Being christian while rejecting important OT figures?

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


I am not a part of a cult and need no label. The individual can believe what he may and call himself whatever he may. There is no rule unless you take what Jesus said as the rule. Love thy neighbor as yourself and believe the kingdom of God is within you.

I (personally) do in fact see a purpose for the OT. I believe Melchizedek wrote Job and was the same soul as Jesus. Enoch, again, same soul as Jesus. For the believer in reincarnation/resurrection it's easier to find the OT's purpose. The Old represents stumbling blocks and the New represents stepping stones. One can see the process of the conscious/collective mind - evolution.

The Bible can be interpreted so many ways, however it's my opinion one keeps the sense of spirit first and foremost throughout the read. Spirit is the first layer.

@flyersFan...''Shoot and miss. you really are obsessed with trying to say I'm not a Christian. '' _________________________________________ why dont you address that quote from luke 24 where Jesus was talking about the law of moses and the prophets? which ''Law of moses'' was Jesus talking about? Also, I don't think anybody needs to ''try'' to say you aren't Christian. Your own disbelief in the Law of Moses, which Jesus spoke of, proves you are not a christian.

oops... Double post.

sk0rpi0n
Your own disbelief in the Law of Moses, which Jesus spoke of, proves you are not a christian.

Still dead wrong. Again .... The ONLY requirements to be a Christian ... Believe that Jesus came from Heaven to save people from their sins ... Try to follow Jesus command of Love God and Neighbor.

11 pages and you still refuse to acknowledge the facts. Pretty sad.

Again .. what's your obsession with labeling people who worship under the Christian umbrella? You aren't Christian. You aren't a Christian scholar. You don't even listen to the basic Christian teachings about what a person has to be in order to be Christian. What's with your obsession? It's pretty sick. Seek help ....

''Original sin' was a term invented by the Catholic Church.''........................... The sin nature was caused by Adam. Paul (who you quoted) teaches that. __________________________________________________ ''
Hang it up. Your arm chair anti-christian theology.....''.................... You are being anti-christian by insulting the prophets and the Law of Moses that Jesus spoke of.

sk0rpi0n
The sin nature was caused by Adam.

Human nature ... evolutionary psychology proves that 'sin nature' is human nature and was important in the evolutionary process .. survival of the fittest ... prior to civilization. Jesus teachings were bringing people to civilized behavior and the shedding of the 'sinful' evolutionary behavior.

You are being anti-christian by insulting the prophets and the Law of Moses that Jesus spoke of.

It's not an 'insult' to say that Abraham probably never existed or that it's insane to attempt to murder your own son at the command of 'voices'. It's just fact. It's not an 'insult' to say that the 10 commandments had been around for hundreds of years before Moses supposedly got them from God. It's just fact. It's not 'insulting' to Noah to state that the Noahs Ark story has been debunked by science. It's just fact.

Again .... The ONLY requirements to be a Christian ... Believe that Jesus came from Heaven to save people from their sins ... Try to follow Jesus command of Love God and Neighbor.

You have a strange obsession with christians and christianity.
It's pretty sick. Seek help ....

''evolutionary psychology proves that 'sin nature' is human nature and was important in the evolutionary process ''........ So according to you, Paul was all wrong when he wrote of sin entering mankind through Adam. So I guess the whole thing about Jesus dying for sin is proven false. Great. Thats what I believe anyway. _________________________________________ ''It's not an 'insult' to say that Abraham probably never existed or that it's insane to attempt to murder your own son '' ......... So with this, Jesus was only kidding when he said ''Before Abraham I am'', and therefore Jesus isn't God, as you claim. Perfect! _________________________________________ '' Believe that Jesus came from Heaven'' ......... Has science proven the existence of a Biblical heaven? Or that men can ''come down'' from heaven? Can you provide links to any peer reviewed papers that confirm this? No? Then I guess your previous references to science to prove a point, can be dismissed._________________________________________ Also, has science proven that virgins can give birth to children? No. So you have thrown your belief in the virgin birth of Christ out the window. Also, has science proven that corpses can come back to life after 3 days? No? Then your belief that Jesus' dead body came alive after 3 days is disproven by..... Science.

@flyersfan........''you have a strange obsession with christians and christianity..'' _________________________________________ but youre the one obsessively believing in christian beliefs such as Jesus' virgin birth and the resurrection of his dead body... You do realize that science disproves human virgin births and resurrection of dead bodies. Humans haven't evolved to do those things!

reply to post by sk0rpi0n

Also, has science proven that corpses can come back to life after 3 days?

YES.

There are numerous cases of it happening in this day and age. What science has discovered is that we DON'T REALLY KNOW when is the appropriate time to declare "death," because there are people ALIVE NOW who were pronounced DEAD, even had rigor setting in, but they CAME BACK TO LIFE.

Particularly when placed in a refrigerated/cold environment....but it's happened in 'room temperature' environments also. MANY times. I'd list some links but you ignore them when given, so I won't bother to do your homework for you, except to tell you you are WRONG. Again.

Do some research, Sk0rp.

sk0rpi0n
but youre the one obsessively believing in christian beliefs

Oh brother. Having spiritual beliefs isn't 'obsessing'.
However, your behavior IS obsessive.
You, a muslim, are hung up on deciding who is a 'real Christian' and who isn't.
Seriously dude .... WOW.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n

You are being obtuse. You were proven wrong on page 2 and 3 of this thread.

Again .... The ONLY requirements to be a Christian ... Believe that Jesus came from Heaven to save people from their sins ... Try to follow Jesus command of Love God and Neighbor.

You have a strange obsession with christians and christianity.

FlyersFan

I will answer you with your own quote because you said it perfectly -

I feel honored. You treat MY words he same as you treat the Bible - you glom on to what you like, and discard and ignore what you don't. That makes me feel special - God gets the same treatment from you!

Of course, you'll never get the full understanding of either of us that way (purposefully, I suspect), but whatever floats your boat is fine by me. God can speak for himself in that matter, however. He may have a different opinion.

That's between you and he.

I do note however that you are wholly incapable of answering the simple question I posed to you - whether you believe the Ten Commandments to be of God or not. In that regard, I suppose I will have to take your statement here as your final answer:

The 'logical reason' has been given to you many times. You just won't accept it.
The reason is because the so-called 'laws' ...
ARE NOT FROM GOD
They are made up by men who claim to be speaking for God but they obviously weren't.

It should be a lively discussion when you meet him face to face. It ought to be interesting to see how he receives the news that his words are not from him, with the "logical" reasoning of "just because they're NOT!"

sk0rpi0n

Your "Christianity" holds no water, theologically.
Because without belief in Adam, there was no "original sin". Without original sin, the doctrine of Jesus' "sin sacrifice" is without foundation.

*Sigh*

So many people simply repeating themselves, so little effort to fall asleep during the repetitions!

I'll tall you what - YOU pay for Adam's sins. I'll take a raincheck, since I have so many of my own to make arrangements for.

FlyersFan

nenothtu
"Save souls" from what?

Their sinful human nature. (notice I didn't say 'original sin' ... it's really a sinful human nature)

How can they have any sin to be saved from if God has no laws to sin against? How can one break laws when there are none to be broken?

Teachings on what? What did Jesus teach that had no basis in the OT?

His teachings are capable of standing alone. Some of what he said is mirrors Buddha.
Just because something may also be in the the OT doesn't mean it's dependent upon it.

A unique perspective. I've not heard the angle that Jesus was really teaching Buddhism before. Are you not really a Buddhist then instead of a Christian? If Jesus didn't take his teaching from the OT, and only some of it "mirrors Buddha", did he then just make the rest up on the fly? A sort of "pray as you play" program?

Take the folklore around Abraham. IF he existed, the stories around him were just word of mouth stories for 1500 years. It took that long to write them down. IF he existed, we have no idea if any of those stories are true. And really, it's unimportant if they were or not. Jesus teaching of love God and love neighbor can stand without Abraham.

How can preaching to love a god that Abraham introduced (i.e. "revealed", to borrow a Muslim term) exist at all if Abraham never introduced him to mankind?

How 'zactly does that work?

Jesus himself claimed Abraham was the father of the Hebrews - is that just another of those things we need to edit out of what he said, so that we can simply believe what we like? Was Jesus just a con man riding on mythological coat tails that he made up as he went along in your opinion?

Congratulations! You are revising my opinions as I try to find the logic in what you are saying! While I still believe that in order to be a Christian (at it's most basic level), one has only to believe in Christ and his mission to save people, that necessarily entails that they have something they stand in need of being saved FROM. Therefore, necessarily I must either accept what Jesus said in the matter, or reject the offered salvation, since rejecting his testimony means that there is nothing to be saved from. Since he testified as to Abraham and many other OT references, I cannot reject them without also rejecting his testimony.

I don't however, believe that "something" is someone else's (i.e. Adam's) sins. Adam still has to answer for his own. Maybe Paul can answer for them, too, since that seems to have been Paul's gig rather than Jesus'. Either way, whether Paul does or not, I'm not going to.

Jesus didn't say I have to.

FlyersFan

'Original sin' was a term invented by the Catholic Church.
Jesus saves people from their own sinful nature.
And 'sin sacrifice' refers to ALL SIN ... not just the Catholic 'original sin'.
Hang it up. Your arm chair anti-christian theology is pretty damn weak.

* neno shaked FF's hand and pats her on the back*

It's a step in the right direction.

But only one step.

You aren't qualified to say who is a Christian and who isn't. That's between God and the person who says they are a Christian.

Another good step. Keep stepping, and you'll get there!

FlyersFan

Again .... The ONLY requirements to be a Christian ... Believe that Jesus came from Heaven to
save people from their sins ... Try to follow Jesus command of Love God and Neighbor.

Just one more step now...

How can there be any sin to be saved from if God has no laws, no standards to measure sin BY? How can man be held accountable for breaking a rule God never made?

reply to post by FlyersFan


According to Mohammed, Abraham was a "real Muslim" - which means NONE of the current sects are, since they have all strayed from the path of Abraham.

Likewise, NONE of the current sects of Christianity can be "real Christians", since THEY have all strayed from the path of Jesus.

In BOTH cases, so much has been added and subtracted from the original (or claimed original), that the current manifestations bear hardly and resemblance at all to the real deal.

sk0rpi0n
@ nenothtu

The ''sinful nature of man thing'' is directly related to that naughty thing Adam did.

no, it wasn't. It's illogical to expect someone to pay for sins they never committed or took willful responsibility for. Likewise, I don't pay bills that I never made.

Paul teaches that in Romans. Thats what christians believe. No adam = no original sin = no sin sacrifice = jesus becomes a criminal executed by the Romans

Paul was late to the party, and never met Jesus, so how can he seriously presume to speak for him? I'll stand on what Jesus said instead, thanks. Even in the early church, there were arguments raging about whether or not Paul had simply lost the plot. Those thinking he had were coincidentally the same who HAD walked with Jesus. However that may be, Paul never preached Original Sin. The Catholic Church invented that idea later. I've already expounded on what Paul taught at length. He never mentioned eating a fruit as "original sin". He said that "sin entered mankind through one man", just as I have also said. No fruit required - only human nature is required, which necessarily entered humanity through the first man.

Even if that man was named "Irving" and lived in what would later become Caracas.

The same thing that made Adam sinful makes ME sinful - but the sins are not the same, and we all have to answer for our own - or make other arrangements. That's one thing Paul and I can agree upon. Some of the other things he said are just nonsensical.

unless christianity is some Believe- what-you-want religion, Belief in Adam and the prophets are important to belief in Jesus. ''christians'' who believe otherwise live by their personal churches, not christian canon about Jesus.

You got me there. I live by what the Bible says Jesus said, not any presumed "church canon", which all have additions and subtractions to make them conform to what this or that sect WANTS to believe. There IS NO ONE "christian canon" that defines Christianity as a whole - if there were, there would only be one Christian sect.

I believe in Adam and the prophets because Jesus did, and based his work upon them. I DO NOT believe in any "original sin", because Jesus didn't mention it, and that seems an important detail that if true, he would not have left out.

FlyersFan

If Jesus quoted Abraham like that, then Jesus must be God incarnate.

Not necessarily. I can also say "before Abraham was, I am." with a straight face and mean it. I am not a god, however.

Do NOT worship me.

Oddly enough, Jesus said the same thing, and prevented people from worshipping him.

sk0rpi0n
why dont you address that quote from luke 24 where Jesus was talking about the law of moses and the prophets? which ''Law of moses'' was Jesus talking about?

The entire Taurat is referred to by Jews with the title "The Law of Moses" - even though most of it is not legal, but rather historical. They refer to it that way in order to make the distinction between it and the books of the prophets.