Christianity - For Those Who Don't Understand

EEJ said: "The Church of England was the first to break off when Henry VIII wanted to divorce his wife and the Catholic church wouldn't let him. So, as a "protest"ant, he formed the Church of England."

But, going back to the original post, the Anglicans apparently aren't Protestants; they've got a category all of their own. Is that because the break was on political, rather than religious, grounds? (I don't think Henry gave a tooting hoot about the Church per se; he just wasn't about to thole some old geezer in Rome interfering in his dynastic affairs.)

The bit about Mary being born without sin certainly rings a bell. This is the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, isn't it? I spent six years in a Catholic school and definitely remember being taught about that. IIRC, the rationale is that God (or his son, depending on your point of view) couldn't spend nine months inside someone who was tainted by Adam's sin. I think the 'protestant' denominations believe Mary was just a normal person, don't they?

 

MadMardigan,

I will make an attempt to answer your question. I am no scholar by any means, but here goes:

1) Why did God sacrifice himself to himself to save us from himself?

Huh? You must be referencing the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. Jesus was the son of God. The answer lies in Jesus' words on the cross. "Father, forgive them for the know not what they do." and, "It is finished; Father into Thy hands I commend my spirit". In his final breaths he asks that God forgive the people who have murdered him, just as we as Christians forgive others and must ask the Lord to forgive us. The final statement is Jesus giving his spirit to God, just as Christians must receive Christ.

Why did he take so long to institute this new convenant?

I can't answer this. To do so would presume that I know the will of God.

How did one enter the kingdom of Heaven before Jesus?

One had to live without sin.

4a) Why was God revealed only to a small population in a remote portion of the world?

At the time, this remote portion you speak of was the center of the world.

4b) What happened to all those souls who just after the ressurrection and before all the New testament was even written?

Again, I can't presume to know.

5a) Why can Hitler be saved, yet all 6 million Jews he gassed go to Hell?

Jews go to Hell??? That's a new one. How did you formulate that Hitler will be saved? Do you think he truly wished to be forgiven and repented, or did he die like a coward hiding from those who would persecute him for his Sins?

5b) Is that an all loving God?

He loves you. Believe it or not.

 

The Immaculate Conception refers to the conception of Christ, not Mary. The Protestant wing of Christianity believes that Mary and Joseph did indeed have relations, but only after the birth of Christ. The reason for the marriage was to prevent Mary from being stoned as that was the penalty for unwed mothers. Once Christ was born, Mary went on to have many children, two of which were James and Jude, who each wrote a book of the Bible. James became a leading figure in the early church which was a dramatic turn around for him as he at first did not believe his brother Jesus was the Messiah.

 

Force of Nature: good point.

I'm just having trouble reconciling one disputed quote that probably referred to the King of Babylon with the notion that Lucifer was a fallen angel and disputed God's power (biblically speaking). If there are any other Biblical references to support that line of thinking, I'd be glad to look them up if someone would provide specific passages.

I thought this was a thread about the facts of Christianity, no? So, if you are Christian, state what you believe and why. Personally, I think the Catholic church has done something right (Yikes!) in that they don't recognize the authority of the Bible as the supreme authority - they recognize the authority of tradition, oral and written, and the wisdom of those that have gone before. Not to say that all their wisdom is good, but they provide a more grounded approach to the faith. They are certainly less likely to be accused of being "literalists" than the non-Catholic denominations. After all, the non-Catholic denominations rely heavily on their interpretations of the Scripture and thus can get caught quite often in contradictory statements. For example, the Southern Baptist Convention might quote Paul's letter (forgive me, I'm not sure of the passage) about wives being submissive to their husband, and people will ask "Do you also believe in having slaves, because Paul talks about that too? Even the Hebrew Scriptures condone slavery, does that make it ok?" It's this type of contradiction that gets Christians in general in trouble.

Any thoughts on the "facts" of Christianity?

 

Maveric, I hate to disagree with you, but you are in error about the Immaculate Conception. The Catholic Encyclopedia says

In the Constitution Ineffabilis Deus of 8 December, 1854, Pius IX pronounced and defined that the Blessed Virgin Mary "in the first instance of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin."

However, that doctrine was not among those that led to many of the Protestant churches that broke away from the Catholic Church because it was only taught 150 years ago, after many of those churches had already been formed.

Kimball Kinnison

 

For example, the Southern Baptist Convention might quote Paul's letter (forgive me, I'm not sure of the passage) about wives being submissive to their husband, and people will ask "Do you also believe in having slaves, because Paul talks about that too? Even the Hebrew Scriptures condone slavery, does that make it ok?" It's this type of contradiction that gets Christians in general in trouble.


As a Southern Baptist, I get this all of the time, and it is due to shoddy research on the person asking the question.

You must take into context the entire passage to get the meaning of it.

It comes for Colossians 3 verse 18. I will start at verse 17:

(17) And whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through Him. (18) Wives, submit to your own husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. (19) Husbands, love your wives and do not be bitter towards them. (20) Children, obey your parents in all things, for this is well pleasing to the Lord.

What Paul is writing about is the proper relationship for a Christian family. It is not about abusing women are some form of oppression, it is about having respect for your spouse and treating them like you would want to be treated.

 

Maverick: Exactly the point I was trying to make. Thank you. Do you also hear or get the questions about that or about Paul's quotes on slavery and celibacy(again the passages eludes me)?

Another interesting thing to note is the discrepancy in the translation of Paul's writings where many churches (denominations) have used quotes referring to men and women as deacons and servants, respectively, as proof that women should not be priests, pastors, etc. I have been instructed by a teacher of Greek that the original Greek word is the same in both instances, the translators just interpreted them differently because of the political slant of either the church they were translating for or society at large.

Maverick, since you are a professor, are you a professor of Religion? If so, could you mosey on over the the Jesus Q&A discussion and help straighten some questions out about the Jesus Seminar and such? It'd be cool if you could, if not, I understand.

 

I am not a professor of religion, although the study of it has become a hobby.

I tend to get the adultery/celibacy question some, but as Paul stated celibacy worked for him, and if you are capable of living without it, good going. I view adultery as sex outside of wedlock, and that it is a sin, but like all others, one that can be controlled (no one is forcing you to engage in that action).

 

The Immaculate Conception refers to the conception of Christ, not Mary.

What? You are mistaken, although I can't help but think you accidently wrote that. The Immaculate Conception was Mary's conception, not Christ's.

Edit: I see Kimball got this one too .

 

Interesting. I had always been taught that it was Christ's conception. I wonder if this was a Lutheran belief? Any other Lutherans taught that?


Yet another reason to disagree with the teachings of the Catholic Church.

 

Ah, A fellow Baptist. Though I'm not a Southern Baptist(GARBC if your curious).

Not a bad thread for one that was about to be closed down after a couple posts. Anyways, I'm use to that.

I personally take the word of God as exactly that...The divine, living word of God! The Lord put everything in there for a reason. It is a living work.

People say that the constitution is a living document because we can alter it when needed. Not the Bible. It is a living book that has withstood time and is still relevent today(though many have tried to snuff it out over the years).

 

Funny you mention that. I use that analogy in class all of the time when discussing the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment.


I say "This is the Constitution people! It isn't the Bible! You can't pick and choose what you want to believe out of it!"

 

Interesting. I had always been taught that it was Christ's conception. I wonder if this was a Lutheran belief? Any other Lutherans taught that?

Maveric, I assure you that you (or whomever mistakenly taught you this)misunderstood at some point and then didn't realize it over the years. No church teaches that the Immaculate Conception was Christ's. It is a dogma held by pretty much only the Catholic Church (with a couple others as well). However, no church teaches that the Immaculate Conception was Christ. You will, however, see that mentioned as one of the most frequent mistakes/misunderstandings in religious teachings.

 

KW ,
After an informal poll of my colleagues here at work, I talked to a Lutheran, a Presbyterian, a Protestant, another Baptist and non-demoninational who all agree with me that it was Christ's birth. I find this highly intriguing!

 

They were all taught in error, then.

Here's this bit from religioustolerance.org:

Immaculate Conception: This the belief that before the birth of Mary (the mother of Jesus) was born, she was preserved from original sin at the time of her conception. It is widely but incorrectly believed to refer to Jesus' conception.

It both amazes and saddens me that this idea and misunderstanding is so prevalant .

 

So what is the term given to Jesus' conception by the Holy Spirit?

 

There is no equal term for it. It 's simply the virgin birth. Conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary.

 

That is amazing. It is almost like finding out that the sky is really yellow and not blue.

Though it really doesn't affect me. My church has never called Christ's birth the Immaculate Conception. I always knew it was a Catholic term but I just associated it with Christ's birth.

Thank you for that info!

 

Boy, am I glad I didn't have to argue that one!

I didn't know - or if I did, I'd forgotten - that it was quite a recent addition to doctrine; I just knew what I'd heard on an almost daily basis over a period of years.

However, I can confirm that, judging by posts on message boards, many people do associate the term with the conception of Jesus. It never occurred to me, though, that they'd actually been taught that was so; I thought it was more a case of putting 2 and 2 together and coming up with 3. It's not something on which I'd ordinarily comment.

 

I know it's been a couple pages, but I wanted to respond to EvilEmperorJohn's following comments:

I think, and please correct me on this, but the Jews do not believe in heaven and hell (or at least they didn't back in ancient times).

Pretty much. This is because for all the wordiness of the Pentateuch, it really doesn?t make mention of reward and punishment in terms of heaven and hell. Since all Jewish beliefs are grounded in the Pentateuch, it makes sense that such concepts are not as well-developed as in Christian theology. Jewish religion is very ?thisworldly?, focused on making life in this world as 'heavenly' as possible. The concept of an afterlife came about in response to the reality that good people can have lives that seem so harsh and unfair, like they're being punished, while evil people can get away with their evil and succeed as though they're being rewarded. The rabbis theorized that, since the reward and punishment doesn?t always take place in the present life, it must certainly take place at some point after death when people are subjected to some final judgment by God.

There are references to "limbo" where souls went after death. That would be the case, I think, no matter when or how they died.

There is a passage that mentions going down to ?sheol?, which is as close to ?hell? as the Pentateuch gets. The best translation is that it means going down into the ground. The only ?limbo? idea I can think of is the Jewish idea I've read about that rather than going to heaven or hell immediately after death, the dead's souls are in limbo and will either be resurrected, or not, when the messiah comes. This is also the reason for the taboo against 'desecration' of a body by removing organs from it. Although the body is to become dust after death, there is still the idea that it must be.... intact dust, I guess you could say. All the pieces must be there to be put back together for the body to come back to life.

From what I've learned, many modern Jews have simply taken on the 'heaven or hell' beliefs. In terms that if you're judged worthy, you hang out in heaven until resurrection, and hell is akin to total loss of conciousness forever, and one must be very, unrepentantly evil to truly 'go to hell'.

(If there's any other Jews lurking in here who know of other ideas or can correct me on my knowledge, I'd love to hear it. )

 

For example, the Southern Baptist Convention might quote Paul's letter (forgive me, I'm not sure of the passage) about wives being submissive to their husband,

Paul also states that men should treat women like they would treat themselves.

 

As a Southern Baptist lady, I don't take any offense at the "submission" controversy that the media has made out of the SBC and their doctrines.

Submission is not about being a slave or having to do everything your husband demands.

First of all, that passage states that Husbands should love their wives as they love themselves. And as Christ loved the church.

So, my interpretation of this is that if the Husband truly does love his wife as Christ did the church, then the wife will naturally want to submit, in other words, honor her husband and respect him. In turn, that encourages more love on the husband's part... It's a circle.

 

IIRC, the rationale is that God (or his son, depending on your point of view) couldn't spend nine months inside someone who was tainted by Adam's sin.

But he could spend a lifetime in a world tainted by it? Doesn't make sense to me... ?

 

I agree, that is rather contradictory.

 

It's the original sin part that Christ and Mary were protected from.