Tell The Whole World Now Christianity Is Not A Religion!!!

[SeaZen]

Originally Posted by eberuoba

Quote me wrong if you can...
Can someone tell me the Religion of Jesus Christ himself when he came to this world... Everyone know that Christianity was all about the KINGDOM OF HEAVEN ON EARTH.

I have checked your posting patterns and all you have been doing is starting preachy threads without any follow up posts whatsoever. Its not against forum rules but is pretentious in a preachy proselytizing way nevertheless.

What is the point of your participation here?

"Can someone tell me the Religion of Jesus Christ himself ..." (eberouba)

Read the Bible for your answer.

It appears Jesus was a Jew. His earthly parents were Jews. His uncle was a Jewish priest. He was circumcised according to the religious rites of Judaism. He attended Synagogue, "as was his custom.". He bacame a Rabbi (Jewish religious teacher). He believed in the advent of the Messiah (in fact believed he himself was the Messiah)as a person, as did the Pharasees but he generously criticized both Pharasees and Sadducees, who were the major denominations of Jewish religion at the time.

Though scripture does not say, it seems likely he was a reformer who leaned more toward the Pharasee doctrine than any other. He was well versed in Hebrew scripture and was highly spiritual with a close relationship to "The Father". "He who has seen me has seen The Father."

Christianity is the religion based on the belief that Jesus was "The Christ". the "Messiah" The "Lamb slain before the foundation of the world." So for me, I cannot
"Tell The Whole World Now Christianity Is Not A Religion!!!" Because it is mine. :>)

Originally Posted by blackraven

IQ - Yes, that is something that I don't agree with. I live out in the country and a church bought 20 acres and plopped a church in the middle of the 20 acres in a pristine nature setting next to our property. We pay a lot of taxes to live where we do, but they are tax exempt for 20 acres! Deer, hawks, red-wing black birds loved the field boarding the church that had brush and small trees on it, until last week they brought in heavy equipment and bulldozed over all of it until it was flat. There is a line of trees between our property that is close to the property line that animals line in. I called up the church and said, "I live next to your property and was just inquiring as to why you're mowing over all the small trees and brush near the property line." She said (quote) "It's our property and we're cleaning up along OUR property." I said, "Well there are a lot of animals that live in those small trees and brush along there that will be effected." She repeated herself. "It's our property." I said, "So there is no explanation - thank you." I enjoy more animals in my yard now, but it's sad that they moved into a country setting and didn't have respect for the natural surroundings including God's animals. OK, thanks for letting me rant.

Blackraven

Ugh, Just Ugh...

I don't understand what the point of this thread is in the first place. Religion means man made rules placed on faith in order to control the masses.

Christianity and other 'religious' faiths are full of statements that express consequences of hell etc if people exercise their free will.

Perhaps it is more of a 'let's save as many people as we can from the devil' type proclamation.

Or maybe I'm just not going to continue my line of thought because I might offend some members...

No, nobody can tell you the actual teachings of Christ for certain. Obviously you can go the fundamentalist route and say the Bible is the exact correct teachings but from a historical sense it's not automatically true that they picked only the actual true scriptures at the council of Nicea in 3AD.

There are all sorts of other teachings that were labeled as heresy by Rome but were legitimate sects of Christianity during the first few centuries. Gnosticism, Arianism, Adoptionism, and on and on....
This stuff is highly debated by scholars and there will never be full agreement.
I'm speaking in terms of historical facts not supernatural speculation.

A recent attempt to analyze how much of the new testament was actually said by Jesus gave a figure of 18% being likely attributed to him.
See "Jesus Seminar" at wiki for more info.

This is the opinion of ~150 scholars and laymen, some very notable.

Originally Posted by joelr

No, nobody can tell you the actual teachings of Christ for certain. Obviously you can go the fundamentalist route and say the Bible is the exact correct teachings but from a historical sense it's not automatically true that they picked only the actual true scriptures at the council of Nicea in 3AD.

There are all sorts of other teachings that were labeled as heresy by Rome but were legitimate sects of Christianity during the first few centuries. Gnosticism, Arianism, Adoptionism, and on and on....
This stuff is highly debated by scholars and there will never be full agreement.
I'm speaking in terms of historical facts not supernatural speculation.

A recent attempt to analyze how much of the new testament was actually said by Jesus gave a figure of 18% being likely attributed to him.
See "Jesus Seminar" at wiki for more info.

This is the opinion of ~150 scholars and laymen, some very notable.

"From God to Us" is a great a book (lots of historical references) and one that I recommend, written by Norman L Geisler and William E Nix. The book reveals the process and discernible criteria in the selection, and also addresses the following questions:

Where did the Bible come from?
How do we know the right books are in the Bible?
Does the Bible contain errors?
What are the oldest copies we have of the Bible?
How do we know that the Bible hasn't been changed over the years?
Why are there so many translations of the Bible, and which one should I use?

Originally Posted by TeeHee

"From God to Us" is a great a book (lots of historical references) and one that I recommend, written by Norman L Geisler and William E Nix. The book reveals the process and discernible criteria in the selection, and also addresses the following questions:

Where did the Bible come from?
How do we know the right books are in the Bible?
Does the Bible contain errors?
What are the oldest copies we have of the Bible?
How do we know that the Bible hasn't been changed over the years?
Why are there so many translations of the Bible, and which one should I use?

Yes thankyou. The reviews clearly state it's a book based on faith rather than fact. Here is one:

"This one lost me at the first "the Bible is inspired because it says it inspired." The book is a well written treatise and well organized for someone who wants their belief/faith confirmed. For someone searching to find the answers, there is far too much self confirmation and assumption of belief. My opinion anyway."

So it's that whole circular logic thing - the bible is true "because it says so".
It seems superfluous, if you choose to believe like the Roman Catholics did when they formed the church in 12 AD that the bible is true then you don't really need a book telling you it's true. People who don't believe are not going to be fooled by specious incomplete and sketchy historical facts.

There simply is NO historical book that can prove the bible is actually what it claims to be based on history alone. There is also no book that can completely discredit it without being disputed. So it works both ways. I do think the Jesus seminar set a good standard to go by on the accuracy of the bible. But it's for people interested in history, not fundamentalists.

But it's misleading to put a faith based book in a historical frame.

Originally Posted by joelr

Yes thankyou. The reviews clearly state it's a book based on faith rather than fact. Here is one:

"This one lost me at the first "the Bible is inspired because it says it inspired." The book is a well written treatise and well organized for someone who wants their belief/faith confirmed. For someone searching to find the answers, there is far too much self confirmation and assumption of belief. My opinion anyway."

So it's that whole circular logic thing - the bible is true "because it says so".
It seems superfluous, if you choose to believe like the Roman Catholics did when they formed the church in 12 AD that the bible is true then you don't really need a book telling you it's true. People who don't believe are not going to be fooled by specious incomplete and sketchy historical facts.

There simply is NO historical book that can prove the bible is actually what it claims to be based on history alone. There is also no book that can completely discredit it without being disputed. So it works both ways. I do think the Jesus seminar set a good standard to go by on the accuracy of the bible. But it's for people interested in history, not fundamentalists.

But it's misleading to put a faith based book in a historical frame.

Shame, because based on the criteria given, I'd hardly think that I'd believe either. I do appreciate that you shared how you were lost by "the Bible is inspired" perhaps you can give definition and meaning to what exactly inspiration of the Holy Texts is? I asked this question in a different post and nobody successfully answered the question, but some spewed out personal dribble onto the internet without concern for wasting bandwidth!

The book "From God to us," goes into the process by which God gives His revelation. Touches on the false books and false writings, and introduces external, internal, and bibliographical tests. This is recommended reading for a college level hermeneutics course that I am currently under taking. In the next following weeks we will also subject a book such as the Gospel of Thomas to a "lab" in finding why the book was rejected.

Some of the questions the book offers, for deciding various books in the Bible, consisting of both Old and New Testaments are as followed, but not limited to as the book goes much deeper than:

Is the book authoritive--does it claim to be of God?
Is it prophetic -- was it written by a servant of God?
Is it authentic -- does it tell the truth about God, man, ect.?
Is the book dynamic --does it possess the life --transforming power of God?
Is this book received or accepted by the people of God for whom it was originally written--is it recognized as being from God?

Tons of great information are found within the pages of this book. It was just a recommendation, and I could not care less to go into why anyone accepts or rejects the Bible at this time, or gives credence to any other books, articles, or Tv documentaries (there must be a level of "faith," or a process used to determine whether historical or scientific facts support the Bible's authenticity or credibility)-- with all due respect, I am merely pointing to a book that goes into what determines canonicity.

Certainly, there are some great books out there that point to historians, other extra biblical literature, and scientific finds, all of course to be accepted or rejected by either some form of testing, or bias, prejudice, or personal lack of faith.

Also to, here's a little more information on the canon, the standard of canonization

Anyhoot, this seems to be of little relevance to the OP (not that anything really is) so I'll leave you to enjoy your discussion.

Back to the subject of whether or not Christianity is a religion.
Here is a definition of Religion:

the belief in and worship of a god or gods, or any such system of belief and worship

I would say this is true of Christianity.

I replied to whether or not Jesus was religious and I think he was and exhibited it. I believe he tried to reform religion from merely going through the motions to comprehending the basic premise of his view of religion as the actual belief in and worship of God as he comprehended God. I think he rejected the Pharasee's view of righteousness through obeying the rules while dispising those they judged did not. (see the parable of the Pharasee and the Publican at prayer in the temple).

Jesus' stripped down version was simply Love: love God with all your being, your neighbor as yourself, your enemy as well and love one another as he has loved us. I personally believe one has to know God spiritually, he is a Spirit and those who worship him must do so in spirit and in truth.

I came to love God when I experienced him by his "speaking" to me in 1947.

He did not give me a set of rules. Obeying the rules comes naturally if one loves. (Rules may be helpful reminders or "schoolmasters" to keep order until we come to love, but are of little other use unless powered by love..)

I don't have to be told to not murder someone I love, nor steal from them, nor lie about or to them. And if I do all manner of "good" without love as the inspiration (1 Cor. Chapter 13) it is useless.

Jesus religion was, I believe, to BE loving .

First of all to know and love God who is Love. This is a spiritual gift.

This is supernatural and involves being reborn spiritually, to be GIVEN a new heart which we cannot attain ourselves, we can only accept.

Worshipping God is not burning a candle or reciting a scripture, it is recognizing God's worth-ship. BEEING aware of his worth-ship may inspire lighting a candle or reciting a scripture amd more likely just passing the love on to all others.

I believe true Christianity is religion, but not just "religious observances" unless they are evoked by love of the God who has made himself known to our spirit.

[Seawolf]

Originally Posted by Mary Baker

Jesus religion was, I believe, to BE loving .

First of all to know and love God who is Love. This is a spiritual gift.

This is supernatural and involves being reborn spiritually, to be GIVEN a new heart which we cannot attain ourselves, we can only accept.

The personal part of religion, where we love God and have hope and joy inside seems to be a contrast of what we see on the outside, in religious groups and in ourselves.

Religion seems to be ok with judging ourselves and others, feeling guilt and blaming, and then thinking we have God in our lives. In our flawed thinking we show this hateful behavior, which is in contrast to the peace, joy, and kindness we experience with God personally in our hearts.

I think part of the problem is our dualistic way of looking at life. It teaches us to fear and hate what's inside and forcing us to put on a mask of holiness for fear of judgment.

In churches I noticed everyone looked and acted their best to fit in. The dark side was always hidden. One of the best things I learned is to try to remember to love all parts of me equally, not to hate the 'sin' inside, but to totally accept it, which integrates and allows God to wash the sin. The truth is that sin is just thoughts inside of us, it's not bad or evil and there is no such thing as God's righteous judgement of sin.. The punishment is that it keeps repeating. It repeats because we never allowed God to love and accept that part of us.

Originally Posted by Seawolf

Religion seems to be ok with judging ourselves and others, feeling guilt and blaming, and then thinking we have God in our lives. In our flawed thinking we show this hateful behavior, which is in contrast to the peace, joy, and kindness we experience with God personally in our hearts.

[bolded mine] Such generalizations about 'religion' are rarely accurate. I think some Westerners are too attached to the assumption that religion = Christianity and The Church™ (and even then only a particular form of it, at times), when it in fact does not.