THC Christianity forum quick start guide

[Far Rider]

twilly said:

No...I stated, again, you linked me up with Judy who is a "born again" and an anti-Catholic. "Born againers" hate Catholics....got it?

Apparently Catholics hate born-againers, too.

[twilly]

farrider said:

twilly said:

No...I stated, again, you linked me up with Judy who is a "born again" and an anti-Catholic. "Born againers" hate Catholics....got it?

Apparently Catholics hate born-againers, too.

Threadkiller.......

For you, that's a far-out statement and, of course, it's not so.

As you may know, Judy does "fair" as long as she doesn't post any Christian Theology, any history of Christianity, and anything about the office of the papacy, since she sounds like Lakota when she does.

[Far Rider]

I have never been a denominationalist, so it's a very reasonable thing for me to say.

"Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized into the name of Paul?" 1 Corinthians 1:13.

[tits]

I am very conservative with the fundamentals, but am must more eclectic with denominational ism than my wife.

If the Democrats ever figure out that they need to drop the catering to the 2.8% Gay population and reach out to the 64% Christian (34% fundamental) the Republicans will have a real hurt on their hands.

[twilly]

farrider said:

I have never been a denominationalist, so it's a very reasonable thing for me to say.

I'm not and never have been a "denominationist". Catholics are not IN any "denomination" and there are no "denominations" in Catholicism. Denominations and non-denominations, sects and cults refer to all the Protestantisms because they are all off of the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) either immediately or off of one another....and some of them just popped up out of no where.

I don't know WHAT Judy is, except she appears to be un-churched, which is to say, she has no denomination, nor non-denomination, nor sect, nor cult...and she's sure not a Catholic.

Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized into the name of Paul?" 1 Corinthians 1:13.

In these verses, St. Paul reproved the Corinthians because they had dissentions about their teachers. The Roman Catholics don't have dissentions about their teachers because the Catholics are united. It's the Protestants who have dissentions about their teachers because they kept, and they keep, spliting from one another. This dissention of theirs hasn't stopped going on since the 16th Century.

In addition, I don't know about you, Far Rider [TK], of course, but I was Baptized in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit in the Church (RCC) established by Christ when He walked the face of the Earth.

What's more, all the Apostles, including St. Paul, were Apostles of the Early Church which IS the RCC. In other words, Sts. Paul, Peter, John, James, Andrew, Philip, Jude, Matthias, and the other Apostles, along with Christ, were the Founding Members of the RCC. The RCC IS the Apostlolic Church and in the RCC, Christ cannot be "divided" and, therefore, He Is NOT "divided".

[Far Rider]

What's more, all the Apostles, including St. Paul, were Apostles of the Early Church which IS the RCC. In other words, Sts. Paul, Peter, John, James, Andrew, Philip, Jude, Matthias, and the other Apostles, along with Christ, were the Founding Members of the RCC. The RCC IS the Apostlolic Church and in the RCC, Christ cannot be "divided" and, therefore, He Is NOT "divided".

The RCC church is not Christ. That is the point I was trying to make with the 1 Corinthians quotation. If you think my baptism or Judy's baptism is no good because it's not RCC, too bad, because there is one faith, one hope, and one baptism. Christ crucified; that's all I need to know.

It's all in the Book.

[tits]

she appears to be un-churched,

I don't know what it is, but so many of those who are against Christians are speaking from the "un-churched" perspective. The speak from what they observe and not what they know. A few, like CRW are old Catholics who speak from dysfunctional childhood experience.

It seems that those grounded in scripture tend to argue more from fact rather than feelings.

one faith, one hope, and one baptism.

One Lord and One God is over all, and in you all. In many ways the Christians are little different from every major religion known to man. Paul scolded the Corinthians not to claim supiority by claiming to be one apostle or dynamic speaker over the other. Here we have a time before there was any any organized writings, heck Mark, John, and Matthew had not written their versions of the "gospel" when Paul found it necessary to caution against division.

You know there are two discussions in the book of Matthew that scare me spitless. Both deal with those "religious" god fearing followers. Jesus cautioned that on "that day" he would turn some wonderful workers away because he never knew them.
Matt 7:22-24Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'

The Wise and Foolish Builders
"Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock.

Matthew 25:44-46" "They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'

"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'

"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."


I tie this into James' discussion concerning religion and worship. Here is Jesus' own brother offering guidance that almost mirrors his older brothers. When compared to the prophets, and it appears clear. God does not want us to be religious or churched. He wants us to put His word into action from our heart body and soul. James 1:25-27:
"But the man who looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues to do this, not forgetting what he has heard, but doing it—he will be blessed in what he does.

If anyone considers himself religious and yet does not keep a tight rein on his tongue, he deceives himself and his religion is worthless. Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.
"

This is the same thing God told Moses to tell Aaron to jot down: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world..

Being a member of the conservative Church of Christ who was raised with a Catholic mother and a German Lutheran Father, I believe that God wants our heart not our "religion". That actions without heart mean nothing. Actions with the heart does not know boundaries.

Sorry for the ramble.

[twilly]

farrider said:

What's more, all the Apostles, including St. Paul, were Apostles of the Early Church which IS the RCC. In other words, Sts. Paul, Peter, John, James, Andrew, Philip, Jude, Matthias, and the other Apostles, along with Christ, were the Founding Members of the RCC. The RCC IS the Apostlolic Church and in the RCC, Christ cannot be "divided" and, therefore, He Is NOT "divided".

Far Rider stated...

"The RCC church is not Christ."

That's NOT what I said. I said the RCC is the Church Christ established when He walked the face to the Earth...but, if you want to get deeper into this, the RCC maintains the Real Presence, which IS Christ, in the tabernacle of every Altar in every Church building. This is Original Christian Dogma, though.

Far Rider stated.....

"That is the point I was trying to make with the 1 Corinthians quotation."

OK. I wasn't criticizing your posting of the quote but I did explain what St. Paul means and why he stated what he stated to the Corinthians.

Far Rider.......

"If you think my baptism or Judy's baptism is no good because it's not RCC, too bad, because there is one faith, one hope, and one baptism."

You've really gone off the deep end on this one. I never stated what you've presumed.

I said, again, I DON'T KNOW ABOUT YOU, FAR RIDER, BUT I WAS BAPTIZED....etc. I made NO mention of your baptisim and I sure never stated ANYTHING about Judy's.

News flash, Far Rider: Between the RCC and the mainline Protestant denominations, ONE Baptism is accepted, one way and the other, usually. In fact, the RCC KNOWS that if a convert is Baptized again, either into the RCC or from one denomination into another and without a good reason for it, the convert's soul can be SERIOUSLY damaged.

Far Rider stated........

"Christ crucified; that's all I need to know."

Maybe yes, maybe no...and this, of course IS up to you. Just the same, I hope this reply post contains SOME general knowledge AND I really hope it helps to quell uncalled for presumptions that are NOT based on what I have actually stated.

Far Rider.......

"It's all in the Book."

"Sola Scripture", if this is what you refer to, cannot be proven by any "book".

Be that as it is, another issue is, it depends on which "book" based on what I've seen when comparing some "books" with THE Bible. The words in many, or most, "books" are far off the mark...in words and their meanings...from THE Bible. Therefore, if you don't have the correct words and THEIR meanings, it's impossible to know what Christ's Words are and what Christ means with His exact words.

Take care, Far Rider.

[tits]

I ask because so many of the English and Spanish translations seem to vary with their culture. The only real way to find that "truth" is to either keep a multitude of versions on hand for comparison or to read biblical Greek and Hebrew.

Please note, modern Hebrew is much different the Levitical Hebrew. There are many Jewish Rabbinical essays that argue the meaning of much of the Torah and Misnah.

As for me, I have found the NIV satisfactory.

A related question, of the "lost books", how many of us have read them? I have not read them all, in fact, I have not read any cover to cover. One book that is well worth it to gain an understanding of the first century is the Jewish History by Flavious Josephus. Here is a neat little page on Josephus members.aol.com/fljosephus/home.htm

Most of our arguments today come from attempting to apply a portion or portions of a scripture to a broad context of life without really understanding what the social structure was. We often take those pieces out of context and then are sanctimonious about it. But when compared to the entire Pauline, James, or Peter letter, we are often left without an argument. In some ways we are little better then Mr. Clinton request to define "is".

Secondly, the current cannon is primarily a Pauline epistle. That is our version of Christianity is based upon Paul, who died before the Gospels were pinned. The neat thing is to see the homogeneity of the NT knowing that these men only had their Jewish heritage and the Misnah version of the sacred scriptures. Yet, people from 12 different cultures were able to unify. That is a God Thing! Think of the Epistles, to whom were they written and why? They only had the word of mouth of this man called Jesus who was a Jew, yet.... We find reason to celebrate the One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism with them through 2000 years and countless cultures.

Think about it.

[twilly]

tits said:

she appears to be un-churched,

Tittus responded......

"I don't know what it is, but so many of those who are against Christians are speaking from the "un-churched" perspective. The speak from what they observe and not what they know. A few, like CRW are old Catholics who speak from dysfunctional childhood experience."

Tittus, the above quote was my "phrase" to Far Rider.

It is an observation on my part and it is based on the fact that the person I was referring to has stated she doesn' "need" a church because I AM a member of a Church. However, what the person stated doesn't mean she doesn't necessarily "have a church", but it means she appears NOT to have one or, at least, she appears to feel she doesn't need one. This is all.

I don't know CRW, but I feel that anyone who "speaks from" dysfunctional experiences when posting about the history of Christianity and/or True, Original Christian Dogma, may be filtering the facts through these types of experiences and, therefore, the actual facts of history and of Dogma may very well NOT be the facts.

Tittus stated........

"It seems that those grounded in scripture tend to argue more from fact rather than feelings."

This does tend to be the case...and facts are important when discussing Scripture. Facts tend to keep us from running in "way out directions".

Tittus continued..........

one faith, one hope, and one baptism.

"One Lord and One God is over all, and in you all. In many ways the Christians are little different from every major religion known to man."

"Christians are LITTLE differenct from every major religion"?

I tend not to agree with this, given the fact that I have studied other major religions, especially the three major monotheistic religions, and these three alone and in comparison, are drastically different from each other. Each of them also have/had major consequences for members and for groups of each of them, and for the world.

For example, there is NO way anyone can jive me that Muhammedanism promotes the so-called "peace" members claim it does.

Tittus continued.....

"Paul scolded the Corinthians not to claim supiority by claiming to be one apostle or dynamic speaker over the other."

Actually, given the Original Scripture, St. Paul reproved their dissentions about their teachers. Heck, just because a person is a good orator doesn't mean he is automatically a "bad" person.

Tittus continued........

"Here we have a time before there was any any organized writings, heck Mark, John, and Matthew had not written their versions of the "gospel" when Paul found it necessary to caution against division."

For that matter, division had been going on within the human race since the beginning of life on Earth. The point of what St. Paul says is they were not to be dissenters...they were not to split themselves up, and they were not to go against their teachers....which is USUALLY where dissention begins.

BTW, the Gospels WERE written BEFORE A.D. 100.

Tittus continued........

"You know there are two discussions in the book of Matthew that scare me spitless. Both deal with those "religious" god fearing followers. Jesus cautioned that on "that day" he would turn some wonderful workers away because he never knew them."

You're scared over nothing regarding those who are more "religious" than others, whatever THAT means.

From Original Scripture, St. Matthew, Chapter 7, the third part of the Semon on the Mount, Christ teaches about the good fruit and the evil fruit. He NEVER singles out "church-going" Christians, or "religious persons", specifically identifying THEM as the ones He will, categorically deny knowing.

Therefore, these verses cannot be used as a BLANKET CONDEMNATION of those who attend a church or are "religious". What Christ said is specific to those who produce good fruit and those who produce evil fruit REGARDLESS of their level of "religiousness" or whether they are churched or unchurched.

Tittus continued........

"Matt 7:22-24Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'"

This IS, more or less, what He said BUT, you have posted St. Matthew, Chapter 7, OUT OF CONTEXT. In the preceeding verses, Christ SPECIFICALLY speaks of the "good fruit" and the "evil fruit", NOT "religious" and "non-religious", NOT "churched and unchurched".

Tittus continued.........

"The Wise and Foolish Builders
"Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock.

Matthew 25:44-46" "They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'

"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'

"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."
"

Again, this has NOTHING to do with "churched and unchurched" because Christ was referring to ANYONE, whether churched or unchurced, "religious or non-religious".

Tittus continued.........

"I tie this into James' discussion concerning religion and worship. Here is Jesus' own brother..."

The word "brother" translates from Original Scripture as "brethern" or takes on the CULTURAL MEANING of "kin" or "close friend".

Tittus continued.......

"offering guidance that almost mirrors his older brothers. When compared to the prophets, and it appears clear. God does not want us to be religious or churched. He wants us to put His word into action from our heart body and soul."

This is YOUR "interpretation" and, AGAIN, Christ AND St. James, the Bishop of Jerusalem, NEVER say or mean what you "interprete". After all, St. James WAS the Bishop of the CHURCHES of Jerusalem.

Tittus continued........

"James 1:25-27:
"But the man who looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues to do this, not forgetting what he has heard, but doing it—he will be blessed in what he does."

Original Scripture, St. James 1: 25 says,

"But he that hath looked into the perfect law of liberty AND hath continued therein, NOT becoming a forgetful hearer BUT a doer of the work: this man shall BE BLESSED IN HIS DEED.'

Again, this does NOT say "the churched or the unchurched", the "religious or the non-religious".

Tittus continued, with verse 26.....

"If anyone considers himself religious and yet does not keep a tight rein on his tongue,..."

Hold it right here.....see the word AND? That means "religious AND yet does not", NOT "because he is "religious" he "does not".

This is EXACTLY my point. NO ONE can HONESTLY read EXACTLY what Christ, St. James, etc., say and attempt to state what is NOT so.

Tittus continued with verses 26........

"...he deceives himself and his religion is worthless."

THEREFORE, he does NOT "deceive himself" AND his "religion" is NOT worthless IF he considers himself "religious" AND keeps a "rein on his tongue", etc.

Original Scripture, verse 26 says,

"And IF any man think himself to be religious, NOT bridling his tongue BUT deceiving his own heart, this man's religion is in vain."

This is the EXACT same point I made above.

One more point regarding St. James and the Jerusalem Church of which he was the Bishop:

The congregation(s) in Jerusalem....members of CHURCHES...were FAMOUS for gossipping and, certain individuals had a tendancy to be snobbish, and so, St. James frequently had to remind them to stop it.

Tittus continued with verse 27.........

"Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.
""

Original Scripture, verse 27 says,

"Religion clean and undefiled before God and the Father is this: to visit the fatherless and widows in their tribulations and to keep one's self unspotted from the world."

Your verses and mine are close enough to work with, and they both mean that "religion" is ACTION. Therefore, this verse does not, in any way, state that those who are "churched" are those who do not have an ACTIVE religion and that those who are "unchurched" have an active religion.

Case in point: Upon observation and statistics, it's no secret that those who ARE churched participate in planned and scheduled activities such as visiting the sick and the elderly, working within their own church and in conjunction with other churches in outreach programs for the homeless and the hungry, and they provide food baskets and toys for children over the Christmas Season, and they provide activities for children, such as Bible study, during the summer. These churches, acting together, are known as the Ecumenical Council of Churches and such groups are active in most communities.

Tittus continued........

"This is the same thing God told Moses to tell Aaron to jot down: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.."

Yes...as a matter of fact, these verses in the Old Testament are the back-up verses for the New Testament verses, above, and NT verses backed by OT verses are what makes these teachings DOCTRINAL TEACHINGS.

Again, none of the verses say that those who ARE churched will automatically be dismissed by Christ AND those who think this way are similar to those in the Jerusalem Churches who were snobbish.

Tittus continued.........

"Being a member of the conservative Church of Christ who was raised with a Catholic mother and a German Lutheran Father, I believe that God wants our heart not our "religion". That actions without heart mean nothing. Actions with the heart does not know boundaries."

Actually, it's impossible for Christ, St. James, etc., to imply in any way that it's an "all or nothing at all" scenario based strictly on a definition of "religious" and "non-religious".

It's OBVIOUS Christ established a RELIGION, not a "philosophy", nor a form of "mathematics", nor a branch of "science". The subject Christ teaches is THEOLOGY, which means "the study of God", and the word "religion" means "to bind".

The definition of the word "religion" was determined by Lactantuis and St. Augustine. Lactantuis was born in the latter half of 200 A.D., he was a pagan convert to Christianity, and he was a Christian writer and a defender of the Faith. St. Augustine was born in 354, he was a pagan convert to Christianity, and he was an Early Church Father....a Theologian of the Church.

In his writings, St. Augustine wrote, regarding the word "religion"..."religion binds us to one, Almighty God."

And so, the word "religion" and what it actually means has no known draw-back to it, it has nothing to do with the description erroneously attributed to it, and such erroneous attibution was never given to it by Christ, St. James etc..

What you, personally, hold is your choice...BUT...this is NOT what Christ says...or St. James. I feel, perhaps, because of the diametrically opposed religions of Catholic and Lutheran which were expressed in your family of origin, you may tend to shy away from any and all religious dogma.

Be that as it may be, this is not the holding of most of the world regarding the actually meaning of the word "religion" and the study of Original Christian Dogma is fascinating and fulfilling...even if it's studied strickly as a subject and not, necessarily as a belief.

Based on my own experiences, I feel that once the Original Christian Dogma is completely understood, the study of Lutheranism is the next step in understanding the diameterically opposed dogma of Lutherism in comparision to Catholicism, or the Original Christian Dogma. This type of study, in this type of sequence, leads to a complete understanding of the actual history of Christianity from A.D. 33 through the 16th Century.

Tittus ended.........

"Sorry for the ramble."

Fret no more, Tittus....I'm even worse! LOL

[twilly]

Tittus stated........

tits said:

"I ask because so many of the English and Spanish translations seem to vary with their culture. The only real way to find that "truth" is to either keep a multitude of versions on hand for comparison or to read biblical Greek and Hebrew."

There is a multitude of various Protestant bibles, in all their various languages, and THIS is from where all the confusion arises.

Tittus continued........

"Please note, modern Hebrew is much different the Levitical Hebrew. There are many Jewish Rabbinical essays that argue the meaning of much of the Torah and Misnah."

I appears the Protestants are concerned about the various Jewish sects.

Tittus stated........

"As for me, I have found the NIV satisfactory."

Then, that's the one for you. For me, I prefer Original Christian Scripture found in the Catholic Bible, which was compiled before A.D. 400.

Tittus continued.....

"A related question, of the "lost books", how many of us have read them? I have not read them all, in fact, I have not read any cover to cover. One book that is well worth it to gain an understanding of the first century is the Jewish History by Flavious Josephus. Here is a neat little page on Josephus"
members.aol.com/fljosephus/home.htm

Thanks for the site, Tittus. I'll view it, but frankly, I'm not into "lost books" because all THE Real Books were never "lost". By all the Books, I also mean the Apocryphcal Books which were never in The Bible.

Tittus continued.......

"Most of our arguments today come from attempting to apply a portion or portions of a scripture to a broad context of life without really understanding what the social structure was."

This is true. Also, verses are posted out of context and this is a REAL problem. However, as far as the culture of that time goes, "lost books" will not be of any help since the cultural differences are explained in the headings of the New Testament Chapters within the Catholic Bible.

Tittus continued.......

"We often take those pieces out of context and then are sanctimonious about it."

Not me! I will not take them out of context and if I find someone who does, then I jump in. I have a full education on the Bible regarding the cultural climates and meanings of the linguistic or idiomatic expressions. Also, as with St. Paul to the Corinthians in 1 Corinthians 1, I know WHY St. Paul admonished them.

Frankly, it's obvious that many posters attempt to "identify" modern-day "others" as being the ones the Apostles are admonishing TODAY. LOL The Apostles were great, for sure, BUT they weren't God and they couldn't see into the future.

Fact is, the Apostles were pointing out TENDENCIES in all human nature and certain groups back then showed certain tendencies....same as today, but the tendencies can be in any one.

Tittus continued.......

"But when compared to the entire Pauline, James, or Peter letter, we are often left without an argument. In some ways we are little better then Mr. Clinton request to define "is"."

"Mr. Clinton"? I don't follow that. Anyway, regarding the word "is"....there's no question, in any language, what the word "is" means. It sure doesn't mean "is not", or "maybe".

Tittus continued..........

"Secondly, the current cannon is primarily a Pauline epistle. That is our version of Christianity is based upon Paul, who died before the Gospels were pinned."

So did St. Peter. In fact, the last Apostle to pass on was St. John and he died of old age....in other words, he was not martyred as all the other Apostles had been. We need to understand that the Apostles, their disciples, and their disciples, and their disciples, generation after generation, were systematically slaughtered for nearly 300 years after Christ Ascended. If that hadn't happened, a faster formation of Christianity would have taken place, yes...BUT...the miracles in and from the Early Church may not have happened...and there are some fantastic miracles from the Early Church. These miracles convinced the pagans....most especially...to convert. One huge miracle is that the Church survived with all the slaughter.

Tittus continued.........

"The neat thing is to see the homogeneity of the NT knowing that these men only had their Jewish heritage and the Misnah version of the sacred scriptures. Yet, people from 12 different cultures were able to unify. That is a God Thing!"

Greek culture was involved, also...and Roman culture, too. In fact, everyone forgets that the Jews were surrounded with Roman culture, language, and traditions....legal, social, political...because the Romans owned a VAST portion of the then-known world and the Jews were, relatively speaking, only a small religious sect, and mostly in only in one region.

As far as the compling of the New Testament goes....THAT was the work of the Holy Spirit....and the phenomenal growth and spread of Christianity was ALSO the work of the Holy Spirit....He sure was...and IS....a busy Guy! LOL

Tittus continued.........

"Think of the Epistles, to whom were they written and why? They only had the word of mouth of this man called Jesus who was a Jew, yet.... We find reason to celebrate the One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism with them through 2000 years and countless cultures. Think about it."

I have thought about it. I was educated in the entire history of those 2,000 years, to included, but not limited to, the Life of Christ, the lives of the Apostles, Early Christianity and the Church Fathers, the Fall of the Roman Empire, the attacks of the barbaric tribes, the Dark Ages and Charlemagne, the Eastern Schism, the Great Schism, the Muslim uprisings, the Crusades, the Middle Ages, the Renaissance, the Discovery of the New World, the High Renaissance, the Protestant Revolt, the Terror of Henry VIII, the Rise of the European Nations, Colonial America, the American Revolution, the French Revolution, the War of 1812, the Alamo, the Civil War, the Spanish-American War, World War I, World War II, the Cold War, and...going out on a limb, here....I remember the "Berlin Wall" being built, as well as the Korean War, the Viet Nam Conflict, and I remember Harry Truman, Ike, and, of course, JFK.

To say the least, it's been "a trip".

[jfree]

Hey there Titus, good post. I go to a Church of Christ also.

Judy is actually a pretty good poster, some of her ideas are not mainstream, but she does make some good points.

[tits]

points to Christ!

You mention that you are a historian, I am an armature. However, I am more of a socialist and am often troubled by the way we in the West have twisted meaning into the scriptures that socially was not Paul's, James', Peter's, or Christ's intent. I really wonder what people will attempt to attribute the works of Martin Luther too in 1600 years.

I too have studied the Jews Torah, Talmud, Misrash but do not read Hebrew. I also frequent the Holy Qur'an. So much of what the scriptures of each state do not seem to agree with the opinions of the learned Rabbi or Imam or Pastor. The concept that religion is important because of some psyche really makes me angry. You don't have to limit oneself to the West to see that faith in a superior being is central to all cultures throughout history. My maternal grandmother was a half-breed and I sought after the Great Spirit of the Plains Indians for brief period back in the early 1970s. The bottom line is mankind has recognized that there is a god and many true scientist today also acknowledge a god. The problem is in the definition of GOD. For me, he is the Hebrew God of Moses, David, and Haggai. He is the Father of Jesus who revealed His glory to the apostle Jame, John, and Peter. He is the God who has granted us the greatest gift or curse known, that of "free will". Jesus is His son, my lord, my savior, and my adopted brother.

You know, perhaps the greatest outreach of Christ in my life were the early Promise Keepers. In 1992 and in 1993 I attended and still get goose bumps. One evening, the great Baptist orator, Dr. E.V. Hill spoke of "Hitting" the devil with scripture. They had the preachers in the stadium out of the the nearly 54,000 of us in (U of Colorado in Bolder) come down front. Everyone had been given a small candle as we entered the stadium that evening. Behind me was a rabbi, next to me was a priest, an African American Southern Baptist was to my right. Coach McCartney lite Dr. Dobson's candle who turned to the man to his left. Soon all 300 or so preachers had their candles lit. The stadium lights were turned off and each preach went to the edge of the stage and soon there were 54000 candles giving this huge warm yellow glow to the university. I can recall each man in my party and all of those surrounding us had tears running down our faces as we sang praises to God.

Friends, that is what I believe the Kingdom is. A unified body of believers.

Twil, I have been generating a database for the last few months of the OT interactions. Things are jumping at me that were hidden. I'm sure that you have already made this connection but here is one that really intrigues me.

Jonah is sent to the Mede city of Nineveh. There were no Jews in Nineveh so why was he sent to a city of pagans? Well, that is just 70 years prior to Sennacherib's conquest of Israel and the deportation of the survivors to Nineveh. Hind of makes sense. God prepares a home for the refugees before he punishes the northern kingdom.

A cousin was in the Franciscan monastery in St. Louis prior to meeting a beautiful woman and getting married. His father was an elder in the largest parish in West County and his funeral was presided over by the Cardinal from Chicago. I have never seen such a funeral in my life.

We became members of the Church of Christ in 1976 and have had many wonderful arguments with my father's Lutheran and mother's Catholic families since. Heck, I had even applied to Concordia in St. Louis to study the Lutheran Pastoral when we were taught the COC simplicity.

Guys, I would like to discuss some historical items from time to time. Please post a topic and we can discuss.

[tits]

jfree said:

Hey there Titus, good post. I go to a Church of Christ also.

Judy is actually a pretty good poster, some of her ideas are not mainstream, but she does make some good points.

We were baptized in 1976. We lived in Tulsa for six years and were members of Garnett Road for several years. Have you been to any of the national workshops? We attended a prayer workshop in Louisiana last year and it was great.

[tits]

twilly said:

Tittus stated........

tits said:

&

Tittus continued.......

"But when compared to the entire Pauline, James, or Peter letter, we are often left without an argument. In some ways we are little better then Mr. Clinton request to define "is"."

"Mr. Clinton"? I don't follow that. Anyway, regarding the word "is"....there's no question, in any language, what the word "is" means. It sure doesn't mean "is not", or "maybe".

Tittus continued..........

"Secondly, the current cannon is primarily a Pauline epistle. That is our version of Christianity is based upon Paul, who died before the Gospels were pinned."

So did St. Peter. In fact, the last Apostle to pass on was St. John and he died of old age....in other words, he was not martyred as all the other Apostles had been. We need to understand that the Apostles, their disciples, and their disciples, and their disciples, generation after generation, were systematically slaughtered for nearly 300 years after Christ Ascended. If that hadn't happened, a faster formation of Christianity would have taken place, yes...BUT...the miracles in and from the Early Church may not have happened...and there are some fantastic miracles from the Early Church. These miracles convinced the pagans....most especially...to convert. One huge miracle is that the Church survived with all the slaughter.
.

You raise an old question. There was James the elder, the apostle. James the less, an apostle. And James the younger brother of Christ. I had concluded through my studies that the book of James was written by the brother of Christ, Elder in the Jerusalem Church. Is this wrong?

I ask because so many of the finer points of James 1 and James 5 read as if Jesus could have written them. I could almost imagine the boys sitting around discussing the sacred scriptures while Joseph was teaching them the finer aspects of furniture and carpentry.

My point concerning "is" is that so often Churches have split arguing over the simplest of words in the scripture. Often without anyone ever seeking to see if the Greek or Hebrew actually read the way the New American Standard, King James, Revised King James or whatever has translated.

Form my in depth studies I like to use a variety of sources that include the The Catholic Encyclopedia and BibleGatgeway.
www.newadvent.org/cathen/15367a.htm