Who Represents Christianty?

[Divine Insight]

Isn't the Church of Christianity supposed to represent Jesus?

Didn't Jesus hang around with sinners proclaiming that sinners are the ones who need salvation the most?

If so, then shouldn't "Christian Churches" embrace sinners and invite them openly into their congregations?

Question for debate: Why do so many Christian Churches renounce sinners and refuse to allow them to be part of their Church of Christ?

Shouldn't they be welcoming sinners above all others as Jesus did?

[1213]

That's blaspheme for a man to claim to be God.

Jesus didnt claim to be God. He told in many ways that he is not the one true God. But people dont want to hear him.

This is eternal life, that they should know you, the only true God, and him whom you sent, Jesus Christ.
John 17:3

You heard how I told you, 'I go away, and I come to you.' If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I said 'I am going to my Father;' for the Father is greater than I.
John 14:28

For I spoke not from myself, but the Father who sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. I know that his commandment is eternal life. The things therefore which I speak, even as the Father has said to me, so I speak."
John 12:49-50

I could also claim to be one with Jesus as the Bible tells disciples of Jesus should be.

that they may all be one; even as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that you sent me.
John 17:21

It does not mean that I am Jesus. It means I have same understanding or mind in that sense that we want same things, or teach same things.

My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.
John 10:27

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 31 by 1213]

Too bad you were Jesus' lawyer, you might have been able to have him acquitted by the High priests.

As it is they believed him to be guilty of Blaspheme:

Matthew 26:
[63] But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.
[64] Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
[65] Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy.
[66] What think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of death.

It doesn't really matter whether Jesus had actually committed blaspheme. All that matters is that the Jewish High Priests believed that he had. And clearly this is what they believed.

If you think you could have gotten him acquitted had you been his lawyer more power to you. But unfortunately for you, you were not in these stories.

Also the scriptures you quote hadn't even been written at the time of Jesus' trial. It would have been up to Jesus to make a case for his own innocence. Why would he have been unable to do that if it were truth? Didn't Jesus himself preach that the truth will set you free?

If Jesus wasn't claiming to be God, or the divinely ordained son of God, then why didn't he simply argue his case? And if he was claiming to be divine, in any way, then he was indeed committing blaspheme, even if the words he spoke were true. It would still be blaspheme in the eyes of the Priests, and they would be justified in killing him for blaspheme as per the laws of God.

So these priests weren't doing anything other then obeying the laws of God. And God certainly can't blame them for having obeyed his commandments.

By the way, you are actually arguing that Jesus was not God. That seems strange coming from someone who is arguing for Christianity.

[1213]

[Replying to post 31 by 1213]

Too bad you were Jesus' lawyer, you might have been able to have him acquitted by the High priests.

I dont think so. It seems to me that they had decided that Jesus must die, before he comes too great and they lose their power. Nothing that would have been said would have made any difference, because it was about their position.

Now the chief priests and the whole council sought witnesses against Jesus to put him to death, and found none. For many gave false testimony against him, and their testimony didn't agree with each other.
Mark 14:55-56

The chief priests and the scribes heard it, and sought how they might destroy him. For they feared him, because all the multitude was astonished at his teaching.
Mark 11:18

And by false accusations they violated this:

"You shall not spread a false report. Don't join your hand with the wicked to be a malicious witness. You shall not follow a crowd to do evil; neither shall you testify in court to side with a multitude to pervert justice; neither shall you favor a poor man in his cause.
Exodus 23:1-3

And interesting thing is what should have been done to those false witnesses.

and the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, if the witness is a false witness, and has testified falsely against his brother; then shall you do to him, as he had thought to do to his brother: so shall you put away the evil from the midst of you.
Deut. 19:18-19

[Divine Insight]

And interesting thing is what should have been done to those false witnesses.

and the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, if the witness is a false witness, and has testified falsely against his brother; then shall you do to him, as he had thought to do to his brother: so shall you put away the evil from the midst of you.
Deut. 19:18-19

But that would violate the teachings of Jesus. Jesus rebuked that Old Testament laws when he said to turn the other cheek and to not resist evil.

Jesus was totally against putting evil aware from the midst of you.

Matt 5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

There's blaspheme against the word of God right there before your very eyes. Thus confirming that the Jewish Priests were right in their judgement of Jesus to be a heathen blasphemer.

They are vindicated by words attributed to Jesus himself. Jesus clearly blasphemed against the teaching of the OT that evil should be put away from our midst, instead Jesus teaches that we should not resist evil but simply turn the other cheek.

So there you go. Jesus was guilty as charged based on these Gospel rumors themselves. The Gospels confirm the blaspheme of Jesus.

[1213]

Matt 5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

I think you dont understand what Jesus told. The whole teachings of Jesus are putting evil aside, because they are turning people better. The point is that people should not turn to evil, when they try to put evil aside, because then the evil has already win. Evil should be won by good, not by evil.

Don't be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
Romans 12:21

For this is the will of God, that by well-doing you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish men:
1 Peter 2:15

Jesus was very much against evil, because he wanted that people repent. However when people are against evil, they should not answer evil by evil. And so I think Jesus agrees really with the OT. He just corrects the misunderstanding, which gave excuse to be evil.

[Divine Insight]

Jesus was very much against evil, because he wanted that people repent. However when people are against evil, they should not answer evil by evil. And so I think Jesus agrees really with the OT. He just corrects the misunderstanding, which gave excuse to be evil.

To begin with, there is no misunderstanding. The OT is filled with reasons why we should stone people to death. It's not like this was some vague isolated or misunderstood directive.

In fact, according to the New Testament Gospels the Jews were indeed obeying this very commandment to stone people. They must have been doing this quite often if Jesus just happened to come by a mob preparing to stone a woman to death for adulterer. Where do you think they got the idea to do that?

And secondly, there's no excuse for the original directives and commandments of an omniscient omnipotent God to have every been misunderstood. For that to happen could only be because the God himself was not clear originally, or because this God has allowed his very own "Holy Texts" to become corrupt.

Moreover, if either of those two things were true and Jesus was HONEST then Jesus himself would have explained that. But according to the Gospels that's not what Jesus did. On the contrary Jesus supposedly proclaimed that not one jot nor one tittle shall pass from law till heaven and earth pass.

Well, the only jots and tittles that existed at that time where the jots and tittles of the Old Testament. But why would Jesus be supporting those jots and tittles if they had already been misunderstood or corrupted?

None of these apologetics excuses can make this religion work.

In order for your apologetic excuse to hold, Jesus himself would have had to have stated something alone those very lines. Jesus would have had to proclaim that he came to clarify things precisely because the old "jots and tittles" no longer correctly conveyed or described God's desires.

But that is not the Biblical fairytale. So that apology fails.

You can't prop up a failed mythology by pretending that it had made claims that it never made.

Jesus never indicated that he came to clear up misunderstanding because the Old Scriptures had become corrupt or were being grossly misunderstood. In fact, had he actually claimed that he would have been stoned to death on the spot for blaspheme. Because those scriptures themselves demand that they are eternal and cannot be broken.

In fact, think about it, you apology for Christianity basically demands that the scripture had been "broken" and that Jesus was needed to "fix them up". But that doesn't fit with the overall fairytale.

So it's a failed apology.

[1213]

To begin with, there is no misunderstanding. The OT is filled with reasons why we should stone people to death. It's not like this was some vague isolated or misunderstood directive.

In fact, according to the New Testament Gospels the Jews were indeed obeying this very commandment to stone people. They must have been doing this quite often if Jesus just happened to come by a mob preparing to stone a woman to death for adulterer. Where do you think they got the idea to do that?

Ok, why they didnt do it, if they had right for that and it was something that they must do?

And secondly, there's no excuse for the original directives and commandments of an omniscient omnipotent God to have every been misunderstood. For that to happen could only be because the God himself was not clear originally, or because this God has allowed his very own "Holy Texts" to become corrupt.

In my opinion the scriptures are clear and good. The problem is that people dont want to understand. And if person dont want to understand, it does not really matter what is said, because that person makes all possible excuses to not believe.

[Zzyzx]

.

To begin with, there is no misunderstanding. The OT is filled with reasons why we should stone people to death. It's not like this was some vague isolated or misunderstood directive.

In fact, according to the New Testament Gospels the Jews were indeed obeying this very commandment to stone people. They must have been doing this quite often if Jesus just happened to come by a mob preparing to stone a woman to death for adulterer. Where do you think they got the idea to do that?

Ok, why they didnt do it,

Who knows why characters in a story did or did not do something? A snake doesn't strike every time either " so what?

if they had right for that

What kind of irrational system (religious or secular) would give people a right to kill others for disobedience, adultery, collecting firewood on the sabbath, or any other such silly prohibitions and punishments?

and it was something that they must do?

If they "must do" the stoning and they did not, they are obviously sinners who disobey their priests and supposed "gods."

And secondly, there's no excuse for the original directives and commandments of an omniscient omnipotent God to have every been misunderstood. For that to happen could only be because the God himself was not clear originally, or because this God has allowed his very own "Holy Texts" to become corrupt.

In my opinion the scriptures are clear and good.

Christian scholars and theologians disagree with you " but what do they know?

The problem is that people dont want to understand.

Right. Those scholars and theologians just don't want to understand.

And if person dont want to understand, it does not really matter what is said, because that person makes all possible excuses to not believe.

Many people (here in these debates and elsewhere) make all manner of excuses TO BELIEVE incredible tales, perhaps because they want and need to believe what they have been told without questioning / investigating / challenging the truth and accuracy of the indoctrination / teachings they have received.

[OnceConvinced]

. The problem is that people dont want to understand.

Why do you believe this? Is it because they disagree with you?

And if person dont want to understand, it does not really matter what is said, because that person makes all possible excuses to not believe.

I think it's very presumptuous to accuse people of not wanting to understand and "making excuses". Do you really feel you are in a position to judge? You have to be able to get into their head and understand the way they think. In my experience, when Christians say "you don't understand" to me, it's not a matter of misunderstanding. It's a matter of me holding a different perspective to them. It's a matter of holding an opposing point of view that clashes with the point of view given by the Christian.

For me to agree with your point of view, my point of view must first be shown to be wrong and then you must convince me that your point of view is right. None of this BS about not understanding. It is possible to understand something and still reject it.

[1213]

. The problem is that people dont want to understand.

Why do you believe this? Is it because they disagree with you?

Person, who understands, can disagree with me, but if he understands, he disagrees with reasonable reasons and makes arguments that show he has understood.

It is possible to understand something and still reject it.

Yes. And if so, the person shows that he has understood by making arguments that show he has understood.