Paul The First Heretic

reply to post by NOTurTypical

That's new age nonsense. They'd have us believe that Christ didn't die for us, He just came to show everyone how to find their own little personal Christ inside all of us.

*facepalm*

*sigh*

NotUrTypical, you are stuck. Stuck in a passe rut, and have just belied your expertise.

Christ was one of several people who taught the same thing; Buddha, Krishna, Confucius...the Magi (who do you think they were? They were from the east, they had heard of the new baby, and came to find him, but didn't get there until he was a toddler...they were looking for the next Dalai Llama)...

What, you think before his birth NO ONE was connected to the Divine? That, friend, is preposterous. Spectacularly warped.

Dude, really, "new age nonsense" ? REALLY?? More like ancient theology which has never died out. The gnostics were 'new age'? The Buddhists?

It's quite the opposite; but I won't waste bandwidth or energy pointing this out to you; you are SOoooo far behind. And your decade-plus of apologetics has completely missed the boat with new discoveries, analysis, archaeology, codices, hoax debunking.... .

*sigh*
You are on the right track, NotUr, but your view of the 'Holy Spirit's' origin and nature is what is 'nonsense.'

No, what's relatively 'new' is the West being introduced to these timeless systems of belief that are quite difficult to comprehend for someone who is not brought up in the Oriental world-view.

Notovitch, Jung, Watts, Hanh, Armstrong, all of those I recommend for you... It takes time, concentration, an open-mind, a willingness to stay unemotional and LOOK around, rather than getting snarky and dismissive. But it can be done, and you can learn all about it and still breathe easy.

I hope you take that opportunity.

reply to post by wildtimes


Pardon me, but I've never encountered one online who doesn't try to call "Romanism" a works-based religion. They seem to think anyone who thinks God expects good works is wrong. If you claim that works are not necessary are you not saying you think you can be justified just by calling Jesus "Lord!"

It's the same way some claim that the Holy Spirit guides them to truth and everyone else's interpretation is wrong when in the bible, writing to those baptized and confirmed, Peter warns that scriptures can be twisted.

But if you can, please give me a list of beliefs that protestants believe. I thought almost all protestants subscribe to one or more of the five solas, including faith alone..



en.wikipedia.org...

The Five solas are five Latin phrases that emerged during the Protestant Reformation and summarize the Reformers' basic theological beliefs in contradistinction to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church of the day. The Latin word sola means "alone" or "only" in English. The five solas articulated five fundamental beliefs of the Protestant Reformation, pillars which the Reformers believed to be essentials of the Christian life and practice. All five implicitly rejected or countered the teachings of the then-dominant Catholic Church, which had in the reformers' mind usurped divine attributes or qualities for the Church and its hierarchy, especially its head, the pope.

reply to post by 547000

Pardon me, but I've never encountered one online who doesn't try to call "Romanism" a works-based religion.

Uh, yes, you have encountered MORE than one. I'm one (no longer practicing), so is sacgamer, jmdewey, and others.

They seem to think anyone who thinks God expects good works is wrong. If you claim that works are not necessary are you not saying you think you can be justified just by calling Jesus "Lord!"

Wait a sec. You go from 'they' to 'you' quite abruptly here. Yes, SOME of them seem to think that; but SOME of those same characters don't claim to be any religion at all....So, you are mistaken.

Protestants come in over 40,000 different uniforms; and MANY of them are proponents of action that exemplifies the Holy Spirit, believe it to be the birthright of humanity, and good deeds an expression of the Divinity as such.

So please, do yourself a favor and find out which ones (ask lonewolf) think that, and which ones do not.
Some of them actually think Catholics are not Christians. You might be able to enlighten them on that.

I think where your missing link is lies between the 'motive' and the 'result.' NotUr is saying that good deeds count, but not if the ONLY REASON they are performed is to impress someone else, or to 'buy' a spot in heaven. In other words, pseudo-goodness motivated by an expectation of reward alone. Like an unpleasant medical procedure or dentist's visit for vanity's sake, or worse, a job that entails work that hurts others in exchange for pay.

Doing things because God expects them is not vanity. When you claim you have done them of your own goodness it is vanity.

But who is there among you, having a servant plowing or keeping sheep, that will say, when he comes in from the field, "Come immediately and sit down at the table," and will not rather tell him, "Prepare my supper, clothe yourself properly, and serve me, while I eat and drink. Afterward you shall eat and drink"? Does he thank that servant because he did the things that were commanded? I think not. Even so you also, when you have done all the things that are commanded you, say, "We are unworthy servants. We have done our duty."

I use "you" but don't mean you, THE READER.

reply to post by 547000

But if you can, please give me a list of beliefs that protestants believe.

Like I just said, there are over 40,000+ different FORMS of Protestantism, so no, I cannot give you a list. But a simple paragraph like the one you quoted does not address all the offshoot branches. And MANY of those people who are non-Roman Christians don't know a thing about the real history of the RCC and the various Protestant thinkers.

At the time of the Reformation, when Christians were beginning to protest the Roman ways, there were several:
Here is one outline:

Timeline of the Protestant Reformation

1517 Albert of Brandenburg, archbishop of Mainz, sponsors a sale of indulgences to pay for, among other things, construction of Saint Peter's in Rome.

In response, Martin Luther, an Augustinian monk, posts his 95 theses on the door of the castle chapel in Wittenburg, Germany, where Luther is a university professor. The theses invite debate over the legitimacy of the sale of indulgences.

Copies of the theses spread rapidly over Europe. The papacy takes steps against Luther as a heretic. The Wittenburg faculty supports Luther.

1520 Luther publishes his three famous treatises: "An Open Letter to the Christian Nobility of the German National Concerning the Reform of the Christian Estate," "The Babylonian Captivity of the Church," and "On the Freedom of a Christian." He wins powerful support.

1521 Luther is excommunicated. He refuses to recant unless proven wrong by the Bible or by "clear reason."

1530 Many German princes and cities sign the Augsburg Confession as an expression of the evangelical faith.

1555 The Peace of Augsburg provides that each German prince can determine the religious affiliation of the territory he rules. The Reformation sweeps Northern and Eastern Europe.

Note: United Methodism is not a direct descendant of the Protestant Reformation but -- as an offshoot of the Church of England -- is a descendant of the English Reformation (beginning 1533-34) which led to the establishment of the Church of England by Henry VIII. Henry split from Rome for a number of reasons. One contributing reason was that the pope delayed and ultimately refused to annul Henry's illegal marriage to Catherine of Aragon, the aunt of Charles the V, who was putting considerable pressure on the pope to delay the annulment. Another contributing reason was the influence of Lutheranism in influential circles of Anglican theology.

Henry VIII was highly critical of Martin Luther and never adopted Protestant doctrines. However, some of his Anglican arch bishops and clergy were highly influenced by the Reformation on the continent.

There were also Calvin, Wyclif, and others who protested the RCC on various grounds. The Puritans who settled here were really fussy about things -- and believed the Holy Spirit to be indwelling and works to be most important. Other people still believed in the Elect and the Damned; luck of the draw...if the latter, your family could buy you salvation by paying enough to the church. If the former, no works were necessary.

I hope you're beginning to see that this issue is MUCH more complicated than simply 'Roman Catholic vs Protestants.'

For a 'list', you'll need to investigate each Protestant sect itself to find the hair-splitting and interpretative differences. It's a major undertaking, but I think you'd enjoy it!

reply to post by 547000

If you claim that works are not necessary are you not saying you think you can be justified just by calling Jesus "Lord!

Absolutely not. No one is saying that at all. And yes, He is Lord, but were saved by what HE DID. Anyone who believes already has (currently possesses) eternal life, he who doesn't believe is already (currently) condemned.

reply to post by 547000

When you claim you have done them of your own goodness it is vanity.

Right, because you are "CLAIMING" you did it, to impress others.

Someone who does good things without telling anyone, without anyone knowing, and without any expectation of reward are the ones who are representing the Holy Spirit. Doing good works without even knowing about God or what some priest or preacher insists God expects it (so you better, or else!) or what God wants in order to redeem your soul, is certainly a reflection of the Holy Spirit within.

reply to post by wildtimes

Christ was one of several people who taught the same thing;

Christ is the only begotten Son of God. There are no other "Christs". There is one Savior of mankind.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Christ is the only begotten Son of God. There are no other "Christs". There is one Savior of mankind.

Yes, I get it, NotUr. That is what you say. Daily.

You can not state that as an indisputable fact. It is your opinion.

reply to post by wildtimes

I think where your missing link is lies between the 'motive' and the 'result.' NotUr is saying that good deeds count, but not if the ONLY REASON they are performed is to impress someone else, or to 'buy' a spot in heaven. In other words, pseudo-goodness motivated by an expectation of reward alone. Like an unpleasant medical procedure or dentist's visit for vanity's sake, or worse, a job that entails work that hurts others in exchange for pay.

Yes, precisely. And I'll take it one step further, a person busybodying around trying to make their report card better so that God will save them someday by default DOES NOT trust in Christ that He alone is their all-sufficient Savior and His work at Calvary was not complete.

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Christ is the only begotten Son of God. There are no other "Christs". There is one Savior of mankind.

Yes, I get it, NotUr. That is what you say. Daily.

You can not state that as an indisputable fact. It is your opinion.

Buddha was an atheist. And Krishna and Muhammad's tomb you can visit today. Why can't I take a pilgrimage to Jesus's tomb? That's right, He's not in it.

reply to post by wildtimes

Christ was one of several people who taught the same thing; Buddha, Krishna, Confucius...the Magi (who do you think they were? They were from the east, they had heard of the new baby, and came to find him, but didn't get there until he was a toddler...they were looking for the next Dalai Llama)...

I starred your post, wildtimes, but I have to say people who are brainwashed by religious dogma will again refuse to listen. To the Jesus followers, he was a man alone, the other teachers were myths, as were anything else not in their book. I have been around and around in here a few times on this. Bless you for trying to educate.
Auto

reply to post by autowrench

the other teachers were myths,

They're NOT myths!!! You can still visit their graves today!

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Why can't I take a pilgrimage to Jesus's tomb? That's right, He's not in it.

Yes he is, it's in Kashmir, and you can.

He died an old man in India, after surviving the Crucifixion (due to his legs not being broken, and being taken down before he was dead), and was whisked away by Joseph (who, if the tale were true, would not have touched a body after Passover had begun) and placed in a cave. No giant rock. No stabbed through the heart.

He came to (call it a miracle healing if you want), and rose in his body, and had to leave because he knew they would "kill him again," if he stayed. He went to see his friends, who were astounded to see he was there, in the flesh, and the only explanation they could come up with was that he had risen from the grave.

So he went to India, and was safe and sound, though exiled there.
Does St Issa ring a bell?

You can call that story nonsense if you like, you have every right to do that. Just as I have every right to say it is just as valid a theory until someone proves it either way.

reply to post by wildtimes

Yes he is, it's in Kashmir

LOL!!!! Right. He was pulled from the Roman cross at 3pm and somehow whisked away to a tomb in Kashmir sometime before sundown. That Sunday morning did Mary and Mary make a pilgrimage to Kashmir? Did Peter outrun John all the way from Jerusalem to Kashmir?

Actually, he is still there, his bones anyway. The Church is probably spending millions to keep this under wraps, seeing at it hasn't been on MSM, but it was in the news, anyway. Jesus is dead and in his grave too!

Christ's coffin

Jesus is dead and buried in Jerusalem

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Here's what auto wrote:

To the Jesus followers, he was a man alone, the other teachers were myths, as were anything else not in their book.

So, you are saying that you, a Jesus follower, are not in agreement with other Jesus followers who do think those other teachers were myths.

NotUr, please, s l o w down..
Read carefully rather than tapping out angry foot-stamping replies. This is not the first time in this thread that you have misread someone's remark and reacted before processing what they are saying.

reply to post by wildtimes

He died an old man in India, after surviving the Crucifixion (due to his legs not being broken, and being taken down before he was dead)

(Your buddy) Skeptic, James Tabor, Ph. D.:

"I think we need have no doubt that given Jesus' execution by Roman crucifixion he was truly dead."

The fact of his legs NOT being broken is an indication the Roman executions already knew He was dead at the time they broke the other condemned men's legs.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Andddd......AGAIN he doesn't read the entire story.
No, He was not whisked away as a corpse to Kashmir. He sailed there/rode there, not a difficult trip at all really, there were established trade routes. He was welcomed, grew old, and died.

That is the Kashmir tomb theory.

auto has presented another theory.

I've seen pictures and vid of the caves where the gnostics lived, outside of town, in the remote desert; and where he was placed and the tomb guarded. (supposedly).

reply to post by wildtimes

"To the Jesus followers.. the other teachers were just myths."

This claim is false, I showed that.