Paul,can you please answer my questions in the post above?

I find this post humorous ironic.  Anxiety has asked the same of you in the past threads.    Guess the mirror will move along to someone else in the near future.

I thank you for asking me to explain my position.  I understand and respect your stances and how you came to their conclusions. By allowing me to insert my thoughts you have shown an example of what I believe is part of being a Christ Follower.

These are my thoughts, my personal relation with God. Ask questions, challenge my thoughts. It is through these methods that I find either my stance is solid, rocky, or built of sand. In which case I will readily reassess my position.  The universe is always changing so we must reflect that which is a creation of God in our own minds and theologies.

A. Resurrection - I simply choose not to believe in the resurrection. I find that it distracts from following the teachings of Jesus and has change the doctrine of the church to what some theologians call a "death theology".  Since I do not believe in the necessity of the resurrection then personally I don't particularly care if it is provable or not. Depending on which side of the fence you're on.  The Gospel of Mark is the oldest and most reliable book in the new testament by the apostles. The other gospels have been formulated based on Mark. Yet, in Mark 16: 5 When they entered the tomb, they saw a young man clothed in a white robe sitting on the right side. The women were shocked, 6 but the angel said, ?Don?t be alarmed. You are looking for Jesus of Nazareth,  who was crucified. He isn?t here! He is risen from the dead! Look, this is where they laid his body. 7 Now go and tell his disciples, including Peter, that Jesus is going ahead of you to Galilee. You will see him there, just as he told you before he died.?
   8 The women fled from the tomb, trembling and bewildered, and they said nothing to anyone because they were too frightened.
The scene ends with women Mary Magdalene and Salome run off and telling no one. This is the original ending of the story.  The current resurrection story was placed into Mark sometime later.
I find that if the original story was not concerned with the resurrection, Mark went on to preach for Jesus and died in this service without a resurrection story that he too did not find that it was necessary for the message.
I understand as we have discussed in another thread about the virtues of belief.  Yet, here is an original member of the inner circle who gave his life without the need for a resurrection.  Does it mean that your analysis of the resurrection and the virtues of those that died is wrong, no, just that you don't need it to be a Christ follower.

Martin Luther in the early 1500's departed from the tradition of Catholicism by changing the doctrine of receiving tithing to help someone get to heaven. Although the tithing is based on the Law of God in the Old Testament.  Martin Luther found it being misrepresented and allowing mankind to place a burden on the average person as an injustice to the people.

I find no need to justify if Jesus was God or not to follow his teachings. Therefore, the resurrection has done more damage to the original doctrine then any other change made by the church.   

Jesus was an advocate for unconditional love of mankind.
He taught to love one another as yourself. A non-violent manner of obtaining that goal. Along with guidelines on how to do it. He was a great religious prophet.
1. One must reach and convert the opponent. This is shown through the many examples where Jesus is has chastised, debated the Pharisees about the law. He however, no matter how violent or distempered he was, at the end is noted as having a torrent of tears, pity and compassion for the oppressors  -  - He Loves his enemies.
2. His teaching was for the masses, but carries more meaning to the younger generation of action, not inaction against injustice. He taught heroics for the work to change the doctrine at the time was so great and momentous that only faith could carry one through. 
3. He taught that evil is with us, and that it has immense strength but that one must make incredible sacrifices within the boundaries of non-violent opposition that we are not to raise a hand but turn the other cheek. For to raise one's hand against another place you as just another evil, not a solution.
4. He taught that we are each personally responsible to fight injustice to our fellow humans. To bear all the pain that it would take to change the evil will in men even to acceptance of death for their actions.

None of these teachings require validation of a resurrection to be true. It is and should again be the purpose of the church.

I find the theology of the resurrection to take away from the lessons and actual commission of Jesus. For the resurrection allows us to continue the hatred, violence, injustice, bigotry in the world, but gives us an "free entry" into heaven if we only believe that Jesus died for us. We don't even have to do anything for anyone. I don't believe that was what Jesus really wanted for humans to be a "get out of jail free" card. 

C. entry into heaven -
Bruce and I disagree on this one a lot.      I see that according to the bible, Judaism and most theological concepts that final judgement day will be when the original soul (biblically Adam/Eve) have been made whole/purified with love. In that case, to be like God would encompass an unconditional love toward each other's well being. That would also allow for the  story Bruce uses every now, I paraphrase . . . that when judgement comes and some are sent to hell, the angels will praise God  . .  something like that . . . I personally believe that God loves all of It's creations and would not leave them to fend for themselves, that God is unconditional love and would have an avenue for even the evil parts of the original soul to change. It may be that there will souls who may be sent to Hell being the purest unconditional loving souls who could accept that they may never come back to be with the angels until those injustices in Hell have been vanquished. (Different thought about who goes to Hell -      ) As a Muslim friend told me once, "why do Christians think that Heaven is so small? That only a handful of the people in the world can fit? We believe that there is a heaven for Muslims, one for Christians, one for Jew, one for every religion."  A valid thought that has helped me clarify up why I believe everyone goes to heaven, maybe not the one you go to, but a heaven that is glorious for them.
 
Jesus often talked about the Kingdom of Heaven:   Matthew 11:12 And from the time John the Baptist began preaching until now, the Kingdom of Heaven has been forcefully advancing, [ Or the Kingdom of Heaven has suffered from violence.] and violent people are attacking it.
Matthew 18:4 So anyone who becomes as humble as this little child is the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven.
Matthew 18:3 Then he said, ?I tell you the truth, unless you turn from your sins and become like little children, you will never get into the Kingdom of Heaven.
Matthew 3:2 ?Repent of your sins and turn to God, for the Kingdom of Heaven is near. [ Or has come, or is coming soon.] ?
Matthew 5:3 ?God blesses those who are poor and realize their need for him, [ Greek poor in spirit.] for the Kingdom of Heaven is theirs.
Matthew 5:10 God blesses those who are persecuted for doing right,for the Kingdom of Heaven is theirs.
Matthew 5:19 So if you ignore the least commandment and teach others to do the same, you will be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven. But anyone who obeys God?s laws and teaches them will be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven.

I don't see in the teaching of Jesus above, that Jesus recommends anyone to do anything else but to love each person, do the best for them, and non-violence action.  He does not advocate inaction, but action, not condemnation but the love as from a child toward others,  that a heavy price will be required from you, even death.

I don't see the Church as advocating any of these.  I feel that when the church started to preach "death theology"  more then love for others, that it no longer became a follower of Christ. 

2)false doctrines-There are many truths in the Bible and when one denies even one of these truths I believe that it falls under the umbrella of false doctrine. Here is what Todd Strandberg had to say about the topic of false doctrines which I believe as well.
There is a simple statement about the world in general that has become my core defense against false doctrine.

That which has been is that which will be, And that which has been done is that which will be done. So there is nothing new under the sun. Ecclesiastes 1:9

   If there is nothing new under the sun, how is it possible for people to keep finding new interpretations of Scripture? If the Bible is said to be sealed up Revelation 22:18-19, why does God supposedly keep providing new information to select groups of people? The only valid answer I can think of is that this new stuff is just the same old lies and deceptions repackaged.
   The Bible is God's complete and exhaustive manual on how to maintain a good Christian life. There is no need for us to go on a quest for higher understanding. Any difficulty on the part of man's understanding rests with his inability to just accept the boring truth. Satan keeps trying to say, "You're missing something," or "There's a better way." He told this lie to Adam and Eve, and we all know what happened to them.

Nice Response Lee - 

Let's look at what the difference is that I have with Christianity.
First, I am not a Christian, but you are. I am a Christ follower, Moses follower, Ghandi Follower, and a follower of my own relationship with God through the Holy Spirit and the Holy Truths that I find in all religions and philosophies.

Let's journey together about your response and where we disagree to see why we disagree.

1. Resurrection. - I will agree with you on the resurrection and the meaning to Christianity.  But, I would add that as you noted from Paul's letter that if Christ had not been raised then our faith is futile and we are still in our sins. On the surface this is the basic doctrine of the need for the resurrection.  However, Bishop N T Wright in his book "The Challenge of Jesus", notes that the purpose of Jesus was to bear the sins of Israel and to make Israel and her people whole and pure again in the sight of God. He came to complete what Judaism is still waiting for to happen. The restoration of the original soul of Adam and Eve. 

Then in that sense Paul is correct, for if Jesus did not resurrect then Jews were still tasked with the burden of original sin.  Paul then linked the restoration of original sin to Jesus and Christianity. 

Which over the years has turned into the "get out of jail free" card.

I agree with your analysis of 2 Timothy 4:3 says For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires..  Except that I feel this is about the way the Christian church and doctrine has evolved.  Not about new thoughts or ideas. 

You note that you too find that Christians do not want to learn doctrine, they want the easy way out, which they get every service with the reminder and indoctrination of the resurrection and the saving by Jesus for eternity.  Here we disagree on what should come first. Myself, I find that I show someone how to do good, be that good, stay that good no matter what evil comes along, am willing to take on the consequences for my actions in the betterment of others, without any guarantee of reward by God or in my case The Universe more and more People ask me how do I do it?  My answer, because it's a tough job and someone has to be "excellent"  in their outlook on life. I then am representing a teaching of Jesus ?You are the light of the world?like a city on a hilltop that cannot be hidden.
For in my opinion I am attuned with your quote of Paul about the resurrection.  As Paul believed, Jesus had accomplished his mission to restore the original soul to pure, thereby we should operate out of an assumption that all sin has been abolished in the eyes of God.  We need therefore to be as Jesus commanded, "do unto others as you would for yourself."  As a religious messiah Jesus would have turned the nature of humans toward the original will of God.  As an example, followers then would move forward to bringing about the fruition of the motion that he set in action. I am continuing that movement to restore the original soul.

As a teacher, I find that if I give the answers to the final test out to my students, they will write them down, and then play around the rest of the time that I have to teach them about the subject matter.  For they know the correct answer and they are no longer interested in learning.  If on the test day, I said to them, there is no written or verbal test, but show me what you have learned. Sadly I would estimate that about 95% of my students would fail.  This analogy fits with Christianity, for the church shows you the final answer instead of teaching what it takes to show the world what a Christian means.

I disagree with Bishop Wright. The purpose of Jesus was to bare the sins of not only Israel but anybody who accepts Him and asks for forgiveness. I believe Paul is correct!


I agree with you on the church and the doctrine but I wouldn't call it a Christian church. Anytime a church teaches anything contradictory to the Bible it is no longer Christian. What does the word church really mean?


All sin has been abolished in the eyes of God if you have accepted him as your personal savior. What about the nonbelievers? I don't think their sin is abolished until they come to Christ. "Do unto others as you would for yourself" is something that I apply to my walk with Christ. But, if I do not follow this teaching does that mean that my salvation is negated? No it doesn't. Am I correct in your statement that you are trying to turn people to Christ or are you trying to turn people to His teachings? Only Christ can restore the soul not us. I still think we shouldn't put the cart before the horse. Once we become a Christian I believe the Holy Spirit begins to help us bring forth good fruit. I don't believe it is of our own doing but that of the Holy Spirit! I give all the glory and praise to my Lord because He deserves all the credit.

Church - dictionary.com
   a building for public Christian worship.
   a place of public worship of a non-Christian religion.
   any non-Christian religious society, organization, or congregation: the Jewish church.

The bible code is just an example.  The Jewish religion believes that the only true words from God are incorporated in the Hebrew alphabet. Their religion believes that hebrew was designed by God and sent to humans to help us understand all knowledge. Example - English interprets one of the names of God as Yawveh.  It actually is an unpronouncable name made up of four letters from Hebrew.  The letters stand for Past, Present, Future.  The Letters are given numeric value based on their position in the alphabet.  Thus the words for child equals exactly the same number as the total value of Man and Woman. Thereby confirming that children are offsprings of a heterosexual relationship.  The position of the letters in regards to other letters will give a different interpretation to the word.  They do not consider trying to interpret the New Testament as it was originally written in Arabic/Greek which has a totally different alphabet system. This is orthodox Judaism.  They also teach that anything past the first five books is commentary, history, stories. That God gave the entire knowledge in the first five books and that God gave man the ability to interpret and search for the different meanings in there.  At this time there are 72 different names for God. All are different, all are sacred. Which then leads to the interpretation that a verse in the bible states that God will accept the praises and offering of many different races, each calling on God with a different name.

Todd makes a legitimate analysis in reference to his thoughts on Mormonism. Yet, the church also is guilty of reading the bible to fulfill their internal desires and not a straight interpretation. 

Here is a quote from Former President Jimmy Carter on an article that he just wrote a couple of days ago. http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/losing-my-religion-for-equality-20090714-dk0v.html?page=-1  The core sentence is: I am also familiar with vivid descriptions in the same Scriptures in which women are revered as pre-eminent leaders. During the years of the early Christian church women served as deacons, priests, bishops, apostles, teachers and prophets. It wasn't until the fourth century that dominant Christian leaders, all men, twisted and distorted Holy Scriptures to perpetuate their ascendant positions within the religious hierarchy.  Then did the church stop being the church of Jesus in the fourth century when it changed the interpretations and then presented them to a mainly illiterate public as being the word of God?

Your use of Luke 16 is indeed probably a parable.  Jesus has been likened to tell stories and messages in the forms of a storyteller. Meaning that he painted a picture that the people in his time would be able to understand. It was both very simple and very complex.

Basically, Lazarus is a poor man who suffers during life. The rich man is, of course, rich. They both die. The rich man goes to Hades. Lazarus goes to Abraham's bosom, another term for paradise. In Hades, the rich man lifts up his eyes and sees Lazarus far off. He cries out to Abraham and asks for mercy because he is in agony in flame. Abraham says no. Then the rich man asks if someone from the dead were to rise and go tell his brothers not to come to this terrible place. Abraham teaches him that that will not be done either.

If you were to look at this from the basic tenet of Jesus- that one should care about another as if yourself. Then the story has another meaning. It reminds us that the rich man who had the means and the ability to take care of someone less fortunate then himself is judged  to be in violation of that commandment when he dies. Lazarus who is poor and sickly, cannot help anyone else besides himself and therefore he is not judged based on the commandment.  We don't know if Lazarus was kind or not, for it seems that he is the object lesson in this matter.  Now, using a person's name, also notes familiarity with the person. So Jesus would/could of known a person which is also referred to as a friend of Jesus, who is named Lazarus. Is it the same person, don't know. But a storyteller normally would use the character of a person they knew who would be known by the public to fit what the meaning should be.  In that case, I will assume that Lazarus was also a caring, kind person, who tried as best as he could to be of service to his fellow humans.
The rich man is not allowed to send a message to his relatives as that information would make his relatives to act differently out of fear, not in love for God as Jesus is trying to show. Also that not helping another less fortunate is a serious offense against God.

It is very common in Judaism to have a conversation with people after death to make a point, tell a lesson.  There are countless stories of famous Rabbis who had died and their fellow Rabbis contacted them through prayer or meditation, to ask question, upon which the dead person would give a parable, or lesson for the living to enact.