I didn't suggest an age. I said he would've appeared as an adult, not an infant.
How has science impacted your perspective on the Hebrew Bible?
- Thread starter biblestudent78
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Yes, the dating varies, although the exact date doesn't matter. What DOES matter is when humans became God-conscious with a moral conscience/MFW and thereby differentiated from sub-humans.
I cite the Creation and the Resurrection as the two miracles that must be true in order to have evidence supporting hope of heaven.
Apologetics provides such evidence and reasons for hope, but not scientific proof. See that thread if you are interested in an approach that begins were atheists are and then works forward to faith in the NT God.
See you there?
Rewriter:
Currently, we can look back about 13.5 million years ago seeing light that existed at the "beginning" of all the Universes when it wa a couple of hundreds of thousands years of yrs old.
However, abstractions about science as any part of theology are is not particularly relevant. The issues are not about the formation of human life but of human relevance and inter-human relationships. Here we are in a super cold galactic reality. While that may be true, the particular reality of those living on earth is a world apart from these scientific realities as they offer no meaning or value for us. The Gospel is focused on one issue, humans are uniquely like the God that created created us, Genesis notwithstanding, we are given the right to believe that human life is unique, sacred an perhaps God Breathed and those devoted to the establishment of loving communities of faith. The entire Gospel can easily be summarize in love of God:The Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and love your neighbor as yourself.
Science tells us of ancient communities of humans who banded together to invent art, sites of worship and strong communities that we Christians today have lost track of in our headlong quest of "Proof" we know God's will better than 45,00 other denominations. We do not know why Neanderthal and Denisovan humans were incorporated into our current human community but perhaps the missing key is the loss of love of others as much as we love ourselves. Self-interest, self-love, self-righteousness is perhaps an eternal path to hell on earth and potentially later punishment.
Well you are aware of the numerous claimed resurrections in the 1st century are you not? And recall, the biblical requirements for knowing the truth involve two or three eyewitnesses who may be questioned by anyone. The physical resurrection relies on on five different persons, all long deceased and so currently unquestionable, but their written account remain. Of these five, one admits to relying on hearsay, so is not an eyewitness, down to four. A second makes no claim as to his source, but appears to rely heavily on one of the remaining other three, and thus does not appear to be an eyewitness, so we are down to three. Of these three, two appear to have had their written accounts edited by an unknown person at an unknown time, thus rendering them untrustworthy. Yet one remains, and that single source is vague, stating that he was an eyewitness to the evidence for the resurrection, but not providing any details as to just what he saw.
But you protest, there are still three living eyewitnesses, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. But may a non-believer question them? How may they do so without being forced to compromise their ability to question, which would again violate the biblical requirements for being able to know the truth?
Now there is ample indirect evidence that both the creation and the resurrection occurred, but the details of both remain obscure and do not necessarily support traditional Christianity nor the weight of Christian understandings of heaven. Here, all currently available evidence for heaven remains anecdotal, far more solid than many Christians realize, but still anecdotal (there are many scientists who argue that the plural of anecdote is "data", but also others who claim that it is not).
I had a very well-liked theology professor, who also had an excellent international reputation, who would soundly disagree with you regarding science. He taught us that WHEN, not if, we used science in our theology, to make certain that it was the best we could obtain at that point in time. His logic for that argument was that the creation is part of God's revelation to humanity and that should we decide that it is not worthy of our theological attention than we are dismissing at least half of His revelation to us and thereby developing a truncated theology, which by its very truncated nature, must be inadequate, quite possibly totally misleading. One fairly well-known example of a truncated theology that is totally misleading is most Lutheran, and thus also much of Protestant theology in general, as the early Lutherans in their statement of faith declared their opposition to certain specific aspects of RCC theology and uncertainty about some other points but that the Lutheran position was as stated (a total of 16 specific points), and most Lutheran theology stops with those statements and is based solely on them. But the full Lutheran confession of faith goes on to say that with all other points, or the vast majority of total belief, that Lutheranism AGREES with the RCC.
"The plural of anecdote is data." LOL! I like that definition, and I also like your theology professor's view of science.
The main reason I have confidence in Christ's resurrection is what Paul wrote in 1Cor. 15:14.
Do you plan to join me on the Apologetics thread in order to discuss Apologetics an approach that begins where atheists are and then works forward to faith in the NT God?
GWH
The plural of anecdote is anecdotes. Anecdotes are not data. They are used to fill in gaps in a incomplete set of data but by definition they are opinion and experienced based assumptions, intuitions and speculations.
The text in 1 Corinthians 15 is problematic on several levels
3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that He was buried, that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He appeared to Cephas and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, He appeared to more than five hundred brothers at once, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8 And last of all He appeared to me also, as to one of untimely birth.
Vs 5 - Jesus appeared to Peter and then the twelve....There is no indication that Judas was a witness to the resurrected Christ in the upper room and In Acts 1:13-14, the apostles gathered in the upper room, which included Peter, John, James, and others, but notably excluded Judas Iscariot. Matthias was not chosen to replace Judas until after Jesus had ascended to heaven Acts 1:15-26. So when Paul says Jesus appeared to the "12," who could he have been including? Math is math.
Apologetics is just a term for those who have made up their mind on the dogmas they chose to defend given that their arguments are Titanian jail cells of dogma. It has been my experience that apologetics are based on presuppositions that have no inherent validation and are usually off the table...such as the presupposition that whatever version or cannon of the bible they "Believe in" is inerrant, infallible and authored by God. They like to pretend to be open and interested but no input that violates their presuppositions, creeds, statements of faith, Catechisms or unique group think and is "valid." Queriosly, they can never agree about anything. That is why there are 45,000 reported Christian denominations each with their champion Apologist resulting in biblebabble.
I prefer biblical scholarship were all the ins and outs ups and downs in the 700,000 word library we call the bible can be debated based on the intersection of textual variations, history, life sciences, archeology, paleography, textual history, common religious practises of the populations covered by the historic part of the bible and comparative theology of other ancient civilizations often a precursor to later inclusion in the Bible. This approach is just as likely to build solid faith then any dynastic hand me down encapsulated theology developed by people known and unknown yet totally defining "truth" to the hundreds of generations of followers of each of these men.
Much Scripture is like sausage, so Paul may have miscounted or neglected to say "The Twelve minus Judas".
People including Paul are fallible, and so apologetics is fallible--like art more than math.
My logical apologetic is explained in that thread, but it is based on Paul's scientific instruction to test everything.
I invite anyone to double-check my train of thought, and I am willing to make amendments, because I seek truth.
I recently realized that those who are saved MUST agree at least implicitly regarding God's requirement for salvation,
which is most comprehensively stated as cooperation with His Word as revealed (creation, conscience, logic, golden rule, etc.).
Then they spend the rest of their lives fine-tuning their understanding of God's will (Rom. 12:1-3) and harmonizing His words,
including what is learned via the various disciplines you listed, hopefully guided by His Spirit per 2Thes. 2:10.
Right?
This sounds like Rewriter, so I will respond to the particulars in light of my interpretation of your broader eschatology. As for Paul's generally accepted writings, first we know that all but Romans were "occasional" letters meaning they were written to church communities because of an event or information received by Paul of a problem that needed solving. Thus, Paul was not writing "scripture" as we now call it, but letters of correction. As there were different problems addressed by Paul in very different churches distilling a single "theology" from his writings are bound to be as chaotic as were the variety of problems he was writing about. Paul never claim to have received a theology from Jesus. He received his "gospel." That Jesus rose from the dead and declared salvation to all living in "The Way." Paul spent at least 3 years living in Egypt after his conversion. Perhaps it was there he learned his trade as a tentmaker. Paul tends to minimize his exposure to the original apostles and Jesus family, James and Jude. It is obvious that he "contended" with them and eventually rejected their authority over anything defining "Christianity."Much Scripture is like sausage, so Paul may have miscounted or neglected to say "The Twelve minus Judas".
People including Paul are fallible, and so apologetics is fallible--like art more than math.
My logical apologetic is explained in that thread, but it is based on Paul's scientific instruction to test everything.
I invite anyone to double-check my train of thought, and I am willing to make amendments, because I seek truth.
I recently realized that those who are saved MUST agree at least implicitly regarding God's requirement for salvation,
which is most comprehensively stated as cooperation with His Word as revealed (creation, conscience, logic, golden rule, etc.).
Then they spend the rest of their lives fine-tuning their understanding of God's will (Rom. 12:1-3) and harmonizing His words,
including what is learned via the various disciplines you listed, hopefully guided by His Spirit per 2Thes. 2:10.
Right?
When Paul speaks about "the scriptures" anywhere and everywhere in his writings he is referring to the Hebrew Bible, as there were no "scriptures" in the New Testament and would not be for at least 40ys-50ys after his death. The origins of Paul's writings appears to be a blending of the then current understanding of the Hebrew Bible and Jewish religious practices of his time and the revelations of those who knew Jesus, the initial structure of the Christian Church in Jerusalem and the growing desire to make Jewish Christianity attractive and compelling to the wider gentile world. He never claimed perfection of knowledge but provided insight from his personal experience with Jesus, his deep knowledge of Jewish scriptures and the belief that the "Word of God" as he perceived it was universal to all people. That combined with a core personal morality founded on pious Jewish living, guided Paul's instruction for both Christian theology and a corresponding Christian ethic.
Our earliest reliable source from 9 of Paul's writings comes from a folio of 86 parchment leafs of the 113 originals - P46 dating from just before 200 AD or 137 yrs after Paul's death. P-46 did not contain the "disputed Pauline books" of 1-2 Timothy, Titus and Philemon.
Virtually every aspect of what it means to "Be Saved" is debated and has been since 1054 AD. if one takes the position that what was formerly Christianity writ large was captured by the Roman State by 380 AD when the Roman version of Christianity became mandatory, then the requirements for salvation and authentic Christian living lasted only about 240 yrs. Then the time of democratic christianity ended. Meaning Christian Churches across the Roman Empire and beyond practiced their own "understanding" of Christianity " based on whatever "scriptures" they deemed valid and the early testimony of eyewitnesses. Many scriptures beloved by them were later discarded or disavowed by the powers of the Roman State Christianity. At this point, there was no sense of being "guided by the Spirit," because everything you needed was provided by the State Run Religion that claimed to be the single authority for all things Christian. You were saved by following the dictates of the Church.
Thus, today there are three vertical Christian traditions. Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Reformationism. While reformers began as a need to reform the practices of the Roman Church it evolved into a massive family tree of competing theologies all framed around declaring a new and "restored" or "true" Christianity. It started the tradition of revolting against any Christianity that displeased some charismatic scholar or influential christo-political leader. The partition of Christianity into contentious branches until this very day.
As to how this applies to your statement "those who are saved MUST agree at least implicitly regarding God's requirement for salvation." This implies that anyone of the 45,000 competing denominations/non-denominations agrees on the definition of the requirements of salvation. Thus your logical assumption fails the reality test. As you well know from my perspective the error is not in misunderstanding "what you need to do to be saved" but what you are willing to sacrifice to live an authentic Christian life which has never been in deep conflict. Unfortunately it is invisible to other creeds, statements of faith, Catechisms, church ordinances and founder's writings that communicate that God only cares that you believe "right". Inventing a purely vertical religion where a person is made right with God by belief alone. There is no faith required to believe something that requires nothing of importance from you. "Sounds good to me" is the only and super-easy requirement underpinning the answer to "how we are saved."...just by believing we are. We feel theologically comforted and fulfilled by how quick and easy salvation has become. You make a 60 second decision on what to believe and heaven is "guaranteed."
I will assure you that GWH and I are different people and that I will correct him as rapidly as I correct anyone else who seems open to correction. That we agree that interpreting scripture is a lot like making sausage might come from extensive studies in interpretation.
I see also that you follow tradition on dating Paul's death to within the reign of Nero. Far more likely, at least to my mind and based on my extensive research, Paul was executed by Vespasian, a point that fits with both Acts and 1 Clement, as well as being consistent with many other historic events. But to acknowledge the proper dating of many of these events would implicate Rome in their occurrence during an era in which the church was trying to absolve Rome of any wrongdoing and to assure the Roman authorities that they were not a serious problem, a question that Rome plausibly had excellent reason to question. Constantine dealt with the issue by effectively purchasing the full loyalty of the church at Nicaea, after purchasing the loyalty of the western half a few years earlier.
And there are three well-known Christian traditions, all influenced by the Roman government, the Roman, the Orthodox and the Reformed. However there are other traditions that are lesser-known including Syrian and Ethiopian.
rewriter:
The history of Paul will always be a bit murky. Paul was a nobody to the Romans. However, the most extensive and brutal persecution of Christians in the possible lifetime of Paul came from Nero. Nero is known for initiating severe persecutions against Christians, particularly after the Great Fire of Rome in 64 CE, which he blamed on them. This context aligns with the timing of Paul's death, which is traditionally placed around this period. Nero's Reign: Paul was active during Nero's rule, and historical accounts suggest that he was executed during this time. Clement of Rome: The earliest references to Paul's death come from Clement, who implies that Paul died in Rome during Nero's persecution. This early testimony supports the notion that Nero was responsible for Paul's execution. I think many of the early authors, leaders and scholars existed before 325 so their perspectives are important.
The history of Paul will always be a bit murky. Paul was a nobody to the Romans. However, the most extensive and brutal persecution of Christians in the possible lifetime of Paul came from Nero. Nero is known for initiating severe persecutions against Christians, particularly after the Great Fire of Rome in 64 CE, which he blamed on them. This context aligns with the timing of Paul's death, which is traditionally placed around this period. Nero's Reign: Paul was active during Nero's rule, and historical accounts suggest that he was executed during this time. Clement of Rome: The earliest references to Paul's death come from Clement, who implies that Paul died in Rome during Nero's persecution. This early testimony supports the notion that Nero was responsible for Paul's execution. I think many of the early authors, leaders and scholars existed before 325 so their perspectives are important.
I agree with what you said in the first five paragraphs. Regarding agreement, it just so happens that I just this minute was reading p.224 in A Patriot's History of the United States, in which the authors describe the Second Great Awakening (that included Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians a la Finney, Millerites, Seventh Day Adventists, Christian Scientists, and Mormons), saying:
With such a wide variety of religious experiences, tolerance was more than ever needed, so schools emphasized elements of Christianity that almost all believers could agree upon, such as the resurrection, love, faith, hope and the Ten Commandments.
I guess I continue this ecumenical concern by proposing a creed for us on CC to agree with.
Hopefully, upon considering its particulars you will see that it compiles God's requirement for salvation, which is comprehensively stated as cooperation with His Word as revealed (creation, conscience, logic, golden rule, etc.), but elaborated thusly:
1. There is a/one all-loving and just Lord or God (Deut. 6:4, John 3:16, 2Thes. 1:6), who is both able (2Tim. 1:12) and willing (1Tim. 2:3-4, Ezek. 33:11) to provide all morally accountable human beings salvation or heaven—a wonderful life full of love, joy and peace forever.
2. Human beings are selfish or sinful (Rom. 3:23, 2Tim. 3:2-4, Col. 3:5), miserable (Gal. 5:19-21), and hopeless (Eph. 2:12) or hell-bound at the judgment (Matt. 23:33 & 25:46) when they reject God’s salvation (John 3:18, Rom. 2:5-11).
3. Jesus is God’s Messiah/Christ and incarnate Son, the way that God has chosen (John 3:16, Acts 16:30-31, Phil. 2:9-11) of providing salvation by means of his atoning death on the cross for the payment of the penalty for the sins of humanity (Rom. 3:22-25 & 5:9-11), followed by his resurrection to reign in heaven (1Cor. 15:14-28).
4. Thus, every person who hears the NT Gospel needs to repent and accept God’s justification in Jesus as Christ/Messiah the Lord or Supreme Commander (Luke 2:11, John 14:6, Acts 16:31), which means trying to obey (Phil. 3:12, 1John 1:8) His commandment to love one another (Matt. 22:37-40, John 13:35, Rom. 13:9)—forever (Matt. 10:22, Psa. 113:2).
5. Then God’s Holy Spirit will establish a saving relationship with those who freely accept Him (Rev. 3:20) that will eventually achieve heaven when by means of persevering in learning Truth/God’s Word/sanctification everyone cooperates fully with His will (John 14:6, 17&26, Rom. 8:6-17, Gal. 6:7-9, Eph. 1:13-14, Heb. 10:36, 12:1, Jam. 1:2-4). Such cooperation can be termed “the surrendered life”.
6. This creed summarizes revelation of the NT Gospel/Truth (Matt. 26:13, John 14:6), which fulfilled the OT revelation (Matt. 5:17, John 19:30, Heb. 7:11-10:10) and culminates the search for salvation by souls who know only general revelation (Rom. 1:20, 2:14-16, Matt. 7:12). Seeking begins when souls love truth/repent of false beliefs (2Thes. 2:10&13, Matt. 4:17, 7:7), which is the Way to eternal life God wills, who is the Lord Jesus (Matt. 7:14, John 1:14, 4:24, 14:6). Lacking this love leads to believing lies and debauchery (Matt. 7:6, Rom. 1:18&25-26, 2Thes. 2:11-12).
Which part do you disagree with or think is not believed by everyone accepted by God?
#1 Is not acceptable to those descendants of Calvin because of the "morally accountable humans" which anathema to most Calvinist and many other denominations as it implies that humans can be morally responsible. Humans are live in total depravity and have not ability to be saved by their moral responsibility or anything else but the "choice" or "grace" or "faith without works in....,.,..,"
#2 What do you define as "God's salvation?" even if you accept "it." The concept of "hell bound" presupposes Hell which was an invention of very late Judaism, say in the last two hundred years before the new testament. It is vastly more a component of Greek philosophy epitomized by Dante's inferno. Hell did not exist as eternal afterlife in the Hebrew Bible. If you believe it inspired then why no hell there?
3. Not to quibble, but the Messiah was mankind's salvation by atonement is a model that is used to escape responsibility. One of my favorite songs is "Jesus paid it all." In this model Jesus solves our sin problem by paying for us, ransoming us......ect. The vast swing of Protestant and non-denominal Christianity has come to believe "just connect via belief that Jesus died to save us from our sins" and we are heaven bound! There is an entirely different perspective. Jesus died in obedience to God the Father's will to show mankind what it takes to be Christ followers. Imitators, sacrificial, loving, obedient to death and living in faith that the Holy Spirit will guide and grown our lives into "beacons on a hill attracting all around us." Not by our claims or theology but but our lives of a living sacrifice, like Jesus, to the will of God and the love of both God, ourselves because we were purchased by an inestimable price thus shall we sacrifice ourselves to the love of God and mankind. Matthew 25 is a chapter detailing what "conversion" means.
4. You are still defining repentance as something that happens one time in a string process
5. We tend to think of the Holy Spirit as the force that leads you to believe your ancient dogmas and statements of faith instead of a power to transform you daily life and witness to the world.
5. This creed....nuff said
Paul as a Roman citizen was hardly a nobody to Rome. Paul being a Jew with Roman citizenship by birth made him even mor e noticeable to Rome, such persons were incredibly rare unless related to Herod, and that family were largely personal acquatnaces of the Julio-Claudians, aka all emperors from Augustus through Nero. Clement's testimony also recognizes that Paul went to Spain. But you are still dodging the question of what crime the Christians, including Paul, could be guilty of under Nero's reign when the issue of Jews not sacrificing to the emperor was not a punishable offense, nor was it illegal for a Roman citizen to not sacrifice to the emperor. In fact, there were very few offenses which a Roman citizen could be executed for, but one would be consistent with the recorded means of execution for Christians in 64, but if that was Paul's offense, then we misunderstand early Christianity and Acts is presenting a false account.
This is just one of the minor dilemmas one can uncover if they really look at the history of early Christianity. You might note that I do not go along with adjusting well-documented history when necessary to fit with one's desired version of history, such an action is intellectual dishonesty and might even be viewed as willingly and intentionally bearing false witness and as such deserves justification for such a conscious and deliberate sin.
Thanks for your comments on my creed.
Re #1, you know my concern is not to please Calvin but only God, and my claim is that this creed does so better than others.
However, the qualifier "morally accountable" is meant to define those who are damnable, which babies would not be, for example.
Re #2, salvation is defined in #1 as "heaven—a wonderful life full of love, joy and peace forever". Hell is the just consequence for choosing evil rather than God. The Spirit of God is good: love, peace and joy (Gal. 5:22-23). Therefore, whoever rejects the Lord is spiritually separated from Him (Isa. 59:2) and thereby chooses the evil or satanic spirit of hatred, strife and misery and reaps the just consequence called “hell” in the afterlife (Gal. 6:7-9, Heb. 9:27-28).
Re #3, Messiah's atonement is the reason the sins of believers can be forgiven justly, because Jesus paid the penalty. Christianity is a relationship with God motivated by gratitude for God’s grace (Psa. 100, Eph. 2:4-8) rather than a legalistic religion of working to merit God’s mercy because of fear of punishment. Saints cooperate willingly with God's loving Holy Spirit (Rom. 5:5), although not perfectly, so their responsibility is to confess sins ASAP.
As soon as new Christians realize they sinned, they should confess it (1John 1:9a) rather than compound it by trying to hide it or cover it up like Adam and Eve did (Gen. 3:7-8). Whenever a believer acknowledges to God his/her known sins of immoral attitudes and actions, God forgives all sins (1John 1:9b). This means he/she is pleasing rather than grieving God or once again is Spirit-filled (walking in the Spirit) and has a right relationship with Christ Jesus (Eph. 4:30, 5:10 & 18).
Re #4, Yes, it is best to associate repentance with conversion to saving faith and call subsequent ruing of sins "confession".
Re #5, The Holy Spirit is best understood as God's Spirit of love and truth indwelling believers, who reflect His love as they learn His truth, which is why my motto is "Love to learn and learn to love."
Re #6, This was added in response to you citing 2Thes. 2:10, which I associate with Rom. 1:20. Even though we have the NT, we should remember that most of humanity throughout most of history had only general revelation as the basis for saving faith.
GWH
IMHO, You struggle with the creation and definition of a creed like your forbearers. Your creed lacks the same core element that all the other creeds I have reviewed over the years. It is totally focused on the vertical relationship with God thru Christ. There is a lot that can be said about that relationship and your's plays well in that sandbox. It can be completely accomplished without a single moment of conversion. Not a conversion of thought but a conversion of the mind, heart and body. A conversion from pagan living to Christian living. A conversion of living for yourself to living for others. A conversion from loving who you chose, to loving who God chooses.
The real problem with your creed and the others is that it assumes that God is only interested in a vertical relationship. That could not be further from the truth. The two greatest commands from God over the past 2,800 or so years are: You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind." And the second is love your neighbor as yourself. (Good Samaritan Parable) Paul tells us clearly that you can have all the faith possible, but without love, your faith is in vain. Here Paul is definitely talking about horizontal love in his first letter to Corinth. "If anyone says, 'I love God,' and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen." Jesus spoke clearly in Matthew 25 that the validity of your faith is the love you show. I could go on, but my point is no creed or statement of faith that avoids God's clear linkage between horizontal Christianity and acceptance by God.
The flaw in all the creeds, including yours, is that it does not even recognize the real beating heart of Christianity - that we be born again into new creatures with new loving, caring, serving and sacrificing hearts. Lacking that, even the devils believe. The only evidence that "faith" even exists in a person is the conduct of their life, their new priorities, new loving skills, new mission to become a bright light on a hill that by your very life you attract people to Jesus.
IMHO, You struggle with the creation and definition of a creed like your forbearers. Your creed lacks the same core element that all the other creeds I have reviewed over the years. It is totally focused on the vertical relationship with God thru Christ. There is a lot that can be said about that relationship and your's plays well in that sandbox. It can be completely accomplished without a single moment of conversion. Not a conversion of thought but a conversion of the mind, heart and body. A conversion from pagan living to Christian living. A conversion of living for yourself to living for others. A conversion from loving who you chose, to loving who God chooses.
The real problem with your creed and the others is that it assumes that God is only interested in a vertical relationship. That could not be further from the truth. The two greatest commands from God over the past 2,800 or so years are: You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind." And the second is love your neighbor as yourself. (Good Samaritan Parable) Paul tells us clearly that you can have all the faith possible, but without love, your faith is in vain. Here Paul is definitely talking about horizontal love in his first letter to Corinth. "If anyone says, 'I love God,' and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen." Jesus spoke clearly in Matthew 25 that the validity of your faith is the love you show. I could go on, but my point is no creed or statement of faith that avoids God's clear linkage between horizontal Christianity and acceptance by God.
The flaw in all the creeds, including yours, is that it does not even recognize the real beating heart of Christianity - that we be born again into new creatures with new loving, caring, serving and sacrificing hearts. Lacking that, even the devils believe. The only evidence that "faith" even exists in a person is the conduct of their life, their new priorities, new loving skills, new mission to become a bright light on a hill that by your very life you attract people to Jesus.
Nero accused Christians of arson and other crimes following the Great Fire of Rome in 64 AD. He claimed that they were responsible for the fire, which devastated much of the city. This accusation served as a pretext for a brutal crackdown on Christians, leading to widespread persecution. Many were executed in horrific ways, including being burned alive, crucified, or torn apart by wild animals, as Nero sought to divert blame from himself and quell public unrest.
Emperor Trajan's policies towards Christians were marked by a cautious approach rather than outright persecution. While he did not actively seek out Christians, he established a framework that allowed for their punishment if accused by other Roman citizens. His directive to Pliny the Younger emphasized that Christians should not be hunted down, but if they were brought to trial and refused to renounce their faith, they could face execution. This marked a significant shift in the Roman Empire's treatment of Christians, as it formalized Christianity as a punishable offense, albeit without systematic persecution at that time. Trajan's approach was influenced by the need to maintain public order and the traditional Roman religious practices. Christians were often viewed with suspicion because they refused to worship the Roman gods, which was seen as a challenge to the social and political order. Thus, while Trajan did not initiate widespread killings, his policies created an environment where Christians could be executed for their beliefs under certain circumstances. His most famous victim was Ignatius of Antioch.
Christianity emerged in a multicultural environment, with communities in Judea, Galilee, and later throughout the Roman Empire, each adapting practices to local customs. Many early Christians were Jewish, maintaining traditional practices like Sabbath observance and dietary laws, while others, particularly Gentile converts, often did not follow these customs.
Beliefs about Jesus varied, different groups had varying interpretations of Jesus' nature and role, leading to diverse theological perspectives. Some viewed him strictly as a prophet, while others recognized him as divine. Early Christians utilized various texts, including the Hebrew Scriptures and emerging Christian writings, leading to differing beliefs about authority and doctrine.
Worship practices varied widely, from communal meals (Agape feasts) to formal gatherings for prayer and teaching. The emphasis on communal living and sharing resources was common, but the specifics could differ greatly.
Leadership structures reflected local needs and contexts. Overall, the first-century Christian community was marked by a rich tapestry of beliefs and practices, influenced by their diverse backgrounds and the evolving nature of their faith.
There remains a form of nostalgia for these early Christian communities and their belief and practices. IMHO because we see the vastly negative impact on Christianity as it became institutionalized.
Well, I am not sure why you do not see the horizontal relationship in #4&5:
4. Thus, every person who hears the NT Gospel needs to repent and accept God’s justification in Jesus as Christ/Messiah the Lord or Supreme Commander (Luke 2:11, John 14:6, Acts 16:31), which means trying to obey (Phil. 3:12, 1John 1:8) His commandment to love one another (Matt. 22:37-40, John 13:35, Rom. 13:9)—forever (Matt. 10:22, Psa. 113:2).
5. Then God’s Holy Spirit will establish a saving relationship with those who freely accept Him (Rev. 3:20) that will eventually achieve heaven when by means of persevering in learning Truth/God’s Word/sanctification everyone cooperates fully with His will (John 14:6, 17&26, Rom. 8:6-17, Gal. 6:7-9, Eph. 1:13-14, Heb. 10:36, 12:1, Jam. 1:2-4). Such cooperation can be termed “the surrendered life”.
However, what words would you propose to add and where in order to amend the deficiency?
Thanks.
I noted your item #4 but is buried under the standard declarations. It does not call for conversion only trying to obey. Matthew 25 is absent as a definition of what "trying to obey" entails. Your definition of morally accountable as something "damnable." Moral accountability is the heartbeat of Christianity. One can not love God or man without accepting moral accountability. Accountability for who you become. We are both mentally and morally accountable to God.