Sure, I sorta knew where Sola fide came from. It’s the specific meaning for “born again” that I was unsure on - I didn’t think Lutherans took that meaning, but didn’t want to presume one way or the other.
To me being a Christian is one who follows the teaching of Jesus, many who call themselves Christian Do not follow Jesus main teachings, Not once did Jesus tell people to go to church, nor to pray in public, (he did teach them how to pray(Go to your room, pray to your father in secret, he who hears you in secret will answer in secret) He did say love youir enemies, love one another, return good for evil. But as the being a place called Hell, to me it makes God a vicious being,don’t judge.let he who is without sin cast the first stone to me if a supreme being knew all things (even before they happened) he would not have created Satan, it makes no sense to know a being would be evil and rebelu unless he wanted the evil being and many other evil beings to follow Satan it would also mean that Heaven was not a place of perfect happiness, nor would he allow a evil being to harm his children, and if he loved his children he would know ahead of time they would follow Satan ,and it would destroy them or make them suffer for all eternity. God would not be a good ,loving being but a monster who like to see suffering.
I don’t think Thomas Jefferson thought of himself as a Christian, but if a person follows another person’s teachings FULLY then he is acting like a true follower.Jesus himself if you read the 82d psalm in KJV or 81 in RC version then John 10 you will note Jesus wasn’t thinking of himself as any different than any other human being.We cannot prove what was truth in the Bible or not, some things are not and can be proven to be just a story
like people used to believe the Washington told his parent that he could not tell a lie, that he did chop down the cherry tree. all that was ever written, taught , said ,or thought was the work or though of another human being, That is a proven fact! One beliees the story not necessarily a GOD.
Christianity was not a united Christian Religion until the time of Constintine, There were many sects, Constintine called the Roman and Orthodox Bishops to form a council and determine the rules for Christianity, at that council and others theydetermined what they believe was of God and what was not, they eliminated sevsral writings, destroyed some and just in the past century they found writings of what I believe they used to decide, the one I remember they disregarded was the Book of Thomas. and some other writings.
I am not quoting the Old Testement , I am telling what Jesus was quoted as saying, just beore he died" I leave you with one commandment, that you love one anoter". The 10 Commandments were said to have been given to a man named Moses of which there is no historical proff that he even exsisted Some think it wa taken from TUT MOSES because Moses was not a Jewish nsme.
I find this concept to be hard to swallow, If God is an all knowing being , then he knew ahead of time Satan would take the children that he created away from him, also knew Satan and other angels would be evil as Satan But he allowed Satan to steal a human’s soul. And i cannot understand why God found it necessary to prove to Satan that Job would stay loyal to him when God already knew Job would.
I would add to my last post: Even though Jeus told his relatives ,(His mother knew he was God incarnate) his close friends and followers did not believe Jesus when he told them he was going to ressurect after 3 days. One doesn’t go to anoint a dead body, t(he 3 Marys did), Peter shoulden’t have been surprised to see the grave empty, Mary M should have recoginized him, and wouldn’t have asked ;“where have you taken my master?”
Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
The Council of Nicaea did set the rules for the major Christian denomination at that time. It did not destroy any of the several parallel Christian belief systems, (a couple of which continue in existence, today), and the reason that Constantine called the council was to address the violence that occurred between two major factions that composed the church at that time. There were different Christian groups in various locations, but the majority of Christians did identify as being part of a single (if rowdy and factional) group. The notion that the Council of Nicaea was called to gather, suppress, and control dozens or hundreds of minor sects is a popular idea that was created in the twentieth century, but it has no historical basis in fact.
That Council did declare that one had to follow the scriptures to be a Christian in good standing, but it did not even name the books to be followed and neither purged nor destroyed any books. There were councils and synods throughout the fourth century that addressed the issues of which books were to be regarded as canonical, but the canonical list for the New Testament conforms very closely to the Muratorian Canon from around 170 (long before the Nicene Council of 325 or the Councils of Rome and Carthage between 382 and 419 where the canon was discussed). There were occasional challenges and proposals regarding a few isolated writings in the fourth century, but no major additions or exclusions occurred at that time.
The Gospel of Thomas found in the Nag Hammadi collection appears to be one version of a writing that occurred in several different forms. However, there is no evidence that “mainstream” Christianity ever embraced it and it was not removed from the canon because it was never included in any canon. (It was certainly not removed at Nicaea where no list of either included or excluded works was published.)
(As a side note, there were no “Catholics” or “Orthodox” in the fourth century, as the schism at which they adopted their names did not occur for another six hundred years.)
It is true that The Roman and Orthodox churches were united in beliefs, and they separated in the year 1000, because of the Trinity. It is very difficult to know the truth because there was so many writings that were destroyed ,and were not found for many centuries,just like the Dead Sea Scrolls. Of the12 apostles only John, Peter, Matthew, seemed to have written about the things Jesus said, but even then it is difficult to grasp because of the contradictions. It doesn’t seem that Jesus wanted to start a Church, He came across more like the teacher discribed in the Scrolls. It was many years after what is called the Ascention of Jesus that anything was written, before that it was told by mouth. It is still a fact that humans decided what was of God and what was not. Being I believe because Constantine was head of the Roman Empire. In Matthew he quotes Jesus as telling the 12 not to go to the Gentiles or the Samaritans, he is also quoted as telling the person who wanted her child healed that he came Only to the Lost sheep of Israel. So that would mean he didn’t come to save the whole world, and he seemed to dispise the Pharisees who followed the letter of the Law not the spirit. They went to Synagog and wore their religious symbols on their person thinking they were better than others.
It wasn’t until after the Nicean Council that the word Catholic was added to the roman church, meaning universal
However, none of the Twelve Apostles wrote anything that has come down to us. It was claimed that Matthew recorded sayings of Jesus but that does not describe the Gospel with the name Matthew on it that we have. John’s name was attached to one work, but it is unlikely that the Apostle had anything to do with it.
As to the notion that we can’t know what works were out there, it is true that too many works considered heretical were destroyed or simply set aside and allowed to rot because there was too much labor and cost involved in trying to preserve them. However, when Irenaeus and Eusebius and others found works with which they disagreed, they made a point of describing (their version) of what was in those works. Nearly every ancient work that has been discovered has been recognized because it had been described by opponents of its ideas.
Regardless whether Jesus thought that he came to save the whole world, one should note that he actually healed the Gentile child in the story you cited. There are actually several places in the Gospels where Jesus stepped outside the Jewish beliefs to extend compassion to Gentiles. (E.g., the Samaritan woman at the well, the Centurion at Capernaum with a sick servant). Beyond that, his instructions to the disciples to not go preach to the Gentiles has long been regarded as simply a matter of telling them to hold off because they were not yet ready to reach a larger audience.
Jesus did not despise the Pharisees and several Pharisees are described as being disciples. Jesus condemned the actions of those among the Pharisees who were hypocritical, but the general condemnation of the Pharisees by later Christians is due to a poor reading of the texts and an ignorance of history. The Pharisees were the “good guys” who (without necessarily meaning to) did much to lay the groundwork for Christianity. It was the Pharisees, for example, who promoted the idea of resurrection. The adherence to the Law was not merely sanctimonious displays, but a regimen to help the Jewish people maintain their identity after cultural assaults by the Greeks. Jesus did not condemn that adherence except when (for some) it replaced actual piety. The Pharisees also did much to promote education among the people of Judaea.
The word catholic (universal) was first applied to the church by St. Ignatius in a letter to the Smyrnaeans around the year 110.
Without taking any position about what Jesus or God “really” wanted or said, I just note that the discussion is more productive when it rest on facts, not misunderstandings.
Names of Jewish people I personally know include Carlos and Kevin. It’s not as if Jews have a “list of approved names” they must chose from. And anyway, was he named before being put in the basket, or was he named by Pharaoh’s daughter?
Moses, or “Moshe” (משה) in Hebrew, is based on the Hebrew root “MSH” which means “to fish out” or “to remove from water”. So it is, in fact, a Hebrew name - albeit perforce not the name he was born with.
Saint Ignatious I was told about lived in 1556, where was there a saint that was canonized before that time, I doubt that there was one in the first Century.
These answers are overly complex. A “Christian” is anyone who sees Jesus as mankind’s savior and son of God. An “Atheist” is anyone who sees no evidence for the existence of a deity.
It’s the specific meaning for “born again” that I was unsure on - I didn’t think Lutherans took that meaning, but didn’t want to presume one way or the other.