Conventional Christianity

[Elijah John]

Pauline, conventional Christianity is complicated.
Consider these complications:

#1: That Jesus is entirely God, and entirely human.
#2: That God exists in three persons, but is still one God. 1+1+1= 1, not 3
#3: That in addition to simple repentance, blood must be spilled for God's forgiveness
#4: One cannot go to God directly but must go through a mediator.
#5: Sometimes the mediator has a mediator, as in Jesus and Mary
#6: The Holy Spirit and the Risen Christ serve VERY similar purposes in a believer's life.
#7: That the Law is impossible to keep, and is meant to show our need for a savior.
#8: The concept of original sin necessitates literal belief in Adam and Eve.
#9: ONLY Christ can be considered righteous, no other Godly people.
#10: If Jesus is God, then Mary is the "Mother of God". (does God have a "mother"?)
#11: That God allows himself to be killed, (temporarily) on the cross. (can God die?)
#12: That God's justice is satisfied by the death of a stand-in.
#13 That Jesus was perfect, not enough to be a righteous prophet. His imperfections are glossed over.
#14 The 2nd coming...wasn't the Messiah supposed to set things right the FIRST time around?

Questions for debate...did Jesus teach ANY of this? If so, please demonstrate.

And what other complications do you detect in conventional Christianity?

And finally, if one rejects the complications of conventional Christianity, does one reject God?

[Divine Insight]

#3: That in addition to simple repentance, blood must be spilled for God's forgiveness

Blood sacrifices for the atonement of sin (or the appeasement of God) has always been a part of this religion from the get go. In fact, this type of superstition is common with almost all the ancient Gods from the Mediterranean region. It was a very common superstition to believe that blood sacrifices would appease the God.

So yes, the idea that blood must be spilled to appease a God is quite common and deeply ingrained in the original Old Testament long before Christianity ever emerged. In fact, it was precisely this idea that was transposed onto the Jesus myths. This is how Jesus ultimately became recognized as the "Sacrificial Lamb of God".

So yes, this does fit the religion over all. One major problem with this would be that God had changed. In the early part of the religion only an animal would need to be sacrificed. But now everyone must condone Jesus as their sacrificial "lamb", yet Jesus wasn't a lamb, he was a human man.

Apparently Christianity has no problem with this.

#14 The 2nd coming...wasn't the Messiah supposed to set things right the FIRST time around?

Questions for debate...did Jesus teach ANY of this? If so, please demonstrate.

According to the New Testament, yes, Jesus most certainly did teach the "second coming". The only problem is that he also prophesied that this would occur within the current generation, and even told some of his disciples that they would actually still be living to see it. Clearly those predictions either never came to pass, or else the "second coming" already happened a very long time ago.

In fact, this is what I always claim. I say that if the story is true, then the second coming and the "Rapture" must have already happened. Jesus said that only a few would make it, so maybe he didn't take all that many people?

And this would mean that all humans living today are descendants of the rejects and there will be no "Third Coming". People who are waiting for Jesus today are waiting in futility (and this assumes that the New Testament stories are true).

I think it's more realistic to simply realize and accept that the Jesus myth is just one of many ancient myths along these same lines. It's far more rational to believe that they are nothing more than outrageous superstitious tales.

It's extremely unlikely there there ever existed any Gods who would be appeased by blood sacrifices in the first place. Why would any God require that humans kill an animal as payment for their wrong doings? How would that teach the humans to take responsibility for their actions. In short, if you were willing to sacrifice a lamb you could in theory go out and do bad things, then come home and kill your sacrificial lamb and have atoned for the bad things that you had done.

Does that even make any sense?

No, of course it doesn't.

So the whole idea never had any rational basis from the very beginning.

Blood sacrifices to appease the Gods is nothing more than a very unintelligent superstition.

Knowing what we know today, it's far more likely that there do not exist any egotistical Godheads. And especially none that would be appeased by acts of hostility toward animals.

Just as a bit of humor, the greatest oxymoron in the world would be an Animal Rights advocate who is also a Christian. Think about the paradox in that.

Yet, there no doubt exist at least some Animal Rights advocates also happen to be Christians. They wouldn't have been very pleased with a God who demanded that they slaughter an animal to atone for their sins. I'm willing to bet that there are a lot of people out there who would rather go to hell than kill their pet. They would sacrifice themselves to save their pet.

[tam]

Peace to you EJ.

So some of these things were taught by Christ (and I assume you mean according to what is written as attributed to Christ), and some were not. Some of the points I left alone for now:

Pauline, conventional Christianity is complicated.
Complications:

#1: That Jesus is all God, and all human.

He did not teach this that I know of, but neither did Paul.

#2: That God exists in three persons, but is still one God. 1+1+1= 1, not 3

Not taught by Christ. (nor Paul, nor any of the other apostles, including the author of John)

#4: One cannot go to God directly but must go through a mediator.

Christ did teach this:

"I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

#5: Sometimes the mediator has a mediator, as in Jesus and Mary

Oh... did you mean by #4, that these were men as mediators (like priests, popes, specific religions, etc)? If that is the case, then no, He did not teach that we needed to go through any mediator other than Himself. Paul taught the same thing as Christ here:

For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ [Jesus]...

#6: The Holy Spirit and the Risen Christ serve VERY similar purposes in a believer's life.

Well, um, yeah, lol. If one understands that THE Holy Spirit IS Christ (the Holy One of Israel), then "they" would serve pretty similar purposes.

If one is referring to holy spirit that is God's breath, blood, seed (also the water of life that Christ gives which God has given to Him), then that holy spirit can remind us of what Christ has taught, as well as bear witness with our spirit when something is true.

Since I am not sure what all people say these similar purposes are, I don't really know how to respond to this point in any other way than the above.

#7: That the Law is impossible to keep, and is meant to show our need for a savior.

As far as I know He never said the law was impossible to keep - but the fact that no one ever kept it (perfectly) testifies to this itself.

The law is meant as a mirror to show Israel their own sins; rather than being meant as a pointing finger. Christ did corroborate this: "first remove the log in your own eye, so that you can then help your brother with the speck in his'. One cannot remove the log in one's own eye if one never looks in a mirror to see that it is there.

Also, Christ also said that the one who was without sin could cast the first stone... but there were no people without sin, hence no one could cast the stone.

The law was meant to show us our sins. Had the law also been understood correctly, it should also have helped people recognize Christ. Because life for life was meant that one GIVE life for life; not TAKE life for life. Which Christ did give His life for our lives.

#9: ONLY Christ can be considered righteous, no other Godly people.

Christ called the sheep from the sheep and the goats parable, righteous.

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

#10: If Jesus is God, then Mary is the "Mother of God". (does God have a "mother"?)
#11: That God allows himself to be killed, (temporarily) on the cross. (can God die?)

These both point to [jesus] being God, and Christ never taught that.

#13 That Jesus was perfect, not enough to be a righteous prophet. His imperfections are glossed over.

But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? "If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? "Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

He certainly did these things above that He said are required to be perfect as God is perfect.


I think you might be asking about flaws though, or perhaps things that He got wrong? Perhaps as a child while He was learning; but other than that I know of none.

#14 The 2nd coming...wasn't the Messiah supposed to set things right the FIRST time around?

Perhaps He would have... if the nation of people who should have recognized Him as their King did not instead reject Him, and hand Him over to be killed. Israel asked for a mediator between them and God, then also asked for a King... then rejected the mediator and King sent to them.


When He approached Jerusalem, He saw the city and wept over it, saying, "If you had known in this day, even you, the things which make for peace! But now they have been hidden from your eyes. 43"For the days will come upon you when your enemies will throw up a barricade against you, and surround you and hem you in on every side, and they will level you to the ground and your children within you, and they will not leave in you one stone upon another, because you did not recognize the time of your visitation."

And finally, if one rejects the complications of conventional Christianity, does one reject God?

If one rejects Christ, one rejects God. Conventional (or otherwise) Christianity does not equal Christ.



Peace to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[ttruscott]

Pauline, conventional Christianity is complicated.
Complications:

#1: That Jesus is all God, and all human.
#2: That God exists in three persons, but is still one God. 1+1+1= 1, not 3
#3: That in addition to simple repentance, blood must be spilled for God's forgiveness
#4: One cannot go to God directly but must go through a mediator.
#5: Sometimes the mediator has a mediator, as in Jesus and Mary
#6: The Holy Spirit and the Risen Christ serve VERY similar purposes in a believer's life.
#7: That the Law is impossible to keep, and is meant to show our need for a savior.
#8: The concept of original sin necessitates literal belief in Adam and Eve.
#9: ONLY Christ can be considered righteous, no other Godly people.
#10: If Jesus is God, then Mary is the "Mother of God". (does God have a "mother"?)
#11: That God allows himself to be killed, (temporarily) on the cross. (can God die?)
#12: That God's justice is satisfied by the death of a stand-in.
#13 That Jesus was perfect, not enough to be a righteous prophet. His imperfections are glossed over.
#14 The 2nd coming...wasn't the Messiah supposed to set things right the FIRST time around?

Questions for debate...did Jesus teach ANY of this? If so, please demonstrate.

And what other complications do you detect in conventional Christianity?

And finally, if one rejects the complications of conventional Christianity, does one reject God?

How do I begin to answer when this list is such a mish mash of pagan beliefs taught in the Church and biblical beliefs??? One by one or skip to

And finally, if one rejects the complications of conventional Christianity, does one reject God?

and reply, no of course not?

[bjs]

Pauline, conventional Christianity is complicated.

Life is complicated. We should not be surprised that the Author of life is complicated.

If we talk to a six-year-old then we will likely find that she has a simplistic view of God. Her prayers are simple; her faith is simple; her ideas about God are simple. This is because her thinking is still simple. She has not yet matured. If we want to stop there, with a faith that is acceptable to a six-year-old, then that’s all well and good.

But if we want to go deeper, and most people today do, then reality will likely prove to be more complicated. It is no good asking complex questions about God and then complaining that the answers we get are complex.

So yes, Christianity is complicated. Reality is complicated. If our view of God is simple then that strongly suggests that it is inaccurate, or at the very least incomplete.

[Elijah John]

Pauline, conventional Christianity is complicated.

Life is complicated. We should not be surprised that the Author of life is complicated.

If we talk to a six-year-old then we will likely find that she has a simplistic view of God. Her prayers are simple; her faith is simple; her ideas about God are simple. This is because her thinking is still simple. She has not yet matured. If we want to stop there, with a faith that is acceptable to a six-year-old, then that’s all well and good.

But if we want to go deeper, and most people today do, then reality will likely prove to be more complicated. It is no good asking complex questions about God and then complaining that the answers we get are complex.

So yes, Christianity is complicated. Reality is complicated. If our view of God is simple then that strongly suggests that it is inaccurate, or at the very least incomplete.

TRINITARIAN Christianity, (conventional) is complicated, Monotheistic Christianity is not.

The complicated questions arise because of the web of complications that conventional Christianity has woven for itself, unnecessarily. All because folks wanted to worship Jesus as God, and still uphold the claim of monotheism.

Also, regarding children, didn't Jesus himself suggest we had to be child-like to enter the Kingdom of Heaven?

[Divine Insight]

The complicated questions arise because of the web of complications that conventional Christianity has woven for itself, unnecessarily. All because folks wanted to worship Jesus as God, and still uphold the claim of monotheism.

Why do you say this?

Neither the original Judaism nor Islam demand a trinity or that Jesus was God. Yet they are both riddled with extreme webs of complications of their own. In fact, when it comes to Christianity I often ask why we even bother with debating the New Testament when it should be quite easy to see that the God of the Old Testament could never exist to start with. Why bother debating about the demigod Son of a mythological God who never even made any sense to start with?

I'm ready to toss out the Old Testament in the first chapter of Genesis, and it only goes downhill from there. It doesn't get any better, it only continues to get far worse. Far more self-contradictory and absurd.

Take the story of Adam and Eve:

The Story of Adam and Eve with no Scientific Considerations

Without even bringing any scientific knowledge into the picture we can easily dismiss the story of Adam and Eve on several contradictory points just related to what is being told within the story.

First off, before Adam and Eve ate the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, they couldn't have had knowledge of good and evil. For this reason alone there would be no reason for Eve to suspect that she was being lied to by an evil serpent. She couldn't have a clue about lying or she would already have a knowledge of good and evil. Nor could she have a clue about the idea that someone would be trying to beguile her which is also an evil act.

So Eve's so-called "Fall from Grace" would necessarily need to have been a total act of innocence. She couldn't be held guilty or responsible in that situation at all. Therefore this story makes no sense at all, even without bringing any external information into consideration. The story itself is already logically flawed and self-contradictory.

And this kind of self-contradictory nature of the story doesn't end there. It only gets far worse the more we consider it.

What does Eve do when God questions her? She confesses to everything, just like any decent innocent girl would. She totally bears witness against the evil serpent and openly testifies that he had beguiled her. She was a victim and she explains this to God. And she's clearly telling the truth because the story demands that she was innocent before she had been beguiled. She had no knowledge of good and evil before having been beguiled. So it's impossible for her to have been guilty.

What does this God do? Does he accept Eve's confession and repentance and forgive her of a mistake that she clearly had been properly prepared for? No. Instead this fable has this God going off on a temper tantrum cursing her with pain and sorrow in childbirth for the rest of her days. Isn't that a bit of overkill for an innocent girl who had been beguiled by an evil serpent?

More importantly what good did that curse serve? What problems did it solve, or what productive results did it have? According to the Bible it neither solved anything or was productive in any way. Things only continued to get far worse as the Bible moves forward. So this means that God's curses are futile and ineffective and serve no good purpose. That doesn't say much for this God's supposed infinite wisdom.

The same thing could be said for God's curse on the serpent. God curses the evil serpent (which according to the Christian Book of Revelation was Satan himself) to crawl on his belly and eat dirt for the rest of his days. Again, what positive or productive effect did that curse have? Evidently it didn't solve anything, the Evil Satan continued to beguile mankind all the way through the Bible after that.

In short, the very story of the "Fall from Grace" is already in deep trouble just on its own self-contained claims. No need to even go outside of the Bible to see that the story is self-contradictory.

And this kind of self-contradiction just continues on with all the stories in the Bible. Just about every story in the Bible contains its own self-contradictions like this.

In short, this religion is extremely complicated and self-contradictory long before the New Testament or Jesus ever came about. The Old Testament is already impossible to justify or defend as written.

The Story of Adam and Eve with Scientific Considerations

Moreover, if we look at the story of Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden armed with modern day scientific knowledge of the world in which we live we can clearly see that it is necessarily a false story.

The story of Adam and Eve and "The Fall from Grace" is paramount to this religion. It tries to pin the blame for all the evils of the world on humans. But we now know that death, disease, natural disasters, and animals eating each other has always been the natural condition of the world, long before humans ever showed up on the scene.

Therefore we have sound scientific evidence that these fables have absolutely no grounds for trying to pin the blame for the "evil" in the world onto humans.

So just as we now know there are no Greek Gods living on Mt. Olympus, we also know that the Hebrew mythology of a God who cursed humans for having fallen from grace is just as false.

There is no basis for the Abrahamic religions, or the Bible. Attempting to dethrone Jesus from his Christian position as the Son of God for the purpose of giving this religion some sort of clarity or sense by claiming if it were only monotheistic it would suddenly make perfect sense is totally futile.

This religion was absurd from the very first chapters of Genesis. Even keeping it as a monotheistic God isn't going to help it.

Tying to salvage monotheism in Christianity by rejecting that Jesus was the Son of God isn't going to help anything. The religion would still be just as self-contradictory as ever. This religion was unsalvageable from the very first book of Genesis, and it never got any better as it grew. It's riddled with extreme self-conditions all the way through. Trying to claim that it only needs to be kept monotheistic and that will fix everything all up and make all problems go away is simply not true. The Trinity of Christianity is merely one of countless self-contradictions that have always plagued this religion from day one.

In fact, this religion is so riddled with self-contradictions that people become so used to them that they don't even think of them as contradictions anymore. They just figure that this God works in "mysterious ways". Because that's the standard apologetic excuse for indefensible self-contradictions. It's just been accepted that this God can do self-contradictory things and he must have his reasons. Instead of recognizing this as a problem or an indication that the religion might just be a myth, people have grown to accept that when things appear to be self-contradictory just chalk it up to God working in mysterious ways, or that we just can't comprehend God's infinite intelligence. Or whatever. Anything to avoid the conclusion that it might be a myth. Because that would be blaspheme against the Holy Word of God and potentially result in eternal damnation. So it's best to just accept it no matter how self-contradictory it is.

This is why Christians have no problems with the self-contradictions in the religion. Just accept Christ as your savior and don't ask too many questions. And especially don't be thinking that the religion might have no more merit than Greek Mythology, that will get you damned for certain.

[Elijah John]

Peace to you EJ.

#4: One cannot go to God directly but must go through a mediator.

Christ did teach this:

"I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

#6: The Holy Spirit and the Risen Christ serve VERY similar purposes in a believer's life.

Well, um, yeah, lol. If one understands that THE Holy Spirit IS Christ (the Holy One of Israel), then "they" would serve pretty similar purposes.

If one is referring to holy spirit that is God's breath, blood, seed (also the water of life that Christ gives which God has given to Him), then that holy spirit can remind us of what Christ has taught, as well as bear witness with our spirit when something is true.

Since I am not sure what all people say these similar purposes are, I don't really know how to respond to this point in any other way than the above.

#7: That the Law is impossible to keep, and is meant to show our need for a savior.

As far as I know He never said the law was impossible to keep - but the fact that no one ever kept it (perfectly) testifies to this itself.

The law is meant as a mirror to show Israel their own sins; rather than being meant as a pointing finger. Christ did corroborate this: "first remove the log in your own eye, so that you can then help your brother with the speck in his'. One cannot remove the log in one's own eye if one never looks in a mirror to see that it is there.

Also, Christ also said that the one who was without sin could cast the first stone... but there were no people without sin, hence no one could cast the stone.

The law was meant to show us our sins. Had the law also been understood correctly, it should also have helped people recognize Christ. Because life for life was meant that one GIVE life for life; not TAKE life for life. Which Christ did give His life for our lives.

And finally, if one rejects the complications of conventional Christianity, does one reject God?

If one rejects Christ, one rejects God. Conventional (or otherwise) Christianity does not equal Christ.

Peace to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

And to you, Tammy.

Seems we agree on much, but to address where we disagree:

The role of the Holy Spirit vs the role of the Risen Christ. Complicated and confusing, it seems ot me. When one repents and converts, which one should a person invite into their heart?

If they are the same, then why the theological distinction? Which one empowers, which one sanctifies?

On point # 4, you cite John 14.6. That is John's interpretation, In Matthew, Jesus teaches DIRECT access to God in the Lord's prayer. And in Matthew, he teaches us to pray (hallow) in YHVH's name, in John, Jesus instructs us to pray in his own name. Why the difference?

-Also, to be fair to Paul, he did not teach that Jesus was entirely God and entirely human, nor did he teach the trinity, per se. Good point, I agree.

-Regarding Jesus imperfection, the Bible records evidence of this. Going to John for the baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sin, for starters.

Regarding the whole "be perfect" thing, it is clear from context that Jesus was teaching his disciples to hold higher standards, God's standards, and not conventional human standards. I don't think he was challenging them to be AS perfect as God, but to strive for, and embrace His standards.

And the Law, meant to "show us our sins"? It has that effect, but the reason it was given was to define what God expects from His people. The Law is an expression of the will of God. Not just prosecutorial, to point out our sinfulness and need for a savior. PAUL may have thought the law was mainly prosecutorial, but Moses did not, nor does it seem, did Jesus.

Also, you are right, Jesus considers some righteous, Paul doesn't. Pauline theology literalizes Isaiah and the Psalmist statements that there are "none righteous, no not one"

Prophetic hyperbole should not be confused with categorical statements of fact.

I don't agree with your concluding sentence that one rejects God if one rejects Christ. Judaism "rejects Christ" but it does not reject God. That is just one example.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 7 by Divine Insight]

Islam and Judaism have avoided hero worship, Muslims do not worship Mohammed, and Jews do not worship Moses.

Some (eventually dominant) Christians did, however, feel the need or the desire to worship Jesus...and that started the chain of complications that are enumerated in the OP.

Just as one lie often leads to others, one absudity necessitates others, as in Jesus, a man, is God, how can that be?

Well, we have to come up with the theory of his dual nature.

And if Jesus is God, and the Father is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, how can we still be Monotheists in the Judaic tradition?

Thus is born the complication of the doctrine of the Trinity.

You seem to be shifting away from the complications of conventional Christianity and pointing to your perception of complication regarding ALL Abrahamic religion. Going beyond the OP, just a bit.

Let me just say that I agree there are mythic elements in the OT/Hebrew Bible. But the overall theology of Judaism is VERY simple, especially compared to the complexities of conventional, Trinitarian Christianity. Islam too, is VERY simple by comparison.

[Divine Insight]

Islam and Judaism have avoided hero worship, Muslims do not worship Mohammed, and Jews do not worship Moses.

So are you saying that you personally favor Judaism and Islam over Christianity?

Are you asking Christians to convert to Judaism or Islam?

Just as one lie often leads to others, one absudity necessitates others, as in Jesus, a man, is God, how can that be?

This is the foundation basis of Christianity. The Christian New Testament (the only rumors we have about Jesus) proclaim clearly that Jesus was born of a virgin woman who had been impregnated by God. This is the basis of the whole theology.

It also has God himself magically speaking from the clouds to verify that Jesus is indeed his special Son.

It proclaims that Jesus had the power to cast out demons, heal the sick, and even raise the dead. What mortal man could do any of that?

It proclaims that Jesus was resurrected after his crucifixion. It further proclaims that Jesus ascended to heaven and now sits at the right-hand of God and is the sole judge of humanity. It states clearly that the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:

All you are basically doing is totally rejecting Christianity in favor of either Judaism or Islam. Why should any Christian even remotely care about your suggestions? All you are basically doing is proclaiming that the Christian New Testament is nothing but a pack of lies.

Are you asking Christians to convert to Islam or Judaism?

Sure as heck sounds like it.

In fact, Judaism doesn't even view Jesus as a prophet do they? So if you want to keep Jesus as a prophet Islam is the only way to go.