Printable version
 Email to a friend

arrow_left_short all forums
topic list

Bible Questions and Spiritual Discussion

Replies: (page   1   2   3)
Matteo Masiello 01/13/2014 06:13
In a word Yes. I believe that God is the source of all traditions despite the different appearances of these traditions (religions). I don't believe that all religions are one nor should they be though there is a perennialism that I see in them. Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc do not consider their traditions religions but ways of life. The differences are the result of time, place and culture. There are fundamental equivalents in all of them which is more important for me when I encounter them. Despite the different opinions these traditions have about Jesus (there are different portraits of him in the gospels) they all agree that he was significant and taught essential things about a relationship with God - as each tradition understand God. As someone who wants to follow Jesus I am less interested in doctrine, dogma and theology than I am with the words out of his mouth and less about what others think if him.
Matteo Masiello 01/13/2014 10:59
Catholics Gandhi admitted that he might have been a Christian after encountering Jesus but for the Christians Gandhi knew who made claims of speaking for Jesus. I agree with that to some extent. I'd consider leaving Christisnity (not Jesus) if I had to listen with some Christians who claim to profess Jesus. I have no issues with Jesus but many with Christians who seem to be anything but Christ-like but really are convinced thatcher are.
Matteo Masiello 01/13/2014 11:00
Catholics Gandhi admitted that he might have been a Christian after encountering Jesus but for the Christians Gandhi knew who made claims of speaking for Jesus. I agree with that to some extent. I'd consider leaving Christisnity (not Jesus) if I had to listen with some Christians who claim to profess Jesus. I have no issues with Jesus but many with Christians who seem to be anything but Christ-like but really are convinced that they are
Matteo Masiello 01/13/2014 11:03
Catholics Gandhi admitted that he might have been a Christian after encountering Jesus but for the Christians Gandhi knew who made claims of speaking for Jesus. I agree with that to some extent. I'd consider leaving Christisnity (not Jesus) if I had to listen with some Christians who claim to profess Jesus. I have no issues with Jesus but many with Christians who seem to be anything but Christ-like but really are convinced that they are.

I personally don't think syncretism is a big deal given that Paul was syncretic to some extent.

Also no one church can claim pure Christian practice as no one knows what it was. There are glimpses of it in the NT but all modern churches are all based on tradition of independent sources.
Catholica 01/16/2014 12:04
Gandhi had a wrong mind about life, if he could not see past the scandalous way that some Christians act. Jesus founded his Church with imperfect vessels who sinned. Jesus used and uses all Christians in one way or another to spread the kingdom. Peter sinned and was rebuked for his sin by Paul. The early Church made a mistake and enforced a form of communism. We are imperfect vessels. Jesus knew this and chose to work through us anyway. Gandhi could not see past it.

As for Paul being a syncretist, I think we should look at the term's definition:

From http://www.thefreedictionary.com/syncretism
(American Heritage Dictionary)
1. Reconciliation or fusion of differing systems of belief, as in philosophy or religion, especially when success is partial or the result is heterogeneous.

(Webster's College Dictionary)
1. the attempted reconciliation or union of different or opposing principles, practices, or parties, as in philosophy or religion.

In my understanding, I believe that Paul was no syncretist. Though Christianity kind of had a period where it was more of a sect of Judaism than was meant to be, it wasn't Paul borrowing ideas from other religions and trying to mesh them in with Judaism. Paul specifically said that he regarded all his formal religion as "rubbish" now that he had found Christ and what Christ has established. He spoke strongly against syncretist interference in Galatians (against the Judaizers). There is insistence elsewhere in unity within the Church, and against saying "I follow Paul" or "I follow Peter" but rather insistence that everyone be unified and follow Christ.

Some view Christianity as a departure from Judaism. The new religion practiced rituals instructed by Jesus, baptism being given a different significance, and the Last Supper as remembrance of Jesus (the mass, or "Lord's Supper" as some call it) rather than the remembrance of the Passover which it previously signified. These rituals were, under Judaism, signs of the covenant to come, and so their meaning was significant but changed in the New Testament to reflect the new revelation. They weren't in conflict or opposing, as syncretism attempts, but rather in a certain union with another and a flow from one to the other.

I strongly disagree that God is the source of all traditions. The Muslim tradition stands out as a prime example. It's beliefs are not only internally contradictory but also in direct opposition in some ways to the gospel. And Muslims certainly do consider Islam a religion - the only true religion. And I consider Catholicism a religion as well. Calling something "a religion" is not necessarily a bad thing, nor does it imply something negative. I think negative attitudes toward religion of recent days have tried to make religion a bad word, and even redefine religion into something else, but that is just sentiment.

A religion is, simply put, a collection of beliefs about a deity and practices that people believe and practice as a group. There is no way that God is the author of all these movements, as He is not the author of confusion. I do believe that people of all stripes and nations sense God in their inner selves, and do seek God, and sometimes in doing so find religion that speaks to them. But that doesn't mean that all religion is man trying to find God. God instituted the Hebrew religion in great detail in the Torah. And I believe he instituted the Catholic religion as well, though I am not saying that to debate with people, but just as my statement of my belief.

The Bible instructs us to "test everything, keep what is good" but also to "cling to the traditions which have been taught to you by (the apostles)". Therefore that rules out syncretism, as there can be no combining of practices which are in opposition or create division among people.

Ok, starting to ramble. :-)
Matteo Masiello 01/16/2014 13:19
Ray I disagree with you on many points here. For example if all I had as an example as what it means to be Christian is a Calvinist I would not become a Christian. But that is another issue. What it present is the problem which God then creates in allowing his supposed devotees to get His message wrong. I think making disciples of all creation is not necessarily a mandate to make more Christians from a particular brand of Christianity.

When you say "Muslim tradition" you need to be more specific. You mean the Quran? Which type of Muslim? The tradition is as diverse as Christianity.

The bottom line is I think God is always in control and at work even when things occur which are do seemingly evil or good by a believer or non-believer. I have faith that He will do what He will. I am not one to accept dogma and doctrine which perpetuated a dualistic view. That's just me. To each his own.
JuneBee 01/18/2014 18:52
My answer: John 14:6
Matteo Masiello 01/19/2014 06:35
I understand your answer JuneBee. To me that verse has nothing to do with any type of religion. Nor do I think is Jesus creating a religion by saying this. If Jesus had anything to do with religion it was remaining a committed Jew. That is why, in my reading of scripture, Paul and the other disciples never really saw eye to eye on things and agreed to disagree. It is clear in the writings of John and Peter that they were more committed to helping Jews first accepting Jesus as the Messiah and NOT gentiles, though gentiles were allowed to participate. John's vision in Revelation is about the restoration of Jerusalem as the axis mundi - the center of the universe and is clear that there is still an exclusionary vision with the other nations - gentiles - begin allowed to participate. Paul in his missions wanted to make it clear that the Jews needed to expand their vision of the gospel to be inclusive of gentiles. The first Christians were the Early Church Fathers who formed their religion which solidified under Constantine. I still question whether the Christ of the Christians is the True Christ the Jesus of the gospels. If that is true - that revelation ended with the apostles - then Christianity has little or nothing to do with Jesus. If God, however, continues to reveal Himself through His Son, through the Holy Spirit, then that revelation is dispensed in a way in which all those who are participants - all types of Christians - part and parcel. Other traditions, are still participants in that God has done what He has done with them. There are fundamental equivalents which all traditions share, which are more important to me than any doctrine, which to me is a way to explain Christ is a sectarian fashion - to exclude people - which God NEVER intended.
Davidwayne Lackey 01/19/2014 19:25
Joh 14:6 Jesus told him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through Me.
Joh 14:7 If you had really known Me, you would know who My Father is. From now on, you do know Him and have seen Him!"
Joh 14:8 Philip said, "Lord, show us the Father, and we will be satisfied."
Joh 14:9 Jesus replied, "Have I been with you all this time, Philip, and yet you still don't know who I am? Anyone who has seen Me has seen the Father! So why are you asking Me to show Him to you?
Joh 14:10 Don't you believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me? The words I speak are not My own, but My Father who lives in Me does His work through Me.
Joh 14:11 Just believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me. Or at least believe because of the work you have seen Me do.
Joh 14:12 "I tell you the truth, anyone who believes in Me will do the same works I have done, and even greater works, because I am going to be with the Father.
Joh 14:13 You can ask for anything in My name, and I will do it, so that the Son can bring glory to the Father.
Joh 14:14 Yes, ask Me for anything in My name, and I will do it!
Joh 14:15 "If you love Me, obey My commandments.
Joh 14:16 And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Advocate, who will never leave you.
Joh 14:17 He is the Holy Spirit, who leads into all truth. The world cannot receive Him, because it isn't looking for Him and doesn't recognize Him. But you know Him, because He lives with you now and later will be in you.
Joh 14:18 No, I will not abandon you as orphans—I will come to you.
Joh 14:19 Soon the world will no longer see Me, but you will see Me. Since I live, you also will live.
Joh 14:20 When I am raised to life again, you will know that I am in My Father, and you are in Me, and I am in you.
Joh 14:21 Those who accept My commandments and obey them are the ones who love Me. And because they love Me, My Father will love them. And I will love them and reveal Myself to each of them."
Joh 14:22 Judas (not Judas Iscariot, but the other disciple with that name) said to Him, "Lord, why are You going to reveal Yourself only to us and not to the world at large?"
Joh 14:23 Jesus replied, "All who love Me will do what I say. My Father will love them, and We will come and make Our home with each of them.
Joh 14:24 Anyone who doesn't love Me will not obey Me. And remember, My words are not My own. What I am telling you is from the Father who sent Me.


Your right about Jesus not creating another religion Matteo. Jesus came to fulfill and complete the already established order God put in place through the Israelites. Jesus also clearly pointed out who is accepted by God to live eternal life with Him. Only those who accept Jesus, loves and obeys Him will be saved and live eternal life with Him. This clearly excludes anyone else. These words written here came from Father God Himself.

The followers of the way, the original epithet for followers of Jesus were first called Christians at Antioch. So Christian is what we are, followers of Christ. Unfortunately most Christians are only Christian in name just like Jews who are not Jews as it is written in the New Testament. So to shun the name Christian is really like saying that all who bore the name were wrong. Were they wrong even before the Church Fathers arrived in the first century? It's like throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Matteo Masiello 01/19/2014 21:16
I don't shun the term Christian but I also don't limit God in His working with other people in His own way that is NOT our way. I also don't care much for Christianity - except as a mean (an imperfect one at that) until I have no use for it - in that I have transcended its paradoxes and limitations. I see God (Jesus) as being alive and well in the hearts of professing Christians and non-Christians. Christianity is a construction of humans. God is not a Christian.
(page   1   2   3)
arrow_up_short start of topic