Am I a Christian?

[naomi24]

Following the Women in Church thread, it occurred to me that, although I'm not a Christian, and I don't believe that Jesus was anything other than a man, I've been fighting in his corner far more than the Christians here ever do. The Women in Church thread dealt mainly with the teachings of St Paul, to which all Christians appear to adhere, but one thing that Jesus warned against was false prophets - and I believe St Paul was the first of thousands - and not only the first, but clearly the most influential. Jesus message was simple - 'love one another - and therefore my question is would he really have wanted the opulence of St Peter's in Rome, and other churches - or the pope and the priests setting themselves above the rest of mankind and parading in their wonderful garb? Would he really have wanted the ceremony and dogma? Wasn't Jesus' message simple, and is Christianity, as we know it, really what he intended? Personally, I think not. In fact, as a devout Jew, I think Jesus would have been appalled by what has grown up in his name.

[naomi24]

Octavius, what I'm trying to get at is do you think he intended a new religion to surface at all?

[Octavius]

Probably not a �new� religion per se, but following his contempt for the Pharisees who were �righteous on the outside, while inside they were full of greed and wickedness� and their alleged treatment/coercions with the Romans against him it might seem logical. I suspect he just wanted to make the existing leaders of Judaism more honest and reverent towards God and to set a better example to the followers.

[naomi24]

Octavius, I agree absolutely. Christianity is an interloper.

[Octavius]

Well it is a title as much as a way of life. I am Christian, and have always maintained that I have the general ethos of a theosophist. But my faith is Christian. I never presume my way is better or more right than anyone else�s. We all follow different paths in life and some of us create new ones for others to follow. We are all ultimately heading towards the same destination so I would no more tell a Christian, or a Buddhist, or a Muslim (etcetera) what path to follow than I would an atheist or a Scientologist. We are all individual and should lead our own lives without interfering in other peoples, and that goes for doorstep Christians as much as anything else.

[whiffey]

chakka, I am not going to address your individual points except to say that while Mary need not have been dragged along, that doesn't mean to say that she wasn't. Maybe Joseph had an inkling that this wasn't a run of the mill baby to come. Besides, you will have read enough to know exactly my counter-arguments before I make them.

naomi, I referred to Paul because you did again. I don't like much of Paul, and most of my reading focuses in the gospels, with a bit of Isaiah, and I can only say that I am repeatedly drawn back to read them. I do not like the god of the OT, but hope that the revelation in the NT can supercede it for me.

I always ask myself why I post on these threads at all, it is a waste of effort from two sides that will never shake the other. I have nothing to do with the organised church, but I think it's better than nothing - and Jesus did exhort his disciples to go out and spread the gospel beyond the Jews.

Why do you, and chakka, continue to expend effort like me ? Why does Christianity so much inflame or irritate you, why not just ignore it and sail on in intellectual satisfaction ? Something I find striking about our modern-day God hater Richard Dawkins is the sheer venom of his writings. He'd have God banned I expect !

Why is anything vaguely bible or gospel automatically fairy tale, yet anything else - Caesar, Tacitus, Josephus, etc - immediately pure infallible history. What's wrong with textus receptus - and WHY make it up if it's all baloney ?

Best wishes.

[naomi24]

Yes, of course everyone must do as they see fit - but from my own point of view, I like to get as near to the truth as possible.

[Octavius]

What truth?

Surely the ultimate truth must occur to us when we die.

[naomi24]

Octavius, if the soul does survive death, then I presume we will ultimately know the truth. However, we've just agreed that Jesus didn't intend to found a new religion, so we're at least a little nearer in this life to knowing the truth - and it isn't St Paul's Christianity.

[whiffey]

Jesus most certainly did come to the earth to found a new religion ! He say he is come to save those who believe in him, you will know all the verses. Take the hoary classic John 3:16. This is not a suggestion that we all live better moral lives until we die for ever, this is talk of eternal life.

[abdul hambap]

prove it whiffey we want proof photos will be fine thanking you much very

[whiffey]

abdul, the BBC have photos of big bang but have not yet covered the resurrection. It will surely follow however.

I can do you one of Cat Deeley, would this be of any help ?

TIA x

[naomi24]

Whiffey Your take on what he is supposed to have said is debateable - and I can't remember him saying anything at all about founding a new religion. Why would he? He was a devout Jew.

[whiffey]

(Why am I strangely drawn back to this thread....)

Jesus DID come to earth to found a religion.

What many posters on here want is something comfortable that will allow them a warm middle path, not too demanding. So naomi and Octavius have agreed that Jesus didn't come to found a religion (wrong, see above) and therefore they are nearer to discovering the truth. And having discovered this truth, there is the comfort of knowing beyond all doubt that the body of Jesus long ago rotted into dust. All of which makes the apostles look complete fools. You might as well take a moral standpoint from humanism. A great deal of human society is based on love thy neighbour and it didn't need Jesus to point this out, it's instinct and commonsense.

Jesus made much greater claims, sorry, but he did, and he wanted them spread throughout the earth, which is probably why threads such as this will always arise.

[whiffey]

Jesus never said go out and found a new religion as such, and the paraphernalia and doctrines of the church don't appeal to me either, but he did urge his followers to spread the ' good news ' throughout the world. We both might find the implementation debatable, but I cannot escape the curiosity that leads me to read bits of the bible in bed. (It is covered with versions and commentaries, it would be laughable if it didn't keep drawing me on to explore)

[naomi24]

Whiffey I don't know. Why are you strangely drawn back to this thread?

You have made a definite statement. "Jesus DID come to earth to found a religion." You may believe it, but you don't know it, since as far as I'm aware, Jesus never claimed to want to found a new religion, and I'd be very interested to know where you obtained such precise information.

Incidentally, Octavius isn't seeking the truth - he's happy with his Christian belief. I'm the one digging around.

[naomi24]

Whiffey Ah, now we're getting somewhere. He urged his followers to spread the word - but his followers didn't include St Paul - the man who never heard the word, but nevertheless spread his own version, creating a different religion entirely.

[naomi24]

Sorry Whiffey, got to cook dinner now. Speak later perhaps.

[whiffey]

Jesus was very explicit about his reasons for being on earth. It was not to teach people to be nice to each other, it was to reveal God made flesh. A very eminent man once asked me, at 7.30am, in the corner of the canteen, to consider what God was saying to man from the cross. Assuming the crucifixion is one of the bits you believe in, then it is very challenging. My god why have you forsaken me ? Is this a mere man dying to rot into dust for ever. I have mused intensely on this. I realise how internally conflicting the gospels are, even given a common foundation Q in parts, but why if they are such rubbish have they survived (until recently anyway, Christianity is on the way out). If you are going to make something up then surely do a bit better than collate accounts that conflict in detail - but agree in essence - on the message of a purpose rather than just Jesus did this at 9am then he went to Capernaum and did this the next Tuesday.

Maybe I think too much, but I'm never going to stop !

[whiffey]

naomi, re: your 19:51 post - Paul says he met Christ on the road to Damascus, he writes not in the manner of a madman or a pope. Why automatically assume that he didn't ??? He writes that he did, his behaviour changed profoundly. I don't have any problem at all believing that he had a personal encounter, lucky man. But as I have said, I don't read much Paul. I like Romans, but mostly I concentrate on the central figure in the gospels.

I am nowhere near being a Christian in my view, but I keep at it because it keeps drawing me.

Anyway, dinner calls me too.

[123everton]

Naomi, I know you're not a Christian but you are a spiritulist you believe (if I remember correctly from a different thread) that the soul (or spirit) survives the body. That's a perfectly fine philosophy, as good as any other.
I've read a little of Herodotus (hope I spelt that right) and if memory serves he's accredited as writing the worlds first history book. But much of what he wrote happened many years before he was born, Gyges and so on (I've only got as far as Cyrus!) are we question his accounts? Arion and the dolphin seems dubious to me.
In matters like this evidence is based solely on what you believe and problems only occur on how you choose to express it.
Darwin did'nt witness the first cell being formed or it's subsequent divisions, no scientist has witnessed the big bang but that (if you believe them) is your year zero and your "facts" (beliefs) stem from that theory. There's nothing wrong with that, or any other successful idea one wishes to espouse peaceably.