Christian Creeds (Nicene, Apostles, etc)

[Sanil]

Mar 24, 2009 4:45:37 GMT -8 youneverletgo said:

Yes, I know that there are certain churches and Christians that have started to deny everything in the creeds. This doesn't change the fact that these Christians would be considered to be outside of Christian orthodoxy by theologically conservative Christians.

In many ways, it is almost as if we are going back to how things were before any of the creeds were written....when there were no boundaries to determine what was and what was not Christian. We're seeing many of the same beliefs come back that were considered heresy according to the creeds.

Oops, I was wrong. More questions.

Ok, do you consider this a good thing? Personally, I would. This is partially because I disagree with the creeds that defined Christianity, but I think I would feel the same even if they did describe my beliefs. There were so many different views, all of which had about as much basis in Scripture, and everyone but this very narrow interpretation gets called a heretic and is not following "real" Christianity. I think going back to before the creeds, before people were arrogant enough to think that they had the authoritative interpretation of Scripture, that they alone truly understood God's intentions, is a very good thing. Yes, a lot of nonsense may and probably will/does come out of it too. But I think in general it's more honest and will lead to more dialogue and understanding.

youneverletgo said:

According to society's definition of Christian (meaning that anyone is Christian as long as they identify themselves as such), I'm probably in a very small minority. I would be considered theologically conservative because I do hold to the creeds and to the beliefs that are in them. Others would think that I"m not with it...that I"m not with the times. I really don't care. I will hold to the gospel message no matter what....even if I become the only person in the world to still hold to it.

I want to be clear that I think that is great. I have a lot of respect for your dedication to God and to truth. While I disagree with some points in the creeds, I most definitely do not think that I have a perfect understanding either, it may very well be that you are much more correct in your beliefs than I am. As long as someone is open to questions and carefully thinking through their beliefs according to Scripture, as it is obvious you are, it is good to stick to them.

youneverletgo said:

But Christianity itself also has a tradition -- it has the Bible and the creeds, and we do have a specific way that the creeds are supposed to be interpreted in.

To insert into them pagan meanings, and say that they don't mean what the Scriptures teach....and to claim that we were worshiping multiple gods and whatnot is not consistent with Christian tradition and Christian interpretation of its own creeds and beliefs.

This may be a useless question, depending on how you answer the first one I asked. If you think that there should be more openness and that the creeds do not determine who can be considered a believer, then ignore this question.

If you think that there is one right way to understand the Scriptures, and more to the point that humans can absolutely understand and define that one way and determine who is "in"...then how is what happened here any different? In the same way that those making the creeds determined those who did not follow their interpretation were not really a part of the same faith and declared them heretics, some people here are making this claim about Christianity. I would disagree with both. I think that we can disagree and still both be on the right path and understanding as best we are capable, and probably all sides have some right and some wrong ideas.

Of course you do not interpret the creeds that way. Just like more liberal Christians who have abandoned them do not think that they have abandoned the faith that is laid out in the Bible. It's good to question others' interpretations, and to have our own questioned as well. I think it leads to better understanding on both sides, both of the other's ideas and our own as we find ways of clarifying it for others who do not understand it. I look forward to seeing more of how you view the statements made in the creeds.

[youneverletgo]

Mar 24, 2009 6:36:28 GMT -8 Sanil said:

Oops, I was wrong. More questions.

Ok, do you consider this a good thing? Personally, I would. This is partially because I disagree with the creeds that defined Christianity, but I think I would feel the same even if they did describe my beliefs. There were so many different views, all of which had about as much basis in Scripture, and everyone but this very narrow interpretation gets called a heretic and is not following "real" Christianity. I think going back to before the creeds, before people were arrogant enough to think that they had the authoritative interpretation of Scripture, that they alone truly understood God's intentions, is a very good thing. Yes, a lot of nonsense may and probably will/does come out of it too. But I think in general it's more honest and will lead to more dialogue and understanding.

No, I do not think it is a good thing that the creeds are being abandoned, and anything and everything is now passing for Christianity. Can other viewpoints have a legitimacy in Scripture? Of course. Anyone can go to the Bible and find verses to get it to say what they want to, and to read into the Bible anything that they want to. This does not mean that the interpretation is going to be considered legitimate by other Christians, and it doesn't mean that it lines up with other Scripture.

There has got to be a definition of what is and what is not Christian....otherwise people will claim anything as a Christian belief. New Agers claim Jesus and claim the Bible to support their viewpoint. So do people who practice witchcraft. So do people who have all sorts of belief systems. Are all of these things to be accepted by Christians as Christian? I don't think so.

There is some degree of freedom that Christians have in interpreting the Bible and so forth, and still be within Christian orthodoxy. But there are certain lines that absolutely cannot be crossed. If they are, then no, I cannot consider it to be a Christian belief.

If there are no boundaries to define what Christianity is and what it is not....then the result will be complete chaos. For example, I believe that the bodily resurrection of Jesus is non-negotiable. If all viewpoints are equally valid, then that would mean that one person could believe in Jesus' bodily resurrection while another person completely denies it. You can't have it both ways. Either Jesus bodily rose from the dead or He did not. If He did not, then that changes everything about Christianity.

I honestly think that there are some interpretations of Scripture that are just plain wrong (such as if someone decided that Jesus didn't raise from the dead).

People are welcome to think that I'm arrogant, but I believe there must be bounds to what should be considered Christian faith and what should not be. My own beliefs are going to put me outside of how theologically liberal individuals would define Christianity.

If there are no bounds to Christianity, then all kinds of spiritualities could be considered "Christian." Spiritist churches, New Age spirituality (including the belief in the Cosmic Christ), occult practices, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, anything that uses the name Jesus, anything that called itself Christian, etc. could all be considered Christianity. Where does it stop? Other religions, as long as the revere Jesus in some way could then be considered Christian.

I want to be clear that I think that is great. I have a lot of respect for your dedication to God and to truth. While I disagree with some points in the creeds, I most definitely do not think that I have a perfect understanding either, it may very well be that you are much more correct in your beliefs than I am. As long as someone is open to questions and carefully thinking through their beliefs according to Scripture, as it is obvious you are, it is good to stick to them.

And I can respect that you can have a different opinion than I do. We do not have to agree. And no, I do not have a perfect understanding. I am open to discussion and whatnot (otherwise I would not be posting here).

This may be a useless question, depending on how you answer the first one I asked. If you think that there should be more openness and that the creeds do not determine who can be considered a believer, then ignore this question.

If you think that there is one right way to understand the Scriptures, and more to the point that humans can absolutely understand and define that one way and determine who is "in"...then how is what happened here any different? In the same way that those making the creeds determined those who did not follow their interpretation were not really a part of the same faith and declared them heretics, some people here are making this claim about Christianity. I would disagree with both. I think that we can disagree and still both be on the right path and understanding as best we are capable, and probably all sides have some right and some wrong ideas.

I suppose that while I intellectually realize that those on this board are calling themselves Messianic Jews and are seeking to identify with Judaism, I still consider you to be Christians. I consider the others on this board to be of the same faith as me because of the fact that you guys also follow Jesus and have the New Testament. I tend to come down harder on other Christians than on none Christians, especially when I'm called a pagan or polytheist...and you guys have some of the same doctrine that we do....at least I would think so.....considering that we both have the same Bible and believe in Jesus.

But as it seems......there are major differences between Christianity and Messanic Judaism, and it seems that Messianic Judaism does not consider us Christians to be of the same faith. Although this hurts me and frustrates me because I know what Scripture says in regard to who I am in Christ, I guess I have to consider Messianic Judaism to be a different religion.

If it truly does not hold to the beliefs in the creeds, then it doesn't fit the definition of Christian orthodoxy, and does indeed have more in common with modern Judaism than modern Christianity. If Messianic Jews refuse to recognize any similarity between what they believe and what the creeds say, then we truly do have almost nothing in common. Mark was probably right in the other thread; we probably are worshiping different Jesus', etc.

That is fine if Messianic Jews do not consider me to share the same faith as they do. I can be okay with that. However, I still will defend the creeds and the trinity against accusations of paganism.

You are right there is no difference between Christianity defining its beliefs and another group defining its beliefs. Messianic Judaism has the right to consider what is within and what is outside of the bounds of what it considers to be real faith in Jesus.

Of course you do not interpret the creeds that way. Just like more liberal Christians who have abandoned them do not think that they have abandoned the faith that is laid out in the Bible. It's good to question others' interpretations, and to have our own questioned as well. I think it leads to better understanding on both sides, both of the other's ideas and our own as we find ways of clarifying it for others who do not understand it. I look forward to seeing more of how you view the statements made in the creeds.

Yes, dialogue is very good. We do need to be able to understand other people's viewpoints. This does not mean that we have to agree with them.

[Sanil]

Mar 24, 2009 13:22:15 GMT -8 youneverletgo said:

There has got to be a definition of what is and what is not Christian....otherwise people will claim anything as a Christian belief. New Agers claim Jesus and claim the Bible to support their viewpoint. So do people who practice witchcraft. So do people who have all sorts of belief systems. Are all of these things to be accepted by Christians as Christian? I don't think so.

Maybe this is the real question. The creeds define who is or isn't a Christian, a member of the Christian faith. What does that really mean to you? Are you defining in this way who is or isn't "saved", or simply who doesn't follow the same religion as you?

This relates to your quote here:

I suppose that while I intellectually realize that those on this board are calling themselves Messianic Jews and are seeking to identify with Judaism, I still consider you to be Christians. I consider the others on this board to be of the same faith as me because of the fact that you guys also follow Jesus and have the New Testament. I tend to come down harder on other Christians than on none Christians, especially when I'm called a pagan or polytheist...and you guys have some of the same doctrine that we do....at least I would think so.....considering that we both have the same Bible and believe in Jesus.

If the creeds define for you who is or is not a Christian, then by your definition we are not. Or at least, most of us are not. That is the whole point of this thread, we do not believe in the creeds as you do, so you are explaining them for us. And that's good! Again, I am very interested to understand better how you see them, because I don't understand them at all.

So...basically, I do not consider us to have the same religion, because religion is not just a few beliefs or even an entire belief system, it is also the ritual that accompanies that. What your belief leads you to do. From there at the least, we become very different. But that doesn't mean that I do not believe Christians are saved. I believe your faith is real, that you have a real and correct understanding of Jesus, and that God is working in you as he is in me. We are the same, even if our religions are not. Or at least, that is how I see things.

[youneverletgo]

Mar 24, 2009 13:55:57 GMT -8 Sanil said:

Maybe this is the real question. The creeds define who is or isn't a Christian, a member of the Christian faith. What does that really mean to you? Are you defining in this way who is or isn't "saved", or simply who doesn't follow the same religion as you?

I'll answer the rest after class.

No, I'm not saying that the creeds are a definition of who is and who is not saved. I believe that all who truly trust in Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior are saved....I believe that salvation is by grace through faith.

I don't think that a person has to necessarily have a complete understanding theologically, as no one does have a complete understanding.

I'm also not the judge of who is and who is not saved.....however, I can point to Scripture. According to Scripture, a person needs to trust in Jesus. Is belief in Jesus' deity necessary for a person to truly trust in Him? Quite possibly because of John 8:24 and John 8:28 as translated in the NASB. However, I cannot say for certain.

How much does someone need to believe in order to be saved? I think they are accountable for what they have been exposed to and what they can handle.

We'll talk....if not on here, than in person.

[Sanil]

Thank you. That was my only concern, and that makes sense to me. I would agree with I think all of that. It's good to know we are not that different on these issues.

[youneverletgo]

Mar 24, 2009 15:44:49 GMT -8 Sanil said:

Thank you. That was my only concern, and that makes sense to me. I would agree with I think all of that. It's good to know we are not that different on these issues.

That's why I said I had a problem with the condemning part of the Athanasian Creed. It condemns everyone who doesn't believe in it to hell.

I agree with the rest of the Athanasian Creed....just not the part that it says that anyone who doesn't believe in it will go to hell.

Is it possible that those who do not agree with it will go to hell? Yes. But I'm not going to say that those who don't agree with it definitely will go to hell. I also don't think that everyone is at a place in their theological understanding that they could articulate the creed. I don't think that God's going to hold that against someone.

If they believe in the gospel as much as they can, at the level that they have been exposed to it, and they have given God their hearts.....I think that is what matters the most. Then, as they grow in their relationship with God and in their faith, they are able to accept things on a deeper level, and accept it as they hear it.

Please note -- this does not mean that I believe in universal salvation. I do believe that Jesus is the only way, and I do believe that people have to place their faith (trust) in Him. What this might mean to a 5 year old is going to be different than what it means to an adult. A five year old can't possibly be expected to have a good grasp on the Trinity and such. They may have some level of understanding, but they cannot understand the doctrine in the way that an adult can.

I have no say in where people end up for eternity. All I can point others to is the Bible. I can say, "according to the Bible......" but I cannot say to anyone, "I know for sure that you are going to hell."

[youneverletgo]

Mar 24, 2009 13:55:57 GMT -8 Sanil said:

Maybe this is the real question. The creeds define who is or isn't a Christian, a member of the Christian faith. What does that really mean to you? Are you defining in this way who is or isn't "saved", or simply who doesn't follow the same religion as you?

So keeping in mind what I said before, the creeds for me define what is and what is not Christian belief....what is or what is not Christian teachings (doctrine).

If the creeds define for you who is or is not a Christian, then by your definition we are not. Or at least, most of us are not. That is the whole point of this thread, we do not believe in the creeds as you do, so you are explaining them for us. And that's good! Again, I am very interested to understand better how you see them, because I don't understand them at all.

I think, then, that this reveals another reason the creeds are being abandoned in some churches today -- because people have stopped preaching what is contained in the creeds. In other words they have stopped preaching the gospel. As a result of not preaching the gospel, people in churches do not understand the creeds, and therefore there is no reason to have them anymore. I'm both shocked and saddened by this. This is also what I noticed when I was talking to some more theologically liberal students at school. They had never heard the gospel before while growing up in their church. They also had never really heard of the Holy Spirit either, besides being part of the doxology.

It's almost as if my beliefs are no longer Christian either....and Christianity has become something completely different. There may come a time when I can no longer use the term "Christian" to describe myself, and I may need to come up with my own term. It is almost as if Christianity is redefining itself. Now it seems that those of us who hold to the creeds are the new heretics. I think there will come a point in time that this will be the case. Right now, we are just considered to have bad theology. I have no doubt that there will come a time in which people like me will be defined as heretics, and our beliefs will not be considered to be Christian.

I came onto these boards with some assumptions that I am quickly seeing are incorrect. I assumed that most of the people on here would adhere to the Christian creeds. Since that is not the case, I will do my best to explain them in a way that hopefully will make sense. I don't expect others to come to the same theological beliefs as me, but please do try to understand where I am coming from. Sanil, you are doing a very good job of this, and I thank you.

So...basically, I do not consider us to have the same religion, because religion is not just a few beliefs or even an entire belief system, it is also the ritual that accompanies that. What your belief leads you to do. From there at the least, we become very different. But that doesn't mean that I do not believe Christians are saved. I believe your faith is real, that you have a real and correct understanding of Jesus, and that God is working in you as he is in me. We are the same, even if our religions are not. Or at least, that is how I see things.

Understood

[youneverletgo]

Hmmm....okay, I see that I will need to approach this topic differently.

Instead of beginning with the Trinity, I think a discussion of the Christian gospel is going to be necessary. I had mistakenly assumed that Messianic Jews had the same understanding as Christians (keep in mind...I'm using my definition of Christian to define the term Christian). I'll definitely get back to the Trinity, but the gospel message should help to explain the creeds. Hopefully this also will give people a better understanding of what Christians are celebrating when we celebrate Easter....and lastly, because Easter is rapidly approaching, it's a good time to do this.

I'm guessing that Messianic Jews and Christians must interpret many, many Bible passages differently....as well as many different terms that are used in Scripture.

Since this is the case, I'll need to attempt to define how I view certain terms and verses. For Christians, the term gospel means good news. It is not just any good news, but it is meant in terms of the good news about Jesus.

I typed an explanation up about the gospel on a blog on another site a while ago. The easiest thing for me to do would be to find that and to copy and paste it into here.

Feel free to ask any questions if something is not clear. I will try to clarify. After the explanation, I'll look for Scripture that supports the position.....then I'll try to relate it back to the creeds. This whole effort is going to take several days. Hopefully you will be able to better understand what we mean in the creeds.

Another interesting thing I could do is to post some lyrics to Christian songs because sometimes songs explain things in a very concise way and provide a glimpse into what people believe.

Actually, I have a play list that I made that consists of songs that are specifically about the gospel. It's called Sweetly Broken (after the name of one of the songs on the play list). I have an idea... In regard to everyone else, I have something called Simplify Media, and you can access my playlists from iTunes. I don't remember how to allow others to listen to my stuff. I will have to look into it.

[youneverletgo]

Here is what my explanation of the gospel is, from a Christian perspective.

God is the Creator, and He created us to have a relationship with Him.

This relationship involves loving God – but in order to love Him, humanity had to be given a choice to love God, and being given a choice means that there is also a choice to not do something (in this case a choice to not love God.) God didn't want us to be puppets on a string. Therefore, He created us with free will. Humanity was created to love and worship God…to know Him personally….

The first human beings, Adam and Eve, were given the command that they could eat from any tree in the Garden of Eden that they wanted to…EXCEPT the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. God told them that if they ate from it, they would die on the day that they did so. They were not prevented from eating from the tree of life, though.

Well, Satan, God's enemy, came along and saw how much God loved His creation. Satan's goal has always been to dethrone God, and since he couldn't do that, the next best thing would be to hurt Him. Since Satan couldn't attack God directly, he decided to attack this special creation called humanity, which God, for some reason, had decided to love. Satan's goal then became to take humanity down with him. He knew that eventually he would be defeated, and knew that he would have to be punished.

Satan approached Eve and fed her half truths….which are the worst kinds of lies ever. He also caused Eve to doubt God by saying, "Did God REALLY say…." And he also told her that she could be like God, and gain wisdom, and that God lied to her about her death if she disobeyed God…she listened and ate from that tree, and Adam didn't object. He ate some of it too.

Well God showed up right afterwards and pronounced judgment. They had disobeyed Him (they sinned)….and in doing so, they had rejected Him and had turned away. Since they were the first humans, all others have been born with the tendency to sin. Humanity could no longer be in a perfect relationship with God, because of this sin. God is holy and cannot be in the presence of sin. Not only this…but God had said that Adam and Eve would die if they ate of that tree, and since they didn't die immediately, there had to be a spiritual component to this death, and that had to have been the thing that died when Adam and Eve disobeyed. However, God also said that they would eventually physically die as well because they had turned from Him.

Since Adam and Eve were the first humans, and carried this tendency to sin to all their children….that means that all of humanity is in this sinful condition. What resulted for humanity was a broken relationship with God. We were all are in a fallen state…we are all separated from God.

He also cast them out of the Garden of Eden, and did not allow them to eat from the tree of life.

Immediately, God began a plan for how humanity would be saved, and alluded to it right away, before He cast them from the garden. Humanity needed salvation.

In order for God to save all of humanity, He needed to begin by selecting a group of people for His very own…who He would give His promise to, and through whom salvation would come. He selected the Jews, and told them that He would be their God, and He gave them laws so that they would know His standards. Connected to these laws were sacrifices to make atonement for sins, (because He said that without the shedding of blood, there would be no forgiveness), along with other types of sacrifices.

Then add the following: This is not a sadistic thing on God's part by any means. Blood was seen as life in the Bible. Because humanity had sinned, we all deserved death. The law demanded life for a life. God is just. When His law is broken, then the consequences from that law must be met. Since humanity sinned, a life had to be laid down, otherwise we would stand guilty before Him. Blood was seen to cover over sin...to cleanse and sanctify people from sin.

Even with the laws, the Jewish people still sinned. All of humanity still sinned. No one was perfect in God's sight because everyone had given into the tendency to sin. People did not love God with their whole hearts and they did not love other people as they would love themselves. No one has ever acted out of pure love for God and no one has always acted kindly to everyone and treated everyone with love and acted in the best interest of other people AT ALL TIMES. Everyone falls short of His glory.

This means that we (humans) cannot reach God on our own, by our own effort. We cannot earn our way into heaven. There is nothing we could ever do that would be good enough to justify ourselves before God. We are all sinful, so even our best efforts cause us to fall short of God's standards. We can't earn it in any way, by following the laws, by going to church every Sunday, by being a good person, by helping other people, or any other good work.

Therefore, God had to intervene in order to save us. He loved us so much that He wanted to save us, even though humanity continually turned from Him. He Himself became human in the person of Jesus Christ, who was both fully God and fully man. That was the only way for us to be redeemed and have a restored relationship with God. Since no one could live a perfect life, Jesus did what we could not do and did live a perfect life. He showed us what living by God's standards looked like. He also showed us what God was like.

Jesus not only lived a perfect life, but He took the punishment that all of humanity deserved upon Himself. He took the blows that we (humanity) deserved. He was beaten and bruised instead of you and me. He not only did all of this….but then He took all of humanity's sins upon Himself, even though He lived a perfect life. He was declared guilty instead of us. Then, ultimately He died for us…He died in your place, and He died in my place. We (humanity) deserved the death, not Him. He poured out His blood and bought us with His blood…..and His blood has the power to cover sins and give us total forgiveness. This demonstrates how much God loves us….

But that wasn't the end of it….three days later He rose from the dead. This resurrection was a real, bodily resurrection. He defeated Satan and conquered death. He is alive now, and we can all live because of Him. We have hope of eternal life because of Him. Shortly after His resurrection, He ascended to heaven…..but He will come back again someday, and then He will judge everyone in the world and physical death and the consequences of sin will be taken away forever.

Now…..the gift of eternal life….is a gift, and as with any gift, it has to be accepted in order for a person to receive that gift. Each person can either accept this free gift or reject it. If the person rejects it, and continues to reject it until they die, then that person will die in their sins.

However, if the person decides to accept this gift…if they decide to accept that Jesus died for them, and if they believe that He died for them, and they claim the blood of Christ….and ask Him to come into their life as Savior and Lord….then they will be forgiven, and they will receive the Holy Spirit (and for the best, most abundant life, they can also be empowered by the Holy Spirit), and they will receive all the benefits of salvation. They will have eternal life, they will be under Christ's protection, and their life will begin to be transformed, and they will start to have a personal relationship with God, and so much more.

All a person has to do is believe and ask Him to come in….and He will. It's His promise. No specific words need to be used….there isn't a special prayer that saves. A person is saved by grace through faith. It's by God's grace that He extends this free gift to each and every person, regardless of what religion or faith system a person might have grown up with. Humanity doesn't deserve God's gift…but He's offering it to us anyway.

I believe that everyone needs to be saved from sin, and that Jesus is who people need to turn to. Jesus' bodily resurrection is viewed as a big yes to everything to Jesus did and said, and it means victory for us.

Let me add something here.....this is part of a response I just wrote to a comment on one of my other blog entries.

Unfortunately, I do think that there are many people who think they are saved but really are not. There are a lot of people with a lot of head knowledge, who know Scripture really well, and who know how to "do" Christianity as a religion, but who do not truly know God. There are a lot of people who are members of a Christian church, who have been baptized, and who attend chuch (either every week or every once in a while), and think that because they are "Christian," they are safe. There are also a lot of people who call themselves Christian because they are not part of any other religion....and because their family has always considered itself Christian. None of these things are what make a person a Christian biblically. None of these things have any saving power...so just because a person would describe themselves as one of the above does not make them saved.

Jesus said, " "Not everyone who says to me, `Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, `Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23 Then I will tell them plainly, `I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!' Matthew 7:21

It is important to remember that even saved people sometimes sin. It's part of the human condition. Sometimes saved individuals do not always display the fruits of the Spirit. This is unfortunate, but true. Now, generally, a saved person is going to display the gifts...just becacuse a person who truly loves God is going to do so. Jesus has an effect on a person's life. So, I guess you need to look at the person's entire life, and not specific incidents. In general, the saved person would display the fruits....yes, by the way the speak and act towards others.

I think it's a problem when we start to focus on whether another person who calls themselves a Christian is saved or not. Only God knows this. Instead, I believe that our focus should be on our own personal relationship with God. This doesn't mean to ignore others, but our individual focus should be glorifying God in all that we do. Our love for God should be displayed in how we treat others, and when they need encoruagement or when they are struggling, we reach out to them. We can share God's love with others....but our sharing His love is not because we are judging others, but because we want to glorify God...when this is our focus we can't help sharing His love with others. We want others to know Him too. We want to make much of Him.

There are many individuals who wonder whether or not they are saved. They wonder whether or not they have messed up too many times for God to save them.

I can tell you how you can know for sure whether or not you are saved....here is the test:
Is Jesus Christ your Lord and Savior? By this I mean, have you surrendered yourself to Him and let Him be Lord of your life? Do you believe that He took all of your sins (insert your name here's sins) upon Himself and died in your place (insert your name here's place). Do you believe that He paid the price for you (insert your name here)? Have you asked Him to come into your life (insert your name here's life) and be on the throne of your life (be on the throne of insert your name here's life)? Do you believe in Jesus' bodily resurrection? Do you know that you (insert your name here) need Jesus because you cannot save yourself. Have you submitted to the rulership of Christ? Have you repented (turned from yourself towards God).....it is a surrender of yourself to God....a whole life surrender. In effect what you are doing is placing your trust in Jesus' ability to save you from your sins. If you have asked Jesus to be Lord and Savior for you, then guess what, you are saved. If you have not, then you are not saved.

How can you know for sure that you are saved if you have confessed Him to truly be your Lord and Savior? Because salvation is not based on feelings...it is based on the trustworthiness of God. God says that you are saved if you have surrendered to Him.

Here are some verses:
8 But what does it say? "The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart," that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming: 9 That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. 11 As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to ." 12 For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile--the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13 for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." Romans 10:8-13

13 I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life. 14 This is the confidence we have in approaching God: that if we ask anything according to his will, he hears us. 15 And if we know that he hears us--whatever we ask--we know that we have what we asked of him. 1 John 5:13-15

These are promises from God...and because they are promises from Him, you can trust Him.

Another important thing to remember is that salvation (in true Christianity) is not based on good works, or on how well you follow God's laws. The reason for this is that we could never be good enough for God. We all fall short of God's glory. We can never be good enough to meet his standards. This is the whole reason that Jesus came. He came and did what we could not....He lived a perfect life. This is why His death on the cross was effective. It's all based on Jesus' blood. The cross is the center of the meaning of Christianity.

Here's one of my favorite songs - Nothing but the Blood, by Matt Redman. It explains the point quite well:
Your blood speaks a better word than all the empty claims I've heard upon this earth. Speaks righteousness for me, stands in my defense. Jesus it's Your blood. Your blood. Your blood speaks a better word than all the empty claims I've heard upon this earth. Speaks righteousness for me, stands in my defense. Jesus it's Your blood.

What can wash away our sins? What can make us whole again? Nothing but the blood. Nothing but the blood of Jesus. What can wash us pure as snow? Welcome as the friends of God? Nothing but your blood...blood....King Jesus.

Your cross testifies in grace, tells of the Father's heart to make a way for us. Now boldly we approach not earthly confidence, it's only by Your blood. What can wash away our sins? What can make us whole again? Nothing but the blood, nothing but the blood of Jesus. What can wash us pure as snow, welcomed as the friends of God? Nothing but Your blood, nothing but Your blood, King Jesus.

What can wash away our sins? What can make us whole again? Nothing but the blood, nothing but the blood of Jesus. What can wash us pure as snow forever welcomed as teh friends of God? Nothing but Your blood. Nothing but Yoru blood, King Jesus. King Jesus.

It's Your blood, it's Your blood. It's Your blood, it's Your blood. Ransomed, healed, restored, forgiven...singing of Calvary...it's the blood...it's the blood it's the blood. We praise You for the blood....we've been ransomed, we've been healed, we've been restored, and we've been forgiven.
(end of song)

Does this give us a license to sin? No. A saved person who truly declares Jesus Christ to be their Lord and Savior would not really want to hurt God's feelings.....they would not want to grieve the Holy Spirit. When a person loves God, they strive to please Him. They want to glorify Him. Why is this? Because when a person asks Jesus to be Lord of their life, the Holy Spirit begins to change a person's heart. Your life is forever changed.

I think that not knowing whether you are saved is a problem in a lot of mainline churches. The problem comes from the fact that a lot of churches have stopped truly preaching the gospel. They don't want to offend anyone, so they don't want to talk about sin, grace, or the cross. I know in the church I grew up in, this was the case for me. I never heard the gospel message from anyone at the church. They wanted to cover it up.

[youneverletgo]

Now Mark....please tell me honestly....do you think that the Christian gospel message is pagan?

If so, I would be interested in knowing your interpretation of certain Bible verses.

Besides the Trinity, the gospel message is affirmed in all of these creeds.

Based on the fact that you provided a link to a website that talked about everything in Christianity being based on paganism....all our beliefs, including belief in the virgin birth, Jesus' physical death, Jesus' bodily resurrection....I'm assuming that you are making the same accusation against us Christians. If this were not the case, you would not have posted the link to the website.

If you think what we believe is pagan, fine. I won't be able to convince you otherwise. I still plan on quoting Scripture, but as we have different interpretations, it's not likely going to be useful.

[Mark]

I believe the biblical message of the gospel. In most cases, I think the Christian message of the gospel is commonly referred to as "easy-believerism". "Just sign the bottom line, say the confessional prayer, and you're in." I think that's a bit trite. Yet, that is not what we're talking about; and I resent you attempt to vilify me personally as a distraction to the subject in hand.

In fact, consistently, your focus has been on what you believe. If your name were on the bottom of the page as the author of the creeds and that they are given as a representation of your thoughts, that would be perfectly legitimate. If all Christendom accepted you as their representative as how these texts should be interpretted, your logic would be considerable. Yet, since you don't qualify in these capacities, we need to evaluate these words in how they are written, not upon the indoctrinated biases (what I mean is the training attained by one person) of a specific denominational slant.

The Bible is a Jewish collection of writings. Every author credited to the Bible is Jewish (with the possible exception of Dr. Luke, though he was most likely Jewish as well, given his intimate familiarity with Jewish idiomatic phrases). More than 80% of the Bible was written specifically to a Jewish audience. Most all of it was written about Jewish people and all of it follows Jewish ideas and Jewish thinking.

There is strong evidence that the Council of Nicea was anti-Jewish/Antisemitic in its agenda:

www.thefullgospelyeshuahamashiach.com/content/wow/anti_judiams.htm

www.petahtikvah.com/Articles/ANTIJUDAISM.htm

In the same meeting that birthed the Nicene Creed, all "Christians were required to abandon all practices Jewish (the feasts, the Sabbaths, etcetras). Jews were forbidden to intermarry or have fellowship with gentiles. Jews were forbidden to hold any office in the Church.

The Nicene Creed is written for the purpose of unifying like believers; but in so doing, it is equally designed to alienate others. What I've tried to demonstrate is that you can even be poly-theistic (pagan) and accept the tenets of the Nicene Creed. You can believe in salvation by emersion or salvation through membership of the church. You can believe that salvation is bestowed to you by rite of the Pope or the representatives of the Pope (for whatever reason he deems fit). What you can't be, in the way that it is written, is Jewish. Yet, as we have discussed earlier (referencing Ephesians 2) this is exactly what Paul invites gentiles to become.

However, if starting a new religion based upon our own comforts, our own familiarity, and (as far as Nicea was concerned) paganistic origins of theology, it was necessary to exclude the one group of people who had an experienced understanding of how to handle the Word of God (Romans 3:1-2).

[youneverletgo]

Mar 26, 2009 3:38:45 GMT -8 Mark said:

I believe the biblical message of the gospel. In most cases, I think the Christian message of the gospel is commonly referred to as "easy-believerism". "Just sign the bottom line, say the confessional prayer, and you're in." I think that's a bit trite. Yet, that is not what we're talking about; and I resent you attempt to vilify me personally as a distraction to the subject in hand.

I'm not trying to vilify you. Yet, you have called everything in the creeds pagan. You have accused Christians of being pagan, and have suggested that the creeds really have a pagan meaning. You also posted those two websites earlier that said that everything in Christianity is really pagan.

In almost every thread I have read at these boards, Christians are referred to as pagans.

This is how I'm seeing your comments in this thread.....as accusing us Christians of being pagan. The first comment you made in this thread was fine. You simply said it sounded like paganism, and asked me how I would argue against it. I tried to. After I tried to show from the creeds that we were talking about the Trinity and whatnote.....you then called us pagan for believing in it, telling us that we were polytheistic (except you did acknowledge that you believed in Jesus' deity.....which made me ask you why you felt that the Christian belief in the Trinity was polytheistic when you said you also believed in Jesus' deity. You never answered that). Then you posted those two links. One of them was from a universal faith type "church" that was trying to get people to embrace paganism.

When I tried to show you that everything in the creeds could be back up with Scripture, you did not respond to that. Instead you called us all pagans, telling us that we had returned to paganism. You also accused me of worshiping the goddess Easter because I celebrate Easter.

This is how I'm interpreting your posts. If I'm wrong, I apologize. This is how I see you coming across to me.

In fact, consistently, your focus has been on what you believe. If your name were on the bottom of the page as the author of the creeds and that they are given as a representation of your thoughts, that would be perfectly legitimate. If all Christendom accepted you as their representative as how these texts should be interpretted, your logic would be considerable. Yet, since you don't qualify in these capacities, we need to evaluate these words in how they are written, not upon the indoctrinated biases (what I mean is the training attained by one person) of a specific denominational slant.

I'm not the only one who interprets these creeds in the way that I have here. Every Christian author that I like to read also interprets these things this way, as do Christians at every single Christian event that I have been to. It is not just a particular denomination.

All right...yes, I was talking about what I believed. That's how I feel that the creeds should be interpreted, because that's what I find in the Bible. That is also how all of the Christian apologists that I have read interpret the creeds, and what is essential to the Christian faith.

I also think that what is said in the creeds in regard to the Trinity makes it impossible to be polytheistic because of what they say. A pagan interpretation of this would force a person to ignore certain parts of the creeds.

The Bible is a Jewish collection of writings. Every author credited to the Bible is Jewish (with the possible exception of Dr. Luke, though he was most likely Jewish as well, given his intimate familiarity with Jewish idiomatic phrases). More than 80% of the Bible was written specifically to a Jewish audience. Most all of it was written about Jewish people and all of it follows Jewish ideas and Jewish thinking.

There is strong evidence that the Council of Nicea was anti-Jewish/Antisemitic in its agenda:

So it seems that you are reacting to the Nicene creed because of anti-Jewish discussions at the council, and not what the creed actually says. You're reacting to this in the same way that I'm reacting to you about the pagan accusations.

Let me be very clear on this, I really don't know anything about this anti-Jewish stuff that happened at the council. I never heard of it before. Assuming that what is suggested in the articles you posted really happened in that way, I do not agree with the anti-Jewish rulings. I'm sorry that it happened, and I wish that it hadn't.

Despite the anti-Jewish stuff, this still does not change what is actually said in the Nicene Creed. I understand if you don't like it because of other things that happened at Nicea, but I think that you are interpreting the creed in a reactionary way. The creed should be separated from other stuff that happened at the council. If the creed said, "kill all Jews" or mentioned the Jews in a negative way, that would be one thing. But the creed does not even mention Jews at all. The creed itself has nothing to do with hatred towards Jews.

I do know that people used the creeds wrongly by killing those that did not agree with it. I do not think that heretics should be killed or punished or whatnot. The creed itself does not order people to kill heretics. If it did, that would be one thing.

The creed, as it stands, is simply a statement about what is to be considered Christian orthodoxy and what is not. It argues against Arius' position by defining Jesus the way that it does and upholding the Trinity.

In accepting the Nicene Creed, I am NOT endorsing everything that was done at this council, and I'm not endorsing anything that was done against people that disagreed with it. I'm simply stating that I do agree with what the creed itself says.

I agree and acknowledge that every author of the Bible was Jewish except for maybe Luke.

Just to clarify....I do not want to misunderstand you again. Are you saying that the Bible is only for Jews, and that since I'm not Jewish, I can't understand it?

In the same meeting that birthed the Nicene Creed, all "Christians were required to abandon all practices Jewish (the feasts, the Sabbaths, etcetras). Jews were forbidden to intermarry or have fellowship with gentiles. Jews were forbidden to hold any office in the Church.

If this happened, then I don't think that these rulings were right.

But again, this says nothing about the actual Nicene Creed. If there were lines in the creed that were against Jews, said that Christians had to abandon all practices Jewish, did not allow marriage to Jews, or even to have fellowship with them, or to allow them to have any offices in the church....then you would be right in attacking the Nicene Creed for its anti-Jewish beliefs. But the fact is that the creed says nothing against Jews.

Whatever anti-Jewish rulings that occurred at the council were not a part of the creed, and were separate.

Furthermore, these rulings are not part of today's church. If they were, then certain people who were raised Jewish or had a Jewish background would not be allowed in church. A couple of pastors that I know wouldn't be allowed to be pastors. One specific pastor would not be on the national board of my denomination. One of the small groups in the church would not be putting together a Passover meal. Several people in the church would not be married to their spouses. Christians in the church today are not forbidden to associate with Jews.

I hate Antisemitism because it is not biblical, and any time that I see a person who identifies themselves as Christian spreading hatred towards Jews, I will not hesitate to confront them.

The Nicene Creed is written for the purpose of unifying like believers; but in so doing, it is equally designed to alienate others. What I've tried to demonstrate is that you can even be poly-theistic (pagan) and accept the tenets of the Nicene Creed.

Okay.....that was not what was coming across to me. Like I said before, I felt like you were attempting to attack all Christians, calling us pagan.

Yes....a creed is going to alienate people who do not agree with it. That is the whole purpose of having it. Some people are going to be outside the bounds of the faith.

I really do not think that a person can really be polytheistic and accept the tenets of the Nicene Creed. There is one line of the creed would be problematic here. They would either have to be ignored or reinterpreted. The part that describes Jesus as being one in Being with the Father. If a person was polytheistic, they would have to deny this, and claim instead that Jesus and the Father were different gods.

I really do think that the creed itself, the way it is written, should only be interpreted in light of Scripture. I can see how people who wouldn't be as familiar with Scripture might put their own meanings into the creeds, and still confess it.....but that would not be in keeping with the actual intended meaning of the creed. Look at the later creeds. The two that I quoted that were after it defined what they considered Christian orthodoxy to be. A pagan interpretation of these creeds just does not seem to fit.

You can believe in salvation by emersion or salvation through membership of the church. You can believe that salvation is bestowed to you by rite of the Pope or the representatives of the Pope (for whatever reason he deems fit). What you can't be, in the way that it is written, is Jewish. Yet, as we have discussed earlier (referencing Ephesians 2) this is exactly what Paul invites gentiles to become.

Again, the creed does not say you cannot be a Jewish believer. If it did, you would have an argument. But it does not. Now unless the Jewish believers had a different gospel, or disagreed with anything that was actually stated in the creed, then, no....there is nothing in the creed that would exclude a Jewish believer from being part of the church.

However, if starting a new religion based upon our own comforts, our own familiarity, and (as far as Nicea was concerned) paganistic origins of theology, it was necessary to exclude the one group of people who had an experienced understanding of how to handle the Word of God (Romans 3:1-2).

From what I've heard, Christianity was forced into being defined as a new religion because Judaism had rejected belief in Jesus as being a Jewish belief. I heard that Rome initially considered Christianity to be a sect of Judaism, and so it was legal. Then some Jews told the Romans that it was a different religion, and not Jewish....so Christianity became its own religion, and was thus declared to be illegal until Constantine. I think there was a lot of hostility on both sides -- both Christians and Jews. It is unfortunate what happened. As I said before, I wish there hadn't been a split. But there inevitably had to be. Jesus was the dividing line.

I don't think anyone wanted to start a new religion, but it was forced to happen. If a group is defined out of the religion it started in, then the people following that belief system are forced to start their own religion. The same thing occurred with Martin Luther. The Roman Catholic Church excommunicated him, so he was forced to start another denomination. The same thing has been repeated for many denominations that have started since then. They broke away because they did not agree with certain teachings in their original church or denomination, and when they tried to change things, they were kicked out.

Constantine did not get to decide what was and what was not Christian doctrine (if it is him that you are referring to by saying pagan origins of theology). From what I have learned, Constantine did not even care about Christian doctrine. He just cared about keeping the empire together politically. He knew that a divide between those who followed Arius and those that did not was not good for him. He did not want his empire ripped in two. So he called the council together so that they could decide. Even after Nicea, he wavered in who he supported. There was a time when Arius and his beliefs were favored.

I do not see pagan theology influencing the creed at all -- because as I said before, everything in the creed can be back up by Scripture...and it does give a very brief outline of what Christians believe.

So, once again, let me get this straight.....are you saying that only Jews can understand Scripture? Are you saying that the Holy Spirit only talks to Jews and only reveals the truth to Jews?

If so, then all of us non-Jewish believers are lost because we can't hear from the Holy Spirit, and we won't ever be able to understand.

[Mark]

If all the Bible were written by Jewish guys who followed Judaism as their mode of worship and defined their faith in Hebraic terms, why is the Church so different?

Did Christians suddenly pick practices out of the air that differentiate them from Jewish practices? What I have tried to present to you is that they did not. When gentile "believers" abandoned the Jewish heritage that they shared in the Jewish Messiah, they had to replace it with someting else (either totally new or revert to something that their cultures embraced). What I suggest to you is the latter- that the gentile Church, refusing to allow Jewish participation, replaced the Hebraic context of the Bible with familiar practices which were pagan in origin.

The accussation that the Christians abandoned the Jewish perspective because the Jews disallowed them is erroneous. By Acts 7, the "Christian Church" was more than 7000 strong and was, at that point, entirely Jewish. In Acts 6:7 we are told that many of the priesthood accepted and followed in obedience to Messiah. It's not until Acts 19 that we have the first example of Christian fellowship occurring outside of the local Jewish synagogue.

Let me show you something in the book of Exodus, chapter 32. It's the story of the golden calf. While Moses was up on the mountain speaking with the "LORD" (all caps is important), Aaron and the people manufactured an idol and began to worship it. Aaron says something that I tink is really pertinent to our discussion. He says in verse 5, "Tomorrow is a feast to the LORD." Now the Yod-Hey-Vav-Hey, the Name of God, is consistently translated in many English Bibles as the all caps LORD. This is the case: the same name is attributed to Whom Moses was speaking on the mountain and what the people were dancing around at the base. Was Israel worshipping the LORD when they danced before the golden calf? Aaron said that they were!

In the same way, those who follow the Council of Nicea, embracing the Nicene Creed, are re-defining who God is according to their own terms. I really appreciated what Sanil stated last in the Oneness vs Trinity thread: that the doctrine of Trinity is designed to limit our scope of how we see God. Were the creed to declare that the One God is multifaceted and manifests Himself bodily as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, many Jewish believers could grab onto that. Yet, to declare that these three are conclusively the elemental forms in which God exists is to worship a god of our own creation- exactly the motive of the Counsel of Nicea: to bring everyone under the same definitive idea of Christianity as Constantine... then kill everybody else.

While the texts you earlier referenced support the deity of Messiah (with which I agree) they do not conclusively define Adonai as a three-headed god. Just a little on forun etiquette, you "shot-gun" several arguments in one post, it's not fair for you to accuse me of ignoring them as I attempt to respond to one statement at a time.

The Bible is Jewish- all of it. It is written from a Hebraic, Jewish perspective, promoting and embracing the Lord God of Israel. If it ain't Jewish, it ain't biblical... and consequently, pagan.

www.wordcentral.com/cgi-bin/student?pagan

[youneverletgo]

Mar 26, 2009 14:00:47 GMT -8 Mark said:

If all the Bible were written by Jewish guys who followed Judaism as their mode of worship and defined their faith in Hebraic terms, why is the Church so different?

Did Christians suddenly pick practices out of the air that differentiate them from Jewish practices? What I have tried to present to you is that they did not. When gentile "believers" abandoned the Jewish heritage that they shared in the Jewish Messiah, they had to replace it with someting else (either totally new or revert to something that their cultures embraced). What I suggest to you is the latter- that the gentile Church, refusing to allow Jewish participation, replaced the Hebraic context of the Bible with familiar practices which were pagan in origin.

The accussation that the Christians abandoned the Jewish perspective because the Jews disallowed them is erroneous. By Acts 7, the "Christian Church" was more than 7000 strong and was, at that point, entirely Jewish. In Acts 6:7 we are told that many of the priesthood accepted and followed in obedience to Messiah. It's not until Acts 19 that we have the first example of Christian fellowship occurring outside of the local Jewish synagogue.

Let me show you something in the book of Exodus, chapter 32. It's the story of the golden calf. While Moses was up on the mountain speaking with the "LORD" (all caps is important), Aaron and the people manufactured an idol and began to worship it. Aaron says something that I tink is really pertinent to our discussion. He says in verse 5, "Tomorrow is a feast to the LORD." Now the Yod-Hey-Vav-Hey, the Name of God, is consistently translated in many English Bibles as the all caps LORD. This is the case: the same name is attributed to Whom Moses was speaking on the mountain and what the people were dancing around at the base. Was Israel worshipping the LORD when they danced before the golden calf? Aaron said that they were!

In the same way, those who follow the Council of Nicea, embracing the Nicene Creed, are re-defining who God is according to their own terms. I really appreciated what Sanil stated last in the Oneness vs Trinity thread: that the doctrine of Trinity is designed to limit our scope of how we see God. Were the creed to declare that the One God is multifaceted and manifests Himself bodily as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, many Jewish believers could grab onto that. Yet, to declare that these three are conclusively the elemental forms in which God exists is to worship a god of our own creation- exactly the motive of the Counsel of Nicea: to bring everyone under the same definitive idea of Christianity as Constantine... then kill everybody else.

While the texts you earlier referenced support the deity of Messiah (with which I agree) they do not conclusively define Adonai as a three-headed god. Just a little on forun etiquette, you "shot-gun" several arguments in one post, it's not fair for you to accuse me of ignoring them as I attempt to respond to one statement at a time.

The Bible is Jewish- all of it. It is written from a Hebraic, Jewish perspective, promoting and embracing the Lord God of Israel. If it ain't Jewish, it ain't biblical... and consequently, pagan.

www.wordcentral.com/cgi-bin/student?pagan

Okay, I think I finally understand where you are coming from. I apologize for not understanding what you were trying to say on this thread earlier, but I couldn't grasp what you were saying because I had no context for it.

So, while you uphold Jesus' deity, you reject the concept of the Trinity because it only mentions three persons? Therefore, you are suggesting that we invented our own God, and you are calling us pagan for it.

While I don't agree with that, obviously, I think I can understand you better. I can also respect where you are coming from. Thank you for explaining.

I think we will have to agree to disagree, because we are not going to be able to come to an agreement.

Is this the only problem that you have with the Christian creeds?

I didn't say that I thought that the church abandoned the Jewish perspective. What I did say is that the church was defined out of Judaism by Jews because of the church's belief in Jesus. Thus, Christianity was identified as a new religion.

I know what LORD in all caps in the Old Testament means.

So are you suggesting that us Trinitarians are not really worshiping God because we believe in the Trinity, and do not believe that there are more persons in the Godhead?

Trinitarians do not think of God as being "some freakish looking three headed god" as the Jehovah's Witness literature states about us.

[Mark]

Do you have to have a solid grasp on the doctrine of Trinity in order to be saved? No, I don't think so... those whom I have debated with from Dallas Theological Seminary and Moody Bible Institute will tell you that anyone who says they have a clear understanding of the nature and character of God is fooling them self. The definable characteristics of the Most High are incomprehensible to the finite, mortal man. That sort of fits in the whole "God" motif.

Messiah, when hanging on the cross, didn't lay out a set of theological mandates to which the thief beside him needed to fully understand before believing. He just needed to understand that Messiah was and is the way of forgiveness. The Ethiopian Eunuch wasn't sent to Bible School to unlearn all the things he had come to understand about God and relearn the "fundamentals" of theology. He needed to acknowledge that Yeshua's role as Messiah and His relationship as having come from God.

I am not saying that Christians are not saved because of the belief in the Trinity. Having a doctrinal position on the nature and character of God is not a qualifier for salvation. It is, however, a qualifier for "Christian fellowship" as needing to acknowledge the Nicene Creed (or other like statements of faith). I believe this to be adding to the conditions of fellowship required in the Bible: holding the traditions of men as higher than the Word of God.

I also believe that by our fruits we are known. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and swims like a duck, we can safely call the thing a duck. The faith that is taught and ardently defended in the Bible is a Jewish faith. The Council of Nicea had upon its agenda to remove all things Jewish from their practice. Now you can say that what their agenda was may be irrelevant; but to me that's kind of like saying Hitler was a pretty bad buy but Mien Kampf has some pretty interesting ideas.

The Christian belief system (not all of it- and God is free to move anyone in His direction by any means He chooses) is designed after a Roman system of order and practice, not Jewish. The Bible is Jewish. My math isn't stellar by any means; but this sort of equation I can pretty easily figure out.

Since the gospel message (salvation is by God's grace through faith by His merit and action, not out own) is so easy that an unlearned thief can get it, even while hanging in the most excruciating distraction, if it's so easy that an Ethiopian businessman (full of every sort of confused religion you can imagine) can grab hold of, there have to be those in the Christian Church who find Him. The way to God is that easy. Yet when folks deny the things written in the Bible (which the major seminaries and Bible Colleges of America do) and embrace the Anti-Semitic and para-biblical theses, I have to wonder.