I am not the world's best christian, but certainly the world's worse churchian. I used to go to this building every Wednesday and Sunday that gathers non-believers and believers alike. We sang, got preached at, put money in a plate, admired each others dress attire, had "alter calls", etc.. etc.. etc.. It wasn't until it got to the point people were inviting everyone and anyone to "church" instead of to "God" that the question dawned on me... what's so special about church?
I know what I was told Church was, but I had to see for myself. What I found out was foundational shaking. Church was not a building at all. Church was not even the ceremony or service. Church wasn't the getting together of believers and non-believers. It turned out, the Church were the believers in general. And THEY (the believers) were told to gather weekly for the breaking of bread, etc... and THEY met in homes where it's more personal. I began to wonder, why do non-believers gather with believers when it was the believers who were told to gather?
Well, that brought me to the next question. Why is it when people say "Church", they automatically think of the building and/or service? Example: "Lets go to Church". "What happened in Church today"? What??? Here I was, a Christian for so many years, needing some MILK. I must have sounded really stupid, asking why we GO to church. The Church MET in the Upper Room mentioned once in the Bible, However, CHURCH mentioned in the Bible was mostly at so and so's house or located at such in such city when a letter was being written or whatever. But that had no reference into how we say it today. A letter was being written to the believers that gathered together in Corinth. Therefore, the letter was addressed to the Church at Corinth. I doubt the entire believing base in Corinth gathered together at the same time at the same place, but that letter was written the every Church for that area... for every believer... come to think of it, for all believers throughout all time. If you were a christian, sharing the word with a non-believer, you most likely would not start or finish or whatever with the book of Corinthians, who was written for and to BELIEVERS. Remember, when 2 or 3 are gathered in HIS name, there he is in the midst. You are not IN HIS NAME if Christ is not IN you and YOU in HIM.
So, that brings me to another concern. What are these meetings for and about? According to the Bible, the Church is supposed to edify ONE ANOTHER when they meet. This gathering is about building up each other, and ironically, not God (directly anyway). We are supposed to serve God and rest on the 7th day. Hence, building each other up in Christ should be a much needed gathering since we work so hard 6 days a week for him, right? Unfortunately, THAT seems to be the opposite view of today's "Church" as well. We seem to "worship" on that day and the rest of the week we need built up by others.
Worship, by the way, is defined by your "daily act of obedience". Not the "praise" part in a "Church" ceremony. In other words, when you live for HIM and WORK for him those 6 days, you are worshiping Him by doing what He directs you to do and live how He wants you to live. So many "Chur...", uh... I really don't know what to call it, says there's a "Worship" service at such and such time. Bleh... WHAT??? Yes, it is "worshiping" God to meet weekly, because that's what He said to do. But, so many Pastors, Preachers, and Teachers tell you how important it is that BELIEVERS meet together weekly or even daily, and yet do not stress the importance that it's for the BELIEVERS aka CHURCH itself... alone.
So, with all this in mind, why are "Chur..." including both believers and non-believers? Yes, I do believe a non-believer can be converted anywhere and at anytime. However, I do not think having this done when the CHURCH is suppose to gather is the obedient way. When the Preachers are supposed to GO OUT and compel them to come in... He wasn't talking about the services. He was talking about making them part of the family. They GO OUT and bring the Word of God TO the lost.. not to bring the lost to the word of God in a service. They compel people to become saved, so they can become part of the fold. Notice... He said GO OUT.
I'm not going to yack about the stuff done in "Chur..." today, like standing behind a pulpit instead of on one, etc... but would like this post to stick directly to the subject of the Church's purpose.
Churchianity
Churchianity
freemind;577125 wrote: I'm not going to yack about the stuff done in "Chur..." today, like standing behind a pulpit instead of on one, etc... but would like this post to stick directly to the subject of the Church's purpose.You speak of the Church's purpose, freemind, and you call the Church "the believers in general" - presumably by this you mean those you describe as "the saved", who are "part of the fold", in contrast to those you describe as "the lost". Given your description of the Church, that is there purpose? What are "the saved" for? What's their purpose which you would like this post to stick directly to?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Churchianity
Novelty;577148 wrote: How can you have a name like freemind and be a christian.. :-3 it's completely hypocritical.
Let's be polite, Novelty. This is a new poster exploring our environment who's crafted a thoughtful thread, we should be more grateful than to attack his belief. While there are dogma-bound denominations within Christianity I doubt whether freemind adheres to such a branch. There have always been groups within Christianity which encourage free-thinking.
Let's be polite, Novelty. This is a new poster exploring our environment who's crafted a thoughtful thread, we should be more grateful than to attack his belief. While there are dogma-bound denominations within Christianity I doubt whether freemind adheres to such a branch. There have always been groups within Christianity which encourage free-thinking.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Churchianity
When I said purpose.. I know the purpose of THE Church... I meant the the purpose of the groups we have now... when it does not appear it's being done correctly... scripturally. There's no need for preachers to go out when everyone else gets them to come in. At what point are the believers only meeting every week to build each other up as the Bible says to do? Non-believers are not part of the Church until they are saved. It's like putting the horse before the carriage, and even then, it doesn't go anywhere.
Churchianity
It's all good Novelty... and.. is that a cross on your flag? 
jk we're even.
jk we're even.Churchianity
freemind;577317 wrote: When I said purpose.. I know the purpose of THE Church...I did ask in all good conscience, in that so far I don't. It was a perfectly serious question, and it does "stick directly to the subject of the Church's purpose".
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Churchianity
The purpose of THE Church is to worship God. That means to be obedient to Him. Different people have different callings. One of those callings is to Preach. They are the ones to reach those who are not saved (according to the Bible description of who's saved and not saved). The Preachers are supposed to be SENT to the "lost", not the "lost" SENT to the preachers. My point in this topic is, I hear so much emphasis on people having to go to "Church", and not any emphasis on that it's the Church who's supposed to meet.. not believers and unbelievers alike. And that it's to build up ONE ANOTHER, not one day set aside to build up God.
Churchianity
Novelty;577318 wrote: I'm sure he forgives me..
:wah:
I see Churches as leviathans that, once founded, need to worry about sustaining their own existence and become an entity separated from its original purpose.
:wah:
I see Churches as leviathans that, once founded, need to worry about sustaining their own existence and become an entity separated from its original purpose.
Churchianity
freemind;577400 wrote: The purpose of THE Church is to worship God.But many people worship God who aren't Christians. Muslims worship God, for example. Is worship the sole purpose of the Church?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Churchianity
I am referring specifically to the christian gatherings as mentioned in the Bible.
Churchianity
I didn't mean for this topic post to defend or attack christianity, but to question the practice of Church Gatherings and the way it's being conducted today.
Churchianity
Entirely my fault, freemind. I was interested that you "would like this post to stick directly to the subject of the Church's purpose" which is why I asked about it. I don't see any of my observations as attacks on Christianity at all. I'm sure we don't have wildly conflicting opinions, from what I've seen so far.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Churchianity
I should have been more specific in that sentence. I meant the purpose of the Church under Christianity when it comes to its gatherings.
Churchianity
freemind:-6
During the early period of Judaism the word "synagogue" did not refer to a building but the gathering of the faithful. Later on it came to be used for the building as well.
In Christian theology the church is not the building but the people who are considered the body of Christ. Christians gather as you rightly pointed out to support each other. There is far more to that than being preached at or worshiping.
The church becomes a community and encourages mutual support not just on Sunday but 7 days a week. I am a member of the Anglican Church. The present church community with which I am associated is one of the most profound communities I have had the privilege to be a part of.
We support each other in sickness, with meals, prayer etc.; socially in partying and do we know how to party just as Jesus did; in times of family and personal strife; in good health. The word is community. I would not give this one up for anything.
One theologian described worship not as a daily or weekly duty but as playing and reliving the best of the past as well as now. I do not have to go to church. No one is compelled to be "saved"; whatever that may mean. Outsiders are welcomed. They are not preached at nor are they judged but they are invited to join us, every Sunday after the church service, to come to the pub with us where we enjoy what in Jesus day was known as a fellowship meal. He we salute special days like birthdays, anniversaries, welcome guests and toast absent friends. Give all this up? Not for any reason. This is living the faith.
We also have outreach programs where we help those in need. We attach no strings to that help.
No one is compelled to come nor are they compelled to be "saved", again, whatever that means.
If you are interested you might try reading some of the works of modern scholars such as Crossan, Borg, Spong as well as a host of others. I could list them if you wish.
That is the purpose of the "church".
Shalom
Ted:-6
During the early period of Judaism the word "synagogue" did not refer to a building but the gathering of the faithful. Later on it came to be used for the building as well.
In Christian theology the church is not the building but the people who are considered the body of Christ. Christians gather as you rightly pointed out to support each other. There is far more to that than being preached at or worshiping.
The church becomes a community and encourages mutual support not just on Sunday but 7 days a week. I am a member of the Anglican Church. The present church community with which I am associated is one of the most profound communities I have had the privilege to be a part of.
We support each other in sickness, with meals, prayer etc.; socially in partying and do we know how to party just as Jesus did; in times of family and personal strife; in good health. The word is community. I would not give this one up for anything.
One theologian described worship not as a daily or weekly duty but as playing and reliving the best of the past as well as now. I do not have to go to church. No one is compelled to be "saved"; whatever that may mean. Outsiders are welcomed. They are not preached at nor are they judged but they are invited to join us, every Sunday after the church service, to come to the pub with us where we enjoy what in Jesus day was known as a fellowship meal. He we salute special days like birthdays, anniversaries, welcome guests and toast absent friends. Give all this up? Not for any reason. This is living the faith.
We also have outreach programs where we help those in need. We attach no strings to that help.
No one is compelled to come nor are they compelled to be "saved", again, whatever that means.
If you are interested you might try reading some of the works of modern scholars such as Crossan, Borg, Spong as well as a host of others. I could list them if you wish.
That is the purpose of the "church".
Shalom
Ted:-6
Churchianity
Ted
Thank you for your reply. Your Church and views do not reflect the majority, unfortunately. I didn't happen to notice what country you are in before I made this post, but I'm in the U.S. and the majority HERE are having the problems I've mentioned above. I don't think it is mandatory people meet in their homes, but that sure would solve 10% of the sermons on trying to get people to pay for the Church bills. Most churches do have a support system, yes. I'm talking about the actual "services". And, as you seem to know your history and Bible very well, I'm sure you're aware they had "gatekeepers" to keep the unclean out. Even the Church at Corinth were told to expel it's members for the sinning. These gatherings are for the family of God, those that are in Him and Him in them, who sups with Him and Him with them, those who have been born again. The lost needs to be added to the Church daily (in terms of being born again), not in the gathering of the believers. I have enjoyed reading some of your other posts by the way.
Thank you for your reply. Your Church and views do not reflect the majority, unfortunately. I didn't happen to notice what country you are in before I made this post, but I'm in the U.S. and the majority HERE are having the problems I've mentioned above. I don't think it is mandatory people meet in their homes, but that sure would solve 10% of the sermons on trying to get people to pay for the Church bills. Most churches do have a support system, yes. I'm talking about the actual "services". And, as you seem to know your history and Bible very well, I'm sure you're aware they had "gatekeepers" to keep the unclean out. Even the Church at Corinth were told to expel it's members for the sinning. These gatherings are for the family of God, those that are in Him and Him in them, who sups with Him and Him with them, those who have been born again. The lost needs to be added to the Church daily (in terms of being born again), not in the gathering of the believers. I have enjoyed reading some of your other posts by the way.
Churchianity
freemind:-6
I do understand where you are coming from and I don't disagree that many churches are doing what you allege. In fact I was raised in such a church but soon saw the error of what was going on. That being said those of the emerging paradigm, and this crosses the boundaries of all denominations are in tune with my position of which I am only one of many. Our congregation is also one of many.
Paul was wrong on that. All we have to do is look at whom Jesus called to his table. There were sinners, tax collectors, publicans, prostitutes, the dregs of society etc. In the time of Jesus to call one to eat at the table with you was the ultimate sign of acceptance. There is no sign in the NT that Jesus ever demanded they be "born again" which is a term that has its own problems. Todays theologians in fact are saying that such meals were Eucharistic.
Consider the parable of the wedding feast. When the good folks all gave excuses the bridegroom sent his servants out to call those in off the streets and they would most certainly be those above mentioned people.
Yes, it would be cheaper to meet in a home but with the numbers showing up the community feeling would not be near the same. Generally the church being the people of the community decide what to build, whom to help, what charities to support etc. When money is mentioned it is not a harangue but simply a statement of what we all have agreed to spend and thus how much we need to take in. No one is forced or even goaded into giving. Folks give as they feel they can.
A little know fact, here in Canada, is that after paying our bills we must not retain a lot of money. We must disburse at least 80% to charitable works. The only exception is if the people decide to build a new church or church hall. Then they are allowed to raise those funds in a separate building fund which is checked by the income tax department. If we fail to meet our obligations we lose our charitable tax designation and have to pay taxes.
I hope that explains a bit.
Would I trade that? Not a chance. What a wonderful and profound community I am part of. I do look forward to our ancient practice of a fellowship meal in the pub after church. Yes a pub!
Shalom
Ted:-6
I do understand where you are coming from and I don't disagree that many churches are doing what you allege. In fact I was raised in such a church but soon saw the error of what was going on. That being said those of the emerging paradigm, and this crosses the boundaries of all denominations are in tune with my position of which I am only one of many. Our congregation is also one of many.
Paul was wrong on that. All we have to do is look at whom Jesus called to his table. There were sinners, tax collectors, publicans, prostitutes, the dregs of society etc. In the time of Jesus to call one to eat at the table with you was the ultimate sign of acceptance. There is no sign in the NT that Jesus ever demanded they be "born again" which is a term that has its own problems. Todays theologians in fact are saying that such meals were Eucharistic.
Consider the parable of the wedding feast. When the good folks all gave excuses the bridegroom sent his servants out to call those in off the streets and they would most certainly be those above mentioned people.
Yes, it would be cheaper to meet in a home but with the numbers showing up the community feeling would not be near the same. Generally the church being the people of the community decide what to build, whom to help, what charities to support etc. When money is mentioned it is not a harangue but simply a statement of what we all have agreed to spend and thus how much we need to take in. No one is forced or even goaded into giving. Folks give as they feel they can.
A little know fact, here in Canada, is that after paying our bills we must not retain a lot of money. We must disburse at least 80% to charitable works. The only exception is if the people decide to build a new church or church hall. Then they are allowed to raise those funds in a separate building fund which is checked by the income tax department. If we fail to meet our obligations we lose our charitable tax designation and have to pay taxes.
I hope that explains a bit.
Would I trade that? Not a chance. What a wonderful and profound community I am part of. I do look forward to our ancient practice of a fellowship meal in the pub after church. Yes a pub!
Shalom
Ted:-6
Churchianity
Well Said TedChurchianity
> How can you have a name like freemind and be a christian.. it's completely hypocritical.
hardly...
Christians are the only ones whose minds are freed. Freed from sin, free to live to God in righteousness. It is those who are still trapped in sin that are the slaves.
Joh 8:34 Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.
Joh 8:35 And the servant abideth not in the house forever: but the Son abideth ever.
Joh 8:36 If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.
The son of man has set Christians free by faith in his name. It is you who are bound.
hardly...
Christians are the only ones whose minds are freed. Freed from sin, free to live to God in righteousness. It is those who are still trapped in sin that are the slaves.
Joh 8:34 Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.
Joh 8:35 And the servant abideth not in the house forever: but the Son abideth ever.
Joh 8:36 If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.
The son of man has set Christians free by faith in his name. It is you who are bound.
Churchianity
Gannet10:-6
In this day and age we are coming to realize that exclusivism is a sin in itself. This does not just come to me but from many theologians Anglican and otherwise. I am aware of this both through my reading and my ongoing studies at the Vancouver School of Theology.
As to the words attributed to Jesus in the Gospel of John, there are none in that Gospel that can be traced back to the historical Jesus. They are the words that the early church put into the mouth of Jesus by whomever wrote that particular gospel. Fox, Crossan, Borg, Spong and a host of others.
Shalom
Ted:-6
In this day and age we are coming to realize that exclusivism is a sin in itself. This does not just come to me but from many theologians Anglican and otherwise. I am aware of this both through my reading and my ongoing studies at the Vancouver School of Theology.
As to the words attributed to Jesus in the Gospel of John, there are none in that Gospel that can be traced back to the historical Jesus. They are the words that the early church put into the mouth of Jesus by whomever wrote that particular gospel. Fox, Crossan, Borg, Spong and a host of others.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Churchianity
Some translations of the Bible are intentionally twisted to accommodate the exclusivist. One glaring example is in Mathew 18 where the words “if you brother sins against you” are conveniently translated to, “if your brother sins”. The first sends one to his brother to reconcile and restore while the second sends the congregation on a witch hunt.
I do find it perplexing though, when the same people who call the Church to account for being exclusive, are equally adamant about the “evils” evangelism.
I do find it perplexing though, when the same people who call the Church to account for being exclusive, are equally adamant about the “evils” evangelism.
Schooling results in matriculation. Education is a process that changes the learner.
Churchianity
If Christians were more like Stephen:
Act 7:59 And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.
Act 7:60 And he kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. And when he had said this, he fell asleep.
They would also say "Lay not this sin to their charge", even whilst being stoned to death.
> exclusivism: a sin?
Mar 10:15 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.
what exactly is wrong about having good doctrine, eh? Christianity is exclusive to those who believe in his blood on the cross, if then a person doesn't believe in that blood, how do you expect their sins to be paid for? or are you using an alternate definition of exclusivism?
> Abraham: a myth?
If Abraham is a myth then you think Jesus is a liar, because Jesus said:
Joh 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
and Jesus is of the seed of Abraham, so he cannot be a myth:
Mat 1:1 The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.
additionally, the promise of salvation by faith was initially MADE to Abraham by God, so if Abraham doesn't exist, neither does the gospel
Gen 26:24 And the LORD appeared unto him the same night, and said, I am the God of Abraham thy father: fear not, for I am with thee, and will bless thee, and multiply thy seed for my servant Abraham's sake.
The Jews believed Abraham existed, and Jesus affirms the existence of all of those major figures here:
Mar 12:26 And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?
So how can a Christian truly ever say that Abraham does not exist????? Its preposterous.
Heb 11:8 By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went.
Act 7:59 And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.
Act 7:60 And he kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. And when he had said this, he fell asleep.
They would also say "Lay not this sin to their charge", even whilst being stoned to death.
> exclusivism: a sin?
Mar 10:15 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.
what exactly is wrong about having good doctrine, eh? Christianity is exclusive to those who believe in his blood on the cross, if then a person doesn't believe in that blood, how do you expect their sins to be paid for? or are you using an alternate definition of exclusivism?
> Abraham: a myth?
If Abraham is a myth then you think Jesus is a liar, because Jesus said:
Joh 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
and Jesus is of the seed of Abraham, so he cannot be a myth:
Mat 1:1 The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.
additionally, the promise of salvation by faith was initially MADE to Abraham by God, so if Abraham doesn't exist, neither does the gospel
Gen 26:24 And the LORD appeared unto him the same night, and said, I am the God of Abraham thy father: fear not, for I am with thee, and will bless thee, and multiply thy seed for my servant Abraham's sake.
The Jews believed Abraham existed, and Jesus affirms the existence of all of those major figures here:
Mar 12:26 And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?
So how can a Christian truly ever say that Abraham does not exist????? Its preposterous.
Heb 11:8 By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went.
Churchianity
Clint:-6
Translation is not so simple. I find in the Greek NT and the lexicon that the word translated as brother. (adelphos), can mean biological brother, a fellow countryman, a fellow Christian, an expression of the relationship between Christ and His followers. So indeed it is not a mistranslation or anyone taking liberties.
The same holds for others such as the Hebrew word for abomination does not mean sin but "distasteful".
Shalom
Ted:-6
Translation is not so simple. I find in the Greek NT and the lexicon that the word translated as brother. (adelphos), can mean biological brother, a fellow countryman, a fellow Christian, an expression of the relationship between Christ and His followers. So indeed it is not a mistranslation or anyone taking liberties.
The same holds for others such as the Hebrew word for abomination does not mean sin but "distasteful".
Shalom
Ted:-6
Churchianity
Ted;676026 wrote: Clint:-6
Translation is not so simple. I find in the Greek NT and the lexicon that the word translated as brother. (adelphos), can mean biological brother, a fellow countryman, a fellow Christian, an expression of the relationship between Christ and His followers. So indeed it is not a mistranslation or anyone taking liberties.
The same holds for others such as the Hebrew word for abomination does not mean sin but "distasteful".
Shalom
Ted:-6
You missed the point of my post. I was talking about the deletion of the word "you".
Translation is not so simple. I find in the Greek NT and the lexicon that the word translated as brother. (adelphos), can mean biological brother, a fellow countryman, a fellow Christian, an expression of the relationship between Christ and His followers. So indeed it is not a mistranslation or anyone taking liberties.
The same holds for others such as the Hebrew word for abomination does not mean sin but "distasteful".
Shalom
Ted:-6
You missed the point of my post. I was talking about the deletion of the word "you".
Schooling results in matriculation. Education is a process that changes the learner.
Churchianity
Gannet:-6
Exclusivism is a sin? In exclusivism you are judging others which is not your role. Secondly you are judging others without understanding them or their faith.
Now on the the words of Jesus. First of all none of the words attributed to Jesus, in the gospel of John, can be traced back to the historical Jesus. They are the words the early church placed in his mouth.
Historically Abraham' existence cannot be proven. The phrase "Before Abraham was I am" is not an authentic saying of Jesus but the words of the evangelist.
The Historical Jesus would be appalled at what many Christians have done with his name and in his name. He was an Eastern Mediterranean Jewish Peasant. He was a spirit person, a truly holy man in whom we see manifested the true nature of God, an exorcist, a healer etc. He enjoyed a very special relationship with God. All men who enjoyed this relationship were, historically, called sons of God. Jesus himself preferred to be called a "son of man".
So, do I believe he was the Messiah? Yes. Do I believe that he was crucified? Yes. Do I believe he died for the sins of the world? No that is the theology that was appended to him. There are several interpretations to his death and dying for out sins is only one of them. Do I believe in the resurrection? Absolutely but not necessarily physically. We are told that "flesh and blood" cannot enter the kingdom. That would suggest some spiritual manifestation. What about the empty tomb? Midrash? Do I believe Jesus is Lord? I prefer the term master. Just as I prefer the term transformation to saved. Transformation means far more than saved.
For many Christians their "God is Too Small" JB Phillips.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Exclusivism is a sin? In exclusivism you are judging others which is not your role. Secondly you are judging others without understanding them or their faith.
Now on the the words of Jesus. First of all none of the words attributed to Jesus, in the gospel of John, can be traced back to the historical Jesus. They are the words the early church placed in his mouth.
Historically Abraham' existence cannot be proven. The phrase "Before Abraham was I am" is not an authentic saying of Jesus but the words of the evangelist.
The Historical Jesus would be appalled at what many Christians have done with his name and in his name. He was an Eastern Mediterranean Jewish Peasant. He was a spirit person, a truly holy man in whom we see manifested the true nature of God, an exorcist, a healer etc. He enjoyed a very special relationship with God. All men who enjoyed this relationship were, historically, called sons of God. Jesus himself preferred to be called a "son of man".
So, do I believe he was the Messiah? Yes. Do I believe that he was crucified? Yes. Do I believe he died for the sins of the world? No that is the theology that was appended to him. There are several interpretations to his death and dying for out sins is only one of them. Do I believe in the resurrection? Absolutely but not necessarily physically. We are told that "flesh and blood" cannot enter the kingdom. That would suggest some spiritual manifestation. What about the empty tomb? Midrash? Do I believe Jesus is Lord? I prefer the term master. Just as I prefer the term transformation to saved. Transformation means far more than saved.
For many Christians their "God is Too Small" JB Phillips.
Shalom
Ted:-6