Defining a 'True Christian'?

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
101

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

The other books have stories about people from the bible, new psalms, etc. They have lots directly to do with the bible.

Again, you’re only counting the ones that match so you can falsely claim consistency. Its dishonest.[/quote]

I’m not very familiar with the Dead Sea Scrolls, so I can’t comment much about them. Have they all been translated?

In any event, the Nag Hammadi scrolls, which contain New Testament works (and books not in the modern bible) were, IIRC put there by Christians of a particular bend (essenes?). During the first few hundred years of Christianities arrival on the scene, there were many schools of thought on how to believe (Gnostics, for example). Hence many “books” of the bible. I’d image the same is true for the old testament (hence the dead sea scrolls extra material).

What we take as the modern bible was simply the most popular ones - in terms of the church authorities of the day (it’s a bit more complicated then the picture I’m painting).

I would imagine believers would say that the church authorities were divinely inspired to figure out which books were the most important (true) or that these books are most consistent with the old testament.

Of course if you don’t believe, this explanation is a bit…well…unsatisfying…

102

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

The other books have stories about people from the bible, new psalms, etc. They have lots directly to do with the bible.

Again, you’re only counting the ones that match so you can falsely claim consistency. Its dishonest.[/quote]

I’m not very familiar with the Dead Sea Scrolls, so I can’t comment much about them. Have they all been translated?

In any event, the Nag Hammadi scrolls, which contain New Testament works (and books not in the modern bible) were, IIRC put there by Christians of a particular bend (essenes?). During the first few hundred years of Christianities arrival on the scene, there were many schools of thought on how to believe (Gnostics, for example). Hence many “books” of the bible. I’d image the same is true for the old testament (hence the dead sea scrolls extra material).

What we take as the modern bible was simply the most popular ones - in terms of the church authorities of the day (it’s a bit more complicated then the picture I’m painting).

I would imagine believers would say that the church authorities were divinely inspired to figure out which books were the most important (true) or that these books are most consistent with the old testament.

Of course if you don’t believe, this explanation is a bit…well…unsatisfying…

103

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
There were around 800 documents contained in the 11 caves, which are the Dead Sea Scrolls. The most frequent transcripts were Biblical, except for Enoch, Jubilee, (actually Protestants might disagree with this because they have an incomplete Bible, which the Dead Sea Scrolls prove). [/quote]

What books are we missing in your opinion?[/quote]

There is a list of books to which he is referring that are in the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Bible. They are called the Deuterocanonical books. They include:

Tobit
Judith
Wisdom of Solomon
Baruch
1 and 2 Macabees

There are also longer versions of Daniel and Esther

Martin Luther removed most of the them during the Reformation. They were all contained in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Masoretic Texts so they are part of the original Biblical Canon as defined by the Council of Laodicea in 363AD.

Another question I would like to pose for Brother Chris though is whether he beleives Protestants to be true Christians. I know I’ve been approached multiple times with the question of whether Catholics are true Christians (which I do believe) due to beliefs they have that differ from Protestant Christianity.

So do you see any problem with a Protestant being considered a true Christian since we have differences such as in the Bible, belief about penance, purgatory, etc.?[/quote]

You forgot Ecclesiasticus.

It matters on their theology really, there is some “Christians” who don’t hold a valid baptismal sacrament or their theology is so off from Catholicism about God that we couldn’t possibly believe that they were Christians.[/quote]

Oh, I’m sorry. I am not familiar with that one. I didn’t mention the Esdras either because I thought they were more extensions/connections of Ezra and Nehemiah.

Ok, so I think you have the same view on being a Christian as I do. Minor theological differences don’t necessarily matter. What makes a Christian is the view on who Christ is. [/quote]

I’m just not a fan of the individualism within some Protestant theologies.[/quote]

What do you mean by individualism?[/quote]

Personal relationship with Jesus. The idea that you don’t need others besides Jesus.[/quote]

Apparently my other posts didn’t go through. Anyway, if you mean the idea that there is no need for a preacher or corporate church, then I agree with you.

104

[quote]Pangloss wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

The other books have stories about people from the bible, new psalms, etc. They have lots directly to do with the bible.

Again, you’re only counting the ones that match so you can falsely claim consistency. Its dishonest.[/quote]

I’m not very familiar with the Dead Sea Scrolls, so I can’t comment much about them. Have they all been translated?

In any event, the Nag Hammadi scrolls, which contain New Testament works (and books not in the modern bible) were, IIRC put there by Christians of a particular bend (essenes?). During the first few hundred years of Christianities arrival on the scene, there were many schools of thought on how to believe (Gnostics, for example). Hence many “books” of the bible. I’d image the same is true for the old testament (hence the dead sea scrolls extra material).

What we take as the modern bible was simply the most popular ones - in terms of the church authorities of the day (it’s a bit more complicated then the picture I’m painting).

I would imagine believers would say that the church authorities were divinely inspired to figure out which books were the most important (true) or that these books are most consistent with the old testament.

Of course if you don’t believe, this explanation is a bit…well…unsatisfying…[/quote]

You’re partially correct.

Yes, they didn’t need to be translated, they are in Hebrew, so I’m sure they have been translated it into English.

The Gnosticism is a heresy. It existed before Christianity, it was a different train of thought, but not really a different bend of Christianity. I assume you could say it, like you could say the New Age (which is basically Buddhism with a splash of Christianity) movement is a bend of Christianity, but any conservative Christian would deny that.

To explain the DSS, think of these people putting their books into these caves, the idea of Sola Scriptura has given prejudice to think that if some kind of religious document is found, then it must be part of the Bible. Not true, what they found is the equivalent of…if I died, and you looked in my library and found my catechisms, Bible, my Summa Theologica, Summa Gentiles, a letter from my priest, a hymnal book, and other assorted religious documents. To assume all those are biblical documents is incorrect.

The canon of the Bible was based more on than just Bishops. The faithful of the Church were even more conservative back then they were back then. They knew what was inspired teaching, so if things were not congruent with a letter, it wouldn’t be taught. However, they kept they documents.

105

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
There were around 800 documents contained in the 11 caves, which are the Dead Sea Scrolls. The most frequent transcripts were Biblical, except for Enoch, Jubilee, (actually Protestants might disagree with this because they have an incomplete Bible, which the Dead Sea Scrolls prove). [/quote]

What books are we missing in your opinion?[/quote]

There is a list of books to which he is referring that are in the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Bible. They are called the Deuterocanonical books. They include:

Tobit
Judith
Wisdom of Solomon
Baruch
1 and 2 Macabees

There are also longer versions of Daniel and Esther

Martin Luther removed most of the them during the Reformation. They were all contained in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Masoretic Texts so they are part of the original Biblical Canon as defined by the Council of Laodicea in 363AD.

Another question I would like to pose for Brother Chris though is whether he beleives Protestants to be true Christians. I know I’ve been approached multiple times with the question of whether Catholics are true Christians (which I do believe) due to beliefs they have that differ from Protestant Christianity.

So do you see any problem with a Protestant being considered a true Christian since we have differences such as in the Bible, belief about penance, purgatory, etc.?[/quote]

Martin Luther also did away with many New Testament books that were later added back (e.g., James, Peter, Revelations).

106

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
<<< Personal relationship with Jesus. The idea that you don’t need others besides Jesus.[/quote]Who says this?

107

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:
I have a lot of respect for the Catholic Church. It was responsible for spreading Christianity throughout Western Europe no matter what corruptions took place during the high middle ages. I disagree with its teachings on veneration of the saints, church hierarchy, and purgatory, but I feel those are non essential doctrine. I think that actually, a lot of main line Protestant branches could take an example from the Catholic Church in some ideas of penance and the remembrance of Christ’s suffering. [/quote]

I’ll have to disagree, the Saints are important, they support us and give us examples of God’s faith in his adopted family of sinners. Purgatory is important too, as no one unclean enters Heaven, and the Church hierarchy is important because of pragmatic reasons as well as the fact Jesus established the Church.[/quote]

And that is good that we can disagree on those issues, but we still agree on the most essential doctrine: Christ crucified. [/quote]

I’ll have to point out that you forgot Christ’s resurrection.

108

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
<<< Personal relationship with Jesus. The idea that you don’t need others besides Jesus.[/quote]Who says this?
[/quote]

“The personal relationship with Jesus” people. Paul even wished that he’d be condemned to hell if it meant that his brothers were saved.

I have a relationship with a community and am part of a community, which is the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church, which has a relationship with Jesus and he is our savior. Which is what will be saved, by Jesus.

109

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
<<< Personal relationship with Jesus. The idea that you don’t need others besides Jesus.[/quote]Who says this?
[/quote]

“The personal relationship with Jesus” people. Paul even wished that he’d be condemned to hell if it meant that his brothers were saved.

I have a relationship with a community and am part of a community, which is the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church, which has a relationship with Jesus and he is our savior. Which is what will be saved, by Jesus.[/quote]And you suppose that I would essentially disagree with this? You even accidentally worded it the way I would by saying He is “our” Savior rather than something like “her” Savior. Christ will be returning for His church. We just define “church” differently. A personal relationship with Jesus IS membership into the mystical body of Christ… the church universal. There is therefore “no salvation outside the church”. =]

110

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
<<< Personal relationship with Jesus. The idea that you don’t need others besides Jesus.[/quote]Who says this?
[/quote]

“The personal relationship with Jesus” people. Paul even wished that he’d be condemned to hell if it meant that his brothers were saved.

I have a relationship with a community and am part of a community, which is the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church, which has a relationship with Jesus and he is our savior. Which is what will be saved, by Jesus.[/quote]And you suppose that I would essentially disagree with this? You even accidentally worded it the way I would by saying He is “our” Savior rather than something like “her” Savior. Christ will be returning for His church. We just define “church” differently. A personal relationship with Jesus IS membership into the mystical body of Christ… the church universal. There is therefore “no salvation outside the church”. =]
[/quote]

I say baptism is membership into Church. But, I digress.

I pointed out the “personal relationship with Jesus” because it came about in psychology around the turn of the 20th century. It turned into this weird “I” thing all the time. I was at a place of worship and during service I heard a Eastern hymn being sung, well it was replaced with Our Savior with “my” Savior and We with I, and us with me. It was quite sad, because the song was beautiful was completely butchered.

111

The scriptures everywhere speak both ways. I.E. “That I may know Him and the power of His resurrection” Philippians 3:10. Christ will present Himself the church in all her glory without spot or wrinkle. Ephesians 5:27 as a couple among numerous examples.
Therefore so do I.

Even in the OT David as a shining example, all throughout the Psalms speaks in exulting, adoring unmistakably personal language about knowing and loving God and also about the LORD and His relationship with Israel.

We sing both ways too.
Lion of Judah come forth and take us in.
Lion of Judah come forth and take me in.

The church is His body and bride comprised of individual members. Why would God not be pleased with both aspects being celebrated?

112

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
The scriptures everywhere speak both ways. I.E. “That I may know Him and the power of His resurrection” Philippians 3:10. Christ will present Himself the church in all her glory without spot or wrinkle. Ephesians 5:27 as a couple among numerous examples.
Therefore so do I.

Even in the OT David as a shining example, all throughout the Psalms speaks in exulting, adoring unmistakably personal language about knowing and loving God and also about the LORD and His relationship with Israel.

We sing both ways too.
Lion of Judah come forth and take us in.
Lion of Judah come forth and take me in.

The church is His body and bride comprised of individual members. Why would God not be pleased with both aspects being celebrated? [/quote]

Yeah…but these people are like people that would repaint the Mona Lisa…because they thought Leonardo da Vinci painted it wrong. Ruin a perfect Eastern hymn…because it’s all about the “personal relationship with Jesus.”

113

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:
I have a lot of respect for the Catholic Church. It was responsible for spreading Christianity throughout Western Europe no matter what corruptions took place during the high middle ages. I disagree with its teachings on veneration of the saints, church hierarchy, and purgatory, but I feel those are non essential doctrine. I think that actually, a lot of main line Protestant branches could take an example from the Catholic Church in some ideas of penance and the remembrance of Christ’s suffering. [/quote]

I’ll have to disagree, the Saints are important, they support us and give us examples of God’s faith in his adopted family of sinners. Purgatory is important too, as no one unclean enters Heaven, and the Church hierarchy is important because of pragmatic reasons as well as the fact Jesus established the Church.[/quote]

And that is good that we can disagree on those issues, but we still agree on the most essential doctrine: Christ crucified. [/quote]

I’ll have to point out that you forgot Christ’s resurrection.[/quote]

Point taken. I was just assuming that by Christ crucified, it was implied to be resurrected. Of course there are some that pervert even this teaching.

114

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

You’re partially correct.

Yes, they didn’t need to be translated, they are in Hebrew, so I’m sure they have been translated it into English. [/quote]

Well, yes, they would have been in Hebrew - I was referring to them being translated in English. I have a fuzzy memory of reading something about the translations not being completed. I don’t know how accurate that memory is nor how long ago I read it.

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

The Gnosticism is a heresy. It existed before Christianity, it was a different train of thought, but not really a different bend of Christianity. I assume you could say it, like you could say the New Age (which is basically Buddhism with a splash of Christianity) movement is a bend of Christianity, but any conservative Christian would deny that. [/quote]

Various forms of Gnosticism existed before Christianity, but there was a gnostic christianity. I would actually say that it was a different form of Christianity, since it’s rather alien from the modern form. Then again, i would consider ‘new age’ as a different bend of Buddhism/Christianity. I’m not quite sure why you are disagreeing, to be honest.

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
To explain the DSS, think of these people putting their books into these caves, the idea of Sola Scriptura has given prejudice to think that if some kind of religious document is found, then it must be part of the Bible. Not true, what they found is the equivalent of…if I died, and you looked in my library and found my catechisms, Bible, my Summa Theologica, Summa Gentiles, a letter from my priest, a hymnal book, and other assorted religious documents. To assume all those are biblical documents is incorrect. [/quote]

As I said, I’m not entirely familiar with the DSS, so I won’t really comment. I wouldn’t be surprised if the group who put it in there was simply trying to protect their religious documents.

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
The canon of the Bible was based more on than just Bishops. The faithful of the Church were even more conservative back then they were back then. They knew what was inspired teaching, so if things were not congruent with a letter, it wouldn’t be taught. However, they kept they documents. [/quote]

I would disagree with them knowing what was inspired teaching, but I would agree that it was more then just the Bishops.

115

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
There were around 800 documents contained in the 11 caves, which are the Dead Sea Scrolls. The most frequent transcripts were Biblical, except for Enoch, Jubilee, (actually Protestants might disagree with this because they have an incomplete Bible, which the Dead Sea Scrolls prove). [/quote]

What books are we missing in your opinion?[/quote]

There is a list of books to which he is referring that are in the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Bible. They are called the Deuterocanonical books. They include:

Tobit
Judith
Wisdom of Solomon
Baruch
1 and 2 Macabees

There are also longer versions of Daniel and Esther
.?[/quote]

Thanks so much for posting. I’m going to take a look at those books.

116

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
There were around 800 documents contained in the 11 caves, which are the Dead Sea Scrolls. The most frequent transcripts were Biblical, except for Enoch, Jubilee, (actually Protestants might disagree with this because they have an incomplete Bible, which the Dead Sea Scrolls prove). [/quote]

What books are we missing in your opinion?[/quote]

Seven in the Old Testament: Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, 1 & 2 Machabees[/quote]

And thank you very much as well.

117

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
There were around 800 documents contained in the 11 caves, which are the Dead Sea Scrolls. The most frequent transcripts were Biblical, except for Enoch, Jubilee, (actually Protestants might disagree with this because they have an incomplete Bible, which the Dead Sea Scrolls prove). [/quote]

What books are we missing in your opinion?[/quote]

There is a list of books to which he is referring that are in the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Bible. They are called the Deuterocanonical books. They include:

Tobit
Judith
Wisdom of Solomon
Baruch
1 and 2 Macabees

There are also longer versions of Daniel and Esther

Martin Luther removed most of the them during the Reformation. They were all contained in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Masoretic Texts so they are part of the original Biblical Canon as defined by the Council of Laodicea in 363AD.

Another question I would like to pose for Brother Chris though is whether he beleives Protestants to be true Christians. I know I’ve been approached multiple times with the question of whether Catholics are true Christians (which I do believe) due to beliefs they have that differ from Protestant Christianity.

So do you see any problem with a Protestant being considered a true Christian since we have differences such as in the Bible, belief about penance, purgatory, etc.?[/quote]

You forgot Ecclesiasticus.

It matters on their theology really, there is some “Christians” who don’t hold a valid baptismal sacrament or their theology is so off from Catholicism about God that we couldn’t possibly believe that they were Christians.[/quote]

Oh, I’m sorry. I am not familiar with that one. I didn’t mention the Esdras either because I thought they were more extensions/connections of Ezra and Nehemiah.

Ok, so I think you have the same view on being a Christian as I do. Minor theological differences don’t necessarily matter. What makes a Christian is the view on who Christ is. [/quote]

I’m just not a fan of the individualism within some Protestant theologies.[/quote]

But God must speak to the individuals heart, not the group. Encouraging Bible study, which I never got in the Catholic church, is very important.

118

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
There were around 800 documents contained in the 11 caves, which are the Dead Sea Scrolls. The most frequent transcripts were Biblical, except for Enoch, Jubilee, (actually Protestants might disagree with this because they have an incomplete Bible, which the Dead Sea Scrolls prove). [/quote]

What books are we missing in your opinion?[/quote]

There is a list of books to which he is referring that are in the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Bible. They are called the Deuterocanonical books. They include:

Tobit
Judith
Wisdom of Solomon
Baruch
1 and 2 Macabees

There are also longer versions of Daniel and Esther
.?[/quote]

Thanks so much for posting. I’m going to take a look at those books.
[/quote]

It’s definitely worth reading and knowing what is in these books. Of course, there are many Christian who don’t know much of what’s in the Bible at all unfortunately. I have yet to read any of the false gospels, but I’m also intrested in what they actually say.

119

[quote]Pangloss wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

You’re partially correct.

Yes, they didn’t need to be translated, they are in Hebrew, so I’m sure they have been translated it into English. [/quote]

Well, yes, they would have been in Hebrew - I was referring to them being translated in English. I have a fuzzy memory of reading something about the translations not being completed. I don’t know how accurate that memory is nor how long ago I read it.

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

The Gnosticism is a heresy. It existed before Christianity, it was a different train of thought, but not really a different bend of Christianity. I assume you could say it, like you could say the New Age (which is basically Buddhism with a splash of Christianity) movement is a bend of Christianity, but any conservative Christian would deny that. [/quote]

Various forms of Gnosticism existed before Christianity, but there was a gnostic christianity. I would actually say that it was a different form of Christianity, since it’s rather alien from the modern form. Then again, i would consider ‘new age’ as a different bend of Buddhism/Christianity. I’m not quite sure why you are disagreeing, to be honest.

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
To explain the DSS, think of these people putting their books into these caves, the idea of Sola Scriptura has given prejudice to think that if some kind of religious document is found, then it must be part of the Bible. Not true, what they found is the equivalent of…if I died, and you looked in my library and found my catechisms, Bible, my Summa Theologica, Summa Gentiles, a letter from my priest, a hymnal book, and other assorted religious documents. To assume all those are biblical documents is incorrect. [/quote]

As I said, I’m not entirely familiar with the DSS, so I won’t really comment. I wouldn’t be surprised if the group who put it in there was simply trying to protect their religious documents.

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
The canon of the Bible was based more on than just Bishops. The faithful of the Church were even more conservative back then they were back then. They knew what was inspired teaching, so if things were not congruent with a letter, it wouldn’t be taught. However, they kept they documents. [/quote]

I would disagree with them knowing what was inspired teaching, but I would agree that it was more then just the Bishops. [/quote]

On the Gnosticism and New Age, I was just pointing out, that it’s like what we have now a days, which the New Age is mostly in the Protestant fold, but some of it is leaking into the Catholic fold. It’s basically an existing belief, dressed up as another belief, which doesn’t follow the second belief closely at all. Like Gnosticism as it is known, has a Bible that has some Biblical books in it, but it also has other documents that no way could be considered Biblical.

120

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
There were around 800 documents contained in the 11 caves, which are the Dead Sea Scrolls. The most frequent transcripts were Biblical, except for Enoch, Jubilee, (actually Protestants might disagree with this because they have an incomplete Bible, which the Dead Sea Scrolls prove). [/quote]

What books are we missing in your opinion?[/quote]

There is a list of books to which he is referring that are in the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Bible. They are called the Deuterocanonical books. They include:

Tobit
Judith
Wisdom of Solomon
Baruch
1 and 2 Macabees

There are also longer versions of Daniel and Esther

Martin Luther removed most of the them during the Reformation. They were all contained in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Masoretic Texts so they are part of the original Biblical Canon as defined by the Council of Laodicea in 363AD.

Another question I would like to pose for Brother Chris though is whether he beleives Protestants to be true Christians. I know I’ve been approached multiple times with the question of whether Catholics are true Christians (which I do believe) due to beliefs they have that differ from Protestant Christianity.

So do you see any problem with a Protestant being considered a true Christian since we have differences such as in the Bible, belief about penance, purgatory, etc.?[/quote]

You forgot Ecclesiasticus.

It matters on their theology really, there is some “Christians” who don’t hold a valid baptismal sacrament or their theology is so off from Catholicism about God that we couldn’t possibly believe that they were Christians.[/quote]

Oh, I’m sorry. I am not familiar with that one. I didn’t mention the Esdras either because I thought they were more extensions/connections of Ezra and Nehemiah.

Ok, so I think you have the same view on being a Christian as I do. Minor theological differences don’t necessarily matter. What makes a Christian is the view on who Christ is. [/quote]

I’m just not a fan of the individualism within some Protestant theologies.[/quote]

But God must speak to the individuals heart, not the group. Encouraging Bible study, which I never got in the Catholic church, is very important.
[/quote]

Well, that is sad that you didn’t have Bible Study in Catholic Church. Should have done what I did, started one. I actually run three.