Why is it "so" important for Christians to confess Jesus as their Lord?

reply to post by Awoken4Ever


Dear Awoken4Ever,

During my NDE, that peace, it "was" God. I never doubted God since. That was 20 years ago. God has never been an issue for me since. However, this world has been an issue for me. Life's calamities has been rocking the boat for a long time now. Not rocking my belief in "if" there is a God, but messing things up in my head. Following God's will has been the difficult part though. I am very stubborn, very selfish, and very damaged from this world.

I am sorry that life has been challenging for you. Personally, in the last four years I lost everything; but, I found it freeing. Sometimes before we can find a better place we have to be separated from our past. Hang tough and my prayers go out to you. Peace.

Originally posted by jmdewey60

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

If we don't believe yet in Christ, why would we fear in the Hell He created????

I'm sure you would like to quote a verse saying God (or Jesus, according to you) created Hell for people.

edit on 1-1-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

Where did I say Hell was created for people in my post above that you quoted?

OK, then back to your old tricks, then, ignoring what I just quoted and pretending you never said that, all the while creating a distraction from the actual topic because you are a compulsive poster and write things without even thinking about them.

I've been through this thread three times now and cannot find the post you're mentioning where I claimed that Jesus "created Hell for people." Were you mistaken and thinking of someone else? The Bible clearly says that Hell was "created for the devil and his angels."

Can you show me where I claimed that "Hell was created for people"?

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

The Council of Nicea addressed the Arian heresy. Everyone voted against Arius and his heretical claims about Christ except two people. Also a date for Easter was decided upon. There is no record whatsoever that the books of the Bible were discussed at Nicea.

I'm sure you would love to present some documentation that this in fact occurred, this vote about Arius.

"One purpose of the council was to resolve disagreements arising from within the Church of Alexandria over the nature of Jesus in relationship to God the Father; in particular, whether Jesus was the literal son of God or was he a figurative son, like the other "Sons of God" in the Bible. St. Alexander of Alexandria and Athanasius claimed to take the first position; the popular presbyter Arius, from whom the term Arianism comes, is said to have taken the second. The council decided against the Arians overwhelmingly (of the estimated 250–318 attendees, all but two agreed to sign the creed and these two, along with Arius, were banished to Illyria). The emperor's threat of banishment is claimed to have influenced many to sign, but this is highly debated by both sides."

First Council of Nicea

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

The Council of Nicea addressed the Arian heresy. Everyone voted against Arius and his heretical claims about Christ except two people. Also a date for Easter was decided upon. There is no record whatsoever that the books of the Bible were discussed at Nicea.

I'm sure you would love to present some documentation that this in fact occurred, this vote about Arius.

"One purpose of the council was to resolve disagreements arising from within the Church of Alexandria over the nature of Jesus in relationship to God the Father; in particular, whether Jesus was the literal son of God or was he a figurative son, like the other "Sons of God" in the Bible. St. Alexander of Alexandria and Athanasius claimed to take the first position; the popular presbyter Arius, from whom the term Arianism comes, is said to have taken the second. The council decided against the Arians overwhelmingly (of the estimated 250–318 attendees, all but two agreed to sign the creed and these two, along with Arius, were banished to Illyria). The emperor's threat of banishment is claimed to have influenced many to sign, but this is highly debated by both sides."

First Council of Nicea

You should have highlighted in red the last part too ...

And it is a well known fact, that the emperor himself was sympathetic to the first position, seeing as he came from a pagan environment, which ALREADY had such belief (a triune God, who has a son, etc.)

Would then the result really surprise anyone?

Do not forget this all happened 300 years AFTER Jesus.

I would very much like to know why of all the different positions, it was the pauline doctrine that prevailed.
What happened to the teachings of the original disciples? Their books?

You should then know, that the pauline doctrine prevailed because only Paul and his disciples spread "their version" of the Gospel to the gentiles - Peter, James and other disciples of Jesus did not even want to HEAR ABOUT THAT. They maintained that Jesus was only sent to the House of Israel and only to the Jews. They continued to preach only in the synagogues in Palestine - and none of them went outside of Palestine to preach. At least not to the gentiles that is.

Now, who was running the show there, in those lands? What empire was it?
Right: the ROMAN empire, a GENTILE empire - and Paul and his cohorts preached THEIR gospel in the lands of this empire - where there were already pagan beliefs. Paul even admitted that he was ready to LIE and DECEIVE in order to convert as many as possible.

So, whenever he went to the gentiles who for example never heard of the Mosaic Law, he would tell them that it is OK to "continue doing so as they were doing until then, the Law does not apply to them" - thus they could continue eating pork, not getting circumsized etc.

He was ADAPTING the teachings to the environment - and since the environment was to 90% Pagan - so were his teaching pretty much similar to theirs.

They were already used to have a Pantheon of Gods comprised of "Fathers" and "Sons" etc. so it was easy for him and his disciples - they just had so switch the names - so that a pagan (roman) God became God the Father, and his son became Jesus.

Ultimately, because the Empire (pagan) was the majority (90%) - it is THIS doctrine (the pauline doctrine) that prevailed - while the sects which based their teachings on the real disciples of Jesus, gradually lost ground - to be finally completely turned into an obscurity prior to the Council of Nicaea.

And THAT is how todays Christianity was born.

Originally posted by sHuRuLuNi

Originally posted by Awoken4Ever


"When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come."

Hear from WHOM exactly?

If it is the Holy Spirit, how come he would not speak on his own authority, but only what he "hears" from someone? After all Holy Spirit is God, isn't it not?

So, who is this "Spirit of truth" then? The one (in original greek he is referred to as "he" - masculine) who will not speak from himself, but he will speak whatever he hears from "someone", and he will guide us into the WHOLE TRUTH, and he will declare to us the things that are to come?

edit on 1/1/2012 by sHuRuLuNi because: (no reason given)

The Spirit is the Holy Spirit given to Chritians by God to guide us in our lives. God is the authority that speaks to the Holy Spirit.

Your question is related to the great mystery of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Anyone that claims to completly understand this good for them. I accept that God is still in some ways a mystery, and this does not bother me.

reply to post by sHuRuLuNi


The letters from Paul are in perfect alignment with the message of Christ. It is the interpretaion of the modern church that is not in alignment with Christ.

And it is a well known fact, that the emperor himself was sympathetic to the first position, seeing as he came from a pagan environment, which ALREADY had such belief (a triune God, who has a son, etc.)

Do you have archeological proof of this or are just stating what you have read?

reply to post by sHuRuLuNi


It always amazes me how many claims are made against the bible have almost no historical evidence to support them.

I feel that if I were to create a website today making any claim against the bible everyone would simply believe me without me having to provide one piece of evidence to support my claim.

Christians repeatedly provide archeological evidence that Jesus and the bible are real but no one wants to believe it.

reply to post by sHuRuLuNi

You should have highlighted in red the last part too ...

LOL!!! What, that the notion is:


"highly debated by BOTH sides"?


Meaning, even Arians claim this isn't true.

Originally posted by sacgamer25
reply to post by sHuRuLuNi

 

It always amazes me how many claims are made against the bible have almost no historical evidence to support them.

I feel that if I were to create a website today making any claim against the bible everyone would simply believe me without me having to provide one piece of evidence to support my claim.

Christians repeatedly provide archeological evidence that Jesus and the bible are real but no one wants to believe it.

What on earth are you talking about?

Everything I said is a historical fact - there are tons of evidence. Heck, you even learn most of that in the school.
I have to go to work in about half an hour, otherwise I would be glad to provide you with many links to the evidence - but it shouldn't be hard to find. Just google it.

And about your last part: What do you mean "no one wants to believe it" - I DO BELIEVE in Christ - it is a TENET OF MY FAITH to believe in him.

reply to post by sHuRuLuNi


I know you believe in Christ, just not the bible. You realize that many of the arguments you make against the bible and where the stories come from can also be made about the Koran? I am quite familiar with the Koran, as most of the people I work with are Muslim and I have done much reaserch.

I have come to the one conclusion we both beleive in the same God. We only differ in perspective of who is following the inspired doctorine. I believe it makes a difference but since we will both be judged by the same measure only God knows.

Originally posted by sacgamer25
reply to post by sHuRuLuNi

 

I know you believe in Christ, just not the bible. You realize that many of the arguments you make against the bible and where the stories come from can also be made about the Koran? I am quite familiar with the Koran, as most of the people I work with are Muslim and I have done much reaserch.

I know. I welcome you to do it.

Originally posted by sacgamer25
reply to post by sHuRuLuNi

 

I have come to the one conclusion we both beleive in the same God. We only differ in perspective of who is following the inspired doctorine. I believe it makes a difference but since we will both be judged by the same measure only God knows.

I agree. The problem is: Many christians (like lonewolf who says I worship a demon) do not. They say we worship "another God" or a "moon God" or any other pejorative name for Allah (Eloh, Elohim, Alaha).

Originally posted by sHuRuLuNi

Originally posted by sacgamer25
reply to post by sHuRuLuNi

 

It always amazes me how many claims are made against the bible have almost no historical evidence to support them.

I feel that if I were to create a website today making any claim against the bible everyone would simply believe me without me having to provide one piece of evidence to support my claim.

Christians repeatedly provide archeological evidence that Jesus and the bible are real but no one wants to believe it.

What on earth are you talking about?

Everything I said is a historical fact - there are tons of evidence. Heck, you even learn most of that in the school.
I have to go to work in about half an hour, otherwise I would be glad to provide you with many links to the evidence - but it shouldn't be hard to find. Just google it.

And about your last part: What do you mean "no one wants to believe it" - I DO BELIEVE in Christ - it is a TENET OF MY FAITH to believe in him.

I know the stories and I know the claim that these stories predate the bible. Yes some Greek Mythology predates the bible but if you go back to the research you will find no archelogical evidence that supports the claim that the Greek myths that are similar to the bible were actually formed prior to the bible.

Just because Greek Mythology predates the bible does not mean that every story that we beleive is Greek Mythology predates the bible.

The very few examples where we have evidence that is compared to the bible falls well short of the claim that the stories could have been stollen.

reply to post by sHuRuLuNi


I think it would be good for more Christians to gain a better understanding of the Koran. Not so we may be converted but so we can see we both belive in the same God.

The only major difference has to do with Jesus and the Holy Spirit. In many ways I think that based on your beliefs and the bible that you live subject to the Mosaic laws wich is a path that everyone took before Christ.

The only reason that I would ever want a Muslim to convert is becasue I truly beleive that the Holy Spirit lives in me and I don't believe that this is possible for one that does not believe in the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit teaches me how to love in ways that were previously not possible for me.

So I pray only that you may come to know the love and peace that I know.

Originally posted by sacgamer25


I know the stories and I know the claim that these stories predate the bible. Yes some Greek Mythology predates the bible but if you go back to the research you will find no archelogical evidence that supports the claim that the Greek myths that are similar to the bible were actually formed prior to the bible.

Just because Greek Mythology predates the bible does not mean that every story that we beleive is Greek Mythology predates the bible.

The very few examples where we have evidence that is compared to the bible falls well short of the claim that the stories could have been stollen.

But I am not talking about that. I am not a proponent of those who say for example that the Story of Noah is just a copy from older sumerian myths - there are some who say the stories in the Qur'an are also just copies from the Bible.

How these people never consider the possibility that these stories might have ONE AND THE SAME source is beyond me ...

Of course you will find parallels in the Qur'an, in the Bible and in older Sumerian stories - because the source is the same!

You know, although there is no book of Abraham in the Bible today, according to Qur'an, it is said that God revealed to Abraham a book too.

Now, in this book there might have been stories of prior prophets - the book itself might have gotten lost over time, but the stories continued.

Now, when God revealed the same stories to later Prophets, for example to Moses, etc. - they say "look, Moses copied those stories from the sumerians!"

But he did not - he got the same story from the same source: God.

The same is the case with Qur'an: the same stories were revealed again.


As I said before, I do not have a problem with that - I do believe that God revealed the books to Moses, David, Jesus and many other prophets. The Bible you hold in your hand today might not have the exact copy of those revelations, but I do not say "God never revealed anything to them".

The problem is: In case of Qur'an, the christians say just that.

That to me is a fine example of a double standard.

Originally posted by AllUrChips
because it is brainwashed in them from a young age and they are threatened with eternal damnation if they do not

True story.

agreed, eternal damnation if they don't...in a terrible lake of fire forever and ever - but dont forget, the entity that put you there loves you

Originally posted by Awoken4Ever

Originally posted by Frira

Wow did I love your post! There really is so much in there for me right now.

Well, thank you. I am so very tired, but cannot sleep (did it to myself and knew I was doing it) but will try to respond adequately...

I still don't understand the full concept of the Trinity. It is something I need to put a lot of work into soon, or maybe I am just not ready to hear it yet. It will come soon I am sure, I have only just begun

One of the early Christian theologians said something like, "If you teach about the Mystery of the Holy Trinity for more than five minutes, you will be speaking heresy!" No analogies fit.

When I initially posted yesterday, my thoughts are different already today. Even as I am replying to you it is changing as I think about it. The OP was poorly worded from where my thoughts are already today. We possibly couldn't have God 100% in our life otherwise we wouldn't be in the 3D world any longer.

Intriguing, 3D is the limited version. I suspect that is true.

I seem to be stuck on this word "wilderness" right now also, and the only thing I can use to describe it. If we were fully following Christ/God 100%, I suppose this world would be impossible for us. I am sure I am not making any sense though.

Me too- not such much on the word as in it-- stuck in the wilderness.

A week or so ago, somebody had a thread here, on ATS, about hair length and spirituality. I posted that I had this urge a few years ago to grow my hair longer-- that it was important to me that I do it, but that never could understand why it was so important to me.

Someone else posted that when spiritual people went out into the wilderness, they did not cut their hair until the returned and were received by the spiritual community. And I thought, "Exactly!" and then I understood why I grew my hair.

"Wilderness" means various things-- for me it is the aridity of this life, but for others it is a place where one goes out to confront and battle real demons-- not necessarily their own. Come to think of it, there has been some spiritual blood-letting in my case, too. I don't think I defeated any, but I think a few knew they were in a fight.

It is not "bondage to self," but "bondage to sin" which is most often considered. A somewhat high spirituality often attempts to minimize the ego so that true and spiritual self may emerge, but that is a whole different topic-- but a good one.

I would love to hear that topic if you ever feel inclined to get it going. If you do, shoot me a PM with a link.

Easy read-- Stanislav Grof's "Spiritual Emergency."
Cutesy title on a serious book (title a play on words for "Spiritual Emergence." Grof includes articles written by several about the subject from various backgrounds. He also has a free blog (last time I looked) Google his name if you are interested-- but the book is a better start than anything online.

Not an easy read-- deep, dense, professional and a textbook-- intended for therapists: Michael Washburn's, "Transpersonal Psychology in Psychoanalytic Perspective." I consider it poetry-- and may or may not sleep with it under my pillow-- but was already familiar with most of the academic jargon. Solid and cutting edge.

And if you weren't worrying that you may be in the wilderness, I would not have recommend either of the books.

It is very difficult work isn't it?? I can't say from experience at all, but I "saw something" which showed me a clear path of what it takes. My immediate response was there was no way I could do this. It's way to much for me. It scared me, left me confused, and it left me in a pretty awful place at first. Like I can't take this path, but when I turn around and look back, I realize there is no possible way I can take "that" path back either.

That is the most intriguing paragraph I have read all night-- and that is saying something.

I can't do it either-- and yet I look back and apparently have done something.

"I would rather live a life in misery knowing Him than not." I understand what this means now. I don't know how I do, but I do.

There is a purpose and meaning in the relationship, but that is not all there is. I haven't been able to grasp enough, yet (?), to know what all is there.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

First Council of Nicea

You are quoting a paragraph from Wikipedia.
I asked for documentation, as in, "Show me the documents".
What document verifies that this actually happened and that it is not just an urban legend?

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by jmdewey60

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

If we don't believe yet in Christ, why would we fear in the Hell He created????

I'm sure you would like to quote a verse saying God (or Jesus, according to you) created Hell for people.

edit on 1-1-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

Where did I say Hell was created for people in my post above that you quoted?

OK, then back to your old tricks, then, ignoring what I just quoted and pretending you never said that, all the while creating a distraction from the actual topic because you are a compulsive poster and write things without even thinking about them.

I've been through this thread three times now and cannot find the post you're mentioning where I claimed that Jesus "created Hell for people." Were you mistaken and thinking of someone else? The Bible clearly says that Hell was "created for the devil and his angels."

Can you show me where I claimed that "Hell was created for people"?

I think it is implicit in the quote I posted and you in turn quoted, as can be seen here in the quote of the quote of the quote, starting with your statement which in part says, "why would we fear in the Hell He created?"

Now if a person would even consider whether to fear or not fear Hell, it would be because of the possibility for that person to eventually end up there himself.
If there was no possibility to ever end up in Hell, as in no humans will ever go to a place called Hell, why would anyone ever consider for belief in or not to believe in it?

reply to post by sHuRuLuNi

What happened to the teachings of the original disciples? Their books?

You mean the first twelve that Jesus called to follow him at the beginning of his ministry?
The Gospel of John, that would be one, and written well after the books by Paul, as in Romans, the letters to the Corinthians, and Galatians.
John probably wrote his gospel to correct some serious theological problems with the earlier Gospels which were not written by actual eye witnesses. If there was something fundamentally wrong with Paul's teaching (I mean basically those four books I just mentioned and not later books that quite possibly were not written by Paul, with the exceptions of Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon, which most likely were written by Paul), then you would expect there to be something in John which would indicate that but there is nothing to be found in it which seems to have been put in by the author in order to contradict him.

reply to post by sHuRuLuNi

You should then know, that the pauline doctrine prevailed because only Paul and his disciples spread "their version" of the Gospel to the gentiles - Peter, James and other disciples of Jesus did not even want to HEAR ABOUT THAT. They maintained that Jesus was only sent to the House of Israel and only to the Jews. They continued to preach only in the synagogues in Palestine - and none of them went outside of Palestine to preach. At least not to the gentiles that is.

Did the prophet Mohamed say all that?
Otherwise everything here comes directly from Acts and nowhere else, which was written by someone much later but fictionalized to make it seem like he was a participant in the events he was writing about. The point being, that Acts contradicts the actual writings of Paul and when there are two versions, I side with Paul, who was actually there and not a fiction writer talking about things and places and people he never actually saw.