Do the majority of christians know the history of there religion?

Unfortunately, many of my fellow Christians are only Christians for a way out. So, they have no reason to. Of course, this is not a good thing. What is the point of religion if you don't try to learn more about things like it's origin.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'm more interested in the age of rocks than the rock of ages. No offence meant

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Myles and Nasor,

As i have stated previously, the pinhole camera and camera obscura are no longer considered possibilities and if they ever were they were just guesses and never shown to reproduce 'the shroud'. It was not painted either, anyone who has researched it enough knows this.

Someone even went to the trouble of using real blood, whatever you believe it is still an interest artifact that is documented up to 1345 AD. Has nothing to do with superstition because if it is fake it really wouldnt matter and the bible itself contradicts it. Yet i remain on the fence because even though it was studied by world renowned scientists it remains a mystery. And if it cannot be reproduced with all the technology available in the year 2008 i would really like to know how it was done.

http://www.jesusisreal.org/shroudofturin/index.htm

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Back on topic:

Do any of you guys believe that Jesus has been earth bound many times, or is it just me? Is that in keeping with any Christian philosophy?

 

He might well have been earth bound several times but failed to make it because of problems with his celestial spaceship

 

Please take into consideration that i had an NDE and Jesus' intervention kept me here. I am not lying either, perhaps it was hallucination but i dont hallucinate.

Myles, what is your opinion on this:

Do you really think it was mass hallucination given the fact it was witnessed by 100,000+ people, with some child predicted this months before even giving the date.

Dont you even consider extra natural possibilities?

 

Myles,

Do you think that there is the possibility that Mozart, DaVinci, Paganinni and Hieronymus Bosch amongst others have tapped into some sort of extranatural\supernatural ability?

 

No, their works were natural. Isn't everything that occurs in nature, natural by definition? Beyond our understanding perhaps but natural none the less.

 

Damn, i spelled Paganini wrong and you quoted me.

I am not saying that my posts are definitive proof of anything but as far as the artists mentioned, how many people could compete with them even if they lived 100 lifetimes?

Of course with art it is not only the ability to produce the work it is the idea behind it, the conception and their ability to come up with so many new works is astonishing.

Those are the ones i am familiar with so i am not saying western art is better just that i know more about it.

 

The point is that negative images were not unknown to people (especially artists) in the midde ages, as many shroud-believers like to claim.

Since the pigments producing the image are common medieval paints, it almost certainly was painted. The fact that we aren't sure exactly how the paint was applied doesn't change this. Clearly it was something more complicated than simply sloping the paint on with a brush, but fact that it’s made of medieval paint seems like a pretty good indication that it was painted.

"World-renowned scientists" concluded that it was a medieval fake; they dated it to the middle ages with radiometric dating and concluded that the image was composed of medieval paint after examining it with electron microscopy. This was all published in peer-reviewed science journals. Since then, the Vatican hasn't allowed any "neutral" scientists to examine the shroud - they got tired of every scientific test concluding that it was only about 800 years old, so they simply stopped allowing disinterested scientists to study it. Now it only gets examined by the Vatican's chosen cadre of "scientists" who do everything they can to promote the idea that the shroud is supernatural. In fact, the guy who determined that the image was made of paint was originally a member of that Vatican group, but they kicked him out and confiscated his samples after he published his results. That alone should speak volumes about the reliability of their "evidence" that the shroud is supernatural.

 

I find that odd. At least most christians have the excuse of ignorance, if you studied human history and understand how religions arose in human communities how can you then go on to actually believe in a particular religion?

It would be like finding out santa clause is a fictional character that was invented to make children behave, then saying "interesting... speaking of santa, I wonder what he will bring me this year?", weren't you paying attention?

 

It's true that there are a lot of ignorant Christians out there, but that's only because most of the worlds population are ignorant, because most of the worlds population has better things to do then study history, like raise kids, get a promotion, do the laundry...whatever.

But don't label all Christians as ignorant, there are some pretty damn smart ones out there (I'm not including myself but, I'm still just learning).

Also can people please write where they are getting all these apparent 'facts' from that they keep writing please.

The Church as a body of believers was around for a long time before it suddenly seemed like a good idea by Rome to adopt it as a religion.

Also the devil is seen in the old testament. The devil is mentioned in Job, the 'adversary'.

Also my studies of the Old Testament have shown me God's promise slowly being revealed to a rebellious people, and finally made whole in Jesus.

The Jews didn't believe in original sin?
Why does the Torah tell the story of Adam and Eve.
Why are there the ten commandments.
And the rest of the Law.
Which they would be punished and put back in line if they did not follow.

Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice the Jewish sacrificial system was never created to be permanent it was always God's plan to save his chosen people Israel, and through them the other nations, through the redemptive work of his son. Jesus wasn't what they expected, but it was what God had planned.

 

Shhhhh every time someone says Santa doesn't exist, Santa kills a kitten!

 

No, I don't think so...Answers, Most Christians are ignorant because they don't make the time to learn more about their religion...This is true for even the educated ones...It's about what is practiced at church. They don't bring their bible, They listen to pastors and most of them couldn't tell what Haggai is let alone find it.

 

In short, no. I reject the god of the gaps.

 

Not a problem. He will bring presents to good children and some bad children and nothing to children whose parents are poor and have not learned the value of thrift.

See Book of Santa: 2.14

 

A person can be very smart and very good at, say, electrical engineering without knowing anything about religious history. It's true that there are some christians who know quite a lot about church history, but they are almost always the most moderate types who don't take anything literally.

Yes, but it says "adversary," not "a fallen angel who lives in hell". Notice the difference there?

The Jews had the story of Adam and Eve, of course, but "original sin" was a christian invention. The Jews thought that God had is law and that you would eb punished if you didn't follow it (usually on earth - he would simply kill you, make you sick, make your army lose a battle, etc. if you didn't obey).

But, as I stated earlier, Jews did not use sacrifice to atone for sins! They used it to show devotion, to seal covenants, and many other reasons, but not generally to atone for sin. You could only use a sacrifice to atone for a minor sin that you committed on accident (like if you accidentally ate a forbidden food, etc.).

 

increase your knowledge increase your sorrow.

I still follow the practice of bonding with family. I have hope and love the idea of a father figure that loves us all and wants us to be good. just because I have a view that I belive is beyond that of those around me does not mean I need to throw it in there faces nor disrespect there ideals, 1 hour once a wk is a small price to pay to stay connected to the ones I love.

 

The term original sin was coin by Christians , however not the concept of the heredity of sin which is what original sin refrences. This is evidently what the psalmist refers to in saying: “With error I was brought forth with birth pains, and in sin my mother conceived me.”

Certainly they understood sin was passed down.. Romans 5:12 states that “through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men because they had all sinned.” There is no divergence from this thinking.

Did the Jews sacrifice to atone for sin?

Ex 29:36
"And you will offer the bull of the sin offering daily for an atonement, and you must purify the altar from sin by your making atonement over it, and you must anoint it to sanctify it."


Le 4:20)
And he must do to the bull just as he did to the other bull of the sin offering. That is the way he will do to it; and the priest must make an atonement for them, and so it must be forgiven them.

Of particular significance was the annual Atonement Day, when Israel’s high priest offered animal sacrifices and made atonement for himself, for the other Levites, and for the nonpriestly tribes of Israel. (Le 16) Sacrificial animals were to be unblemished, indicating the necessity of perfection on the part of their antitype. Also, that atonement is a costly matter is shown in that the victim’s life was given, its blood being shed to make atonement.

"Does God have as much delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as in obeying the voice of God? Look! To obey is better than a sacrifice, to pay attention than the fat of rams; for rebelliousness is the same as the sin of divination, and pushing ahead presumptuously the same as using uncanny power and teraphim. Since you have rejected the word of God, he accordingly rejects you from being king.”—1*Sam. 15:21-23.

So apparently sacrifice was definitely a part of atonement for sin aswell as to show devotion and convenant which all relate to obedience the failure of which would require atonement for error as 1 Sammuel indicates.

 

spot on saquist. Also there was the sin offering once a year when only the high priest would go into the furthermost room of the temple and sacrifice a lamb for all the sin of Israel.