A Christian Explains What a True Christian Really Is....

[POI]

Quote "Christians are under Christ... and the law of the new covenant - the law that is written upon the heart - is love."

Is this true? Is this what all Christians think? Seems there exists two types of Christians, in general, maybe more (i.e.):

1) Covenant based theology
2) Dispensationalism

Right there, we have two types. Which means the quoted assertion is already false, in the sense that many Christians subscribe to a differing kind of theology. Enough so to produce another category.

For Debate:

Christians, between these two options, which one IS the right one, and how do you know? Or maybe you subscribe to a differing option altogether, and would like to explain why your view is the RIGHT one?

Let the games begin.....

[Avoice]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #8]

Paul admitted to lying. How can anyone believe anything he says.

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #4]
Not Christian at all.

Well, then as a casual observer, you too may learn what a true Christian really is. Or, maybe not. We shall see.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to POI in post #1]

Christ came to bring the king of God to earth, as he said he did. he set up his living church, the kingdom of God on earth. I follow that church. For me, it is that simple.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #8]

Paul admitted to lying. How can anyone believe anything he says.

Then if he cannot be trusted, then nothing in the gospels can be trusted, as the views of the gospels are Christian, not Jewish (e.g the identification of messiahship with divinity and the Blasphemy charge) and views and even quotes can be traced back to Paul, and you will know that I Cor. is supposed tosupport the resurrection claim, so if that is a lie, the resurrection -claim is half debunked.

For myself, I prefer not to be so sweeping as that (I don't know whether you are arguing for the Bible or against it, and it doesn't matter), as I do credit at least the early epistles as his own work, but you have to read between the lines. He says he got his 'gospel' from a divine source nit from men. But he must have heard about Jesus and the crucifixion from men, and his argument in Romans is explained in logical and evidential terms (fiddled, but as you say, he is a liar) and not 'Jesusgod told me this over tea and buns in the Third heaven'. This is all his own work and while he may say that he will lie at need (in order to persuade, I think is the passage you had in mind) he is serious in the message and gospel he wants to put over.

For example I am going to credit that he fled Damascus in 36/7 AD but I do not credit for a second that Aretas cared tuppence about capturing Paul. I also credit that he had talks with Peter and James, but we only get Paul's side of it.

Just as we have to Interpret the Ramessid inscriptions about their victories,we have to Interpret the Biblical writing which are equally propagandist. I urge caution rather than accepting it all as claimed or dismissed entirely as 'Lies'. That is what I try to do as a rationalist atheist, even though the Bible - defendors are not slow to accuse me and my Ilk of being biased.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to POI in post #1]

Christ came to bring the king of God to earth, as he said he did. he set up his living church, the kingdom of God on earth. I follow that church. For me, it is that simple.

No, that is merely catholic propaganda. The doctrine surely is that God arranged for Jesus (as God Himself) to be a sacrifice for sin, so that all who accepted Jesus could be saved, and if you believe and accept that, you are a Christian in my book, anyway. I do not believe for a second that Rome ever had dibs on Christianity as a whole, an 'That Church' is not by any means the only valid one, nor only those who follow it the 'True' Christians, not that I accuse you of claiming that. I just accuse you of twisting the Gospel message to peddle the authority of the Vatican, when all decent people should be working to bring that corrupt and dishonest institution to an end, other than as a tourist attraction in the 'Forbidden city' of the Vatican. For me, as a personal view, anyone who follows that church as the only legitimate Christian one (following it for preference is ok) has lost sight of the Gospel and has opted to follow a worldly authority instead.