Talking to God

Pudney · 17 Mar 2006 at 15:30

Zip said:
Im pentecostal and we just go by whats straight out of the bible.

You do realise that during the reformation, the protestant church cut out some sections of the new testament?

Messiah Khan · 17 Mar 2006 at 15:31

I can talk to god as well. So can we all at;
http://www.titane.ca/concordia/dfar251/igod/main.html

Gaspode · 17 Mar 2006 at 15:31

anyone can talk to God - him talking back is a bit David Icke

Vonhelmet · 17 Mar 2006 at 15:37

Zip said:
All types of Christians are like thats though with some different beliefs and laws, look at Jehovah's for example

J Woos are not Christians.

Vonhelmet · 17 Mar 2006 at 15:38

Pudney@work said:
You do realise that during the reformation, the protestant church cut out some sections of the new testament?

Source please.

I'm studying the reformation at the moment, and haven't come across any such thing.

Zip · 17 Mar 2006 at 15:38

Pudney@work said:
You do realise that during the reformation, the protestant church cut out some sections of the new testament?

Yeah i know that.
But from what i see most the important stuff is in the old testament and the new testament is more to teach how to spread the word of God and teach people about things.
I might be well off the mark though but its better then having man made rules all over the place(sorry to any cathlics).

Zip · 17 Mar 2006 at 15:40

vonhelmet said:
J Woos are not Christians.

Well they are but they arnt, its very confusing. They do believe in the same god but im not sure what they think of Jesus.
The Name Jahova is another name for God irrc

Treefrog · 17 Mar 2006 at 15:45

vonhelmet said:
Source please.

I'm studying the reformation at the moment, and haven't come across any such thing.

More useful background that GordyR emailed me:

First things first I always recommend the first half of the book “The Messianic Legacy” by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh and Henry Lincoln.

Now the reason I say only the first half is that the book is divided in to two sections. The first section is a pretty decent overview of recent biblical research. It deals quite heavily with the origins of Christianity. The research is not the authors own, they are merely writers. However the research behind this section is mostly all sourced from highly reputable scholars and they have managed to put it all together in to a nice light and relatively easy read. It is definitely a good place to get a taste.

The second half of the book however is not really worth reading. It deals with a completely different topic altogether. It is about their investigation in to a fraudulent modern day group called the Priory of Sion which they later proved was a hoax themselves. Far too much speculation and doesn’t deal with religious history at all. Avoid it.

Also important is that you try to get a hold of the “other” gospels. By that I mean the ones which did not make it in to the official bible when it was decided what would be included and excluded at the Council of Nicea. These gospels paint a far more complete picture of the actual events that occurred during Jesus’ lifetime and are a must for anyone interested in getting anywhere close to the truth. Start with the Nag hammadi texts which you can probably find somewhere online.

Check out “The Gnostic Gospels” by Elaine Pagels. It is essentially a book on the earliest form of Christianity. It’s sources are mainly the Nag Hammadi texts so this is probably an even more worthwhile a read than the texts themselves.

Also worth a mention is “The Woman With the Alabaster Jar” by Margaret Starbird. Margaret is actually a Catholic scholar and her research is second to none. Highly recommended.

FirebarUK · 17 Mar 2006 at 15:50

Well they are but they arnt, its very confusing. They do believe in the same god but im not sure what they think of Jesus.

Not really, as said above. They focus way too much on the Watchtower stuff.
Although like you, I'm not too sure where they stand on Jesus but I think their doctrines just differ way too much, including lots of man-made ones.

Pudney · 17 Mar 2006 at 15:51

vonhelmet said:
Source please.

I'm studying the reformation at the moment, and haven't come across any such thing.

From memory about 4 books were decided to be Catholic Dogma towards the end of the 16th century and were rejected. Unfortunately I'm at work and should be working so I don't have time to find a source until I get home.

Vonhelmet · 17 Mar 2006 at 16:01

Pudney@work said:
From memory about 4 books were decided to be Catholic Dogma towards the end of the 16th century and were rejected. Unfortunately I'm at work and should be working so I don't have time to find a source until I get home.

Not convinced about that. There's plenty of stuff that didn't make it into the Canon, but that was years ago, in the first few centuries. I don't think any of it has changed (barring newer translations) since about the 4th Century. I think you're thinking of what Treefrog cited above.

Going back to Jehovah's Witnesses... They're not Christians, as they don't ackowledge Jesus as the son of God, which is pretty much the defining characteristic of Christianity.

Sherbs · 17 Mar 2006 at 16:01

'iGod:
I'm glad you find this amusing. I don't have any reason to pwned you.'

FirebarUK · 17 Mar 2006 at 16:08

Going back to Jehovah's Witnesses... They're not Christians, as they don't ackowledge Jesus as the son of God, which is pretty much the defining characteristic of Christianity.

Ah yes, they think he was just an important prophet don't they?

Pudney · 17 Mar 2006 at 16:14

Due to the fact that some of the recognized Books of the Holy Scripture were having their canonicity questioned in the 16th century by Protestants, the Council of Trent reaffirmed the traditional canon of the Scripture as a dogma of the Catholic Church.

Quickly found on Wiki.

Vonhelmet · 17 Mar 2006 at 16:16

FirebarUK said:
Ah yes, they think he was just an important prophet don't they?

No, though the Muslims do.

JWs think Jesus was created by God, and that he went on to create everything else. He was then born as a human via Mary, and died later. That's about the end of him, near as I can tell.

The problem being that they believe he was created by God, but that he wasn't actually God, as Christians believe.

Vonhelmet · 17 Mar 2006 at 16:22

Pudney@work said:
Quickly found on Wiki.

Sorry, but could you please explain how that is relevant? You're talking about a Catholic Council which set out to reaffirm the Catholic canon? They didn't add or remove any books from the Catholic canon, and nor did the Protestants at the time.

Zip · 17 Mar 2006 at 16:23

vonhelmet said:
No, though the Muslims do.

JWs think Jesus was created by God, and that he went on to create everything else. He was then born as a human via Mary, and died later. That's about the end of him, near as I can tell.

The problem being that they believe he was created by God, but that he wasn't actually God, as Christians believe.

We dont beleive Jesus was God :confused:

We beleve that Jesus is the Son of God and he gave his life to save us from our sins and show us what is right.
God=God
Jesus=Jesus

Vonhelmet · 17 Mar 2006 at 16:27

Zip said:
We dont beleive Jesus was God
We beleve that Jesus is the Son of God and he gave his life to save us from our sins and show us what is right.
God=God
Jesus=Jesus

Yes, but Jesus is a part of God. God is made up of three parts - God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. This collective is known as the trinity.

This is another fairly essential tenet of Christianity.

Zip · 17 Mar 2006 at 16:31

vonhelmet said:
Yes, but Jesus is a part of God. God is made up of three parts - God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. This collective is known as the trinity.

This is another fairly essential tenet of Christianity.

Thats head shoulder a shouder thing is Cathlic if thats what u meen

Pudney · 17 Mar 2006 at 16:37

vonhelmet said:
Sorry, but could you please explain how that is relevant? You're talking about a Catholic Council which set out to reaffirm the Catholic canon? They didn't add or remove any books from the Catholic canon, and nor did the Protestants at the time.

No idea really, was only skim reading as I'm having to be quick in short pauses of work so not entirely aware of what it said