The Gospel, Christians and Acts

Thank you for the time and energy iano.
Apologies for the delay ... Indeed, Truly, as light as Jesus' yolk.Fourteen occurences of Jesus as the Messiah, ten occurences of His Amazing Resurrection, six occurences of His 'Lordship', three occurences of His authority to Discern/Judge, and the five occurences encouraging Repentance appear to provide enough detail to learn about the Love of the Father and Son, and Spirit of Love. It seems to generously cover the fundamentals of Jesus' Way, and provide easy directions. That it does not mention 'hell' even once, truly causes it to reflect Jesus nature, He Who gave Himself a ransom for All (to be testified in due time).Is it better to Love our neighbor for a conditional reward (like Paul in Romans - Heaven/hell, maso/sado), or unconditionally (like disciples in Acts - Agape Love)?TIA This appears reasonable. It is good to note that the man behind the pen was a 'convicted' murderer; not a happy fisherman - lolPaul, the murderer, appears to have had a very guilty conscience and we do not blame him (for anything, but hope). It seems he encountered much trouble swallowing his portion of forgiveness, yet it appears his previous gainful employment (mutilating people) may have caused that. Should we suppose 'christians' are better off condemning themselves, continually, as Paul did in his 'gospel of bad news'? That is a valid point iano. Paul does not simply report the Gospel that Jesus and his merry men originally spoke. Many say this troubled other disciples; we imagine they could not see Grace through the eyes of a forgiven murderer. They mostly murdered fish; not men. In Acts, the disciples report the Father's Good News for All and many appear to receive the Words that are spoken properly. In Romans, Paul reports bad news; his difficulty in accepting what the Father, the Son, and the Spirit of Agape Love have prepared for All.Perhaps the jews/catholics/protestants receive the sadomasochistic heterodox 'gospel of guilt' through Paul not being able to fully imagine and accept Grace ... is this the 'thorn in his side', which must remain, that he refers to?TIA Which point is that? Sado/maso is 'the way' - lol? We think Paul's writing's efficiently serve those who come to the Faith openly; yet, primarily the ones who cannot seem to cleave unto the Forgiveness that has been Gifted unto them. We do not imagine Paul's conscience absent from reality; just Acts.Do you feel if a disposed soul, open to repentance and Love, was given the book of Acts, alone, they could be 'saved'?One Love

---

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, I'm just a fool playing with ideas.
My only intention is to tickle your thinker. Trust nothing I say. Learn for yourself.
Think for yourself.Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

Because atheists have far higher moral standards than Christians.

Hi & thanks for the exchange Bri, lol - touche mista pussycat. Yet, do high moral standards pardon suspicion?We may do well to lend the benefit of the doubt to only those who, altogether, refrain from accusations; there has got to be at least One - lol. In the meantime, we are sure to be discerned by the ones the Father Loves, when we decide to discern the ones the Father Loves. Or more simply, we are sure to be discerned (by others), when we decide to discern others; Reality will testify to that, fo sho'.One Love

But there's no way to discover who the Father loves.

No worries..- Would it not be safe to include the 4 gospels also? There can be little doubt that 'evangelism' of non-believers was one of Jesus central activities. Were we to include that material, we would find teaching on "Hell" littering the pages. Indeed Jesus is the key figure to study if teaching on "Hell" is your topic of interest.- I'm not quite sure what you mean by heaven being the conditional reward for loving ones neighbour. Contrary to what you appear to be suggesting, the book of Romans is the place where salvation (or heaven) by faith is detailed.Roman is most certainly NOT propagating salvation by works such as "loving ones neighbour"- Given Jesus equating anger with murder we should suppose it impossible that God conjour up anything but murderers to pen his word. It was convicted murders (who happened to be fishermen) who recorded Jesus own words afterall. Unless you want to suppose them never angry with a brother?I never thought about it that way. All Christians are convicted (of their sinfulness) murderers. Nice pun!- Given Pauls arrival at the wonderous conclusion in Romans 8:1 that; "there is now no condemnation for those that are in Christ", I can't for the life of me see where you are drawing this notion from.Perhaps you could flesh things out by quoting Paul "continually" doing as you say? Say 6 or 7 examples..- You mean the gospel with constant references (from it's central protagonist, Jesus) to being cast out into outer darkness where there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth?- Manysay rhymes with hearsay.I imagine the one who is forgiven much will have reason to stand more in awe at the wonderous grace of God granted him - than one forgiven less. That would make rational sense. Indeed, so fired up would that person be that they could be expected to be motivated in a way not apparent with the ones who walked with Jesus.- And in the gospel accounts Jesus issued stark warnings and difficult teachings. And many walked away. According to this rational of yours we might suppose the disciples in possession of a better gospel than Christ himself.Which is why it might be worth reflecting on your opening premise regarding Acts.- After you construct a case for the gospel of guilt asserted throughout this post we can come back and look at this summing up of yours to see how well it reflects the situation.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : tidy up and add a point or twoEdited by iano, : No reason given.

Thanks for your time iano.
Please forgive us ... All of the Father's Words are 'good'; they are all even better when one accepts that the serpent deceived them in the Beginning and he is currently working overtime. We heard our Hope for the Good News is found within Christs' Resurrection? According to even Paul, faith or an imagination of Jesus' belief in 'hell' is in no way required for Forgiveness, Resurrection, or Survival ... If you declare with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that the Father raised him from the dead, you will be saved.If possible, please provide a chapter and verse where the Anchor expresses ones Hope of Survival and Resurrection lay in maintaining a healthy fear of death & torment; we were unable to locate it - lol. lol - we are not interested; an opportunity to join hellfire was not Jesus' Good News. Hardly good friend; religion, in harmony with systematic theology, has prepared the abundance of 'evidence'. One can gleam much more 'hell' literature from religious entities, than they can from the Faithful and True Witness.For the longest time, the way to understand christianity was to read the scripture and to digest its Wisdom. As it did then, it still requires hard work, diligence, a mature faith, an intelligent mind, strong reading abilities, and a willingness to learn about a culture from a different time and place. On top of all that, one needs an extraordinary imagination. We feel this type faith is to be admired, revered, and loved because it shows a true and pure faith that genuinely desires to know the Father of Life.Culture, if that is its real name, appears to have promoted the complete opposite of diligence in many aspects of our lives. It is not news, we are sure, when we identify the trend of many cultures that are enthralled with instant gratification as seen in movies, the internet, television, fast food, video games, and music, while other activities that require time and work are neglected, such as reading, playing sports, and spending time with family. lol - granted, this is stark contrast to fighting to the death, throwing people to lions, public executions and all sorts of less civilized activities that were previously used to 'pass the time' (whatever that means).Systematic theology, for instance, does not require an in-depth reading of scripture itself. The very nature of systematic theology is that of a quick-and-dirty view of passages that mention various issues, such as eschatology or baptism, etc. Instead of reading the bible as a historical narrative in the way that it was presented to us in its canonized form, this new systematic way of thinking slices the bible into neat and tidy sections separated by topic. Although when trying to understand a particular issue, one is well served by searching through the scripture to understand what was said about that issue, this new theological perspective does not look at the whole bible as a continuous story that builds upon itself. By doing so, it ignores many valid concepts, while inventing more of its own.Concepts of any caliber require thinking and a mature mind. They cannot be obtained by merely pointing to shallow arguments, which is precisely what pharisidical religion (which never admits fault) and popular systematic theology advocate.lol - we have no faith in the success of death/debbil and 'hell'; All our Faith is assigned to Christs' Kingdom of Servants, Resurrection, and Everliving Life. We are exceedingly thankful for Paul's intricate testimonies; please do not think otherwise. Thankfully though, faith without works is dead; perhaps the heterodox view that faith alone 'saves' is encouraging religious folk to usher in the emergent laodicean era. This is how God's children and the devil's children are distinguished. No person who fails to practice righteousness and to love his brother is from God.We will ask you more simply; do you feel it would be found more pleasing to learn how to love the Father conditionally or unconditionally?Is it better to teach conditional faith or unconditional faith?TIA You are wise to examine the fullness of Reality as it has been presented. We can perceive it both ways ; one interpretation is spiritually true (witnessed by Jesus) and one maintains physical truth (witnessed in hiStory). It is easy to cause confusion if the two are not differentiated; perhaps we were misunderstood concerning the matter.lol - it remains, physically, most fished or crunched numbers while Paul murdered people.People that were completely honest and utterly subservient to their Father, Savior, brothers, neighbors and widows. lol - truly ...The basic premise is that new believers and those open and unaware of the Way do not need to be fed poison in the beginning of their Faith. If one has trouble forgiving themselves or imaging the Father of Life's pardon, Paul's testimony may lend tremendous understanding to Forgiveness' depth and variety.Yet, none are convicted, unless we adopt the faith in 'the debbil' and his religious tribes who Lie about the truth. Christ came so that ALL may have Life; John assures us the Man of Hope will advocate if we slip (partake in an act of malignant aggression).It has been written, your sins are forgiven through Him that Loved the Father of Life the most.Is our hope of Forgiveness established by a guilty conviction or Jesus Resurrection?TIA We are not sure which you mean; the conclusion that Paul felt guilty or that many are brainwashed into accepting defunct version's of Paul's testimony, without personally studying it?Either way, we think the bible is best read with ones own eyes (preferably open).The less we learn from 'teachers', the better. The Father of Life has employed a Spirit of Love for that purpose. lol - this is certainly possible, considering how many times he refers to his chains, captivity, and unworthiness ...Seriously though, we have no desire to further corrupt Paul's testimony; thankfully, those in captivity to spiritually impotent religious rigidity have served their task efficiently. Please understand, this is in no way personally directed (especially considering your Love for the truth); we are most guilty for not speaking up sooner.Our Love for Paul, and his conscience, does not end. Yep - hopefully you do not have faith the Prophet is referring to 'hell'! More of the same inconsistency; there is no 'darkness' within fire - lol. It is not a happy place, with the clenched jaws and tears, but it does not align well at all with 'eternal fire'. 'Great wailing' and 'gnashing of teeth' will certainly occur when Reality is finally declared. We have imagined this scenario; it appears more like a dim funeral parlor than a demon bonfire.We highly recommend a personal investigation into Love, yet we are fully aware some will preach death; to each their own. lol - it is fairly well established. This is not to imply that the Servants of Jesus hated Paul; simply that there was confusion amongst some 'til, between them, discussion took place. We concede whole heartedly iano... This appears unspecifically true. The agnostics and atheists were eating Him up iano; pagans received Him in droves. Many religious jews could not give up the sadomasochistic ways that mainstream judaism can be accredited with culturally ingraining within them. Reasonably, when some accepted Christ, they modified His Word. The Dutch were the first of the modern Israelitish nations to carry the Babylonish/Roman brand of Christianity to other nations that they colonized, seeking raw materials and markets for their manufactured goods. They in turn were followed on the world stage by the French and then the British. In our day, it is Americans who are doing the bulk of the influencing.The Protestant Reformation burst from Catholicism, and it was the same Catholic Church that all the reformers thought of as the true church gone corrupt. But the truth of the matter is that the Catholic Church was NEVER the true church, and the Protestant Reformation did not re-establish the 'true religion'. The Catholic Church is exactly what it has always publicly called itself: the Roman Catholic (Universal) Church. lol - it stands identified by its own words! It is not the Christian church, but the Roman Universal Church. It is a syncretistic religion, having its roots in Babylon. It is not the church of the Author and Father of Life.The Protestant Reformation simply established more forms of the Roman Catholic Church. It established denominations of false religion masquerading as the true religion. The Reformation simply reformed the Roman Universal Church into many varieties without a Pope. They altered ceremonial requirements and modified many of the more obvious corruptions. People then proceeded to spread these hybrid religions all over the world in their colonization of other areas. They were better than the Roman Universal variety, but they still were not of the truth.One good thing that the 'protestant reformation' did produce was to release many people from a great deal of religious confusion and political slavery. But today, protestantism has lost its cutting edge. In many cases, it is nothing more than entertaining paganism. In other cases, it is a Sunday-morning fraternal organization.Now consider this: Was The Father involved in this? Absolutely, He was! He is the sovereign, omnipotent, King of Kings. He did not raise up these churches, but He permitted them to form. He could have stopped it at any time, but it was within His purpose to allow these things to occur and to build toward the beginning of TRUE LIFE. The Father governs all of His creation, and something of this magnitude could not have happened without His oversight. If He has oversight, and it happened without Him giving permission for it to occur, then He is not sovereign! Somebody put one over on Him! lol - but nobody puts anything over on the Lion of the Tribe of Judah !!!Israel's modern Christianity makes doctrine of little or no importance, leaving everyone free to do what is right in his own eyes. In the true church, it will produce the same tolerant non-judgmental "just do your own thing," politically correct, multicultural way of deism that we so commonly see accepted in Religious countries, and faith in trusting the Way, the Truth, and the Light to govern His creation vanishes. People in the church find justification for idolatry, for Sabbath-breaking, for murder, lying, stealing, just as the so-called "Christian" nation finds justification for those things.The people serving the Prince of Peace making war? It was no accident that James writes in James 4:1, "From whence come wars. . . ."Did you ever hear of Jesus using any of those methods; murder, lying, stealing, making war, committing adultery, breaking the Sabbath ” to solve His problems? He said, "I always do the will of My Father." He did not resort to those things, because they are not Christian, even though He was surrounded by people (the jews) who ostensibly were God's people and ostensibly keeping the commandments.The gospels say that "He trusted no man," and He kept Himself separate from them spiritually even though He was among them constantly, healing, teaching, and receiving abuse and persecution because He was peculiar to them and a threat. How did He threaten them? By making them face up to their justifications, their lies to themselves.Many, many, many come across much difficulty with the acceptance, and therefore perception, of an unconditional ALL LOVING, supreme entity (able to maintain justice and righteousness) that would offer every man a chance at their winning lotto numbers.'Churchians' are of this breed of spirit, and so, become much the same; they will not believe the Father of Life offers a 'wicked' Samaritan the same wages, considering all they have 'been taught about god'.If anyone is to see one, we highly recommend giving them a hug ... The first will come last, and the last will be first good friend.Consider this iano: no one knew that the Great Rabbi was going to die until He was taken away (see John 20:9 and Luke 24:20-21), and for the vast majority of His ministry, hardly anyone even knew He was the Messiah. Yet, the bible says He preached "the Gospel."What Gospel did He preach if it did not include anything about His death?lol - not a trick question. We agree the endeavor is worthwhile; that is why we are thankful the topic was promoted. You stated Paul delivered 'the bad news', which we refer to as the 'gospel of guilt' (tongue in cheek). We will not construct a case for anything other than the ACTUAL Gospel; hopefully we can discuss that one - lol.Thank you for the feedback, as we are better aware that our position is being viewed through a glass darkly. We do not mean Paul, personally, propogated a 'gospel of guilt'; perhaps like you, we feel Paul was a genuine black sheep, doing the best he could to have Faith in Reality. We love that guy ...Paul did not likely birth his one of a kind testimony intentionally for the jews/catholics/protestants to molest.They simply performed as Religion always has; they took the Truth of the Father's Words and, by subtlety, formed from it a mass deception; the sadomasochistic heterodox 'gospel of guilt' that pervades modern (unfullfilled) reality. The deceit being propagated by the modern church is all but evident to anyone willing to see.No one with their wits about them would deny unmolested Reality; yet the ones 'with their wits' clearly see the hypocrisy within the 'true church'. It has caused them ill ... Be thankful for the religious/atheist spirit; such faith is expediting the Beginning of Life. If this was not the case, on that day, there may likely be no 'christians' for the Servant to turn away (whether they bring forth Living Water, or otherwise). If you can see, a form of lawlessness is speaking hateful thoughts as teachings. There are many fine examples, but our favorite filthy Lie is, 'god will not love you if blah, blah, blah (fill in the blank)' or 'you WILL go to 'hell', if blah, blah, blah (fill in the blank)'. These may, both equally, stand together as the most 'evil' acts of destructive malignant aggression that a person can propagate. lol - it is no wonder such 'evangelic' techniques fail outside the prison ministries!It shall prove difficult to promote attempts towards making straight the Path, or cause it further detour, as such attempts are usually perceived as one in the same. As you know, Jesus began the former and was mutilated by religious people and politicians. To those who only believe the Father and Son and Spirit of Love ...It is our hope, by faith and determination, ALL may rightfully discern that which the Father has prepared.If anybody made it through that, thank you ...One LoveEdited by Bailey, : grammarEdited by Bailey, : grammar

---

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, I'm just a fool playing with ideas.
My only intention is to tickle your thinker. Trust nothing I say. Learn for yourself.
Think for yourself.Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

I have to say thank you.... best night's sleep I've had in years.

I have all eternity..- I'm not suggesting that a belief in Hell is required in order that one be saved. I'm not even suggesting that belief in Christ's resurrection is required in order that a person be saved (such a belief arising, I suggest, after one is saved).It is indeed true to say that if you are in a state of belief regarding Jesus' Lordship you will be saved. Such a belief (like good works) is a marker of a saved one. A consequence of having been saved. I hold.Given the Holy Spirits task of convincing the world of sin, righteousness and judgement (which, I gather, sums up the essence of what a person need believe in order that they be saved) I think it reasonable to include hell in one's gospel.- Indeed it wasn't. The possibility of avoiding Hell fire was what made the news good however. Stripped of the bad news there is nothing good to say about the good news.That some over-emphasize Hell and place it central, doesn't alter the fact that judgement and punishment are central to Jesus' teaching.- Agreed. Only to remark that scripture is but one way to understand Christianity. Although inclined to agree, I'd have to defer to the book of Ecclesiastes and suppose that there is nothing new under the sun and that mankind and the issues driving a wedge between him and his creator, in essence, don't alter. The false gods of this age might be different to the age that went before but false gods there has and always will be.Where sin abounds, doth grace abound even more..- Again I would agree with your point and there are grounds to decry the inappropriate use of and emphasis on systematics - it being the spiritual aspect ignored I'd lament.It cannot be ignored however, that the Bible, like it's author, is systematic. I see no harm in examining the componant parts systematically so long as ones aim is to get a better grasp of the whole.- [qs]lol - we have no faith in the success of death/debbil and 'hell'; All our Faith is assigned to Christs' Kingdom of Servants, Resurrection, and Everliving Life.[qs] You mean you see no place for mentioning Hell in evangelism? We might just have to agree to disagree on that one. If Jesus found fit to weave talk of judgement and hell through his teaching (and I can see the sense in him doing so) I'm not inclined to ignore that fact.- Did anyone ever tell you that you have a way with words - Given God working in the believer so that he wills and acts according to Gods good pleasure, I cannot help but suppose works a derivative of faith. Certainly that has been my experience also.It follows that works of righteousness will be the distinguishing feature of the saved - as you say.As to loving God? It would be found most pleasing for both him and us were the love 'issued' by either party unconditional. I'm not sure precisely what you mean by conditional/unconditional faith - could you rephrase this?- Granted. And the point you'd build out of that fact..- There is something unavoidable about the principle that truth sets free. One truth (we might agree for the sake of argument) is that the unsaved will perish in hell. There being only two states a person can be in: saved/unsaved, this truth (not poison) is easy to investigate wrt it's freeing effect on either party.- for the unsaved, talk of hell reinforces of a sense of judgment that satans lies / the sinful nature will be seeking to suppress. That the person doesn't believe in God or Hell is irrelevant to the fact of their hearing truth. As CS Lewis said: the path to hell consists of gentle slopes, no sudden turns, no signposting. Talk of Hell might not be comfortable, it might be something hated (and oh! how talk of hell is hated), it might be a stone in the shoe during a persons walk towards hell. But that is precisely what the power of the gospel does. It is meant to disturb. The comfort can come later.- for the new believer? Assuming talk of Hell is scripturally sound and balanced correctly into the scheme of things, the new believer is not going to hear anything that he won't be reading in the Bible. Indeed, hearing baldly that Hell is for the unsaved and that he, if saved is never going there might assist in reducing the fright that might arise from a cursory glance at scripture.- As I say, the goal is not to have someone believe in Hell. Nor is it that someone have faith in Christ. The goal is to deliver truth on the assumption that it leads to freedom. Faith as I say, is subsequent to salvation.- I was responding to this suggestiong: If anyone understood that a believer has no right to feel guilty it would have been Paul. Guilt involves beating yourself up for your sin. It involves self-condemnation. It involves a certain amount of wallowing. None of which the believer is permitted to do - given that Christ is the one who has taken the beating on your behalf.Paul held Christ in too high a regard to dishonour him by wallowing in guilt. His recognition of his sin within and his mourning over it - need not have guilt attached.There is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ - Paul. How does this view tie in with teaching being one of the spiritual gift?- I would indeed be of the opinion that the Christ is referring to eternal punishment. The various images used to convey a sense of the environment there need not be literally taken. I for one don't imagine the fires of hell having to do with elevated temperatures.- The fact of worldwide Christianity (however wobbley-wheeled) arises largely out of Pauls missionary journeys. Adequate demonstration of a working gospel format. I must wonder about the cleaving to the briefest of accounts in Acts whilst setting aside doctrine laden material in the gospels/epistles.Pauls incredulity, wonder, amazement is not read by me as difficulty.- I read their problem as having to do with legalism.- I'm assuming modification of his word doesn't extend to scripture.Granted, a pure message is hard to find. Even when digging for oneself. I wouldn't be prone to settling my theology on a notion regarding the book of Acts. So, what other arrows do you have in this quiver of yours re: the no-hell-gospel- I wasn't under the illusion that it was. - Agreed..- Agreed. My impression of modern day Evangelical America is the same-in-essence as my impression of Catholic-to-the-hilt Ireland up to recently. Christian Religion not Christianity.- Granted God permits all this to occur. There is method in this madness.- This is what I see around me. And this is what I read of the church in the beginning. It has never been as it should be - even from the start..- Er...Jesus wasn't a sinner. Not that I'm recommending anyone use these methods you list.- Something he continues to do today by his spirit.- I've perceived that in amongst the seemingly endless list of ways in which a person can find objection to kneeling before him.- There is plenty of room in evangelism to talk of the fathers love. Balance is the key to things I suppose.- He preached his death and resurrection. That people didn't perceive what he was speaking of doesn't alter the gospel preached. The gospel is the power of God unto salvation. It's not a matter of intellectual understanding of it.Which is my general approach here. I don't actually suppose to convince anyone by means of well assembled argumentation. I use the format to insert gospel elements trusting that it will do it's work. Debate as a Trojan Horse for the gospel if you like.- Given that it is being preached to a guilty people, I can't see any reason for hiding the source of their guilt in the closet.- [qs]Thank you for the feedback, as we are better aware that our position is being viewed through a glass darkly. We do not mean Paul, personally, propogated a 'gospel of guilt'; perhaps like you, we feel Paul was a genuine black sheep, doing the best he could to have Faith in Reality. We love that guy ...[qs] We'll just have to agree to differ on this one I feel- The words are on the page to be examined for oneself to come to conclusions. Pauls gospel sounds strikingly similar to Jesus. It contains the same elements - include bad news. The church isn't perfect. Its pretty shoddy in places. My view of your denomination is that it doesn't quite hit a home run on what gospel to promote and why. We can all throw stones at each other.- It's been a long post...- I agree that that will be the case. Like I say, balance is required. That folk can go off in hate mode doesn't sully the fact that one should preach the gospel as one understands it to be. I don't see much a case made for excluding vast swathes of scripture as you do.- Amen. Don't do that again, will you not? Not for those who'll reside in Hell..

Thanks for the exchange rch.
Hope things are well ...I was thinking, perhaps on behalf of the members and viewers of EvC, as well as myself, and even yourself too, that you may be interested in sharing how you have come to describe to others what being a 'Red Letter Christian' is all about.What is it, specifically, that actually justifies the identification of a Christian in general? There are some basic ideas formulated within Message 1 that you may be able to work off, if interested. Perhaps you will find yourself in your element if you decide to pursue this conversation.If you check that message, you'll find the lil' bit below ...

quote:

---

Were you to ask people 'What does it mean to be a christian?' or 'What are the minimal requirements for someone to qualify as a christian?', you could get any number of responses. Some common essential properties of being a Christian you might hear are ...

​

A. Believes the Bible (Or some variation on in what way someone 'Believes the Bible.')
B. Goes to Church (For Catholics, we could enlarge this to include certain practices like eating fish on Fridays, etc.)
C. Believes "Jesus died for my sins."
D. Believes Jesus was/is God
E. Believes only Christians go to Heaven
F. Believes "You cannot make it to Heaven on your own."
G. Believes in the Resurrection
H. Is a member of my denomination
I. Believes God created the world in 6 days

---

Again, this is to stimulate perspective and dialogue. My question to you is, what answer would you give people at your chuch if asked, 'What does it mean to be a christian?' or 'What are the minimal requirements for someone to qualify as a christian?'.This ol' reference table may also shed some light on how effective the many various church doctrines seem to have been throughout the past couple millenium (please note that 'Jesus is Lord' refers to His being Universally elevated to head o' household status (over Heaven and Earth)).

Passage in Acts	Jesus is Messiah	Jesus Arose	Jesus is Lord	Jesus will Judge All	Repent!	Believers go to Heaven	Heathens go to Hell
2: 14-41	x	x	x		x
3: 12-26	x	x	x		x
4: 8-12	x	x
5: 30-32	x	x	x
5: 42	x
7: 1-53	x
9: 22	x
10: 34-43	x	x	x	x
13: 16-41	x	x	x		x
14: 14-17				x
17: 2-4	x	x
17: 18-31		x		x	x
18: 5	x
18: 28	x
20: 20-22			x		x
22: 1-21	x	x
26: 1-29	x	x

Based on the above, the present opinion says that other than emphasizing the Resurrection, the church has, perhaps, rather struck out when it comes to defining who or what a christian is. After all, the truth is that the word for 'hell' does not even show up in all of Acts. Now I'm not suggesting that you do the following, but One wonders what that says about modern day evangelists and missionaries who start off their message with 'Do you know where you are going when you die?'. lol - please don't get mad at me ... it's only one opinion. And mine really doesn't matter in the end of things, now does it?Looking forward ...One Love

---

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker.
If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want and desire mercy, not sacrifice'
They surely would not have condemned the innocent; why trust what I say when you can learn for yourself?
Think for yourself.Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

in my opinion, christianity is about Godly devotion.none of us can be perfect christians and it would be unreasonable to expect it. But we can devote our lives to God the way Jesus did.

Thanks for the exchange Peg ...
Hope things have been well. Interesting approach Peg. I agree that Joshua, as well as his message, are tightly woven to the theme of Godly devotion.However, christianity, as a religious concept, rarely seems devoted to the Father imho and I am often accompanied by despair as I pray for them ...Consider, if you will, that the majority of religious traditions righteously adhere to 'Godly devotion', without necessitating the murder of Deity.While I agree that many who refer to themselves as christians have a form of religion, nullifying the testimony of the Prophets - that the Father desires mercy, not sacrifice - and worshipping the murder of God or His Son, are not items that rank high on my list accomplishments displaying 'devotion to God'.That is likely one reason that causes me to take cover with atheists, if anyone. While they are racist towards the concept of Deity, they are not trying to convince me that once we find God, he should be murdered. In retrospect, Levitical Christianity seems far more racist towards Deity than Atheism.However, this seems to stem from ancient dogmas. The early church may have understood the meaning of the 'crucifixion of Christ', but that meaning was apparently crucified with Joshua and all those who were murdered on account of his testimony. So I ask - why did Joshua refuse aggressive defense and allow himself to be murdered on a torture stake and what does this tell us about the 'plan of salvation' according to Christian theology?According to the theologian Augustine and the theologians of the church in later centuries who considered him 'the father of Christian theology', Joshua was murdered to be an atonement sacrifice to pay for the sins of humanity, following the doctrines laid out in books like Leviticus in the ToRaH, commonly referred to as the Law of Moses. Every sectarian branch of Levitical Christianity then become Augustine's child, who are paternally Catholic in nature.By partaking of this sacrifice, one is ritually 'washed in the blood of the lamb' and then 'imputed' the 'perfection of Christ'. The price was fully paid by completely and perfectly fulfilling this 'law of Moses' and then suffering the punishment for wrongdoers, thus satisfying the demands of justice. I think that's close, right?Now, as an avid admirer of the ToRaH, the Prophets and the Psalms, this then becomes an extremely peculiar notion. Yirmiyahu stated that the Father did not tell those people to bring sacrifices and offerings when they came out of Egypt, but that rather these sacrificing and blood atonement laws were forged by the Levite priests of the Yirusalem temple.This evolved doctrine of Joshua as a Levite animal sacrifice did not orginate with the prophets of Yisrael or with the gospels, but rather with theologians of the church, like Augustine. This doctrine is not mentioned in the gospels. There is at least one tradition that all four gospels we presently possess agree upon and that is ...Joshua the Anointed One was murdered by way of crucifixion to preserve a system of religious dogmatism.Joshua's chief persecutors, those who relentlessly pursued him to his death, his prosecutors, his accusers, and his those who were determined to crucify the Christ - the Levitical priesthood, were the highest religious authorities of his day.It should, then, not come as a surprise that Levites were indeed the first practitioners to request the 'blood of the lamb' be poured over them ...

quote:

---

Matthew 27:25

​

In reply all the people said, Let his blood be on us and on our children!

---

This is the doctrine that establishes one as a christian - trust me when I tell you, one will not be welcomed within christian circles for very long without confessing that Joshua was a neccessary Levitical animal sacrifice. And so, this is what is required to truly make a christian, Christian. Do any disagree?One LoveEdited by Bailey, : sp.

---

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker.
If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want and desire mercy, not sacrifice'
They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself?
Think for yourself.Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

Thanks for the exchange Iano ...
Long time - hope all is well ... Yet, you contend that the Catholic invention referred to as 'hell' is a reasonable threat to include in the Gospel - or Good News, of the Kingdom. You contend that Joshua integrated this threat within his Gospel. Now, telling somebody that it's better to amputate their foot than die of an infection is not a threat.It's a common sense teaching.And so, I assume you were unable to locate a passage suggesting such a doctrine or belief as Dante and Milton's Hellfire is required within Joshua's Good News. Have you found a biblical passage supporting your position that the Catholic version of 'hell', however fanciful the doctrine, is a reasonable teaching?lol - or do you still have some tokens left for the 'jesus didit too' bus ?? Without scripture text to back you up, I'd say those tokens have expired.Iano, honestly ...Joshua didn't threaten anybody except other religious leaders. Please show me otherwise, so I may concede; I'd even consider verses found in apocrypha. I may suggest belief in Joshua's message is much more integral than belief in his historocity or mythology.I notice you disagree with Paul's one comment? As you say, people have always disagreed about these things.To be honest, I'm obviously more inclined to agree with you to a variable degree in this instance ... I like that criteria better then confessing his murder as a necessary Levitical ritual atonement killing.However, Joshua most always deferred his lordship to the Father and advised his disciples in this way ...This seems to relate to the reoccuring theme found within the booklet written in John's name, particularly ...

quote:

---

John 10:30

​

"[My] Father and I are one."

---

In John 16:25 we read that Joshua, while speaking through parables and riddles for a season, will soon arrange 'a time ... when [He] will no longer speak ... in obscure figures, but will tell ... plainly about the Father'.At this point, HaMashiach reveals that 'you will ask in [His] name, and [He] do[es] not say that [He] will ask the Father on your behalf'.That's right - Joshua will not say that He is going to make requests on behalf of 'jesus groupies'. lol - does that seem a lil' awkward?It shouldn't, because there is a reason, we are told, that such a request on behalf of Joshua the Anointed One is, apparently, most unnecessary.You see, the thing is, we're told 'the Father Himself loves you'. Why does the Father love 'you', one may ask? Easy, 'because you have loved [Joshua] and have believed that [He] came from God'.No sacrifice involved. Rather, just a bit o' faith on behalf of those who have mercy.Perhaps, to the point, the disciples believed Joshua 'came from God'.Note - no disclosure that disciples believed HaMashiach was God.Certainly, there's no magic or mystery in that.Perhaps that is why the disciples exclaimed ... [quote]'Look, now [HaMachiach] [is] speaking plainly and not in obscure figures of speech!Now we know that [HaMashiach] know[s] everything and do[es] not need anyone to ask [Him] anything.Because of this we believe that [HaMashiach] [has] come from God.' [/quote]In this instance, the disciples believed Joshua was The Anointed One ...Not necessarily because of a virgin birth.Not necessarily because of a resurrection.Yet, because they felt this man had all the answers.Again, no threats or magic or mystery ...Simply faith in love. Am I to consider that the 'Holy Spirit' cannot perform its duty without the assistance of some puny humans? C'mon ...So then, you say the Holy Spirit may visit you and say I'm guilty, but it is unable to come to me and say it, huh?Perhaps it is those who participate in threatening others with Hellfire that are the one's who need help ...It is seeming that way. I think that sort of talk ought be reserved for religious authorities, just as Joshua performed.You don't think belief of hell is required to be saved, but you think it's reasonable to include ...Because somebody convinced you that the Holy Spirit is somehow incompetent??lol - please, be reasonable friend ... looking forward to hearing from you.One LoveEdited by Bailey, : sp.Edited by Bailey, : metanonia

---

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker.
If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want and desire mercy, not sacrifice'
They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself?
Think for yourself.Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

This thread was created with the intention of examining the gospel narratives, highlighting the Acts of the Apostles, as well as providing a venue, for any who would like to participate, that could foster general discussion concerning what people may or may not feel it means to be a christian. When we unrobe the christian faith of all its doctrine and dogma, ranging from the age ol' mantra 'Caesar crucifies slaves, but God raises slaves from the dead' to today's most prevalent concepts of atonement which are but a few hundred years old - conjured up by the likes of a catholic attorney as fate would have it, what one is left with is the symbol of the crucifixion.And so, at the center of the christian faith, once all doctrine and dogma is stripped away and discarded, we see this peculiar symbol of the crucifixion.Now, it may do us well to note and understand that this symbol takes root in a fertile soil partly enriched by a brutal form of capital punishment. This manner of torturing someone to death was employed by the Roman state to quell revolution and punish dissent. As an example, some may recall a revolt led by Spartacus by about five thousand slaves against Roman authority and power, with the end result being about five thousand gruesome crucifixions along every road leading into Rome; arising from this, we are told, a stench so completely unbearable, perhaps even keeping away the most vigorous vultures.And make no mistake - this terrifying spectacle was clearly intended as a warning and a fine display of just how ruthlessly Roman imperialists intended to be in the protection of their aristocratic privileges and their dynastic wealth, both dependent as they were, upon the fear and agony of an industrious military machine and the labor of compliant slaves. According to Josephus, we find Herod had John the Baptist executed because he feared that John might become the central force in a revolutionary uprising, and with appeasing discontent and quashing revolution being such a constant preoccupation of Roman imperialism as they were, this led to the creation of one of history's most effective and well trained military forces to dominate and patrol the Roman empire.Again, without mincing meat, this policy was so ruthlessly enforced that often just the appearance of the Roman legions was enough to crush a revolutionary uprising and inspire an impotent surrender to the Roman military. Therefore, one can know that crucifixion was a method of torturing to death dissenters who practiced civil disobedience or fomented resistance against Roman rule, and this form of gruesome torture was used rather than a simple club to the head for no other reason than to inspire the same fear and terrorism that was also inspired by the Roman Legions.And, as common sense would have it, this form of detrimental terrorized capital punishment was utilized for the same reason as those Legions, for Rome relied on this level of fear in order to maintain the Imperial Empire and to control the slave population that often outnumbered citizens and performed all the work that generated the massive wealth of the Roman elite.So, we see the threat this posed was kept in check through the maintenance of an extremely high level of terror. It is because of this that one may note the story of the crucifixion and the resurrection were the symbols of a revolutionary movement that sprang up in ancient Rome, in that the intended function of this symbol was to defeat the terror inspired by the Romans through faith in this symbol of victory over Roman brutality.It is within this symbolism that the rapid spread of this new faith throughout the Roman empire seems to be most reasonably explained, and it also goes a certain distance towards explaining why the earliest christians consisted only of what one Roman writer referred to as the lowest of the lower classes - yes, even the dregs of society. Only slaves and women were found to join that bizarre religion, this Roman stated, and surely no Roman citizen would be found amongst their ilk, which only proved - he insisted, what a debased superstition this was, and so, fit only for the lowest of human animals.Another document preserved in the common bible, more specifically Corinthians, agrees in part, describing the early christians by saying that they were not of noble birth, nor powerful by Roman standards, and were indeed the weakest of people in the Empire. Fortunately for them, this writer stated, God had chosen the very weakest and lowest citizens of the empire to overthrow the established Roman order. When considering the above, one may better understand the way that these Roman slaves would likely have understood certain parables and sayings.For example, one definition of ‘who is a christian' stated that ‘if you do not pick up your cross and follow me you are not a christian.' What was this polemic, if not a call to repeat the acts of civil disobedience that led their leader to the cross, his disciples to be stoned, as well as leading later christians to be slaughtered in the Coliseums. In another passage we are told that no one can be a christian unless ‘they eat my flesh and drink my blood.' This gory sounding parable refers intimately to the conquest of the fear of persecution and even the fear of death, which are inherent in the symbolism of the cross.Definitions such as these, regarding what it means to be a christian, are found to be consistent with the inherent symbolism of the crucifixion metaphor, unlike much later doctrines of salvation by means of mind control, dogmatic ritual and rhetoric. The call to civil disobedience is a call to pick up the cross, and thus we see a line of continuity, whereas the later doctrinal interpolations are found to be oppressive and thus we see a discontinuity.In addition, the doctrine of mind control, dogmatic ritual and apologetic rhetoric has within it no connection whatsoever with the reality of crucifixion as a brutal system of oppression and terror, but rather it is isolated; a narrow and empty philosophical dogma in which there is no real connection to the struggle against domination in pursuit of liberation. It is meaningless, while the doctrine of carrying a cross, of civil disobedience is joined right to the heart of the crucifix symbol, since, after all, this is what crucifixion was all about.So then, for this reason, I am going to ignore the widespread notion of ‘salvation through philosophy' - however popular, fanciful and generously funded, and instead respond to the question ‘Who is a christian?' by stating that a christian is someone who carries a cross, who practices civil disobedience, and that true theology is liberation theology, which cannot be found in esoteric abstract philosophical notions of apologetic rhetoric that are not found to be grounded in the resistance to systems of oppression - which is the core meaning of the crucifixion symbol.Peace be with you ..One Love

---

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker.
If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want and desire mercy, not sacrifice'
They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself?
Think for yourself.Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

I am not into defining Christianity. But I do think you come closer to understanding the teachings of Jesus, than do the mainstream denominations today.

Sorry to dredge this up from so early in the thread, but I'm a newby and am just catching up with the threads, and this got my attention.You have taught potential ministers so I'm sure you know this, or maybe you disagree, but your reference to love thy neighbour in Leviticus needs deconstructing.
The Old Testament - or certainly the parts like leviticus that are from the Tanakh - need to be read in context of the intended audience - the Jews. 'People' is a concept reserved for other Jews, this is made clear in many places in the Tanakh. Thus when reference is made, such as not killing, and loving thy neighbour, one has to read that as meaning 'fellow Jew', not 'fellow man'. There is much slaughtering of non Jews, with either the tacit approval of God or the active participation of same.