Converting Jews to Christianity

[brutally honest]

I don't think "how dare" is as accurate as "why try".

"How dare" is the vibe I got. My spidey sense is rarely wrong.

 

[oldfella1962]

Unorthodox Christian.

The understatement of the year right there! You have a "higher level" understanding and way of looking at things that I have never heard before. I probably spend a disproportionate & unhealthy amount of time watching apologetics get their behinds handed to them (it's like watching a train wreck - you just can't look away) and I've heard their outdated cringy arguments so often I can see them coming a mile away. Those apologists are pretty much interchangeable too, not just their arguments and sheer dishonesty and broad brushing of atheists is pathetic. Bottom line, you know your stuff and then some! You and bullethead are giving me an education and stimulating my limited "cave man" brain that's for sure!

 

[bullethead]

Peter convinced 3,000 Jews on Day 1.

Mm hmmm

 

[oldfella1962]

Peter convinced 3,000 Jews on Day 1.

Not saying it's impossible, but that number certainly sounds inflated.

 

[bullethead]

"How dare" is the vibe I got. My spidey sense is rarely wrong.

Interpretation is a major stickler on all sides.

 

[bullethead]

I don't think we have any way of knowing. Or even the truth in details of the story we have. I suspect the story was handed down many, many generations before it was even written. The early stories have errors too leading me to the conclusion that mankind has affected so much..... meaning, I struggling with calling every word inspired, yet consider the story to be true. For example, the moon was thought to have it's own light by the writer, yet it was merely a reflection from the sun. God created it, he should know. The writer did not. And much more.
But, in keeping with the story context, What did EVE do?. She did not aspire to worship God but rather made an effort to be "like God", coveting all his glory. This... is the main story line the remainder of the bible builds from. Miss it, and nothing makes sense.
We often as humans credit our desire to be admired, rich, powerful, acknowledged, etc, as human nature. I would say it was Eve nature. Solomon is a picture of what unbridled man, when given everything he could imagine, would look like. He turned over every rock, looking for fulfillment but found none, eventually giving up his puffed up wise talk admitting that he was pitiful, without love and contentment, envious of a working man with the love of one woman at home.
In all the prior men that God had called to serve God's people.... what did they do? They reversed it and had the people serve them, just as Solomon did.... Except Jesus. He went so far as to walk into a prophesied brutal death having faith that it was God's plan. Imagine a different viewpoint..... that Jesus did not know any of the events as an all knowing God, but rather by faith believed by faith based on the writings that all said about him would come to pass.

God was against human sacrifice all throughout the OT. Suddenly, he decided the only way to absolve mankind was to sacrifice a human.
That doesn't make sense.
That would make sense to Pagans who were all about such things. There are many such instances where they appeal to other religions and go against Judaism which Jesus was supposed to have been trying to keep.

 

[brutally honest]

Mm hmmm

Not saying it's impossible, but that number certainly sounds inflated.

3,000 seems reasonable to me.

"Though there are an estimated 175,000 to 250,000 Messianic Jews in the U.S. and 350,000 worldwide, according to various counts, they are a tiny minority in Israel -- just 10,000-20,000 people by some estimates -- but growing, according to both its proponents and critics."

Kosher Jesus: Messianic Jews in the Holy Land

Inside the small community of Christ-following Jews who've allied with American evangelicals to redeem Israel ... from its Jewishness.

www.theatlantic.com

(This is an eleven-year-old article, so I'm sure the numbers have changed.)

 

[brutally honest]

You have a "higher level" understanding and way of looking at things that I have never heard before.

That’s what some on this board kept saying about Israel.

I get the “unorthodox” part. It’s the “Christian” part that leaves me scratching my head.

 

[bullethead]

3,000 seems reasonable to me.

"Though there are an estimated 175,000 to 250,000 Messianic Jews in the U.S. and 350,000 worldwide, according to various counts, they are a tiny minority in Israel -- just 10,000-20,000 people by some estimates -- but growing, according to both its proponents and critics."

Kosher Jesus: Messianic Jews in the Holy Land

Inside the small community of Christ-following Jews who've allied with American evangelicals to redeem Israel ... from its Jewishness.

www.theatlantic.com

(This is an eleven-year-old article, so I'm sure the numbers have changed.)

3,000, 500...crowds always gather in such precise amounts. It doesn't sound made up at all.

 

[bullethead]

I have not responded... because I don't have an answer?. Just thought I would clarify that because a no response might look like I was no longer participating

No problem. I don't always need replies. Most times I am hoping that I give someone something to think about.

 

[bullethead]

That’s what some on this board kept saying about Israel.

I get the “unorthodox” part. It’s the “Christian” part that leaves me scratching my head.

Are there levels of Christianity?
Is it enough to believe or are there more requirements?
What is enough and what isn't?
On a scale of 1gr8 to Mother Theresa, what rank do you hold?

I am not in any way asking other than with sincerity. I would like to learn how you view the requirements.

 

[brutally honest]

Are there levels of Christianity?

No, but there are basic beliefs. That’s why I asked him if he believed in the Nicene Creed.

 

[brutally honest]

No.
Creeds are very revealing. All throughout history, when one group wants to claim orthodox, they spell out their belief as drawing a line in the sand, choosing their wording carefully, and it now becomes a " circle" rather than a line, and all not fitting within that circle [creed parameters] as being unorthodox. Or heretics.

You can perfectly see the evolving and opposition to a belief, spelled out in the creeds. Nothing is planer than the Holy Spirit evolving to become a co equal third person. Note that the apostles creed, eventually was given a long version, or a reverse engineering back dated into antiquity once it became clear that this concept was absent from the original.

Speaking of the Nicene Creed. Most interesting. Constantine had the foresight to see how the division from those claiming orthodoxy verses and the Arians, was stunting progressing from a leader standpoint. He concluded that in order to have commerce and growth, that he had to resolve this division once in for all. Each group not doing business with their adversarial religious opposition was a problem.

So he sent out word, invited all the players, and said we are going to hash this out until one belief is determined. He himself, did not care. He was a non believer. The Arians believed in a Jesus as a sense of diety yet focused on verses such as "the father is greater than I", etc. And the orthodox claiming was "fully God". With no emphasis of the Holy Spirit as a coequal 3rd person of the God head at that time. That was the following creed many years later. Once it had been debated, Constantine decreed one side a winner, made all opposing views and literature a capital crime and burned the writings in the streets. Then had eusebius pen a bible of the books now declared inspired for each church. It was meant to be settled. It actually worked. Christianity became as a country club membership for a time. Constantine eventually became a believer, on the Arian side that he snuffed out.
Most interesting, even though one side's arguments on paper were burned, we see context. In the documentations by scribes or historians...... introduce Valentinious. We have documented the arguments of the orthodox winning side when someone, I can't recall, in his rebuke of Arius, said specifically, in an effort to diminish his credibility, that he [Arius] cozy's up, my paraphrase, to that heretic Valentinious whom believes...... and he proceeds to use the exact verbage of today's trinitarian church. I can't recall, but it is the three in one coequal Godhead. Yet they rejected it and used it as slander at the Nicene council. Interesting when you go back into church history looking for verbage from antiquity to substanite a belief, yet you ignore, or purposely remain silent because the true father of that faith was know as a Knostic. They are not willing to admit that this is where it first came from, nor the proof that this belief was not the original but was rather a result of beliefs evolving as more men began to interpret into the scriptures.

So what makes you Christian as opposed to Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, etc.?

 

[bullethead]

No.
Creeds are very revealing. All throughout history, when one group wants to claim orthodox, they spell out their belief as drawing a line in the sand, choosing their wording carefully, and it now becomes a " circle" rather than a line, and all not fitting within that circle [creed parameters] as being unorthodox. Or heretics.

You can perfectly see the evolving and opposition to a belief, spelled out in the creeds. Nothing is planer than the Holy Spirit evolving to become a co equal third person. Note that the apostles creed, eventually was given a long version, or a reverse engineering back dated into antiquity once it became clear that this concept was absent from the original.

Speaking of the Nicene Creed. Most interesting. Constantine had the foresight to see how the division from those claiming orthodoxy verses and the Arians, was stunting progressing from a leader standpoint. He concluded that in order to have commerce and growth, that he had to resolve this division once in for all. Each group not doing business with their adversarial religious opposition was a problem.

So he sent out word, invited all the players, and said we are going to hash this out until one belief is determined. He himself, did not care. He was a non believer. The Arians believed in a Jesus as a sense of diety yet focused on verses such as "the father is greater than I", etc. And the orthodox claiming was "fully God". With no emphasis of the Holy Spirit as a coequal 3rd person of the God head at that time. That was the following creed many years later. Once it had been debated, Constantine decreed one side a winner, made all opposing views and literature a capital crime and burned the writings in the streets. Then had eusebius pen a bible of the books now declared inspired for each church. It was meant to be settled. It actually worked. Christianity became as a country club membership for a time. Constantine eventually became a believer, on the Arian side that he snuffed out.
Most interesting, even though one side's arguments on paper were burned, we see context. In the documentations by scribes or historians...... introduce Valentinious. We have documented the arguments of the orthodox winning side when someone, I can't recall, in his rebuke of Arius, said specifically, in an effort to diminish his credibility, that he [Arius] cozy's up, my paraphrase, to that heretic Valentinious whom believes...... and he proceeds to use the exact verbage of today's trinitarian church. I can't recall, but it is the three in one coequal Godhead. Yet they rejected it and used it as slander at the Nicene council. Interesting when you go back into church history looking for verbage from antiquity to substanite a belief, yet you ignore, or purposely remain silent because the true father of that faith was know as a Knostic. They are not willing to admit that this is where it first came from, nor the proof that this belief was not the original but was rather a result of beliefs evolving as more men began to interpret into the scriptures.

This is a knowledgeable answer that goes into great detail about why and how things were, which translates to why and how things are now.
Most don't know such things not care to inform themselves further once introduced.

 

[brutally honest]

No.
Creeds are very revealing. All throughout history, when one group wants to claim orthodox, they spell out their belief as drawing a line in the sand, choosing their wording carefully, and it now becomes a " circle" rather than a line, and all not fitting within that circle [creed parameters] as being unorthodox. Or heretics.

You can perfectly see the evolving and opposition to a belief, spelled out in the creeds. Nothing is planer than the Holy Spirit evolving to become a co equal third person. Note that the apostles creed, eventually was given a long version, or a reverse engineering back dated into antiquity once it became clear that this concept was absent from the original.

Speaking of the Nicene Creed. Most interesting. Constantine had the foresight to see how the division from those claiming orthodoxy verses and the Arians, was stunting progressing from a leader standpoint. He concluded that in order to have commerce and growth, that he had to resolve this division once in for all. Each group not doing business with their adversarial religious opposition was a problem.

So he sent out word, invited all the players, and said we are going to hash this out until one belief is determined. He himself, did not care. He was a non believer. The Arians believed in a Jesus as a sense of diety yet focused on verses such as "the father is greater than I", etc. And the orthodox claiming was "fully God". With no emphasis of the Holy Spirit as a coequal 3rd person of the God head at that time. That was the following creed many years later. Once it had been debated, Constantine decreed one side a winner, made all opposing views and literature a capital crime and burned the writings in the streets. Then had eusebius pen a bible of the books now declared inspired for each church. It was meant to be settled. It actually worked. Christianity became as a country club membership for a time. Constantine eventually became a believer, on the Arian side that he snuffed out.
Most interesting, even though one side's arguments on paper were burned, we see context. In the documentations by scribes or historians...... introduce Valentinious. We have documented the arguments of the orthodox winning side when someone, I can't recall, in his rebuke of Arius, said specifically, in an effort to diminish his credibility, that he [Arius] cozy's up, my paraphrase, to that heretic Valentinious whom believes...... and he proceeds to use the exact verbage of today's trinitarian church. I can't recall, but it is the three in one coequal Godhead. Yet they rejected it and used it as slander at the Nicene council. Interesting when you go back into church history looking for verbage from antiquity to substanite a belief, yet you ignore, or purposely remain silent because the true father of that faith was know as a Knostic. They are not willing to admit that this is where it first came from, nor the proof that this belief was not the original but was rather a result of beliefs evolving as more men began to interpret into the scriptures.

Arius argued that there was a time when Jesus was “not”. In other words, He was a created being. Was Arius correct?

 

[NE GA Pappy]

Arius argued that there was a time when Jesus was “not”. In other words, He was a created being. Was Arius correct?

not according to John 1:1-5

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of man. And the light shines in the darkness, but the darkness comprehended it not.

 

[brutally honest]

Then had eusebius pen a bible of the books now declared inspired for each church.

The NT canon wasn’t finalized until forty years later.

 

[brutally honest]

not according to John 1:1-5

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of man. And the light shines in the darkness, but the darkness comprehended it not.

I also disagree with Arius.

 

[brutally honest]

Yes, Jesus was 100% man, father and mother 100% bman. No where in the bible am I asked to believe otherwise. I believe he is the firstborn Son of God, by adoption, at his baptismal .

OK, so you’re an Arian.

Do you believe Jesus “rose again on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures”?

 

[brutally honest]

Yes, Jesus was 100% man, father and mother 100% bman. No where in the bible am I asked to believe otherwise. I believe he is the firstborn Son of God, by adoption, at his baptismal .

On second thought, I don’t think even Arius took it that far.