When is a christian NOT a Christian?

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Marymog

Well-Known Member
Mar 7, 2017
11,283
1,633
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
It's a long thread. Rather than point you to the post, I'll quote it.



The question that needs answered is if this Apostolic prohibition was merely "suited to the times" and thus a practice, or if there really is something wrong with it. I've studied magic. I've read about how animal blood can be used. I also think if people can believe the wine of the Eucharist is the Blood of Christ, they should be able to believe that there is something in the blood of animals that helps make them animals since their life is also in their blood. You can never get all the blood of meat; but the more blood you get, the more of this "soul substance of animals" you are getting. You can take on the nature of the beasts. Today psychologists are beginning to see that but they don't see any spiritual angle. If you ever met someone who drank blood, odds are you'd know what I mean. Some also start off consuming animal blood and move on to human blood. I found an article about it:

Vampiristic Behaviors

The person who first coined the term Renfield’s Syndrome was Richard Noll in 1992. Because it is so rare, we barely hear about this condition. Clinical Vampirism is an obsession with drinking blood and sufferers are usually male. According to Hemphill and Zabow (1983), Clinical Vampirism is not considered a symptom of an Axis I diagnosis or Axis II of the DSM and is rarely seen in clinical practice. People exhibiting this behavior are classified as schizophrenic or paraphiliac (where the person becomes sexually aroused by atypical objects or situations). It manifests after the person has a childhood experience in which the taste and sight of blood is associated with pleasure and excitement. It starts with an event in which the person likes to taste blood or finds bleeding enjoyable. During puberty, the attraction to blood become sexualized.

The syndrome progresses to three stages:

1) Autovampirism: This happens before puberty when the child is excited in a sexual event that involves blood injury or ingestion of blood. It becomes fused with sexual fantasies. A person likes their own blood. They will self-inflict wounds or learn to open major arteries in order to consume their blood..

2) Zoophagia: A person eats living creatures such as insects, cats, dogs and birds. They may also go to a butcher and obtain animal blood.

3) Vampirism: When a person drinks the blood of another. They may steal blood from hospitals or resort to violence, assault or murder. According to Noll (1992), people who drink the blood of others believe that it gives them a sense of power or immortality.

A person has the delusional notion that they are a vampire and needs blood. It is an erotic attraction to blood and develops through fantasies that involve sexual excitement. It has a fetishistic and compulsive component. Treatment is usually not sought out unless the symptoms become problematic for the person and are willing to address their problem. If treatment is sought, treatment options include: psychoanalysis, hypnosis, behavior therapy, cognitive therapy, medication management.


I also ask if Christians believe the Eucharist has real consequences being in honor of Jesus, do they not also think that things consecrated to idols means something? Paul talks about people who do not discern the Lord's body. Has it not occurred to people then that they may not discern the demonic nature in things offered to idols?

The same effect occurs with fornication. People may not notice soul energy or spiritual energy and substance being exchanged; but they are. It can confuse the soul, and prevent people from having a sound mind. It's harder for the Holy Spirit to reach them if unholy energy has entered the body.

1 Corinthians 6:15 Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid.
16 What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.
17 But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.
18 Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.


I believe the four things the Apostles mentioned endanger us because they confuse the soul and mind.
Hmmmmmm......And this has what to do with the Council of Jerusalem and the CC?? (the subject at hand)
 

Marymog

Well-Known Member
Mar 7, 2017
11,283
1,633
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Now you are subtly twisting your own argument. You originally were claiming that aAnanias and Sapphira were obliged through church mandate to sell their house... Which I disagreed with. Yes, we are taught in scripture to be generous, giving as we are able to the needy. And yes, the holy Spirit led some to sell property and give the proceeds to the church. But this was not a church mandated and stipulated commandment. It was voluntary... And those two lied to sustain their reputation, and they kept back some of the proceeds because they didn't trust God. If they had not sold the property, none would have complained. And if they had been honest about holding back some of the proceeds there would have been no issue. They died because they lied, not because they were disobeying the church.
The Apostles were "The Church" and whatever The Church tells us to do, we must do.
 

Marymog

Well-Known Member
Mar 7, 2017
11,283
1,633
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
So your intention was to destroy a theory of mine? You quoted verses that stated that people gave generously to the church. Please quote me any instance where I said otherwise.
I did say such giving was voluntary, particularly in the case of selling property. Please quote scripture that says selling property was a commandment
Hi brakelite,

I didn't destroy your theory....Scripture did.

Scripture says Obey your leaders and submit to them (Hebrews 13:17), be subject to the elders (1 Peter 5:5), and if we refuse to listen to the church how we are to be treated (Matthew 18).

The Apostles (The Church) make it clear in their writings in the NT what we are supposed to do with our property. Since there was no bible at the time Ananias and Sapphira didn't disobey the bible; they disobeyed the teachings of the Apostles. The Apostles were the elders, they were THE CHURCH. They lied to THE CHURCH, and were struck dead.

Your theory that it was voluntary to sell property is not true. One had to volunteer to become a Christian. Once you became a Christian you had to obey the Church. It was not VOLUNTARY to obey the Apostles (The Church). It was mandatory....Just like it is today!!

Mary
 

Giuliano

Well-Known Member
Aug 4, 2019
5,978
3,676
113
Carlisle
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Adam forecasted this earlier in Genesis. For this cause a man shall leave his mother and Father.
Who was Adams Mother?
Great question, and it involves an area almost never talked about. God is said to be both male and female in Genesis. The father part is easier to see, since he's actively manifesting. The mother side is harder to discern since God can "hide" in "mother nature" -- a passive manifestation. God is everywhere -- but not actively manifesting.

Adam was told after the fall that he was now dust, he had been taken from dust and he'd return to the dust -- his mother. The "masculine" part of God that had been in Adam was lost. It's easier to see in the Hebrew. "Earth" is "adamah" -- which is "adam" with the feminine "-h" added. Blood is "dam" and the letter aleph is "a" which is combined with "dam" to get the word "adam." That "a-" represents the breath of life given by God.

At first, it's "h'adam" in Hebrew -- the being that was both male and female is h'adam. Same letters as adamah. After male and female are divided, it's Adam and Eve. So Genesis stops using "h'adam" and uses "adam" for the person Adam.
 
Last edited:

Waiting on him

Well-Known Member
Dec 21, 2018
11,674
6,096
113
56
North America
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Great question, and it involves an area almost never talked about. God is said to be both male and female in Genesis. The father part is easier to see, since he's actively manifesting. The mother side is harder to discern since God can "hide" in "mother nature" -- a passive manifestation. God is everywhere -- but not actively manifesting.

Adam was told after the fall that he was now dust, he had been taken from dust and he'd return to the dust -- his mother. The "masculine" part of God that had been in Adam was lost. It's easier to see in the Hebrew. "Earth" is "adamah" -- which is "adam" with the feminine "-h" added. Blood is "dam" and the letter aleph is "a" which is combined with "dam" to get the word "adam." That "a-" represents the breath of life given by God.

At first, it's "h'adam" in Hebrew -- the being that was both male and female is h'adam. Same letters as adamah. After male and female are divided, it's Adam and Eve. So Genesis stops using "h'adam" and uses "adam" for the person Adam.






Interesting, always assumed it was the Spirit like the addition of the h with Abraham and Sarah
 
  • Like
Reactions: Giuliano

Giuliano

Well-Known Member
Aug 4, 2019
5,978
3,676
113
Carlisle
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I have a question now about what we now call the Patriarchies. They weren't called that then, but they were later. Were they really established by the Apostles in a way that was intended to make them special, so that each Patriarchy had authority over its own area and all the Bishops in that area? If so, how many were established?

We see that being fought about almost from the beginning. The Council of Nicea said there were three: Rome, Antioch and Alexandria. Here is what they signed onto:

Canon 6. Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges. And this is to be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop. If, however, two or three bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail.

These three were seen as special. Why wasn't Jerusalem mentioned? The Bishops of Jerusalem stopped being Bishops of Jerusalem when the city was destroyed and many Christians fled. The center of Christianity in that area shifted to another city, Aelia. Bishops can't move; and bishoprics can't be relocated. A Bishop has authority only over a certain geographical area. He can't move or change it. Only Apostles have the authority to move around (the word apostle showing that in Greek) and to establish bishoprics. So Jerusalem gets mentioned but only indirectly under the name Aelia.

Canon 7. Since custom and ancient tradition have prevailed that the Bishop of Ælia [i.e., Jerusalem] should be honoured, let him, saving its due dignity to the Metropolis, have the next place of honour.

The matter seems clear to me. It also seems right. While there were 12 Apostles, we see that the "branch" established by James in Jerusalem went out of existence. Take note that Constantinople is not mentioned at all.

That decision reached by them in AD 325 did not last long. The second Ecumenical, called the First Council of Constantinople, contains a canon that gave Constantinople more importance.

"The Bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative of honour after the Bishop of Rome because Constantinople is New Rome."

In other words, since Constantinople was so important politically and been called the "New Rome" by Constantine, the Bishop of Constantinople needed to be given a more important role. You can surely see that the Emperor wanted this.
 

Giuliano

Well-Known Member
Aug 4, 2019
5,978
3,676
113
Carlisle
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Things get really sticky now. We can't be sure if that third canon was even in the original list of canons. From Wikipedia:

The third canon was a first step in the rising importance of the new imperial capital, just fifty years old, and was notable in that it demoted the patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria. Jerusalem, as the site of the first Church, retained its place of honor.

Baronius asserted that the third canon was not authentic, not in fact decreed by the council. Some medieval Greeks maintained that it did not declare supremacy of the Bishop of Rome, but the primacy; "the first among equals", similar to how they today view the Bishop of Constantinople. Throughout the next several centuries, the Western Church asserted that the Bishop of Rome had supreme authority, and by the time of the Great Schism the Roman Catholic Church based its claim to supremacy on the succession of St. Peter. When the First Council of Constantinople was approved, Rome protested the diminished honor to be afforded the bishops of Antioch and Alexandria.[citation needed] The status of these Eastern patriarchs would be brought up again by the Papal Legates at the Council of Chalcedon. Pope Leo the Great,[24] declared that this canon had never been submitted to Rome and that their lessened honor was a violation of the Nicene council order. At the Fourth Council of Constantinople (869), the Roman legates[25] asserted the place of the bishop of Rome's honor over the bishop of Constantinople's. After the Great Schism of 1054, in 1215 the Fourth Lateran Council declared, in its fifth canon, that the Roman Church "by the will of God holds over all others pre-eminence of ordinary power as the mother and mistress of all the faithful".[26][27] Roman supremacy over the whole world was formally claimed by the new Latin patriarch. The Roman correctores of Gratian,[28] insert the words: "canon hic ex iis est quos apostolica Romana sedes a principio et longo post tempore non recipit" ("this canon is one of those that the Apostolic See of Rome has not accepted from the beginning and ever since").

It has been asserted by many that a synod was held by Pope Damasus I in the following year (382) which opposed the disciplinary canons of the Council of Constantinople, especially the third canon which placed Constantinople above Alexandria and Antioch. The synod protested against this raising of the bishop of the new imperial capital, just fifty years old, to a status higher than that of the bishops of Alexandria and Antioch, and stated that the primacy of the Roman see had not been established by a gathering of bishops but rather by Christ himself.[29][30][note 1] Thomas Shahan says that, according to Photius too, Pope Damasus approved the council, but he adds that, if any part of the council were approved by this pope, it could have been only its revision of the Nicene Creed, as was the case also when Gregory the Great recognized it as one of the four general councils, but only in its dogmatic utterances.[32]


I think I'll believe Pope Leo the Great. I can't imagine any of the Bishops of Rome agreeing to this subversion of the traditional idea of the importance of Rome, Antioch and Alexandria.

Everyone may want to call this an Ecumenical Council -- but we're not even sure what was said!

If there was a plan to promote Constantinople even further when the Second Council of Ephesus was called in AD 449, that fell through when violence broke out and the representative of the Pope left. With unfinished business on the table, the Council of Chalcedon was called in AD 459.

The majority of Bishops at Chalcedon voted to give the Emperor what he wanted.

Canon 28. The bishop of New Rome (Constantinople) shall enjoy the same privileges as the bishop of Old Rome, on account of the removal of the Empire. For this reason the [metropolitans] of Pontus, of Asia, and of Thrace, as well as the Barbarian bishops shall be ordained by the bishop of Constantinople.

The Pope at the time of the Council of Chalcedon objected to Canon 28; and again I must say I agree. Do you see how things shifted, here some and there some? The Bishop on Constantinople was not mentioned at all at Nicea. The he's deemed second only to the Bishop of Rome; and then he's called his equal. One thing led to another, and the next step was to claim Apostolic authority for Constantinople along with Jerusalem with the Emperor Justinian playing a critical role. From Wikipedia:

Justinian was the first to use (in 531) the title of "patriarch" to designate exclusively the bishops of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, setting the bishops of these five sees on a level superior to that of metropolitans.[17][29]

Justinian's scheme for a renovatio imperii (renewal of the empire) included, as well as ecclesiastical matters, a rewriting of Roman law in the Corpus Juris Civilis and an only partially successful reconquest of the West, including the city of Rome.[17][30]

When in 680 Constantine IV called the Third Council of Constantinople, he summoned the metropolitans and other bishops of the jurisdiction of Constantinople; but since there were representatives of all five bishops to whom Justinian had given the title of Patriarch, the Council declared itself ecumenical.[31] This has been interpreted as signifying that a council is ecumenical if attended by representatives of all five patriarchs.[17]

The first Council classified (in the East, but not in the West, which did not participate in it) as ecumenical that mentioned together all five sees of the pentarchy in the order indicated by Justinian I is the Council in Trullo of 692, which was called by Justinian II: "Renewing the enactments by the 150 Fathers assembled at the God-protected and imperial city, and those of the 630 who met at Chalcedon; we decree that the see of Constantinople shall have equal privileges with the see of Old Rome, and shall be highly regarded in ecclesiastical matters as that is, and shall be second after it. After Constantinople shall be ranked the See of Alexandria, then that of Antioch, and afterwards the See of Jerusalem."


Of course, Rome did not agree with what got voted on at the Council of Trullo, and the Catholic Church does not consider that council ecumenical.

Today it's stretched even more with the Orthodox call the Bishop of Constantinople "the first among equals." No men, gathered to vote in a council, can go back in history to change the past. People can't take a vote and alter whether an Apostle established a seat of Apostolic authority.
If the Council of Nicea had it right, why keeping tinkering with it?

The creation of the "Patriarchy of Jerusalem" led to conflicts that still remain unresolved.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Waiting on him

Giuliano

Well-Known Member
Aug 4, 2019
5,978
3,676
113
Carlisle
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Interesting, always assumed it was the Spirit like the addition of the h with Abraham and Sarah
Indeed, good that you caught that. The letter "h" is considered feminine -- as in dam (blood) with the feminine -h added to make adamah (earth.) Abraham and Sarah had been moving in the right direction.

It helps explain why Sarah had been barren for so long before the child of promise was born. Abraham and Sarah both had traits they needed to correct.

I think it also explains something very, very curious. Sarah was rather like Eve when she told Abraham to take Hagar in order to have children. Sarah had a good motive, I think, she wanted Abraham to be happy; but this showed a lack of faith in what God had promised. Abraham should not have "heeded" her the way Adam heeded Eve. The child of promise could not be born that way.

We read that God told Abraham to perfect himself. I think that applied to Sarah too although the text doesn't explicitly so. What was wrong with her? She laughed at what the angels said and thought it impossible for her to have a child. She needed to become more like Mary was and say let it be as you say.

It is heavily implied that she was changed when God doesn't tell Abraham what to do, He tells him to ask Sarah and to do whatever she says.

Genesis 21:12 And God said unto Abraham, Let it not be grievous in thy sight because of the lad, and because of thy bondwoman; in all that Sarah hath said unto thee, hearken unto her voice; for in Isaac shall thy seed be called.

What? A woman having authority over a man? Not really, not spiritually. In the flesh, yes, they remained male and female; but they had changed spiritually. Sarah was neither male nor female; and since she had created the problem to begin with, I think God wanted to give her the chance to fix it. Isn't that fascinating? Abraham erred when listening to her, and then later God told him to listen to her. What had changed?

When we read about a man "knowing" his wife, I feel sure it means more than having sex. They actually know each other since they became one. It makes good reading to go through the Bible to see where it says a man knew his wife and what follows. Can two sinners obey that commandment to become one? I doubt it. I don't think people committing fornication and making babies works or even comes close to obeying that commandment.

I take the same approach to gay marriage. If they want to call themselves married, it's okay with me. I don't even care if governments call it marriage. But only God can join the two. If they love each sufficiently, God can and will join them. It may take time, too, as it did with Abraham and Sarah. The legal sense of earthly marriage for me is showing the intention of wanting to become one with the other. People can be called married in this earthly sense, but it still remains for God to join them spiritually when He knows they are ready.

Mark 10:9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

I think this helps explain this too:

Matthew 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

If male and female join together and become one, there is no further need for marriage. They did it and became neither male nor female. They are like God in this.

Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Thus we see that the "female" is somehow meant to be a perfect expression of God just as the "male" is. Attribute no inferiority to the female then. Eve fell into that trap when the serpent made her feel inferior.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nancy

Waiting on him

Well-Known Member
Dec 21, 2018
11,674
6,096
113
56
North America
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Indeed, good that you caught that. The letter "h" is considered feminine -- as in dam (blood) with the feminine -h added to make adamah (earth.) Abraham and Sarah had been moving in the right direction.

It helps explain why Sarah had been barren for so long before the child of promise was born. Abraham and Sarah both had traits they needed to correct.

I think it also explains something very, very curious. Sarah was rather like Eve when she told Abraham to take Hagar in order to have children. Sarah had a good motive, I think, she wanted Abraham to be happy; but this showed a lack of faith in what God had promised. Abraham should not have "heeded" her the way Adam heeded Eve. The child of promise could not be born that way.

We read that God told Abraham to perfect himself. I think that applied to Sarah too although the text doesn't explicitly so. What was wrong with her? She laughed at what the angels said and thought it impossible for her to have a child. She needed to become more like Mary was and say let it be as you say.

It is heavily implied that she was changed when God doesn't tell Abraham what to do, He tells him to ask Sarah and to do whatever she says.

Genesis 21:12 And God said unto Abraham, Let it not be grievous in thy sight because of the lad, and because of thy bondwoman; in all that Sarah hath said unto thee, hearken unto her voice; for in Isaac shall thy seed be called.

What? A woman having authority over a man? Not really, not spiritually. In the flesh, yes, they remained male and female; but they had changed spiritually. Sarah was neither male nor female; and since she had created the problem to begin with, I think God wanted to give her the chance to fix it. Isn't that fascinating? Abraham erred when listening to her, and then later God told him to listen to her. What had changed?

When we read about a man "knowing" his wife, I feel sure it means more than having sex. They actually know each other since they became one. It makes good reading to go through the Bible to see where it says a man knew his wife and what follows. Can two sinners obey that commandment to become one? I doubt it. I don't think people committing fornication and making babies works or even comes close to obeying that commandment.

I take the same approach to gay marriage. If they want to call themselves married, it's okay with me. I don't even care if governments call it marriage. But only God can join the two. If they love each sufficiently, God can and will join them. It may take time, too, as it did with Abraham and Sarah. The legal sense of earthly marriage for me is showing the intention of wanting to become one with the other. People can be called married in this earthly sense, but it still remains for God to join them spiritually when He knows they are ready.

Mark 10:9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

I think this helps explain this too:

Matthew 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

If male and female join together and become one, there is no further need for marriage. They did it and became neither male nor female. They are like God in this.

Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Thus we see that the "female" is somehow meant to be a perfect expression of God just as the "male" is. Attribute no inferiority to the female then. Eve fell into that trap when the serpent made her feel inferior.
I like the way you think.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nancy
B

brakelite

Guest
It is very strange; but I think it shows she hadn't taken the bible too seriously.

Adam had said, "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." I believe he was divinely inspired when he said that. So if that's true, it would be a commandment from God. How could Adam cleave to Eve unless he shared her fate? He was put in a position that no matter what he did, he'd be disobeying a commandment from God.

What did he mean by "leave his father and his mother"? I'm not sure exactly; but it could be read to mean he needed to learn to love Eve before he could love God. God was too big and too mysterious to know how to love Him. Start off little and grow into it. Jopn comments that we're lying if we say we love God but don't love other people. So I think Adam chose to obey God's commandment to love Eve and to cleave to her even if it meant death. Leaving his father could mean choosing Eve over God.

There was also the commandment to be fruitful and multiply. If he and Eve did not reproduce, they would preventing future generations of men and women coming into existence. Eve had not considered that when she ate, but maybe Adam did. So perhaps out of love for children not yet born, he chose to eat that fruit.

John 15:13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

What is curious about Genesis is that the word "sin" is not used of their fall. It's described as "transgression" once in the New Testament. I see Adam as similar to Jesus in some ways.
A couple of comments. First, did Adam day those words? From Genesis 2:24, could that not have been Moses commentary as was certainly verse 25?
Second, that quote from Ellen White where she said Adam and Eve were deceived... While true that as an individual Adam knew what he was doing, as a couple it could be suggested that were deceived because through deception Satan overcame them. But one thing I would absolutely add... Ellen White took scripture very very seriously and would have been fully aware of the 1 Timothy quote... It is inconceivable that she would be conducting contradicting it. I feel she did not intend her readers to consider that quote from upward look as a contradiction to the scriptures.
Thirdly, was again really laying down his life for someone? For Eve? No. He was thinking of himself. When Jesus spoke of laying down your life for someone He would have meant that the someone in question would have benefited, even been saved, by your own sacrifice. Adam did not know what death was... Nor sacrifice.
I am sure we will be able to chat with both of them one day and get some interesting answers... Possibly quite soon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nancy

Giuliano

Well-Known Member
Aug 4, 2019
5,978
3,676
113
Carlisle
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
A couple of comments. First, did Adam day those words? From Genesis 2:24, could that not have been Moses commentary as was certainly verse 25?
You could be right. I would consider it inspired either way; but definitely, it could have been Moses. Looking at it again, I think you are right. Thank you.
Second, that quote from Ellen White where she said Adam and Eve were deceived... While true that as an individual Adam knew what he was doing, as a couple it could be suggested that were deceived because through deception Satan overcame them.
The Jewish tradition is that it would not have been possible for Adam to be deceived by the serpent, Paul seems to be citing (correctly) that when he emphasizes it wasn't Adam who was deceived.

But one thing I would absolutely add... Ellen White took scripture very very seriously and would have been fully aware of the 1 Timothy quote... It is inconceivable that she would be conducting contradicting it. I feel she did not intend her readers to consider that quote from upward look as a contradiction to the scriptures.
How could she have written that then? In other writings, she says Adam wasn't deceived; but in that writing, she contradicts even herself.

Thirdly, was again really laying down his life for someone? For Eve? No. He was thinking of himself. When Jesus spoke of laying down your life for someone He would have meant that the someone in question would have benefited, even been saved, by your own sacrifice. Adam did not know what death was... Nor sacrifice.
I am sure we will be able to chat with both of them one day and get some interesting answers... Possibly quite soon.
Eve's transgression altered the course of history in a way that affected all of her future descendants. That could be compared to a woman who knows she is pregnant doing things she knows could hurt her baby; but it's drastically worst in Eve's case since the whole human race was affected.
Eve was not loving enough. She gave into the temptation of being selfish and wanting wisdom forbidden to her.

What would have happened if Adam had stayed in the Garden alone without Eve? Where would we be if they not had children?
 

Giuliano

Well-Known Member
Aug 4, 2019
5,978
3,676
113
Carlisle
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Acts: they would sell their possessions and goods and distribute the proceeds to all, as any had need.

Hebrews: share what you have, for such sacrifices are pleasing to God.

Luke: “Whoever has two coats must share with anyone who has none; and whoever has food must do likewise.”


1John: How does God’s love abide in anyone who has the world’s goods and sees a brother or sister in need and yet refuses help?


If you knew scripture and your own Christian history you would know the answer to your own question. Acts chapter 4 (and other historical writings) gives the description of the early church in Jerusalem which was filled with a group of believers soooooo filled with the Holy Spirit that they were of one heart and one mind (just like scripture says we should be). The NT Christians held all their possessions loosely and shared them with one another. The NT Christians would sell their possessions, shared what they had because they were taught by the leaders of The Church they MUST share with anyone. Those sacrifices are pleasing to God and those kind acts shows how God's love abide's in us.

Sooo you can pretend that the doctrine of The Church to at the time was not compulsory. Ananias and Sapphira pretended the same thing and look what happened to them. ;)

Yes, I own my own home. I contribute time and money to the needy. The Church does not require me to sell my home and I have not lied to God or The Church about my possession's soooo I have no fear of being struck dead. ;)

Hope you and @"ByGrace" (who liked your condescending post #591) enjoyed the bible lesson......Bible Study Mary
Paul's advice to Timothy seems to support your view. I think the church Timothy was in charge of was somewhat different from the one in Jerusalem. Paul emphasizes that Christians should help those in need. If people can take care of their family using their own money and don't, Paul waxes hot.

1 Timothy 5:8 But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.

He also says young widows shouldn't stay single expecting the church to take care of them. I think it's good to have money if you're supporting your family and willing to help others when they need it. Money can be a blessing or a curse. It is a blessing if used for loving purposes. -- with love of others being important. Loving money for itself is horrible.
 

Guestman

Active Member
Nov 11, 2009
618
72
28
70
Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The Jehovah's Witnesses -- who deny the deity of Christ -- sincerely believe that they are the true Christians and all the others are false.

Do Jehovah's Witnesses "deny the deity of Christ" ? No, for we fully recognize Jesus as "a god", but not "the God". Have you not read John 1:18 (as well verse 1 that shows Jesus as "a god"), in which it says: "No man has seen God at any time (which takes Jesus out of the picture, see also 1 John 4:12); the only-begotten god who is at the Father's side is the one who has explained him".(Note: to be "begotten" means without question "to have a father"; to be created)

Now who measures up to what a Christian is, as established by Jesus ? Jesus told his eleven faithful apostles: "By this you will know that you are my disciples - if you have love among yourselves".(John 13:35) How many who profess to be Christian, have genuine love ?

How many who say that they are Christian are unwilling to join the military so as be in the wars of the nations, or do any harm to anyone, for "love does not work evil to one's neighbor" ?(Rom 13:10) How many are careful to do this: "For though we walk in the flesh, we do not wage warfare according to what we are in the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not fleshly (such as a knife, gun, tank, bomber, etc), but powerful by God for overturning strongly entrenched things. For we are overturning reasonings and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are bringing every thought into captivity to make it obedient to the Christ" ? Cor 10:3-5)

How many who profess to be Christian are part of the fulfillment at Revelation 13 concerning the political "wild beast", that these one refuse to have any involvement in its affairs, such as warfare so that "he will go into captivity (being put into prison, as in Russia, Eritrea, and other places while we speak of Jehovah's Witnesses)" or "he must be killed with the sword (being put to death, such as in front of a firing squad or is beheaded or dies while in prison, as was the case for 1,490 of Jehovah's Witnesses during Hitler's regime from 1933-45) ?(Rev 13:10)

How many who profess Christianity fulfill what Paul wrote at 2 Corinthians 6, which says: "What sharing does light (of Bible truths) have with darkness (of falsehoods or lies), making sure that what they believe is "the truth" ? Is the Trinity "the truth" since Jesus established that "the Father is greater than I am" (John 14:28) and that Jesus himself worships God. (John 4:22, 24)

Or is hellfire "the truth" since God said that burning anyone in a fire is "an abomination" and "sin" ?(Jer 32:35) Or what the immortality of the soul, in which Deuteronomy 12:20 establishes that the soul eats meat and Jeremiah 2:34 shows that the soul has blood and therefore bleeds (which means the soul is us as person with all our desires) ?

Or what about the instrument on which Jesus died ? At Deuteronomy 21:22, 23, it establishes that any "accursed one" died as a criminal on a stake as the Jews law required and of which Paul quoted this Scripture at Galatians 3:13, to show that Jesus died on a stake as "an accursed one", not cross.

Who are willing to carefully examine the Bible without bias, so to as to attain what Jesus said: "It is written (at Deut 8:3): Man must live, not on bread alone, but on every word that comes from Jehovah's mouth" ?(Matt 4:4) How many even consider Jehovah as God, despite his name being in the Hebrew Scriptures some 6,979 times in the oldest Hebrew Scripture manuscripts and worshipped by all the faithful men and women of old ?

How many who profess Christianity is "no part of the world" with its incessant bickering in politics (John 15:19), avoiding even "touching the unclean thing", so that they are politically neutral, not even having any sympathy towards politics, or saying which candidate is "better" or "worse" ?

How many who profess Christianity are going "from house to house" (Acts 20:20) with "the good news of the Kingdom" ?(Matt 24:14) How many who profess Christianity have "stripped off the old personality with its practices (that often joke about about immoral things, is willing to cheat on their mates, is willing to cheat on their taxes, is willing to "look at a woman so to have a passion for her" though not his wife, Matt 7:28-30) and has ' clothed themselves with the new personality" that imitates Jehovah in showing love for others, that follows "the truth", being "honest in all things", morally clean, conscientious of keeping their word ?(Matt 5:37; Heb 13:17; Col 3:9, 10)

Hence, Jesus asked this question: "Why, then, do you call me ' Lord ! Lord ! ' but do not do things I say ?"(Luke 6:46) So, who are the "real deal " ?
 

Enoch111

Well-Known Member
May 27, 2018
17,688
15,996
113
Alberta
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Do Jehovah's Witnesses "deny the deity of Christ" ? No, for we fully recognize Jesus as "a god", but not "the God".
Well the fact remains that there are no other gods beside the one true God (except for the false gods of the heathen identified as demons). So either Jesus is God or you worship a false god.
 

aspen

“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
Apr 25, 2012
14,111
4,778
113
52
West Coast
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Hi brakelite,

I didn't destroy your theory....Scripture did.

Scripture says Obey your leaders and submit to them (Hebrews 13:17), be subject to the elders (1 Peter 5:5), and if we refuse to listen to the church how we are to be treated (Matthew 18).

The Apostles (The Church) make it clear in their writings in the NT what we are supposed to do with our property. Since there was no bible at the time Ananias and Sapphira didn't disobey the bible; they disobeyed the teachings of the Apostles. The Apostles were the elders, they were THE CHURCH. They lied to THE CHURCH, and were struck dead.

Your theory that it was voluntary to sell property is not true. One had to volunteer to become a Christian. Once you became a Christian you had to obey the Church. It was not VOLUNTARY to obey the Apostles (The Church). It was mandatory....Just like it is today!!

Mary

But what if your authority is Ellen white? You can see his mistrust in authority is well founded
 

aspen

“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
Apr 25, 2012
14,111
4,778
113
52
West Coast
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Well the fact remains that there are no other gods beside the one true God (except for the false gods of the heathen identified as demons). So either Jesus is God or you worship a false god.

You know which other group is obsessed with God supremacy, besides Calvinists? Muslims....
 

theefaith

Well-Known Member
Aug 25, 2020
20,070
1,354
113
63
Dallas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
( EDIT:- addition....I am added this and changed the heading.
I am NOT after a list of verses about salvation...but I want to hear 'from you'.
I changed the heading when responding to @Enoch111 's post below. )
thanks....
-------

I was thinking it would be interesting what other Christians here think a Christian is...
AND who is 'allowed' to call themselves that?

(
We'd like you in on this too @lforrest don't want you missing this post. :) )

There was some chatter the other day about who was 'allowed' to have "Christian" under their avatar and who should put 'Other Faith', in it's place. ( locking them out of 95% of the forum boards)
So, who defines who can call themselves a christian?

The Nicene creed was mentioned. > for those who don't know it , or have forgotten its content. Nicene Creed

I for one don't agree with a line at the end of it... re the Holy Spirit. It says:-
"He proceeds from the Father and the Son,
and with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified."


I don't agree with that... I don't care if they were wise old men with beards.
I don't find that (bolded line) anywhere in the bible at all. In fact it is says He points TO the Father and Son. ( away from Himself)

The Nicene Creed would also define as none-christian any who have a different interpretation of what is called "The Trinity" ...with all the gobbledegook that goes with it about whether it is three persons in one, or one person with three distinct expressions...blah blah blah...
So, if the Nicene Creed is the acid test....are the none trinitarians not christians along with me...( who doesn't believe the Holy Spirit wants to be 'worshipped and glorified'. )

So, who says who is a christian, and who is not. :)

What do all of you have to say?

.....Helen

baptism makes us Christians!

The promise (sacred oath or sacrament) of the Father acts 2:38-39 with reference to ez 36:25-27

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

Ez 36:25 Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.

26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.

27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.

Jn 3:5 born again by water and the spirit.

Heb 7:21 For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec
(Oath = sacrament)

Hebrews 8:6
But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. Based on Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:



A promise is a sacred oath or sacrament!
Baptismal regeneration is the promise of the Father for union in the new covenant!

The church and the seven sacraments are necessary for salvation

Better covenant on better promises

2 Timothy 1:1
Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, according to the promise of life which is in Christ Jesus,

Life of supernatural grace merited by Christ in His passion and death!

An oath to sacramental life in the new covenant in union with the mediator and communion with God, and the saints!

Promise of the Father acts 2:23-39
Promise is an oath and an oath is a sacrament! This promise of the sacrament of baptism refers to ez. 36:25-27

1 Corinthians 12:13
For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

Galatians 3:27
For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.


1 Pet 3:20
Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us!
(Ark of Noah a type of the church, member of Christ and his church and salvation by baptism!)
(Outside the ark all died and outside the church there is no salvation!)
 

Amazed@grace

Well-Known Member
Apr 1, 2021
1,611
1,388
113
futurum, ubi non sunt atheus troglodytae
Faith
Christian
Country
United States