessarily set in stone by that stage either. As such your mockery of their noble search for the gluon is a little unChristian (to use a term that must really be quite offensive to non-Christians, much as those odious terms unAustralian and anti-American) and quite possibly premature (remember the God of the gaps argument). God, who may or may not have created gluons, is entitled to sustain created existance however God wills. Of course gluons may not be necessary, but then neither would the other particles. And the "scientists lying to us for centuries" argument, implying deliberate malice rather than error, is rather slanderous.

Alexanderthesolitary, good work. Valid points.

The term Darwinian Evolution was the theory started by Darwin and built upon by future generations ie/ It's evolved! Darwin could not know all the answers because he was constrained by the science of the day. The same goes for the Bible. Their understanding was limited to their generation.

Darwin must have thought about what he was doing and how it would impact on the theory of creation. What other motivator is there than to disprove the popular theory of the time. This in turn means disproving the excistence of God, the basis of creation.

The so-called evidence for evolution articles that I mentioned are too long to include all of them. They are easy to search for. I will include a portion of the "Lucy" article for your convenience.

by Carl Wieland
22 September 2006

A young individual of the same species as the famous ‘Lucy’ has just been unveiled.1 Found in Dikika, Ethiopia, this specimen is remarkably well preserved. It is of a young female, probably about three years old. The ‘age’ is supposed to be 3.3 million years. It has taken five years so far to carefully remove much of the skeleton from the sandstone. The job is not complete; there may be years more work to confirm exactly what the foot bones looked like, for instance.
Why it’s important
There was much fuss when ‘Lucy’ (later named Australopithecus afarensis) was discovered. Here at last, evolutionists seemed to have a wonderful ‘ancestor candidate’—one which supposedly walked upright, and had a near-perfect mix of ape and human characteristics.
However, as inevitably happens, things started to look different as time went on and as anatomists carefully studied the fossil bones of Lucy and other specimens of her genus, Australopithecus [cf. the same thing with alleged whale intermediate Pakicetus]. Several researchers using objective computer techniques (like evolutionist Dr Charles Oxnard) pointed out that the features as a whole were not intermediate at all between apes and humans. They also pointed out that their method of locomotion was not upright in the human manner, either. Furthermore, the fingers and toes of other specimen’s of Lucy’s kind seemed to be long and curved, like apes that swing in the trees. Their arms were long, like those of tree-climbers. [For more details, see the Australopithecus afarensis section of the overview Fossil evidence for alleged apemen—Part 2: non-Homo hominids from Journal of Creation]
Keen to hang onto their vision of an ‘apeman’, it was argued that these were just evolutionary ‘leftovers’. It became harder to defend, however, when the Lucy skeleton itself was shown to have the same wrist mechanism (that ‘locks’ the wrist for knucklewalking) as do chimps and gorillas—see Lucy was a knuckle-walker and the more technical Did Lucy walk upright?, and the more recent Lucy: walking tall—or wandering in circles? (Was this also a leftover? If so, why hadn’t natural selection eliminated this if it was no longer used?)
To make things worse for the belief that these were ‘man’s ancestors’, other australopithecine skulls, when the organ of balance site was scanned, also gave evidence that they could not have walked habitually upright like humans at all.2

Some might have tried to maintain the excitement, based on the evidence that some australopithecines must have had the capacity for at least rudimentary speech. This evidence was that the inside of their skulls had impressions of the pattern on the brain surface, which showed that they had the same sorts of patterns as we do in the areas of our brain used for language. But that evidence, too, took a nose-dive when it was shown that the same patterns are there in some living apes, too, but are used only for non-linguistic purposes (see also Mind by design: interview with neuroscientist and part-time ‘ape-man’ researcher Peter Line and Monkeying around with the origins of language).
Of course, while this evidence was accumulating, countless evolutionary pictures and displays showing ‘Lucy’ with what were drawn to be ‘human-ape’ features (e.g. human-looking hands and feet) were piling up, too. Though contradicted by the evidence, it was too hard, it seemed, to modify all those displays.

As a christian I'm constantly mocked by others when they learn of my faith. I understand that they are passionate about their ideas but so am I, my cause is just as noble as anybody elses and I don't see this as being unchristian.

Then Jesus was filled with the joy of the Holy Spirit and said "O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, thank you for hiding the truth from those who think themselves so wise and clever, and for revealing it to the childlike. Yes Father, it pleased you to do it this way".[Luke 10:21]

catch ya froggo.

We have a misunderstanding here. Until 326 A.D., the church was primarily made up of small house churches. There were no popes, no priests and no giant Christian temples. The bishops were generally local. The New Testament documents all existed and the gifts of the Holy Spirit were universal.

Emperor Constantine and later emperors with their armies and treasuries "established" the church after their own image. They made up stories to justify their hijacking of the church. I mean, why would Peter, an Israeli fisherman leave Jerusalem for anywhere else? Especially the capital of the empire that was still oppressing Israel?!?

As for the Roman church, there have been attempts at reformation, but the traditions are very iron-clad. The Jesuits were still the pope's standing army for killing heretics and dissenters. Martin Luther got away with his life because of the protection of German burghers. After the monopoly was broken, it took a while for the Roman church to stop killing competition and start competing with the alternatives.

The Pentecostal movement was wild and immature to begin with -- because there were no mature Pentecostal Christians. All they knew was the Holy Spirit had arrived!

When I was in Santa Barbara decades ago, an Episcopal nun felt divine guidance to go visit Alaska. She visited the outlying villages with the gospel. One village she visited, the Eskimos greeted the plane, speaking in tongues. She asked what had happened and they said their building was shaken and little fires landed on them and they all started speaking in tongues. The whole village was at a standstill, with everyone prophesying and speaking in tongues. She taught them out of 1 Corinthians to get some order in the village. She told them that they didn't have to speak in tongues if they needed to communicate with each other. The prophets needed to stop prophesying doom on the cities to the south (us) and prophesy for the edification of their own area. She gave them her Bible and went on her way. She told the account to the youth group I was leading. The story was verified five years ago by a woman who had lived in Alaska during that time.

I was an Episcopalian until last general convention. Instead of going over to an Anglican church, I went to a conservative United Methodist church. The Anglican format is still too Roman. The priestly elite is still a Roman concept. The apostolic succession originating in Rome is clinging onto that fiction about Peter. The notion that only the Priest can hand out communion crackers is entirely Roman. Everyone drinks from the same metal cup. The priest wears a dress. I mean, trying to bring 21st century unchurched Americans into that environment is too tough. It stands in the way of the Great Commission. And I used to be a convention delegate and Senior Warden!

If there were a Celtic-format church available, I would drag my wife there! See my website about this style church: Order of Saint Patrick

Thank you Froggo and TimT for your responses. Wherein the misunderstanding? I thought that I was clear that I agreed that the establisment of the Church by Constantine was a disaster. Frustratingly, just a few minutes ago I wrote quite a long response that was wiped. I had some questions on how evangelical belief in the literal truth of the scriptures reconciles with Zwinglian eucharistic theology. The Lutheran position (Real Presence) on this, which I am somewhat unclear as to its exact divergence from the Roman doctrine of transubstantiation, might be reconciled with the letter of scripture. If this doctrine on Biblical grounds were to be held true this would seem repugnant to me, yet if that were a criterion to be allowed to override scripture, what would preserve us from semi-Marcionism? Also I asked about Luther's apparent hostility to the epistle of James, as well as about the rejection of the Apocrypha when these had been accepted by Christians. If decisions as to canonicity are to be so cavalierly altered, what DOES preserve us from semi-Marcionism? Sorry if some of these seem trite, but as with the creationism evolution debate, there are serious issues as to the inerrancy of scripture and of God's truthfulness and faithfulness. Could we also discuss some questions (not in my original copy of this reply) that have often troubled me. While Jesus' forgiveness of the woman caught in adultery was very wonderful and all, "Let he who is without sin among you cast the first stone," if Son and Father are perfectly in accord could not the Israelites have been let in on this principle rather earlier, ie in Moses' day? Not to condone infidelity, but if many people were killed, introducing a principle that as we have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, none of us has the right to pass judgement centuries afterwards does not seem to be altogether timely. Forgive me if I blaspheme. Also with God's testing of Abraham; surely in God's omniscience Abraham's faith was well known. Also, while with Jepphthah it was a rash oath rather than a divine command, could not God have intervened on behalf of his daughter as well as for Abraham's son Isaac?

Have either of you read much of the book of the prophet Isaiah? This is a glorious book. Sorry if this post seems all over the place.

I'm sorry about the generalisation.I called Einstein a believer when it may have been better to describe him as a Zionist. I'm not familiar with his views on Jesus if he ever had one but I do understand that he believed in a planned and ordered universe. There are many names for these theories including the one that Einstein mentioned "Spinoza's God"

By his own definition, Einstein was a deeply religious person (Pais 1982, p. 319).[37] He published a paper in Nature in 1940 entitled Science and Religion which gave his views on the subject.[38] In this he says that: "a person who is religiously enlightened appears to me to be one who has, to the best of his ability, liberated himself from the fetters of his selfish desires and is preoccupied with thoughts, feelings and aspirations to which he clings because of their super-personal value ... regardless of whether any attempt is made to unite this content with a Divine Being, for otherwise it would not be possible to count Buddha and Spinoza as religious personalities. Accordingly a religious person is devout in the sense that he has no doubt of the significance of those super-personal objects and goals which neither require nor are capable of rational foundation...In this sense religion is the age-old endeavour of mankind to become clearly and completely conscious of these values and goals, and constantly to strengthen their effects." He argues that conflicts between science and religion "have all sprung from fatal errors." However "even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other" there are "strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies"... "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind ...a legitimate conflict between science and religion cannot exist." However he makes it clear that he does not believe in a personal God, and suggests that "neither the rule of human nor Divine Will exists as an independent cause of natural events. To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural events could never be refuted...by science, for [it] can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot." (Einstein 1940, pp. 605–607)

So Einstein's belief was again another variation of the creation theory. It's hard to deny the views of a man who was so incredably talented.
Throughout this string I have tried to define my beliefs, Not convert anyone and I welcome your insight which can only help me on my own journey.

"those who become Christians become new persons. They are not the same anymore, for the old is gone. A new life has begun!" [2 Corinthians 5:17]
Froggo.

You may have point about the substantial number of retentions from pre-reformation times in Anglicanism of elements that are perhaps dubious given that on the one hand Jesus is our one High Priest and on the other the whole Church (all Christians, not as shorthand for the clergy) is a kingdom of priests or royal priesthood. Some might classify it as in the same category as issues such as in Paul's time where some had faith that they regarded some days as sacred, some regarded all days alike, some had faith that they only ate vegetables, some were omnivorous, etc. At different points Paul may have different degrees of severity, presumably in proportion to whether something was an obstacle to faith in Christ as their only and sufficient Saviour.

a lot of people were impressed by how jesus was just like mithra. he even had 12 apostles just like mithra!!


http://www.exitmundi.nl/bible/


facts about the bible...because in the end, there is essentially no such thing as a biblical fact.

Mithra was born from a rock (or a cave). He fought with the sun and managed to capture the divine bull and slew it before he ascended to heaven. From the blood of the bull came forth all the plants and animals beneficial to humanity. Just like Jesus?!? You must be hard up for things to use against the Christian faith!

No such thing as bible fact. Here's one. Jesus was a man who walked on earth. In fact here's two. Jesus died on the cross. These events are recorded in non-christian history by the romans.
The bible is full of historic facts and for those who believe, Gods message to us.

Froggo.