My Conversion Story 1-3
-
http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=McMnyYhC7YE
-
Another great video from Teddy. bravo
I would be glad to have discussion here on Free-Minds of the history of "Christian" doctrine. I believe it would be helpful to other believers who feel as we have felt about current mainstream Christianity, that it is internally incoherent (e.g., the Trinitarian doctrine) and externally incoherent (inconsonant with the prior teaching that was refreshed even by the ministry of Jesus).
Were you also disillusioned on recognizing that the institutions we call churches, to which so many look for the Truth, still suppress so much of the Truth -- about their own histories and development of their doctrines, as well as about the existence of this additional book of scriptures sent for all of us? Indeed, for those institutions to make known these truths would be to overthrow themselves; but then, they purport to be about guiding people to the Truth. And that is even more absurdity about their existence and influence. If people knew!
The Quran by its own terms invites us to examine, contemplate, question our beliefs. The Truth stands up to any examination from open minds and hearts. -
http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=McMnyYhC7YE
Hi Teddy3indc, just a few questions for you
- At 620, of part 1, you mention how the "history behind the doctrine" convinced you that something was wrong. When you heard this from your college professors, did you perchance consult any Christian theologians or doctors to see what they have to say about this issue? Did you perhaps read any systemtaic theologies? It sounds like you talked to some "priests and pastors" and you mostly were reading "Christian" fictional works.
As a note A "priest or a pastor" is not a theologian or even a doctor, it is unfortunate that they did not recommend you to some literature that could have given you the other side of the coin. There are many free online resources that can shed light on what Christians believe and why they believe it, none of them however would tell you that Constantine or "history" were the cause. A Christian would tell you that the Bible, which is the word of God, teaches the doctrines which they believe, so one would have to deal with the biblical text in order to understand their position. At the very minimum one should seek to accurately represent the side with which they diasgree; therefore, why not deal with the biblical texts which Christians use to support their doctrines? Instead of ascribing it to some "tradition" as if there is no foundation for their beliefs in their own scriptures.
-
You said that out of all the "Christian" beliefs the one that won the day was "the one that was most politically correct at the time of Constantine and Paul", now I am not sure what to make of this, for Constantine and Paul lived ~300 years apart and Christians were a persecuted minority for most of that time. So how then can the doctrine that came from Paul have been "politically correct" if it resulted in massive persecution? And what did Constantine have to do with formulating doctrines which came centuries before him?
-
You also say "your (Christian) doctrine was formed by history", which doctrine did you have in mind? And by "history" do you mean these same doctrines are not biblical?
Thanks
-
Hi Teddy3indc, just a few questions for you
- At 620, of part 1, you mention how the "history behind the doctrine" convinced you that something was wrong. When you heard this from your college professors, did you perchance consult any Christian theologians or doctors to see what they have to say about this issue? Did you perhaps read any systemtaic theologies? It sounds like you talked to some "priests and pastors" and you mostly were reading "Christian" fictional works.
As a note A "priest or a pastor" is not a theologian or even a doctor, it is unfortunate that they did not recommend you to some literature that could have given you the other side of the coin. There are many free online resources that can shed light on what Christians believe and why they believe it, none of them however would tell you that Constantine or "history" were the cause. A Christian would tell you that the Bible, which is the word of God, teaches the doctrines which they believe, so one would have to deal with the biblical text in order to understand their position. At the very minimum one should seek to accurately represent the side with which they diasgree; therefore, why not deal with the biblical texts which Christians use to support their doctrines? Instead of ascribing it to some "tradition" as if there is no foundation for their beliefs in their own scriptures.
-
You said that out of all the "Christian" beliefs the one that won the day was "the one that was most politically correct at the time of Constantine and Paul", now I am not sure what to make of this, for Constantine and Paul lived ~300 years apart and Christians were a persecuted minority for most of that time. So how then can the doctrine that came from Paul have been "politically correct" if it resulted in massive persecution? And what did Constantine have to do with formulating doctrines which came centuries before him?
-
You also say "your (Christian) doctrine was formed by history", which doctrine did you have in mind? And by "history" do you mean these same doctrines are not biblical?
Thanks
Unless My Sunni Brothers Show me a Verse From Quran Forbidding obeying Jesus's Bible, we're doom.
-
http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYs9Dn_DezM
-
I read far more information then I let on, as well as was raised in the tradition and doctrine. I talked to a number of persons, and yet I still disagreed.
-
Corrected that statement in the vid. simple verbal mistake and a lack of a word.
-
And Doctrines are formed by history. I do mean that the doctrines are not biblical, as they are changed and adobted over time. For instance, the Catholic church has a doctrine and that has been revised a multitude of times.
Doctrine (Latin doctrina) is a codification of beliefs or a body of teachings or instructions, taught principles or positions, as the body of teachings in a branch of knowledge or belief system. The Greek analogy is the etymology of catechism. Often doctrine specifically connotes a corpus of religious dogma as it is promulgated by a church, but not necessarily doctrine is also used to refer to a principle of law, in the common law traditions, established through a history of past decisions, such as the doctrine of self-defense, or the principle of fair use, or the more narrowly applicable first-sale doctrine. In some organizations, doctrine is simply defined as "that which is taught", in other words the basis for institutional teaching of its personnel internal ways of doing business.
-
-
Hoppean, speaking from my own learning and conclusions, the scattered early Christians had numerous texts in general use besides those that would be selected by Church authorities for inclusion in the few variations of the New Testament. Since the campaign of Paul, the principal controversy among early Christians was the issue of the divinity of Jesus. The divinity of Jesus was an innovation of Paul, and it was not his only troublesome innovation. Some texts in common use and more primary than Paul's writings were rejected from canon scriptures or were included only in part, altered to fit with evolving Church doctrine. People would be martyred and massacred for deviations in their scriptures or beliefs. The first and following councils that formulated and revised the Nicene creed had the effects -- and, one can fairly surmise, presumably the objectives too -- of homogenizing majority (pagan) and growing minority (Christian) beliefs, to suppress competition among them; and of settling differences in doctrine with all the force of government, thereby consolidating their power and furthering their social control. For ages to come, it was that one institution ("The Church" that would be the real government in much of the world, lending legitimacy and authority to compliant regional monarchies. To make the long story short and simple, the Roman Empire continued renamed as the Holy Roman Empire.
Peace to all. peace -
- Corrected that statement in the vid. simple verbal mistake and a lack of a word.
Okay, let me repeat the other part of my question 2) You said that out of all the "Christian" beliefs the one that won the day was "the one that was most politically correct at the time of Constantine and Paul", so which of these beliefs were the "politically correct" ones? Could you please be more specific?
- And Doctrines are formed by history. I do mean that the doctrines are not biblical, as they are changed and adobted over time. For instance, the Catholic church has a doctrine and that has been revised a multitude of times.
You mentioned in your latter video, "The Eucharist/The Lord's Supper" being pagan. Is this one of the doctrines that is NOT biblical? In light of this, maybe you can explain 5112-115?
I guess I am looking for more details about which doctrines are unbiblical, pagan, or have been adopted for political convenience, thanks.
-
Hoppean, speaking from my own learning and conclusions, the scattered early Christians had numerous texts in general use besides those that would be selected by Church authorities for inclusion in the few variations of the New Testament.
Which "Church Authorities"? The canon of the bible was not offcially closed, until the 16-17th century, in almost all western and eastern churches. As well, do you have evidence that these "early Christians" rejected the New testament as it currently exists? If not, then I do not understand the point you are attempting to make.
Since the campaign of Paul, the principal controversy among early Christians was the issue of the divinity of Jesus.
That does not seem to be represented in the new testament, the concern seems to be with Judaizers and gnostic teachings. Unless by "early Christians" you mean the 4th century controversies? Btw, the Arians did not deny the divinity of Christ.
The divinity of Jesus was an innovation of Paul, and it was not his only troublesome innovation.
Did Paul write John 1, Hebrews 1 etc? Can you explain the meaning of these passages, or will you appeal to unsubstantiated "corruption"?
Some texts in common use and more primary than Paul's writings were rejected from canon scriptures or were included only in part, altered to fit with evolving Church doctrine.
Which texts might these be? Do you have any examples? Do you have any manuscript or historical evidence of "alteration" or "disinclusion"?
People would be martyred and massacred for deviations in their scriptures or beliefs.
I didn't know that, any examples?
The first and following councils that formulated and revised the Nicene creed had the effects -- and, one can fairly surmise, presumably the objectives too -- of homogenizing majority (pagan) and growing minority (Christian) beliefs,....
Which were the pagan beliefs and which were the Christian ones? How were you able to discern between the two, in order to make this claim?
For ages to come, it was that one institution ("The Church" that would be the real government in much of the world, lending legitimacy and authority to compliant regional monarchies. To make the long story short and simple, the Roman Empire continued renamed as the Holy Roman Empire.
Peace to all.True
I fear your post is long on rhetoric and short on substance. You've made several claims, yet have not felt the need to substantiate any of them.
-
Which "Church Authorities"?
The ones who effectively outlawed reference to other scripture and presumed to curse the souls of other human beings who would look any further than Church authority and (then current) canon (Bible) scripture for Truth.
As well, do you have evidence that these "early Christians" rejected the New testament as it currently exists?
Your question does not make sense to me. Those early(-iest) Christians did not have the single volume collections that are the latest New Testaments.
That does not seem to be represented in the new testament, the concern seems to be with Judaizers and gnostic teachings
That does not seem to be represented in the new testament
It is patent in the selection (and rejection) of texts for inclusion (or not) in the New Testament; and surely you see a big in-your-face clue when you read that curse, stated in every Bible, as to scriptures deviation.
the concern seems to be with Judaizers and gnostic teachings
What very telling irony in those other concerns, as the teachings and practices of Jesus could not have been any more Judaic! That the pagan melting-pot in the works for the future of "Christianity" would have to be guarded against influence from these groups and their texts! That this institution claiming to carry on his ministry during his absence would preach and practice that long campaign of hate that would culminate in the Holocaust!
Btw, the Arians did not deny the divinity of Christ.
Some persons who were declared heretics did and some did not. The practical consequences for their deviations in belief were persecution and murder.
Which texts might these be? Do you have any examples? Do you have any manuscript or historical evidence of "alteration" or "disinclusion"?
Many writings that were in common use by early Christians are available published in modern language translations. Some not now available to the public, but which certainly have been in the Vatican library, were discussed in particularity in letters and other papers by Catholic Church personnel; there are many such references and discussions in scholarly literature reviews. There are recorded accounts of Jesus in his childhood (including accounts of miraculous signs of his prophethood, some of which, according to other, older text also excluded from Bible canon, had been signs given with another Biblical person before him). There are preserved written teachings of Jesus recorded while he visited and taught in other locales. Further, besides the fact that some New Testament passages were only edited versions of (fuller) writings available to and used by early Christian groups, some Old Testament and New Testament passages have been altered over time since having been made canon (Bible) scripture.
Which were the pagan beliefs and which were the Christian ones? How were you able to discern between the two, in order to make this claim?
Christian beliefs would be those accordant with the teachings of Jesus.
It is simple enough to recognize pagan beliefs and practices. There is the Creator, and then all other is only created.Did Paul write John 1, Hebrews 1 etc? Can you explain the meaning of these passages, or will you appeal to unsubstantiated "corruption"?
Your hostility is showing.
I fear your post is long on rhetoric and short on substance. You've made several claims, yet have not felt the need to substantiate any of them.
My post was concise. I used four hours of my precious little waking time to type that prior post with which you have tried to make so much argument. So far I have used over twelve hours to type this one. I have neither the time nor inclination to "fetch sticks" for you by reciting in type to you my studies which have compelled my stated conclusions.
Hoppean, if you should truly wonder and wish to learn about these matters, may God guide your learning.
Peace to all. peace
-
Salam Teddy3indc,
I pray that God guides you to truth, happiness and success.
Peace be on you
----------------------------- Student of Allah