My worship leader, a kind of a radical Christ-follower, has been reading Pagan Christianity: Exposing the Roots of Our Church Practices by Frank Viola and George Barna.
It’s a critique of what Christianity has become—all the clutter of the traditions, as reflected in our various denominations.
Product Description
Have you ever wondered why we Christians do what we do for church every Sunday morning? Why do we “dress up” for church? Why does the pastor preach a sermon each week? Why do we have pews, steeples, choirs, and seminaries? This volume reveals the startling truth: most of what Christians do in present-day churches is not rooted in the New Testament, but in pagan culture and rituals developed long after the death of the apostles. Coauthors Frank Viola and George Barna support their thesis with compelling historical evidence in the first-ever book to document the full story of modern Christian church practices. More at Amazon.com…
It seems like Viola and Barna are calling for a strip down—too much traditional clutter. Has anyone read the book?
My worship leader is filling me in…
TC,
Haven’t read Pagan Christianity, but I have read other stuff by Frank Viola. He tends to be really radical about the forms of Christian practice and the need to return to what he envisions as true Christianity.
I would consider myself somewhat in his camp. I think he’s right when he argues that much or most of what we do on Sunday morning follows tradtional patterns without much reflection on the “ought to’s” of what we do.
A limitation in Viola is an inability or unwillingness to consider the structural changes that have taken place in human society in 2000 years. For example, industry is no longer located in households and modern forces serve to rip the extended family into its nuclear fragments. Those two dynamcis alone mitigate against an unreflective embracing of the New Testament forms of gathering.
At times his tone can feel mean spirited as well. The title, “Pagan Christianity” is pure Viola. I find that folks who are looking for a fight are often drawn to him.
With all that said, Viola has much to say that we need to hear. He’s a good foil for rethinking what we do and what we might do differently. As you read, it would be important to “Chew the meat, and spit out the bones.”
Kyle,
I believe we could almost tell where Viola is headed from the actual subtitle, “Exposing the Roots of Our Church Practices.”
I believe he has a sequel title that recommends organic Christianity instead.
You might see Ben Witherington’s blog review from sometime back. From what I recall, Witherington took the book to task on a number of points.
http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2008/06/pagan-christianty-by-george-barna-and.html
Since the Church structure and doctrine was developed in Rome, a pagan dominated culture, many traditions and interpretations are Pagan. The Church, embarrassed when the critics pointed this out, offered the explanation that the many similarities were incorporated to encourage pagan converts.
If you read about James, the brother of the Lord, in the Bible and other writings you’ll see that in Jerusalem, where the Jesus following was centered, the leader of the movement after Jesus was James.
James was reverred for his piety. He was against temple adornment, a vegetarian, and a proponent for the poor. By looking at those closest to Jesus, viola concludes our religion is distorted.
Even if he is correct, I think many of the arguments are cultural and not of doctrinal importance.
I haven’t read anything by either of them, but have heard great things about both, as well as hearing an interview with Viola in which I heard many intriguing theories. I certainly wouldn’t mind hearing more from him. Fill us in after you get filled in.
I plan to give it a read. I like to see where they’re going.
TC,
I am about 1/2 way through the book myself. Basically he points out that most of what we do in Church is not based on scripture, but on practices picked up mostly from other religious or secular traditions.
His book, while seemingly negative toward the church is actually becoming a call to essential or simple christianity.
By the way, where in California are you? I am in Claremont, about 35 miles east of L.A proper.
I just recently started a blog myself (earlychurchstudies.com) and stumbled across yours today while on Goodacre’s NT Blog.
Blessings,
John
His book, while seemingly negative toward the church is actually becoming a call to essential or simple christianity.
Great to know! I’m actually looking forward to reading this than ever now.
I’ll have to check out your site. Ah! The prof. link brought you here. Nice!
I’m about 2hrs from north of LA, in Kern County.
Thanks for the link, Charles.
Even if he is correct, I think many of the arguments are cultural and not of doctrinal importance.
Pelagian7,
I agree with you to some extent. I’m sure you’d agree that some traditions are just wrong.
Some have replaced the Bible and grace.
Thanks for posting this, TC. Whatever conclusions people reach, it’s always good to see more wrestling with Viola’s contentions – which is why Tyndale published the book.
Personally, I’ll look forward to seeing what you and “your” worship leader think about chapters 5 and 7 especially.
Bill,
Chapters 5 and 7? We’ll see.
In fact, I like a good challenge.
It’s crap!
I’m just curious, but what is he advocating for in retrospect? I mean, okay, modern Americanized church services have a lot of baggage, I agree. But does being biblical mean becoming first century? They still had teaching which they listened to, there was hymns and singing of some sort, public reading of scripture and offerings taken up for the poor among them. Who cares whether or not there were pews, steeples, pulpit, stage, lighting, bands, you name it. When the church first started it was a bunch of ethnocentric Messianic Jews worshiping at the Temple anyway. All I’m saying is maybe we should be a little more careful when we start calling certain things unbiblical and define what unbiblical means.
Why, Mark?
But does being biblical mean becoming first century?
Jon,
That’s a great question. I’m wondering is Viola and Barna anticipated such. I’m pretty sure they did.
At any rate, I believe Kyle above is saying something similar.
I checked out Ben Witherington’s review per Charles’ link above. Good review and ought to be read with Pagan Christianity.
Given Viola and Barna’s failure to do their homework carefully per Witherington, still it is great to see the Scriptures continue to challenge us in the forms of faith.
Cetainly, the Sunday-morning-sit-in-the-pew-and-watch-passively is a model of discipleship that must be discarded. That distortion is not so much a function of ancient paganism as it is of our contemporary entertainment based culture.
Viola, in all his writing, challenges us here. That’s valuable. It’s unfortunate that his strident tone and his poor scholarship puts off people like Mark above.
For the reasons BW3 points out in his series of posts.
And yet …and yet , in every epistle Paul and the other apostles tell us to stay true to the gospel ie that we are sinners and Jesus died for our sins and was resurrected. We are also warned not to be pulled into stupid little arguments etc. Everybody seems to have their little pet-hates that they make money out of. How many of these authors and evangelists go out and spread the true gospel as written in the Bible?
Mark,
Ah! I’m going through the book now. I’ll get to BW3 critique.
Elna,
Good points.
Basically TC – It is dilettante rubbish- don’t waste your time…it is a really poor book, or put another way…its crap!
Mark- I need to give them a fair day in court.
i suppose, their treatment of history is criminal!
Mark, I must say that they’ve made some good points along the way, but some of their evidence and sources are questionable.
Their overall approach to Scripture is highly suspect as well.
But I’m still reading.
Here’s another question – if Viola’s arguments aren’t totally crap, if he’s right that protestant pastors are basically reformed priests and that most of our structured practices originated from completely extra-biblical concerns – then who’s to say that makes anything right or wrong?
There is no man or woman in the pages of the NT whose operations match the job description of a modern day priest or “pastor”. But that doesn’t necessarily mean priests and pastors have to quit their jobs. It is simply worth noting that the early churches met very differently. What we do in God, I trust, remains quite up to us.
Bill,
You’ve raised some important questions. But I must ask those who want us to return to the first-century church: What expression do we need to return to, Jerusalem or Antioch?
Neither is really within reach, imho. My old house church was modeled on Paul’s pattern, but only so far as was feasible for us at the time. Likewise, my preacher back home claimed Acts 2 was a model for Sunday AM and weeknight cell groups. Not hardly.
Latter NT Jerusalem had an administrative CEO + Board but that doesn’t tell us what was going on in their regular meetings. Paul and Barnabas established elders differently than Paul did years later. There is no cookie cutter, even for us rebels out here.
Frank Viola doesn’t have all the answers, but he’s done enough work to illustrate that the standard justifications for typical practice are fairly contrived.
What would be nice is for both sides in this debate is to let the horse run a bit before we decide which cart he ought to be pulling. And that, my friend, is what drew me to history for its own sake.
Bill,
To some extent I must agree with you. Yes, we do not have a detail church service or business meeting of any kind.
But I do believe we have the basics to get us going in the right direction. And in all this, we have the Holy Spirit who is the grand architect of the body of Christ.
We will forever be stumbling around until Christ returns, but we can still do meaningful, biblical church.
Yeah, both sides need to listen to each other. Yep!
What is a “church service”?
We add an awful lot of assumptions on top of those basics, TC. I think the Holy Spirit does what he can in the meantime, so we can indeed have Christ-filled, meaningful church while stumbling around. I’m just not so sure any of us have been very “biblical” about our gatherings.
Thanks most of all for your gracious attitude and willingness to find agreement in the conversation. Yep indeed.
Bill,
Do I need to give a description of “church service”? Are going to hold be to such?
I’m just not so sure any of us have been very “biblical” about our gatherings.
Have we done things totally biblically? Of course. But have we also made some missteps along the way? Of course.
So yes, the conversation needs to be ongoing.
For a “fair and balanced” approach, you might want to check out another New Testament scholar’s take on “Pagan”-Jon Zens debates BWIII here: http://www.paganchristianity.org/zensresponds1.htm .
Also, Viola debates Witherington: http://www.ptmin.org/FV_BW.pdf .
I’ve read “Pagan” and thought it was insightful and right on target. It is controversial, but sometimes it’s necessary to shake things up a bit when the Body of Christ has veered off course. (Think Martin Luther). I believe the purpose of “Pagan Christianity” is not to pick apart the traditions and practices of the established church, but rather to show how they harm the Body of Christ and prevent it from functioning as our Lord intended. It’s not to say the authors expect us to wear togas and sandals and throw out anything that smacks of the twenty-first century. But in order to dismantle the deeply entrenched system that we’ve come to call “church”, it’s necessary to demonstrate where these things came from, and that they’re not directives from God’s Word. For example, although there is certainly nothing inherently wrong with believers gathering in a building set aside for that purpose, it’s not the ideal setting for the church, based on the nature of the church. The church is a family, not an organization. Families typically gather in cozier settings that are more conducive to the life they live together. The New Testament stresses that we have become God’s building, His dwelling place. Having a building associated with the church obscures this picture. Consider how the world defines the church, and even many believers: it’s a place you go, not what you are. Call it semantics, but there’s a huge difference between attending something and being that something.
On the flip side, many think that if these trappings are NOT present, that what’s going on inside isn’t CHURCH. So I believe Viola is also pointing these things out from that perspective-demonstrating that these things are extra-biblical and not necessary to the biblical expression of the Church. For example, I’ve run across many who believe that if a “man of the cloth” isn’t present, you have no right to partake of the Lord’s Supper or baptize someone. That simply isn’t so….
Barna/Viola’s “Pagan Christianity” wasn’t a stand-alone book. The sequel is called “Reimagining Church”, it’s the constructive part of the discussion. He also has a new book that’s the practical follow-up to both books. It’s called “Finding Organic Church.” Viola’s article “Why I Love the Church” explains the motivation behind all three books. http://frankviola.wordpress.com/2009/08/18/why-i-love-the-church-in-praise-of-gods-eternal-purpose/
I believe the purpose of “Pagan Christianity” is not to pick apart the traditions and practices of the established church, but rather to show how they harm the Body of Christ and prevent it from functioning as our Lord intended.
Jill,
And I appreciate “Pagan” for revisiting such a conversation. It needs to be ongoing. Books like these are good for the church even though all the findings are not justified and so on.
T.C. R., traditions are neither right or wrong, per se, but often misunderstood. Fear and ignorance are powerful motivators. A survival tactic of man has been to develop aversions to harmful stimuli. Although helpful on a basic level this trait leads technological man to many incorrect conclusions.
One tradition of the church has been to encourage this aversive behavior, then offer a solution to deal with ramifications. Not biblical in the least, but effective in keeping a loyal following.
Ask yourself this; what truth would need the least explaining? That is likely the truth.
I found cultures and ego’s contaminating the truth. A basic truth may exist and it may be like Jesus said, Oneness (of God, and, or all nature) loving and caring for ourselves and our environment. He said love God and treat each other with compassion and love, but, we must determine what God was to him and what love was.
I trust my own intellect, that reveals Jesus was speaking of a oneness, not a paternal God like the Pagan God Zeus. And if oneness was his message his two commandments were mirrors of each other. Loving God and each other, yet we are all connected to God by a thread making his command one in the same. Several “two, as in nomina sacra,” clues exist in the scriptures but we tend to read them simplistically.
Pelagian7
Several “two, as in nomina sacra,” clues exist in the scriptures but we tend to read them simplistically.
Pelagian7, “Ask yourself this; what truth would need the least explaining? That is likely the truth. ”
That is only fitting.
Yes fitting, but not easily agreed upon and potentially unpopular. That is why I look to the basics. I have studied much and am confident in my conclusions, emotionally and intellectually.
This search for truth and camaraderie is powerful. A need for validation. I believe this trait enlightens us to the bigger picture when satisfied, revealing the spirit of Christ. Simplistic and devoid of popular religious dogma, but to the point and based on evidence.
Pelagian7
This search for truth and camaraderie is powerful. A need for validation. I believe this trait enlightens us to the bigger picture when satisfied, revealing the spirit of Christ.
In the end, Truth becomes a Person who says: “The thief’s purpose is to steal and kill and destroy. My purpose is to give them a rich and satisfying life.” (John 10:10, NLT).
Not well-reasoned propostions but a Person–my religious dogma.
“Not well-reasoned propositions but a Person–my religious dogma”
I have found all of Jesus’ messages written before him, in Jewish and Gnostic texts, even Plato echoed many of Jesus’ sentiments.
So then, what about the two passages that suggest the Bible is inspired by God. First, it doesn’t specify in any way what is defined as scripture and second it doesn’t say perfection, only God breathed, which has been translated as inspired. All the Old Testament documents are considered inspired too, but, not literally perfect.
Now the letter of James was excluded for two centuries and the Gospel of the Hebrews was part of the early canon. After three hundred years did God suddenly enlighten the men who voted for a canon, leaving the early fathers on their own?
Song of songs was barely accepted according to the Catholic encyclopedia. Luther wanted it excluded too. Does that make it less inspired?
I am far from a non-believer, but, remain a seeker of truth. Jesus and Paul suggest we seek truth, without telling us to accept what we are told without investigation.
Pelagian7
I have found all of Jesus’ messages written before him, in Jewish and Gnostic texts, even Plato echoed many of Jesus’ sentiments.
But even if this were the case, what does it prove? Does it devalue the God-man and his claims?
All the Old Testament documents are considered inspired too, but, not literally perfect.
Now if the documents of both the Old and New Testaments are “perfect” according to our modern standards, then it’s no fault of their own.
Now the letter of James was excluded for two centuries and the Gospel of the Hebrews was part of the early canon. After three hundred years did God suddenly enlighten the men who voted for a canon, leaving the early fathers on their own?
Thank God it was finally recognized as sacred Scripture. It was about time! I have no solid reason to doubt the canonicity of James.
I am far from a non-believer, but, remain a seeker of truth. Jesus and Paul suggest we seek truth, without telling us to accept what we are told without investigation.
On this we’re in complete agreement.
T.C. R. I just went through many of the threads and your comments. I am thoroughly impressed with your intellect and have rarely said that.
I don’t think we believe alike in doctrine, although your comment about James letter leads me to believe, in practice we agree.
Yes Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria had different forms of Christianity. And ultimately Rome too, had its own brand of belief.
The history, although sparse today, is compelling. I read whiston’s Josephus (works) from cover to cover. Eusebius and Hippolytus to Augustus and Gibbon, I read too. I even checked alternate translations and tried to teach myself Greek. I found it difficult because English words such as “the” replaced about a dozen Greek words. This huge variant offered early translators a chance to redefine the Gospels. How?
Since modern and classical Greek don’t (supposedly) equal Koine Greek any interpreted translation can become the meaning of the original (to modern scholars anyways).
In my studies I found the same or similiar as Viola (according to excerpts only), and although I dismiss the cultural tradition based practices as extraneous, I remain a proponent of Jesus’ teachings. Paul seemed to be supporting this cultural practice too.
A brilliant scholar who does a great job of presenting evidence is Robert Eisenman. He is hard on Paul, but from a perspective of Jesus and Judaism, he is awesome. When he first starts combining linguistic links, some seem far fetched, however as you read you realize the phrases were common then and as important as our slang can be today. (James the Brother of Jesus)
Pelagian7
Pelagian, Are you a Christ-follower? Just an honest question.
Have you read someone like N.T. Wright and the worldview that writers like him has called the Christian community to filter their interpretive approaches through?
I would call myself a follower of Christ, although, many would not. I believe Jesus was the messiah. Yet, I think the trinity was contrived to counter some churches that were practicing docetism in the first centuries.
So I see Jesus as the Messianic prophet expected by the Jews. Not divine, but altogether inspired. This creates some problems though. It calls into question Paul who claimed a mystical understanding of Jesus.
In the end I keep it simple and righteous, doing good works and giving thanks, as much as possible anyways. I haven’t read wright but will investigate.
Pelagian7
Thanks for your answer.
Don’t forget that the Jews had some misgivings about the Messaih. Even the learned of the day struggled with his true identity (John 5:39).
I say he’s more than just an inspired Messiah. He’s also divine in every sense of the word. He was the Son of God, a term which his contemporaries interpreted as blasphemies, because he was making himself equal with the Father.
pelagian7
“I am far from a non-believer, but, remain a seeker of truth.”
Would love to get your opinion about a book.
Followed your posts. You seem to have searched out many avenues of thought.
I would appreciate a serious critique from someone in your place and belief.
Someone who is “not convinced” about Jesus being God in the flesh.
All my friends just say nice things, seems they don’t need an explanation.
My adversaries just dismiss me and the info, seems no explanation is good enough.
Is Jesus God?
Seven Letters to Les.
also, included in the book is
A Quick Precise Guide For
Knowing and Sharing Who Jesus Is.
Twenty One Examples
Explaining How The Bible
Consistently Interchanges and Identifies
Jesus With God.
http://web.me.com/love101
Free pdf download at the bottom of the welcome page.
Met Les a few years ago. He said, “Jesus is not God.”
We live on opposite coasts. Over a period of 6 months I sent him seven letters and he sent me three.
So you can have some fun reading his mail.
The letters have been edited to stay on the main topic,”Is Jesus God.”
TC – Would appreciate your thoughts also. I’ve enjoyed our conversations.
And if anyone else wants to tell me what they think that would be fine also.
Peace…
A. Amos, then I shall.
Amos I went through your first letter. The first problem I encounter, for an opinion about the divinity of Jesus, isn’t even about religion.
Growing up in a Christian culture provides us with a mental framework that influences our interpretations. Even non believers hear things said like, don’t take the lords name in vain, which influences their perceptions. In fact every reading by every individual is an interpretation (slightly to totally different) With this in mind:
After reading the ante-Nicene fathers, one thing was clear, interpretation and perceptions varied sometimes substantially the first 3-4 centuries (and these various views were from the accepted leaders within the church).
Of course after doctrine was created and established church wide, excuses and explanations were offered for their predecessors, some even posthumously excommunicated and many writings eliminated.
Now, what about our Bible and Jesus calling himself God? In some verses he does appear to be calling himself divine and others he seems totally human. He speaks from the cross to the father in anguish and questions: (if he new the answer why ask).
The simple solution; that doesn’t seem simple, to those who usually dismiss anything unorthodox. [Jesus, who was from an allegorical peoples; ruled by Rome, a hellenized culture of myth and metaphor was simply using metaphor. He was son of God in spirit or essence. This explains the various claims and interpretatons that seem inconsistent. Paul says we are the temple of God and he dwells in us. If I am referring to that spark within me I would use metaphor. Son of God was used in the old testament to refer to us as Gods likeness. . .
Some of the verses you quote as evidence, like alpha and omega can have different interpretations. In fact, I don’t remember which commentary, but an early father who commented on every verse of that book never mentions that verse. It may have been added later and never said by Jesus. Remember Jesus blasts those who copied scripture, scribes! And the alpha omega anagram is found in Pagan Rome pre-christ which means it could have been a popular claim and not indicative of divinity, just leadership.
I read 7 reasons you should trust the Bible. The introduction prefaced some statements that would be made (Like the Bible being inerrant). As an example they brought up the book of Mark, saying Mark’s Greek grammer was so bad that scribes had to correct it. So it wasn’t written perfectly but does contain Gods inerrant message.
I was curious and checked for pre-correction Mark.
“May God be with you” was
“May God be in you”
Many sayings unaltered sounded identical to the gnostic texts. Gnostics thought each individual was potentially inspired and referred to the christ in each of us. Of course this is the tip of the iceberg and well rebutted but I found it worthy.
pelagian7
Thanks for taking a look.
Just wondering – looked up “pelagian.” This is what I found.
British or Irish monk. He denied the doctrines of original sin and predestination,
defending innate human goodness and free will.
Does this describe your view of things at this time?
You write – “Now, what about our Bible and Jesus calling himself God?
In some verses he does appear to be calling himself divine
and others he seems totally human.
He speaks from the cross to the father in anguish and questions:
(if he new the answer why ask).”
You offer “metaphor” as a possible answer. Could be.
What about the posibility of Jesus being both
fully God and fully man?
That wouldn’t be to hard for “The Creator” would it?
You said – “This explains the various claims and interpretatons that seem inconsistent.”
I also had a challenge understanding and explaining these inconsistances.
Those who said, “Jesus is NOT God” were bringing them to my attention
on a regular basis and I had no answer.
But God… I really love when the Bible declares… BUT GOD… Try it, you might like it.
But God… One day… after trying to figure it out for awhile…
One day, while thinking about nothing special, just out for a long walk,
this thought pops into my mind…
Jesus… both God and man…
would sometimes speak as God…
and sometimes speak as man…
Ahhh! A very simple explanation for me.
Yes Lord, I like that, thanks, it fits, It works for me.
As God – If any man serve me.
As man – Serve only God.
As God – I am the good shepherd.
As man – There is none good but God.
As God – I and the Father are one.
As man – The Father is greater than I.
As God – Apart from me you can do nothing.
As man – The Son can do nothing of Himself.
As God – For one is your Master, even Christ.
As man – No man can serve two masters.
As God – I lay down my life that I might take it again.
As man – Not my will but yours be done.
pelagian7 – What do you think? Possible?
If both, the God portion would have to have temporary amnesia for Jesus to sound like only a man. Your point was addressed in early Christianity and was found to be inconsistent, with Jesus being the same nature as God. Those who practiced this way were led into docetism. Not a problem for me, and more likely true, however, not the orthodox explanation. Jesus, as God, would always know everything as would the father.
Thanks for your reasonable response.
I have found all of Jesus’ messages written before him, in Jewish and Gnostic texts, even Plato echoed many of Jesus’ sentiments.
T.C said, But even if this were the case, what does it prove? Does it devalue the God-man and his claims?
Are they his claims? “The forgive them, they no not what they do.” is said by James the Just, according to Clement, when James is being persecuted. Clement speaks about this as if it is the first time he has heard it. So, did the Gospel writers put these words in Jesus’ mouth after Clement? That was the criticism in Rome by opponents. That the writers embellished the story of Jesus with sayings others made and myths. Proving this is impossible just as proving it didn’t happen is likewise impossible.
You said, Now if the documents of both the Old and New Testaments are “perfect” according to our modern standards, then it’s no fault of their own.
Jesus saves his most damning words for the copiers of scripture. He names Scribes and Pharisees, calling them a brood of vipers. The serpent or viper was the adversaries earthly representation. Symbolically it represented deception, hypocrisy and evil. Scriptural perfection seems to be unlikely in light of Jesus’ warnings and that he never writes anything, nor instructs his followers to document his teachings. If writing was to be inspired and his chosen mode of ministering why blast writers and write nothing. Now few were able to read then but if he was going to inspire scribes a few decades later why not do it then.
[British or Irish monk. He denied the doctrines of original sin and predestination,
defending innate human goodness and free will.]
I agree with his views in principle. Yet, I must qualify goodness. We are potentially blessed with goodness. The Jews used the language “upright in God’s eyes” when describing a sinless person. Some prophets are called this in the Old Testament, how could sinless men exist with original sin as a doctrine? Christian Tradition suggest only Jesus but Jewish tradition disagrees.
This should clarify a few things in regards to my beliefs.
Are they his claims? “The forgive them, they no not what they do.” is said by James the Just, according to Clement, when James is being persecuted. Clement speaks about this as if it is the first time he has heard it. So, did the Gospel writers put these words in Jesus’ mouth after Clement? That was the criticism in Rome by opponents. That the writers embellished the story of Jesus with sayings others made and myths. Proving this is impossible just as proving it didn’t happen is likewise impossible.
Pelagian7,
I’m not schooled in reductionism of the Gospel narratives. I’ve read and reflected on some of the arguments here and there. I guess I remain conservative in accepting them as they are, being aware of the difficulties of my modern eyes of vieiwing and interpreting the historical data of the Gospels, which is a matter of Heilsgeschichte, “salvation history, as seen in Jesus of Nazareth, the God-man.
Until you accept biblical anthropology, that mankind, though created in the image of God, is corrupt at the core because of the Fall, your doctrine of man and consequently salvation will be unorthodox.
pelagian7
If there is a creator God?
And He created all things by speaking them forth?
Then speaking to you would be easy. Yes?
If you are searching for truth; then Jesus said,
Every one that is of the truth heareth “my voice.”
John 10:16
Out of heaven he made thee to hear “his voice,”
that he might instruct thee:
Deuteronomy 4:36
I left the “so called Orthodox Religious System”
in the early 90′s to find out if what Jesus said was true.
I found that Jesus will love you, lead you, and teach you all truth.
You need no man teach you. Not even yourself.
Sometimes you just need to take that leap of faith.
And come to Jesus as a little child.
Knowing nothing.
F.A.I.T.H. Forsaking All I Trust Him
I pray that you speak with Him.
And hear “His Voice.”
I do accept Jesus and hear his voice. I was led to discoveries in the most unorthodox ways. The road was narrow and anything but easy.
“Sometimes you just need to take that leap of faith.
And come to Jesus as a little child.
Knowing nothing.”
This would mean that I learn everything through revelation, no Bible, no discussion, no reason, no church.
Knowing Christ through faith alone doesn’t happen. (at least not the orthodox system) Reason is needed and used, but, how it is used seems to be the issue. I should use it to learn the orthodox belief but not to find any fault in it.
Language, writing and reading are all facets of reason. Translations and interpretations are additional aspects of reason and because we are told to seek truth, and it makes sense to the reason God gave me, I do.
By accepting Jesus’ two commands and giving the Jewish laws their due I found peace. If Jesus is the Messiah but not divine then all those who live with grace, love and righteousness can go to heaven. I know in my heart, that the exclusive claim of Christianity is not how it is.
Love and compassion are hallmarks of Jesus and hypocrisy was his arch-enemy. Would God, walking the earth, after condemning hypocrisy, give his truth to one small group of people and say spread it knowing that most of the world could not be reached?
This is hypocritical, what about those in the Americas or Australia, why condemn them to centuries and generations of hell? Didn’t Jesus eat with sinners? Didn’t he go to the cross for all sinners? He didn’t reject anybody but the orthodox doctrine condemned half the world or more.
Doesn’t make sense; and we do use logic to choose Christianity or explain certain bible verses so again we must use it when what we are taught seems wrong too.
However, since many cultures have similar golden rules, so important to Jesus, I believe God gave his message to all who would listen and was not hypocritical.
If God inspired the Buddha and Plato and others with the recipe for salvation and the people knew it, would the Christian church have become the world power it did? Would the crusades, stake burnings, and witch hunts have happened?
No, because without promoting a single way to salvation they couldn’t justify subjugation or demand riches, which were often stolen by the Vatican (but only from the savages and barbarians of course). So if a way of life and not pledging allegiance to him, was Jesus’ message, as I suspect it is, ambitious men would have surely edited it.
pelagian7
Sounds like you’ve had an interesting jorney.
I think I understand, “The road was narrow and anything but easy.”
I also bear the marks of persecution for what I believe to be truth.
Christiandumb is a bloody sport. The pages of church history is
full of “the blood of the saints” who desired “Truth” NOT Religion.
“This would mean that I learn everything through revelation,
no Bible, no discussion, no reason, no church.”
Not quite what I had in mind, but close.
When questioning something, my desire is to start with
“knowing nothing,” and end up with “revelation.”
Parts of the answer can come from, Bible, discussion and reason.
But straight revelation, right from Jesus, is the best.
Look at Peter when he declared Jesus to be
“The Christ”“the Son of the living God.”
Jesus declared that Peter was blessed because;
1 – Flesh and blood “didn’t” reveal it to him.
2 – God, who dwelled with in him, “did” reveal it.
Mt 16:17
Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona:
for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee,
but my Father which is in heaven.
Jesus didn’t say, “very good Peter, you’ve walked with me,
and watched me and you “reasoned” it out.
Paul didn’t say he reasoned. Paul declared that
“his gospel” was not of man (himself?) and he received it from God.
Ga 1:11-16
…the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it,
but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
16-To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen;
immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:
You said – “Knowing Christ through faith alone doesn’t happen.”
Well, the Bible declares an interesting “Truth.”
You have what you believe…
I believe – Knowing Christ through faith alone does happen. and it does.
You believe – Knowing Christ through faith alone doesn’t happen, and it doesn’t.
Just a thought.
Do you really want a book with words about God?
Or, do you want Jesus to teach you,
“The Word of God,” who wrote “The Book?”
John 6:45
It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God.
Hey, give me credit here. I said, the following with the parenthesis.
“Knowing Christ through faith alone doesn’t happen. (at least not the orthodox system)”
I agree, the truest insight is through revelation. Discovering the spirit of Christ is like waking up from a long sleep. But, orthodoxy is learned and I suggest flawed.
“Do you really want a book with words about God?
Or, do you want Jesus to teach you,”
Jesus for sure!
A group of Christian-like Syrians still practice an ancient tradition. They reject the written word and use music and oral tales to teach. They claim descend-ency from John the Baptist; and are identified by the early church fathers and refuted of course.
“They claim that compassion gets lost when the lesson is written and the writing becomes more important than what is right.”
Egyptians called hieroglyphs sacred writing and alphabet writing ordinary. The glyphs represented whole ideas, making them less precise? The complete truth needed revelation and was identified as initiation or perfection.
The Aztecs traded with the Maya and new about writing but rejected it. Their society seems to have been one of cooperation. Did they too believe man would look to the letter instead of their heart?
Jesus attacks the Scribes and also points out that what is written should be tempered with what is right. John 7: 13-26 I think. He was talking to pharisees and scribes about healing on the Sabbath, saying that yes it is written, work should not be done on the Sabbath, but, he also says the laws were made for man; not man made for the law.
I can only interpret this as the written word is a guide and we should also tap into his spirit, through revelation or intuition and do what is right.
The letters that suggest scripture is inspired, later deemed inerrant, were also some of the most hotly refuted as not authentic. Jesus does endorses the Prophets that came before him but also attacks those who copy scripture.
Oh, it was an amazing journey, a year long ride at an amusement park. It filled me with love, joy and optimism. My excitement was tempered by orthodox rejection but again, he said the road was narrow with pitfalls. I agree.
Pelagian7
pelagian7
Sorry – didn’t understand the parenthesis. Oy Vey!
“orthodoxy is learned and I suggest flawed.”
Flawed? Hmmm? May I add “Totally Corrupt.”
Lot’s of folks who love Jesus,
but “the system” they are stuck in – ouch!
TC – Hope you don’t mind, thought this bears repeating.
Jesus warned us about making “the word of God”
of non effect through our traditions; Yes?
Mk 7:14
KJV – Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition…
ASV – Making “void” the word of God by your tradition…
NIV – Thus you “nullify” the word of God by your tradition…
What if “The Whole Religious system,” for the past 1700 years,
has been/is totally corrupt?
Corrupt – Dictionary
1- having or showing a willingness to act dishonestly
in return for money or personal gain.
2- in a state of decay; rotten or putrid.
3- debased or made unreliable by errors or alterations.
Don’t condem the messenger just yet.
Why was there a reformation?
Rome was/is corrupt according to scripture. Yes?
People wanted to serve and worship Jesus in truth. Yes?
Any Popes as the head of “The Church of God” in the Bible?
Why were there Pilgrims and the Puritans coming to the USA?
Church of England was/is corrupt according to scripture. Yes?
People wanted to serve and worship Jesus in truth. Yes?
The Pilgrims, Puritans and Friends, didn’t enjoy prison for their beliefs. Yes?
Some died – “Christiandumbs orthadoxy” is a bloody sport.
Any Monarchs as the head of “The Church of God” in the Bible?
And every denomination since,
tries to tweek Romes version of doing religion.
wikipedia says there are now 38,000 denominations. Wow!!!
Does that sound like a “tradition of men” to you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations
Oh, you can change a few “titles,” pastors intead of priests,
suits and ties instead of collars and robes,
Presidents instead of Popes,
but basically it’s still Rome,
still, “Tradition of men,”
still “orthadoxy.”
But God…
“They claim that compassion gets lost when the lesson is written and the writing becomes more important than what is right.”
Hmmm?
The letter killeth
2Co 3:6*
Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament;
not of the letter,
but of the spirit:
for the letter killeth,
but the spirit giveth life.
And God…
I’m confused, what is your belief best described as?
pelagian7
There is no description that I know of.
Don’t care much for “labels/titles” anyway.
Titles become idols and
pastors become masters.
If someone desires and makes a “title/name” forthemselves,
(personal or denominational) (Pastor or Baptist)
Isn’t there a whole bunch of stuff that comes with that “title/name.”
Power, profit, prestige, pride, recognition, reputation. etc.
Aren’t those things of the world, the lust of the eye’s,
the lust of the flesh and the pride of life? Dangerous. Yes?
leaders = lord it over = abuse = always
Trust and obey, NOT think and decide.
When you believe the “lie,” you start to die.
They shall all be taught of God.
My sheep here my voice and follow me. Not man.
Just searching for truth… Jesus.
Left “the Religious System” in the early 90′s.
As you, It’s been quite a journey. Not always pretty but worth it.
Christiandumb can be quite abusive when confronted
with their traditions that do not match up with scripture.
Over the centuries Christiandumb has tortured, killed and imprisoned
those who they call rebellious, dissenters, heretics.
I have found the Bible to be trust worthy and
everything I need to be a “son of God” and a “disciple of Christ”
can be found in scripture. There’s a lot I don’t understand yet but
God is constantly revealing more and Himself to me.
Jesus seems to be separating me from the things of this world,
into a closer, totally dependent, relationship with Him.
I’ve found that Jesus is the best teacher, leader,
shepherd and His ways and thoughts are higher than mine.
Glory to God.
Have you found the mysteries of scripture? It sounds like you are on that track. Early church fathers such as Origen claimed that elite messages were avaialble to those who saw with two eyes, literally and esoterically.
I continue to discover that my earliest interpretations (when I was a child) have truth in them. Then I was taught how to read scripture and lost my connection to Christ.
I’m speaking of that warm fuzzy that follows you around, keeping you safe.
When I read about Jesus’ baptism, as a kid, I saw a man being blessed with Gods spirit and when I read about his words on the cross and the spirit leaving him, I knew that was God’s spirit.
It made sense until I was told I was all wrong and several explanations were offerred that made no sense to me.
Then a few years ago I read the Gospel of Mary of Magdala, by Karen King and a few other Gnostic Gospels and found a group who had worshiped Jesus just as I had envisioned when I was a child.
I had found my vision independantly and as a child, like we are instructed, so I have been on a new path of discovery. I study and learn, then follow my intuition to new discoveries.
I claim no label either, except to say I follow the ways of Christ.
pelagian7
Be blessed in your journey.
Enjoyed the conversation.
I’m not a minister. Church today reminds me of work. You clock in. Do your bit. Go eat. Then close the door. Live in your world. Always wanting something more but you dare not say it, your ridiculed, back down to ‘establishment’. We sing to the saved. Talked saved to saved. We have isolated ourselves. Maybe we need to break free from those walls that political correctness has us imprisoned in. I would like to take a sledgehammer and hit those walls, take a saw & cut the pews into, throw them out the door. All we are is a ‘mystery’ to outsiders. We don’t stand except in safety inside walls, we are not heard, we are being silenced effectively by the world, where’s the next generation? being taught to respect sexual deviation, hate Christians, and well, on and on. I don’t speak abt it, did only once to a minister in another church. I’m tired of this type of church in “Americanization of Jesus”.
Heather
Thanks for ministering those truths to me.
“I’m tired of this type of church in “Americanization of Jesus”.
Me too…
Jesus loves me this I know