I strongly disagree with raindog, at least if we’re using the normal definitions of “witnessing” and “requirement.” Of course, there are numerous branches of Christianity. I think it is fair to say that you could ask this question of many genuine, thoughtful Christians and get different answers.
If I’m not mistaken, raindog is a Jehovah’s Witness, which would obviously explain his strong views on the subject. However, it would be a mistake to base conclusions on the religion as a whole on the views of a fringe sect.
It is true that I am a JW, but if you’ll notice my posts in this thread I have no quarrel with any faith. In fact, I would be pleased to post as an atheist, or Catholic for that matter. Ironically, I rarely ‘witness’ here.
And so I agree that* “you could ask this question of many genuine, thoughtful Christians and get different answers.”*
However… if we’re talking about whether Christ worked as an evangelizer, or whether he commanded his followers to, and whether the historical record supported whether they did------well then those questions can be answered both biblically and historically.
And that’s what drew me to the OP. The biblical and historical answer is Yes. If Polycarp, or you want to make the case that Christians don’t, or shouldn’t, follow this model you’ll get little quarrel.
I assume you’ll have no quarrel with me as well when I point out that this is inconsistent with the brand of Christianity that Christ practiced.
It was my initial post here that raindog took issue with. Ironically, I said in it that Christians were supposed to witness, but that there were appropriate times, places, and ways to witness (verbally), and that the appropriate predominant mode of daily witnessing to the world is by how one lives, not by what one says.
I take exception to raindog’s implication, in post #23, that I would make an argument contrary to what I had already said when he decided to argue with me. His point in post #13 is well taken – the questions of whether witnessing is a requirement, and what methodology is most effective, are distinct ones that got conflated here.
It would seem that we are in agreement that some form of witnessing is incumbent on all Christians, both in example and in word—and we may both approach that in different ways.
Your point that some Christians are sometimes shrill and heavy handed is well taken, and one that I agree with.
Why do you feel that that particular verse is sufficient to answer the question? Do you mind elaborating? Is the answer different for every person?
But Jesus was also a practicing Jew. Maybe that’s why Christianity today looks different.
I’m not sure what you mean by “This New and Improved Flavor of Christianity.” You say what it doesn’t look like, but not what it looks like. What are you talking about?
You seem to have a quarrel with those who practice what you have judged to be “This New and Improved Flavor of Christianity.” You ridicule them with your words but don’t describe what you are talking about.
I am aware that there have been times that Jehovah’s Witnesses have suffered from terrible discrimination including being put to death. Why are you not more sensitive to the kind of vague disrespect and contempt that you show?
Jesus let the people come to Him he didn’t go to them. He just seemed to go to a town,preach to those who would listen. Early Christianity was very divided and then at the Council of Nicea (called by Constantine) they decided on what a Christian should believe( The Apostles Creed). Christianity is still the most divided of all religions. It has become a pick and choose religion.
Jesus didn’t know Paul, Paul said he was struck down and blinded then in some sort of a vision saw Jesus. When did Jesus mention Paul by name? Jesus was long dead when Paul came along and saw Stephen being stoned for his teachings and beliefs. Paul had been waiting for a Messiah then decided to convert seeing Stephen stoned! Paul was said to hear Jesus voice saying,“Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me”?
You’re a little mixed up here. Saul actively participated in Stephen’s stoning. He held the cloaks of the men throwing the stones. He was an active persecutor of Christians prior to his conversion.
If we stipulate (for purposes of the discussion) that the storyline of Acts is correct, Saul did not convert until being stricken and blinded by God on the road to Damascus (at which point he had the vision of Jesus asking why Saul persecuted Him). His history of persecution is a key reason for the distrust that the established Apostles had for him at first. The idea that Saul just happened to be an innocent bystander who was converted by witnessing his first stoning of a Christian martyr is…unique, I guess.
According to the text, Jesus “knew” Paul in as much as he observed the many injurious things [the then named] Saul had done in the name of Judaism. In the text [you’re not citing], Saul is struck blind by Jesus himself. In any event, Saul is not said to have seen Jesus in a vision on that road to Damascus. Acts 9:8 clearly states that while Saul/Paul heard Jesus’s voice his eyes were opened yet “he saw nothing.”
Jesus mentioned Saul of Tarsus by name when he dispatched Ananias to go and see Saul/ Paul.** (Acts 9:11)** Saul did not convert because he saw Stephen being stoned, in fact it was likely that Paul arranged for the stoning! At any rate, Stephen’s stoning can be found beginning at Acts 7:54 (with background going back a couple chapters). And Saul/Paul’s attitude toward the stoning? He was said to *“have approved of the murder of him” * (Acts 8:1)
Far from being an event that produced a conversion for Saul/Paul his attitude is clear at Acts 9:1 where it says in part, *“Meanwhile, Saul was still breathing out murderous threats against the Lord’s disciples…” *(NIV)
For those interested, Saul/Paul’s conversion can be found in Acts 9.
This is also not correct, and contradictory at that.
The first sentence has Jesus stationary. The second has him traveling to see people. Which is it?
Also, while the Council of Nicea did [attempt to] settle some doctrinal issues it was 400 years after Christ, and can hardly said to [have comprehensively] “decided on what a Christian should believe.”
Jesus had died before Paul had his so called vision, what he saw was in his own mind. Stephan wasn’t martyred before Jesus was crucified. Paul never met Jesus in the flesh. Even people who were close to Jesus when he was alive didn’t recognize Him after what they say was His ressurection.Mary Magdelyn thought he was the gardener! One can believe what they wish to believe is truth but that doesn’t prove anything. Muhammad believed that an angel of God told him to write the Koran, so it is just a matter of belief and both are just as credible from one looking from the outside.
Ananias was just a human and wither his story is correct is a matter of belief, not fact!
Jesus would go to a town and preach,just like a street preacher does now. The people who wanted to listen stopped to hear Him, he did not go from house to house or person to person.
Christianity was very divided in it’s beliefs just as it is today, and that is why Constantine(who saw the political advantage of using Christians ) had the Bishops call a council to sort out what was to be believed by a Christian. What disagreed with what they wanted to force on the people was decided by them what God wanted them to believe, and destroyed and threw out what didn’t agree with their idea of what was inspired by God. Even Thomas’s Gospel and some others were thrown out even though Thomas was one of the original Apostles.
There was no New Testement just various writings until after the Council of Nicea,and much was taught by word of mouth. Paul even mentioned that If Jesus didn’t ressurect then their faith was in vain. There was not complete agreement even among the apostles. Since Peter was the First Bishop of Rome and Constantine was head of the Roman empire it was only natural for them to declare the line of Roman bishops to be head of the church. What was added over the years or translated to fit that belief is disputable, depending on the truth of the translaters. probably why there is so much contradiction in the Bible!
I’m on your side as far as the “Is it real?” thing, but you’re trying to play both sides on this one. If you’re going to argue from the Bible (as you are doing when you talk about Stephen being martyred and Paul converting), you have to argue from what the Bible actually says…your version of events was garbled, time-shifted and just plain inaccurate from the standpoint of the storyline as written. Whether something happened before or after something else in Acts of the Apostles doesn’t come down to belief, it comes down to “check the book”. And on checking the book, your version of events was wrong.
No one is saying that you have to believe anything (hell, I’m an atheist/agnostic myself!), we’re just saying that you have to be true to your sources if you’re going to argue from them.
To question that PM that was so [powerfully written], that apparently gives you a “get out of hail” pass, just in case you were wrong, and the bible is spot on.
I will look to the “Powerfully Written words” in,
Mathew 25, [Jesus tells the Parable of the Ten Bridesmaids]
I do not want the words, “Truly I say to you, I Don’t Know You” to be said to me!
