Pagan Elements in Christianity

[erowe1]

The point I was making was just a comment on the complexity of your post. If Christianity is the religion of Jesus, in your mind, then you've really got your work cut out for you, and that's just among the "Christians" (so called).

On the contrary. The religion of Jesus tells me I don't have my work cut out for me. I can't conform myself to the standard of moral perfection that it would take for me to be righteous in God's sight. Jesus did the work. I have to believe in him.

That's not just religion about Jesus, but also the religion of Jesus himself.

 

[Jamesiv1]

Why is that?

By the way, I credit my mother's prayers for my soul as one of the reasons I'm now a Christian.

Saint Helen was born in 250 AD (give or take a couple of years), making her about 63 yrs old when Constantin issued the Edict of Milan in 313 AD - which decriminalized Christianity. Prior to that Roman law made being a Christian punishable by death.

These guys say Helen became a Christian in 312, but the Order of St Helen website says "it is almost certain she became a Christian" when she settled in Trèves after her divorce from Constantin's father in 292.

If I were Chief Dude in Charge, and the law said my mom should be crucified, I would probably change the law lol

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Saint Helen was born in 250 AD (give or take a couple of years), making her about 63 yrs old when Constantin issued the Edict of Milan in 313 AD - which decriminalized Christianity. Prior to that Roman law made being a Christian punishable by death.

These guys say Helen became a Christian in 312, but the Order of St Helen website says "it is almost certain she became a Christian" when she settled in Trèves after her divorce from Constantin's father in 292.

If I were Chief Dude in Charge, and the law said my mom should be crucified, I would probably change the law lol

You assume politics (especially Roman politics) is rational. That ain't so.

 

[Ronin Truth]

On the contrary. The religion of Jesus tells me I don't have my work cut out for me. I can't conform myself to the standard of moral perfection that it would take for me to be righteous in God's sight. Jesus did the work. I have to believe in him.

That's not just religion about Jesus, but also the religion of Jesus himself.

As a believing and saved Christian, you don't have an obligation and duty to witness to the world's heathens, pagans and heretics and get them into the fold for Jesus?

 

[Dr.3D]

As a believing and saved Christian, you don't have an obligation and duty to witness to the world's heathens, pagans and heretics and get them into the fold for Jesus?

Our job is to get the message out to them. We are not supposed to convert anybody. What people do with the message is up to them.
It's sort of like leading a horse to water or better yet, planting seeds.

 

[Ronin Truth]

Our job is to get the message out to them. We are not supposed to convert anybody. What people do with the message is up to them.
It's sort of like leading a horse to water or better yet, planting seeds.

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Jamesiv1]

Our job is to get the message out to them. We are not supposed to convert anybody. What people do with the message is up to them.
It's sort of like leading a horse to water or better yet, planting seeds.

Now see, this is another weird part. Your job is get the message to them - what does that mean? Beat them over the head with your beliefs telling them that their centuries-old beliefs are wrong and they're going to burn in hell? And if they don't change their ways, then heck, they're heathens and it doesn't matter if we put small pox in the blankets we gift them with? (see Christianity's treatment of indigenous Americans).

Instead of judging and condemning them, how about loving them with food and shelter? (you can save your vaccines, thanks)

And why do Churches feel compelled to send missionaries half-way around the globe when there are homeless, hungry people like, right down the street? That's always puzzled me, too.

 

[eduardo89]

If you like Jesus, I'd say just go with Jesus (much simplified). WWJD? Seems to cover many of life's challenges. For the rest, just wing it. That's just a quick shot off the top of my head.

Came across this on FB just now

 

[Dr.3D]

Now see, this is another weird part. Your job is get the message to them - what does that mean? Beat them over the head with your beliefs telling them that their centuries-old beliefs are wrong and they're going to burn in hell? And if they don't change their ways, then heck, they're heathens and it doesn't matter if we put small pox in the blankets we gift them with? (see Christianity's treatment of indigenous Americans).

Instead of judging and condemning them, how about loving them with food and shelter? (you can save your vaccines, thanks)

And why do Churches feel compelled to send missionaries half-way around the globe when there are homeless, hungry people like, right down the street? That's always puzzled me, too.

I have no idea why people do that. If they just tell people the good news and leave it at that, that's all we are supposed to do. Of course we should be ready to answer some questions those who hear the news might have, perhaps help them start home church, but not to beat anybody over the head about anything. People who do such things are very wrong in what they are doing.

 

[erowe1]

As a believing and saved Christian, you don't have an obligation and duty to witness to the world's heathens, pagans and heretics and get them into the fold for Jesus?

The church as a whole has the obligation to bring that message to them, and each of us as members of the church with our respective spiritual gifts have a role to play in that mission. But when we do that, the end result of whether anyone gets brought into the fold is up to God, not us.

I don't see how that relates to the quote you just gave from me though.

 

[erowe1]

And why do Churches feel compelled to send missionaries half-way around the globe when there are homeless, hungry people like, right down the street? That's always puzzled me, too.

Because Jesus commanded them to do that.

 

[RJB]

Preach always the Gospel. Use words if necessary.

--St. Francis of Assisi

 

[Jamesiv1]

Because Jesus commanded them to do that.

tube or it didn't happen.

seriously, give me a verse on that one. I want to read it in context.

 

[erowe1]

tube or it didn't happen.

seriously, give me a verse on that one. I want to read it in context.

Matthew 28:18-20

18 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.

 

[Jamesiv1]

18 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen. -Matthew 28:18-20

hmmmm...... after the resurrection.

I'm skeptical about anything about Jesus after the resurrection. I've read compelling evidence that Joseph of Arimethea (a rich dude) arranged for Jesus' simulated death and escape (with the help of the Essenes). And then he lived out the remainder of his life in India - where he may have spent some of the "lost years" as well. The book is called "Jesus Lived in India" by Holger Kirsten.

My modus operandi whenever I'm studying up on anything that is "conspiracy theory" or "anti-establishment", or goes against the main-stream media and conventional wisdom - is to study both sides, and discount the conspiracy stuff by half. Even still - 50% leaves *LOTS* of compelling evidence. Much like the JFK assassination.

The post-resurrection stuff seems so out-of-context compared to his teaching during his ministry. This verse, for example, sounds to me like something the official religion of Rome could use as a good excuse to build the empire. Hand-in-hand they were after the Council of Nicea.

 

[erowe1]

hmmmm...... after the resurrection.

I'm skeptical about anything about Jesus after the resurrection. I've read compelling evidence that Joseph of Arimethea (a rich dude) arranged for Jesus' simulated death and escape (with the help of the Essenes). And then he lived out the remainder of his life in India - where he may have spent some of the "lost years" as well. The book is called "Jesus Lived in India" by Holger Kirsten.

My modus operandi whenever I'm studying up on anything that is "conspiracy theory" or "anti-establishment", or goes against the main-stream media and conventional wisdom - is to study both sides, and discount the conspiracy stuff by half. Even still - 50% leaves *LOTS* of compelling evidence. Much like the JFK assassination.

The post-resurrection stuff seems so out-of-context compared to his teaching during his ministry. This verse, for example, sounds to me like something the official religion of Rome could use as a good excuse to build the empire. Hand-in-hand they were after the Council of Nicea.

But it wasn't the official religion of Rome. Rome persecuted Christians for 300 years. Are you trying to say that this verse was written later than that?

Also, Jesus did teach things earlier on that anticipated this commission. Note that Matthew 10, which mainly pertains to preaching to fellow Israelites does include a prophecy of Jesus's disciples going to Gentiles.

16 “Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves. Therefore be wise as serpents and harmless as doves. 17 But beware of men, for they will deliver you up to councils and scourge you in their synagogues. 18 You will be brought before governors and kings for My sake, as a testimony to them and to the Gentiles. 19 But when they deliver you up, do not worry about how or what you should speak. For it will be given to you in that hour what you should speak; 20 for it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you.

Also see Matthew 24:14

14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come.

 

[Jamesiv1]

But it wasn't the official religion of Rome. Rome persecuted Christians for 300 years. Are you trying to say that this verse was written later than that?

Sure it was (official religion of Rome) - starting in 380 AD with the Edict of Thessalonica

I'm not saying it was written later, just made official later. In 393 AD the New Testament was canonized at the Synod of Hippo. And then Jerome produced the latin Vulgate just seven years later.

300+ years and several translations removed from whoever first put Jesus' words to paper. We're lucky we have any of his actual teachings....

 

[eduardo89]

Sure it was (official religion of Rome) - starting in 380 AD with the Edict of Thessalonica

I'm not saying it was written later, just made official later. In 393 AD the New Testament was canonized at the Synod of Hippo. And then Jerome produced the latin Vulgate just seven years later.

300+ years and several translations removed from whoever first put Jesus' words to paper. We're lucky we have any of his actual teachings....

The Synod of Hippo did not make the Biblical Canon official, it listed the books already accepted as canonical. Also, it was a local council.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Sure it was (official religion of Rome) - starting in 380 AD with the Edict of Thessalonica

I'm not saying it was written later, just made official later. In 393 AD the New Testament was canonized at the Synod of Hippo. And then Jerome produced the latin Vulgate just seven years later.

300+ years and several translations removed from whoever first put Jesus' words to paper. We're lucky we have any of his actual teachings....

There is no such thing as a council that made a list of books canonical, as if a council of men could do such a thing. That is the Roman Catholic/Atheistic view of the Bible which the Bible itself and history rejects.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

There is no such thing as a council that made a list of books canonical, as if a council of men could do such a thing. That is the Roman Catholic/Atheistic view of the Bible which the Bible itself and history rejects.

It's also something done by Protestants. They don't include the Duetero Canon/Wisdom literature in their bibles-even though Jesus quotes these texts. You're right that the Bible itself and history rejects the Roman Catholic (to an extent)/Atheistic/Protesant views.