Who and Where Are the True Christians Today?

[Anna]

On 10/23/2016 at 2:52 PM, Ann O'Maly said:

Maybe we are not reading the same stuff because what comes out clearly in it is his Christian faith and his respect for biblical and historical truth.

I think we are. What stood out to me the most was this, I quote him:

“So who and where, then, are the true Christians today? Obviously the same as in every century from the time of Christ, namely, people who have accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord, Redeemer, and Teacher, and who may be found in any kind of Christian fellowship that proves to be of help in their endevour to lead a Christian life”. 

This is not a scriptural teaching. It is merely his opinion. The scriptures indicate quite clearly that there will be a united group in the last days, they do not teach that true Christians will be scattered amongst various Christian denominations. That in itself is an oxymoron because it goes against the grain of what the truth means to Jehovah and Jesus. The fundamental truths regarding themselves are important to Jehovah and Jesus. They do not agree with the lies about their persons (the trinity etc.). They do not agree with the lies regarding their creation  (immortality of the soul etc.). They do not agree with the lies regarding their mode of judgement (hell fire etc.). They do not agree with the lies regarding their moral standards (homosexuality ok etc.) They do not agree with lies regarding worship (Jesus, Mary, idols etc) They do not agree with the lies regarding defence (war etc.) They do not agree with the lies regarding their spiritual standards (e.g. Jonsson’s quote above).

His quote above is a cheap cop out. The same reasoning has become very popular because it rids spiritual leaders of the responsibility of keeping Christ’s Church morally and spiritually clean. It puts the responsibility on the individual. However, Christ did establish the first century church and on this church the true church should be modeled.

There is no modern church except for Jehovah’s Witnesses’ which adhere to the same principles as the first century Christian congregations. Other Churches may have some aspects that are the same, but never ALL of them like Jehovah’s Witnesses do. Prove me wrong.

Acts 10:34,35 “At this Peter began to speak, and he said: “Now I truly understand that God is not partial, but in every nation the man who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him”.

I do not see anything indicating that in any Christian denomination the man who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.  

-----------------------------------------------------  

Anna's post moved from this thread: 

 

[Ann O'Maly]

So your reason for declaring this person a false Christian is that he doesn't hold to your own religious group's current interpretations of Scripture. Doesn't this strike you as a presumptuous position to take - especially since it is the 'Judge of all the earth' to make that final assessment?

Did you try and understand his scriptural arguments that countered the JW Organization's then-held views (the article was written in 1998 and a lot of JW doctrine has changed since then)? 

20 hours ago, Anna said:

The scriptures indicate quite clearly that there will be a united group in the last days, they do not teach that true Christians will be scattered amongst various Christian denominations.

This is one of the arguments the author counters. He also makes the valid point that the Org, has (and still has) a mix of righteous and wicked people within its congregations and outside of them, thereby suggesting that the harvest and weeding out work has not concluded.

20 hours ago, Anna said:

They do not agree with the lies about their persons (the trinity etc.).

This reminds me of when I had discussions with evangelicals. Some of them consigned me to hell because I couldn't accept, on scriptural grounds, that Jesus was the second Person of the Trinity. I asked them where it said in the Bible that I had to accept this specific doctrine in order to be saved. They couldn't point to any text.

The converse is true, of course. If it was so necessary to pin down God's and Jesus' ontological relationship with each other, Bible texts would not be so ambiguous or have to be explained away by those in either camp. And if anyone really examines the subject in any depth, they will realize that Trinitarians have strong scriptural arguments in their favor.

I'll have to break off my reply for now, but I'll come back to the rest of your post later ...

[Ann O'Maly]

22 hours ago, Anna said:

They do not agree with the lies regarding their creation  (immortality of the soul etc.).

Again, this is such a massive, involved topic. It is not as scripturally (or linguistically and philosophically) black-and-white as you assume.

Think:

What is the 'soul' and has understanding about it changed over the time the Bible was compiled?

Are the 'souls' of the 'anointed' immortal?

What 'something' of an 'anointed' person is transformed after death or is 'resurrected' to heavenly life?

When and under what circumstances is a soul's immortality granted, according to the Bible?

Researching these questions, one will find that the Org. attacks the idea that the 'soul' is inherently or naturally immortal. But it seems to sidestep the idea many Christians hold to that immortality is something bestowed.

22 hours ago, Anna said:

They do not agree with the lies regarding their mode of judgement (hell fire etc.).

Another huge debate among Christians is the interpretation of those 'hell fire' proof texts - should they be taken literally or figuratively? 

Regarding what is to be taken literally and figuratively in the Bible, are hermeneutic principles applied consistently?

22 hours ago, Anna said:

They do not agree with the lies regarding their moral standards (homosexuality ok etc.)

Do JWs believe homosexuality is wrong? Or Do JWs believe the issue is about homosexual practice? Lots of other Christian groups would accept homosexuals without condoning homosexual acts.

22 hours ago, Anna said:

They do not agree with lies regarding worship (Jesus, Mary, idols etc)

This depends on what is meant by 'worship' and whether it is scriptural to 'worship' Jesus (another discussion in itself). The veneration of Mary follows from other premises which have to be assessed on their scriptural merits or otherwise. As for 'idols' - well, we can make idols of anything - even organizations and their leaders, if we are not careful -  can we not?

22 hours ago, Anna said:

They do not agree with the lies regarding defence (war etc.)

Another debate that would ensue from wider-ranging ethical questions. Is it OK to stand by and let your neighbor be bullied or killed? What about all the war-mongering and genocide in the OT?

22 hours ago, Anna said:

His quote above is a cheap cop out.

Actually it isn't when one begins to think beyond the superficial, beyond the ear-tickling soundbites.

22 hours ago, Anna said:

However, Christ did establish the first century church and on this church the true church should be modeled.

And the first century church was diverse.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/first/diversity.html

 

[Anna]

Whoever inserted the link into my post above please take it away. I do not appreciate having my post tampered with, without my permission. If you deem it necessary or helpful to include that link, then please insert it under your own post.

If anything like this happens again I will stop commenting, and I will withdraw all my other comments, because I will not be able to trust that what I post, actually stays that way. Thank you.

P.S.I don't have any objections to my post being moved under a more appropriate topic, but it would have been nice to let me chose my own heading.....

[Ann O'Maly]

23 minutes ago, Anna said:

Whoever inserted the link into my post above please take it away. I do not appreciate having my post tampered with, without my permission. If you deem it necessary or helpful to include that link, then please insert it under your own post.

Very well. The link relating to your quote has been removed from your post and inserted here:

http://kristenfrihet.se/english/truechrist.htm

P.S. I find it to be common courtesy that, when a direct quote is made, it is properly referenced. That you did not do. Consequently, it was inserted into your post for the purpose of this new thread and so readers could follow where you were coming from. The edit was clearly flagged up so readers could distinguish between your initial post and the insertion.

[Anna]

“So who and where, then, are the true Christians today? Obviously the same as in every century from the time of Christ, namely, people who have accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord, Redeemer, and Teacher, and who may be found in any kind of Christian fellowship that proves to be of help in their endevour to lead a Christian life”. Jonsson

So, on those premises we must conclude that only some individuals scattered throughout Christendom have the truth. Without actually knowing they have the truth of course. Or, we must assume that God and Christ  are not concerned with truth, and that there is no real scriptural measuring rod for a Christian. All very convenient......and unscriptural.

Just a few comments regarding the link you posted

The first author states: “The Christian movement probably began not from a single center but from many different centers. Each of those groups probably had a very different take on what the significance of Jesus was. I like the way he uses probably.

Then he goes on to cite examples  to support his opinion, eg. regarding those who “insisted more strongly on observance of Jewish laws in the Torah competed with those who were more open to admission of gentiles without imposing the burden of the Torah on them”   This is quite understandable. Some Jewish Christians did have trouble transitioning. However, there was nothing wrong  in itself to be adhering to the Torah, as after all the Torah had been provided by God himself, and is part of the Holy Bible, and ALL scripture is inspired and beneficial......  

Then the author goes on to say: “There were others who we meet again in the Book of Acts, who apparently stood in continuity with the activity of John the Baptist and did not know the baptism that the Pauline Christians, at least, knew”. This is true, and Paul corrected them.

Then he goes on to say “So there was much more diversity in the early stages of the Christian movement than the Book of Acts suggest....”

Yet he himself had just used the book of Acts to cite two examples (of what he regarded as diversity)!....??

Then the other author goes on to admit that: “So we have a beginning with great diversity, and the slow process, particularly in the second century, to establish a greater unity among the very diverse churches. Already a process in Paul's churches themselves, because that's why Paul writes letters, because he wants to make sure that these newly converted Christians in Ephesus and Philippi and Thessaloniki and in Corinth have some unanimity in their beliefs”  Why did Paul do that? Because he knew unanimity was important because it was the will of God and Christ. Also, saying that the churches were very diverse is possible in the 2nd century, (apostasy)but not applicable to the extent he has in mind in the 1st Century.

The next  author goes on to say “And that in fact early Christianity, by moving into different realms of the different universes of thought and of religion in the Greco-Roman world, adopted a lot of concepts from other religions, lots of them pagan religions which enriched the early Christian movement tremendously”. Here we are already moving outside of the perimeters  of the Christian congregations established by Paul and his contemporaries and are moving into the beginnings of Apostasy which Jesus and Paul foretold, and Peter and other wrote about. Matthew 24: 24 For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will give great signs and wonders so as to mislead, if possible, even the chosen ones.

2 Thessalonians 2:3  Let no one seduce you in any manner, because it will not come unless the apostasy comes first and the man of lawlessness gets revealed, the son of destruction..”

2 Peter 2:1 “However, there also came to be false prophets among the people, as there will also be false teachers among you. These will quietly bring in destructive sects, and they will even disown the owner who bought them”  Etc. etc. There are many many scriptures where undesirable deviations are mentioned. Including the one of Jesus when he inspected the congregations  (Revelation) and found some adhering to the sect of Nicolaus, and he commended the congregation for not putting up with that sect.

Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12 identifies why the lawless one is judged adversely : “That is why God lets a deluding influence mislead them so that they may come to believe the lie,  in order that they all may be judged because they did not believe the truth but took pleasure in unrighteousness...”

Then in the next verse (13) he contrasts it thus: “ However, we are obligated always to thank God for you, brothers loved by Jehovah, because from the beginning God selected you for salvation by sanctifying you  with his spirit and by your faith in the truth..” And further in verse 15: “So, then, brothers, stand firm and maintain your hold on the traditions that you were taught, whether it was by a spoken message or by a letter from us”.

Bear in mind, I am referencing these scriptures because of established fundamental truths in the 1st Century, those I discussed in my previous post such as the identity of God and Christ, the soul etc. I am not here suggesting interpretation of chronology etc. is included.

Further to your arguments, I know doctrines of the Trinity, soul etc. are a  "massive involved topic" once you delve outside of the realms of logic and scripture. You are assuming I have no knowledge of the "issues" you mentioned. I do. But each of those topics argued require their own space.....they cannot be discussed orderly on this one thread.

[Anna]

In addition, the authors in your link talk about diversity of views as if there were MANY diverse views when in fact there were only a very few, the main ones being (as they mention) the Gentiles, and circumcision. Both these issues were understandable, and were solved. Other minor issues regarding who should do what (taking care of widows, proselytizing etc.) was also taken care of and resolved, the latter being normal issues of everyday life and organization and not related to doctrine.

Therefore I do not think the authors are being entirely honest, because they make it appear as if right from the beginning there were significant schisms, whereas in fact these significant schisms did not really appear until the most significant schism of them all presented itself namely: the identity of Christ.  Up until then, before the Greek Christians started mixing philosophy into the pure simple teachings of Christ and Paul etc.  the identity of Christ was quite plain and simple: That Christ was the son of God, the firstborn of all creation, whom God sent down from heaven to be born of a virgin as a perfect sinless human". This is how all the very early disciples of Christ understood it, as is apparent in their writings. Then forward wind some decades later after the last of the apostle’s death, and you begin to see the results of the influence of human philosophies in the thinking of bishops such as Athanasius, the father of the Trinity. This is where Christianity loses its grip on the truth entirely and gets smothered by “weeds”.

So it’s rather misleading to say that  “early Christians struggled to define for themselves the identity of Jesus and the meaning of his message” as the article suggests,  and apply it to the 1^st century congregations. Paul’s “struggles” with some of the congregations were of an entirely different nature. The teachings about Christ were clear.

Also, it is interesting to note, that although some of Christ's early disciples evidently got very emotional over some issues, (Paul & Barnabas) these did not linger, and definitely did not result in bloodshed. On the contrary, arguments over the identity of the Christ in the 2nd Century led to some nasty stuff, including murder. How Christian was that? Not only that, but bishops were now in the position of being able to meddle in politics. So much so that as one author writes: "...great Bishops were required to be as comfortable in the exercise of power as in the pulpit" ......."he played a vital mediating role between imperial authority and its subjects" ....."Did the Emperor require more soldiers and supplies for the army? He depended upon the Bishop to help convince unwilling subjects to cooperate with the authorities." (Richard Rubinstein - "When Jesus became God" p.51) How Christian was that, when Christ gave clear example of how his followers should behave regarding the authorities. And indeed, it's nothing like how Paul handled matters with the authorities.

Another interesting aspect shows how the confusion of the identity of the Christ may have got it's beginning. It's to do with worship. The above referenced author goes on to say: "These were explosive ideas. Faced with the problem that had confronted all Christians since St. Paul -- how to be a monotheist believing in only one God, yet still worship Jesus Christ" (p.55). Of course the author assumes this WAS a problem among the earliest Christians, whereas it really was not. Christians in Paul's day did not worship Christ....

[Anna]

On 10/25/2016 at 0:35 PM, Ann O'Maly said:

If it was so necessary to pin down God's and Jesus' ontological relationship with each other, Bible texts would not be so ambiguous or have to be explained away by those in either camp.

The ambiguity of Biblical texts is a matter of opinion in itself. I do not see any ambiguity in the texts describing the relationship between Jesus and his father.

Your statement though does make me think of this scripture: Luke 8:9,10 “But his disciples asked him what this illustration meant.  He said: “To you it is granted to understand the sacred secrets of the Kingdom of God, but for the rest it is in illustrations so that, though looking, they may look in vain, and though hearing, they may not get the sense”.

Also regarding the apparent ambiguity of Jesus’ statement regarding his blood: John 6:60, 66 “When they heard this, many of his disciples said: “This speech is shocking; who can listen to it?”.......... “Because of this, many of his disciples went off to the things behind”.

In fact, why even have the Bible the size it is? If according to your reasoning certain passages in the Bible are unnecessary. Why not shrink the whole Bible into: "Believe in Jesus, do good (according to what you believe is good), and you will be saved"

[Anna]

25 minutes ago, Anna said:

In fact, why even have the Bible the size it is? If according to your reasoning certain passages in the Bible are unnecessary. Why not shrink the whole Bible into: "Believe in Jesus, do good (according to what you believe is good), and you will be saved"

Even better than that: "accept Jesus Christ as your Lord, Redeemer, and Teacher, in any kind of Christian fellowship that proves to be of help in your endevour to lead a Christian life" 

[Ann O'Maly]

On 10/27/2016 at 8:28 PM, Anna said:

So, on those premises we must conclude that only some individuals scattered throughout Christendom have the truth. Without actually knowing they have the truth of course. Or, we must assume that God and Christ  are not concerned with truth, and that there is no real scriptural measuring rod for a Christian. All very convenient......and unscriptural.

But what is 'the truth'?

Biblically, 'truth' is applied to, 

• Jesus - he is 'the truth' (John 14:6)
• God's spirit (John 14:17)
• God's word (John 17:17)

Every denomination will have their own angle on those truths depending on which scriptural dots are joined up.

But notice that 'the truth' is never applied in the Bible to a religion or its set of doctrines.

If God and Christ wanted everybody on the exact same doctrinal page now, they could remove all the ambiguities.

As it is,

"For now we see in hazy outline by means of a metal mirror, but then it will be face-to-face. At present I know partially, but then I will know accurately, just as I am accurately known." - 1 Cor. 13:12

... and this from the inspired apostle Paul! So every Christian has to do their best according to their own prayerful study and the conclusions based on them. Besides, the Organization has changed its mind countless times on what 'present truth' is, has it not?

Quote

 

Then he goes on to say “So there was much more diversity in the early stages of the Christian movement than the Book of Acts suggest....”

Yet he himself had just used the book of Acts to cite two examples (of what he regarded as diversity)!....??

 

I suspect he means that Christian diversity was much more common and wide-reaching than the few notable examples which made it into the book of Acts suggest.

Quote

Why did Paul do that? Because he knew unanimity was important because it was the will of God and Christ. Also, saying that the churches were very diverse is possible in the 2nd century, (apostasy)but not applicable to the extent he has in mind in the 1st Century.

So doesn't it show that, rather than Christianity starting off as somehow doctrinally pure and unified with later heresy and fragmentation, there were already scattered and diverse churches having their own take on the gospel, with Paul and subsequent Church Fathers then working to shape it into a 'catholic' orthodoxy?

Quote

Bear in mind, I am referencing these scriptures because of established fundamental truths in the 1st Century, those I discussed in my previous post such as the identity of God and Christ, the soul etc.

But many of those 'truths' hadn't been established yet. We get Paul hammering out matters of soteriology and the resurrection, as well as John's late gospel and corrective letters explaining Jesus' identity and nature. Early Christians would still be thrashing out these fundamental issues for centuries to come!

Quote

Further to your arguments, I know doctrines of the Trinity, soul etc. are a  "massive involved topic" once you delve outside of the realms of logic and scripture.

No - even within the realms of logic and scripture they are massive involved topics.

Quote

In addition, the authors in your link talk about diversity of views as if there were MANY diverse views when in fact there were only a very few

I suspect that, as well as the few examples in Acts being indicative of more commonplace happenings, they have in mind the contents of all the early Christian writings - not just those that were later canonized.

Quote

Other minor issues regarding who should do what (taking care of widows, proselytizing etc.) was also taken care of and resolved, the latter being normal issues of everyday life and organization and not related to doctrine.

Some of these minor issues would be relating to doctrine, though - like sources of meat, and who one should eat with, and when head coverings were appropriate, and so on.

Quote

Also, it is interesting to note, that although some of Christ's early disciples evidently got very emotional over some issues, (Paul & Barnabas) these did not linger, and definitely did not result in bloodshed. On the contrary, arguments over the identity of the Christ in the 2nd Century led to some nasty stuff, including murder. How Christian was that? 

Not Christian at all. However, there are the precursors to that level of hostility toward heresy when those who hold to and/or teach a different perspective are considered a pariah, e.g. Gal. 1:8, 9; 2 John 7, 10. It's a short step to outright violence when cherished ideologies are at stake.

Quote

How Christian was that, when Christ gave clear example of how his followers should behave regarding the authorities. And indeed, it's nothing like how Paul handled matters with the authorities.

Indeed. They thought the authorities' violent comeuppance would be later through a divine smiting.

Quote

Another interesting aspect shows how the confusion of the identity of the Christ may have got it's beginning. It's to do with worship. The above referenced author goes on to say: "These were explosive ideas. Faced with the problem that had confronted all Christians since St. Paul -- how to be a monotheist believing in only one God, yet still worship Jesus Christ" (p.55). Of course the author assumes this WAS a problem among the earliest Christians, whereas it really was not. Christians in Paul's day did not worship Christ....

It's not an assumption. The issue of worshipping Christ WAS a hot potato with the earliest Christians. E.g. see Larry Hurtado's book Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity where he provides evidence leading to the opposite conclusion.

Quote

I do not see any ambiguity in the texts describing the relationship between Jesus and his father.

Trinitarians would agree that there is no ambiguity in these texts. So why, they would ask, can't you see it? They use the same scriptural slap-downs as you have used with me regarding a seeming insensibility to 'Bible truths.' 

[Anna]

On 10/30/2016 at 4:23 PM, Ann O'Maly said:

But what is 'the truth'?

You are beginning to sound very much like Pilate

I started writing an extensive reply to all of the points you made.  And then I scrapped it all as we can be going backwards and forwards each expressing our opinions and quoting the opinions of others. 

One big difference between you and me is that you believe that God meant his word the Bible to be ambiguous, and I believe that this kind of thinking goes contrary to what God and Christ stand for.

To be a Christian means to be a footstep follower of Christ. How can one follow  properly if it is a matter of ambiguity? A case of “I want you to be my followers but I am going to make it ambiguous on how I want you to follow me”. 

John 8:31 " Then Jesus went on to say to the Jews who had believed him: “If you remain in my word, you are really my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” Jesus’ word  are his teachings, and these come directly from God, and God’s word is truth, and that is the Bible. It would be very illogical for Jesus to say all this if the the truth in the Bible was to be ambiguous. There would be no point.

I remember having a discussion with my cousin, who had been christened a Catholic and believes in a little bit of Buddhism, a bit of Native American, and his own philosophy.  We were trying to get to the root of how people end up believing what they do. The answer; people are either born into a religion, or they choose one that suits them best.  I told him this could not be said of JWs in general. Yes, JWs look forward to paradise earth etc. but the real reason why they are JWs is because they want to please God and do what God wants, not what they want. They do not choose to be a JW because it suits them. On the contrary, many times it does not suit them at all.

So in view of this, Jonsson’s  reasoning that people who "have accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord, Redeemer, and Teacher, and who may be found in any kind of Christian fellowship that proves to be of help in their endevour to lead a Christian life” applies for the most part to people who choose a particular fellowship because THEY feel it helps THEM to lead a Christian life, without actually confirming whether the life they are leading is recognized by God and Jesus to be truly Christian..

I do not dispute that throughout the centuries there have been individuals who have led an exemplary Christian life to the best of their ability and fought for what they believed was the truth. But according to the Scriptures the situation would be different in the time of the end:, in the time of the end God would gather people to himself again as a group of worshipers, not scattered among differing beliefs:

Isaiah2:2,4 “In the final part of the days, The mountain of the house of Jehovah Will become firmly established above the top of the mountains,  And it will be raised up above the hills, And to it all the nations will stream  And many peoples will go and say: “Come, let us go up to the mountain of Jehovah, To the house of the God of Jacob. He will instruct us about his ways, And we will walk in his paths.”  For law will go out of Zion, And the word of Jehovah out of Jerusalem. He will render judgment among the nations And set matters straight respecting many peoples. They will beat their swords into plowshares And their spears into pruning shears. Nation will not lift up sword against nation, Nor will they learn war anymore.

Zecheriah 8:20-23: ““This is what Jehovah of armies says, ‘It will yet come to pass that peoples and the inhabitants of many cities will come;  and the inhabitants of one city will go to those of another and say: “Let us earnestly go to beg for the favour of Jehovah and to seek Jehovah of armies. I am also going.” And many peoples and mighty nations will come to seek Jehovah of armies in Jerusalem and to beg for the favour  of Jehovah.’  “This is what Jehovah of armies says, ‘In those days ten men out of all the languages of the nations will take hold, yes, they will take firm hold of the robe  of a Jew, saying: “We want to go with you, for we have heard that God is with you people.”

Daniel 12:4 ““As for you, Daniel, keep the words secret, and seal up the book until the time of the end.  Many will rove about, and the true knowledge will become abundant”  verses 9, 10 “Then he said: “Go, Daniel, because the words are to be kept secret and sealed up until the time of the end.  Many will cleanse themselves and whiten themselves and will be refined. And the wicked ones will act wickedly, and none of the wicked will understand; but those having insight will understand”

[Anna]

On 10/30/2016 at 4:23 PM, Ann O'Maly said:

If God and Christ wanted everybody on the exact same doctrinal page now, they could remove all the ambiguities.

No, not really, there are no ambiguities to remove. In fact even if something is totally black and white, there will always be people who will be contrary. I have already cited scriptures which attest to the fact that only some will see the “truth” and others will not. If we were to apply Jesus' narrow road, we can say that the majority will not see the truth. Also “Not everyone saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the Kingdom of the heavens, but only the one doing the will of my Father who is in the heavens will". Now if we could not be sure what the doing of his will was, how could that statement made by Jesus be fair? And not only that, but in talking about ambiguity and the truth, we cannot ignore Satan’s vested interest in the outcome of what people will believe, as he is the father of the lie, he does not want anyone to learn the truth.