The more I learn about Christianity, the less true it seems

[Luke17:37]

No, it's quite clear: at his conception (John 1:14, Luke 1:41). The Church has always accepted this.

NO! Jesus is the Creator who existed from eternity. He did not become divine at His human conception or any other time.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men." (John 1:1-4) (Jesus is the Word... made clear by John 1:14 and Revelation 19:13.)

For by Him [Jesus] all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist.
(Colossians 1:16-17)

"But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of you shall come forth to Me the One to be Ruler in Israel, Whose goings forth are from old, from everlasting." (Micah 5:2)

Jesus spoke these words, lifted His eyes to heaven, and said: "Father, the hour has come. Glorify your Son, that Your Son also may glorify You, as You have given Him authority over all flesh, that He should give eternal life to as many as You have given Him. And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent. I have glorified You on the earth. I have finished the work which You have given Me to do. And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was." (John 17:1-5)

 

[Luke17:37]

Why does scripture say that the cross was necessary? Scripture being the authority on the God of the bible, it would be scriptures view that would answer the question.

Indeed, and the Scriptures do say that the cross was necessary. Romans 3-8 talks about it in detail. And then there's Colossians 1:19-23.

We are all sinners (Romans 3:23, Romans 5:12) and deserve eternal death (Romans 6:23, Genesis 2:17). No good works can take away our guilt in the sight of God (Romans 3:20).

Jesus died for the sins of men, so He could be just towards sin (punishing sin) but gracious toward sinners. His death for many brings life. Romans 5:15-21. He did it to reconcile sinners to a holy God.

But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. (Romans 3:21-26)

For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him. For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life. And not only that, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the message of reconciliation. (Romans 8:6-11)

Hebrews 8-10 discusses at length why Jesus had to die. Really boils down to this: the shedding of blood is necessary for the forgiveness of sins, since the life of a creature is in the blood (Leviticus 17:11, Hebrews 9:22). Animal blood isn't a sufficient sacrifice - Adam's race needed a perfect man to step for them. But since there are no perfect men, we were without hope except for God wrapping Himself in flesh and dying for us. And praise the Lord, that is what He did. God demonstrated even from the beginning (just after Adam's sin) that bloodshed was necessary to cover sin. He did this when He made clothes for Adam and Eve out of skins (Genesis 3:21). Animals don't give up their skins without dying. God also gave Adam and Eve hope by promising a Savior in Genesis 3:15. Jesus is the Seed of the woman who crushed the head of the serpent (Satan).

 

[razzelflabben]

Indeed, and the Scriptures do say that the cross was necessary. Romans 3-8 talks about it in detail. And then there's Colossians 1:19-23.

We are all sinners (Romans 3:23, Romans 5:12) and deserve eternal death (Romans 6:23, Genesis 2:17). No good works can take away our guilt in the sight of God (Romans 3:20).

Jesus died for the sins of men, so He could be just towards sin (punishing sin) but gracious toward sinners. His death for many brings life. Romans 5:15-21. He did it to reconcile sinners to a holy God.

the question was not why did He have to die, but why did He have to suffer...Heb. tells us why...

But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. (Romans 3:21-26)

For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him. For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life. And not only that, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the message of reconciliation. (Romans 8:6-11)

Hebrews 8-10 discusses at length why Jesus had to die. Really boils down to this: the shedding of blood is necessary for the forgiveness of sins, since the life of a creature is in the blood (Leviticus 17:11, Hebrews 9:22). Animal blood isn't a sufficient sacrifice - Adam's race needed a perfect man to step for them. But since there are no perfect men, we were without hope except for God wrapping Himself in flesh and dying for us. And praise the Lord, that is what He did. God demonstrated even from the beginning (just after Adam's sin) that bloodshed was necessary to cover sin. He did this when He made clothes for Adam and Eve out of skins (Genesis 3:21). Animals don't give up their skins without dying. God also gave Adam and Eve hope by promising a Savior in Genesis 3:15. Jesus is the Seed of the woman who crushed the head of the serpent (Satan).

again, the question is about the cross, the suffering on the cross, not death itself, in fact, when we want to understand why death, the OT is a great place to start, but when we want to understand HIs suffering, HEb. is about as clear as it gets.

 

[Luke17:37]

the question was not why did He have to die, but why did He have to suffer...Heb. tells us why...
again, the question is about the cross, the suffering on the cross, not death itself, in fact, when we want to understand why death, the OT is a great place to start, but when we want to understand HIs suffering, HEb. is about as clear as it gets.

Well, I gave you both and they are tightly related in my mind.

 

[razzelflabben]

Well, I gave you both and they are tightly related in my mind.

I must have missed your response to why He had to suffer, would you be so kind as to point that specific part out in your post, thanks, I don't want to miss your response to the question asked by getting bogged down by all the non related response.

 

[Luke17:37]

I must have missed your response to why He had to suffer, would you be so kind as to point that specific part out in your post, thanks, I don't want to miss your response to the question asked by getting bogged down by all the non related response.

#302

 

[razzelflabben]

#302

so...you don't know...you see, you said this, "Well, I gave you both and they are tightly related in my mind." and I asked you to summarize only the one that I mentioned in my post so that I could follow your answer, you refused to do that, so I can only assume that your refusal is because you don't know. Which is extremely sad, but I would assume if you could answer the question you would in your posts so that no one could read into them what you really do think..

So let me summarize for you....Christ had to die because that blood sacrifice is the only way that man could be saved as per many of the passages you post in #302

Christ had to suffer because as Heb. 4:15 tells us that His suffering was so that He could sympathize with us...notice that sympathizing is very different than taking our "punishment". Also look at I Peter 3:18 and I Peter 2:21-23, the suffering of Christ is to be our example of how to live and suffer in this life, for as unpleasant of a thing as it might be, scripture tells us that this life will be full of trouble, not that it will be all roses when we come to Christ. Christ's suffering is our example of how to live through those tough times, all the while assuring us that Christ understands what we are going through. Finally, look at Heb. 2:17 His suffering assures us that He is a merciful and faithful High Priest, the kind that we need interceding on our behalf before a very Just and Holy God.

See how easy it was to answer the question and even summarize the answers. Too many people (people, not you specifically) pretend to know more than they really do and allow complicated long answers to hide the fact that they don't really know the answer to some of the basic questions asked about God and scripture.

 

[Luke17:37]

so...you don't know...you see, you said this, "Well, I gave you both and they are tightly related in my mind." and I asked you to summarize only the one that I mentioned in my post so that I could follow your answer, you refused to do that, so I can only assume that your refusal is because you don't know. Which is extremely sad, but I would assume if you could answer the question you would in your posts so that no one could read into them what you really do think..

So let me summarize for you....Christ had to die because that blood sacrifice is the only way that man could be saved as per many of the passages you post in #302

Christ had to suffer because as Heb. 4:15 tells us that His suffering was so that He could sympathize with us...notice that sympathizing is very different than taking our "punishment". Also look at I Peter 3:18 and I Peter 2:21-23, the suffering of Christ is to be our example of how to live and suffer in this life, for as unpleasant of a thing as it might be, scripture tells us that this life will be full of trouble, not that it will be all roses when we come to Christ. Christ's suffering is our example of how to live through those tough times, all the while assuring us that Christ understands what we are going through. Finally, look at Heb. 2:17 His suffering assures us that He is a merciful and faithful High Priest, the kind that we need interceding on our behalf before a very Just and Holy God.

See how easy it was to answer the question and even summarize the answers. Too many people (people, not you specifically) pretend to know more than they really do and allow complicated long answers to hide the fact that they don't really know the answer to some of the basic questions asked about God and scripture.

I was just trying to help someone answer the Scriptural basis for Christ's death, which was why I wrote that long post in the first place. I did that and out of nowhere I have you spitting in my face, essentially. You can demean someone else. I agree with you about Him being able to sympathize with our sufferings because of what He went through, but I think of that as a byproduct of Jesus carrying our sins. That's why I said they are related in my mind. These are intertwined together in Isaiah 53 as well.

Isaiah 53:3-7
3 He is despised and rejected by men,
A Man of sorrows and acquainted with grief.
And we hid, as it were, our faces from Him;
He was despised, and we did not esteem Him.
4 Surely He has borne our griefs
And carried our sorrows;
Yet we esteemed Him stricken,
Smitten by God, and afflicted.
5 But He was wounded for our transgressions,
He was bruised for our iniquities;
The chastisement for our peace was upon Him,
And by His stripes we are healed.
6 All we like sheep have gone astray;
We have turned, every one, to his own way;
And the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.
7 He was oppressed and He was afflicted,
Yet He opened not His mouth;
He was led as a lamb to the slaughter,
And as a sheep before its shearers is silent,
So He opened not His mouth.

 

[razzelflabben]

I was just trying to help someone answer the Scriptural basis for Christ's death, which was I wrote that long post in the first place. I did that and out of nowhere I have you spitting in my face, essentially. You can demean someone else. I agree with you about Him being able to sympathize with our sufferings because of what He went through, but I think of that as a byproduct of Jesus carrying our sins. That's why I said they are related in my mind. These are intertwined together in Isaiah 53 as well.

wow, such venum...why? I didn't spit in yours or anyone elses face, I pointed out to you that your post talked about why Christ died when I asked why He had to suffer. When I politely asked you to summarize the difference you refused. You see, it is important to know and understand and talk about the differences with the unbeliever and the "marginal" believer because the church by in large has convinced people that coming to Christ means that all suffering is gone. Scripture however teaches that not only will we suffer in this flesh, but that we should take joy in partaking of the sharing in Christ's suffering. You know, things like crucifying the flesh, holding our tongue, etc. These are very important things for an unbeliever or a marginal believer to understand.

In fact, I gave you the benefit of the doubt in your post, and still you refused to express any understanding. Christ didn't come to end all our suffering, rather He came to give us power over sin and death. IOW's we are overcomers of sin, both the sins we commit and the sins that affect us and leave scars so deep that others are crushed under their weight. But the church likes to teach that all our problems go away when we come to Christ. News flash...our problems don't go away, rather we are given the tools we need to deal with them in a righteous manner and Christ suffering shows us how to do that.

Hebrews also tells us that the Priest is to make both offerings and sacrifices. I remember the first time I actually read that, you know, when you read something and it hits you like a ton of bricks. That is when I really studied what that meant. Obviously Christ made an offering for our sins, iow's He is our atonement, but He also, like a the High Priest that He is, allowed HImself to endure great suffering on our behalf. He wasn't just the atonement for sin, He was much much more. He could have died for our sins without suffering and we still would have salvation, the suffering He endured was a step beyond, a sacrifice of such great Love that our minds cannot fully comprehend it. In fact, we have so little understanding that like the post you refer to above and the false accusations you make of my response, we don't even scratch the surface of our understanding of Christ's love enough to explain to the world that not only Christ's death but also HIs suffering was a demonstration of HIs love.

Isaiah 53:3-7
3 He is despised and rejected by men,
A Man of sorrows and acquainted with grief.
And we hid, as it were, our faces from Him;
He was despised, and we did not esteem Him.
4 Surely He has borne our griefs
And carried our sorrows;
Yet we esteemed Him stricken,
Smitten by God, and afflicted.
5 But He was wounded for our transgressions,
He was bruised for our iniquities;
The chastisement for our peace was upon Him,
And by His stripes we are healed.
6 All we like sheep have gone astray;
We have turned, every one, to his own way;
And the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.
7 He was oppressed and He was afflicted,
Yet He opened not His mouth;
He was led as a lamb to the slaughter,
And as a sheep before its shearers is silent,
So He opened not His mouth.

Now, Isaiah 53 is probably my all time favorite passage, and it is an amazing look at how the husband is to love the wife, you know (eph 5) how Christ Loved the Church, but notice that the very portion you presented here talks more about HIs suffering not HIs death...they are according to scripture two different things with two different purposes and in that, the Church needs to know enough about the God of the Bible not just the God they are told He is to understand the difference and why it is important to our growing and maturing in Christ.

BTW's next question on the table, why then should we take joy in sharing in HIs sufferings...not, why should we accept Christ and His death, but why should we share in the suffering that Christ suffered?

 

[Luke17:37]

wow, such venum...why? I didn't spit in yours or anyone elses face, I pointed out to you that your post talked about why Christ died when I asked why He had to suffer. When I politely asked you to summarize the difference you refused. You see, it is important to know and understand and talk about the differences with the unbeliever and the "marginal" believer because the church by in large has convinced people that coming to Christ means that all suffering is gone. Scripture however teaches that not only will we suffer in this flesh, but that we should take joy in partaking of the sharing in Christ's suffering. You know, things like crucifying the flesh, holding our tongue, etc. These are very important things for an unbeliever or a marginal believer to understand.

In fact, I gave you the benefit of the doubt in your post, and still you refused to express any understanding. Christ didn't come to end all our suffering, rather He came to give us power over sin and death. IOW's we are overcomers of sin, both the sins we commit and the sins that affect us and leave scars so deep that others are crushed under their weight. But the church likes to teach that all our problems go away when we come to Christ. News flash...our problems don't go away, rather we are given the tools we need to deal with them in a righteous manner and Christ suffering shows us how to do that.

Hebrews also tells us that the Priest is to make both offerings and sacrifices. I remember the first time I actually read that, you know, when you read something and it hits you like a ton of bricks. That is when I really studied what that meant. Obviously Christ made an offering for our sins, iow's He is our atonement, but He also, like a the High Priest that He is, allowed HImself to endure great suffering on our behalf. He wasn't just the atonement for sin, He was much much more. He could have died for our sins without suffering and we still would have salvation, the suffering He endured was a step beyond, a sacrifice of such great Love that our minds cannot fully comprehend it. In fact, we have so little understanding that like the post you refer to above and the false accusations you make of my response, we don't even scratch the surface of our understanding of Christ's love enough to explain to the world that not only Christ's death but also HIs suffering was a demonstration of HIs love. Now, Isaiah 53 is probably my all time favorite passage, and it is an amazing look at how the husband is to love the wife, you know (eph 5) how Christ Loved the Church, but notice that the very portion you presented here talks more about HIs suffering not HIs death...they are according to scripture two different things with two different purposes and in that, the Church needs to know enough about the God of the Bible not just the God they are told He is to understand the difference and why it is important to our growing and maturing in Christ.

BTW's next question on the table, why then should we take joy in sharing in HIs sufferings...not, why should we accept Christ and His death, but why should we share in the suffering that Christ suffered?

The original question posed by Radagast, "Why the cross?" you just said it would be in the Bible. Because neither of you answered it, I addressed with Scriptures about why the cross was necessary. That's it. And then you seem to be dividing the reason for His death from the reason for His suffering, and I said in my mind, they go together, and I did bring up the passage from Hebrews that you mentioned already.

I was not being venomous. I was just telling you that I considered your tone to be insulting, to say the least, and completely out of left field. Maybe if you read it out loud you'll see why I thought your reply was like a spit in the face. If not, oh well. Suffice it to say, we were not on same train of thought. I forgive you, but I don't want to continue this conversation.

 

[razzelflabben]

The original question posed by Radagast, "Why the cross?" you just said it would be in the Bible. Because neither of you answered it, I addressed with Scriptures about why the cross was necessary. That's it. And then you seem to be dividing the reason for His death from the reason for His suffering, and I said in my mind, they go together, and I did bring up the passage from Hebrews that you mentioned already.

apparently you didn't follow the whole conversation...especially the part where I clarified and asked you to summarize your pov.

I was not being venomous. I was just telling you that I considered your tone to be insulting, to say the least, and completely out of left field.

hum, I didn't know the forum had tone, in fact, many people talk about how tone is hard to "hear" on the boards, oh well, your tone is one of venom and I don't appreciate it much especially since I asked you for clarification and summary and you refused to offer either only to make false accusations against me. But if you didn't "intend" to present a post that sounds venomous, I can forgive you for not reading your post the way it sounds, that is what believers and followers of the way do.

Maybe if you read it out loud you'll see why I thought your reply was like a spit in the face. If not, oh well. Suffice it to say, we were not on same train of thought. I forgive you, but I don't want to continue this conversation.

As to the issue of separate, they are...the death of Christ as I already pointed out was for our salvation, the suffering of Christ was for our comfort and example, two very different things and amazing wonderful differences to understand as we grow unto maturity in our faith.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Christianity is a 2000-year old evolving misunderstanding; a group of conflicting opinions on God, Jesus, spirituality, and paganism. It was warped so thoroughly by the Roman empire, that it is difficult to try to reconstruct what the "original" Christianity looked like. We look at Jesus, Paul and the Bible through a 2000-year lens of history with all the associated theological and historical baggage.

I'd argue there was no "original" Christianity. For the first few hundred years of its existence Christianity was a mish-mash of disparate and conflicting sects. There has never really been one unified Christianity.

 

[dcalling]

I'd argue there was no "original" Christianity. For the first few hundred years of its existence Christianity was a mish-mash of disparate and conflicting sects. There has never really been one unified Christianity.

The Bible is rather clear, all we need to do is to Love God, Love others as ourselves, knowing that we are sinners and the only salvation come from God.

Humans on the other end can't agree on anything, congress can make clear laws and the 9 justices can still split, God says not to kill and yet even Christians starts wars. We are hopeless without God. The Jews who followed Christ was persecuted like no others, they didn't fight and yet they survived, all that can't happen without God.

 

[Dave Ellis]

The Bible is rather clear, all we need to do is to Love God, Love others as ourselves, knowing that we are sinners and the only salvation come from God.

Humans on the other end can't agree on anything, congress can make clear laws and the 9 justices can still split, God says not to kill and yet even Christians starts wars. We are hopeless without God. The Jews who followed Christ was persecuted like no others, they didn't fight and yet they survived, all that can't happen without God.

That doesn't really have anything to do with my post at all..... what's your point?

 

[dcalling]

That doesn't really have anything to do with my post at all..... what's your point?

I am responding to your quote of "I'd argue there was no "original" Christianity. For the first few hundred years of its existence Christianity was a mish-mash of disparate and conflicting sects. There has never really been one unified Christianity."

And I replied is the Gospel is very clear what we should do, i.e. to Love God and to Love your neighbor as yourself. All the other mish-mash is just human behavior that you observe everywhere.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I am responding to your quote of "I'd argue there was no "original" Christianity. For the first few hundred years of its existence Christianity was a mish-mash of disparate and conflicting sects. There has never really been one unified Christianity."

And I replied is the Gospel is very clear what we should do, i.e. to Love God and to Love your neighbor as yourself. All the other mish-mash is just human behavior that you observe everywhere.

What does the gospel have to do with "original" Christianity? The four gospels we have now weren't written until 40-100 years after Jesus was said to have been killed. The very first Christians did not have them to go off of.

However, that's ignoring the fact that once the gospels started to be written, there were dozens of other gospels also written, used by other sects of Christianity that bore very little resemblance to the gospels we have now.

There were dozens, if not hundreds of competing sects for centuries, some with very different ideas of what Christianity was. The bible itself wasn't canonized until the 4th century, however the oldest bibles we have also do not match the current bible. Some parts are the same, some parts are very different.

So basically, my point is what the gospel says now doesn't really matter to the early Christians, as what you'd refer to as the gospel didn't come about for hundreds and hundreds of years after Christianity became a thing. There never was one unified Christian church.

 

[Hawkins]

What does the gospel have to do with "original" Christianity? The four gospels we have now weren't written until 40-100 years after Jesus was said to have been killed. The very first Christians did not have them to go off of.

However, that's ignoring the fact that once the gospels started to be written, there were dozens of other gospels also written, used by other sects of Christianity that bore very little resemblance to the gospels we have now.

There were dozens, if not hundreds of competing sects for centuries, some with very different ideas of what Christianity was. The bible itself wasn't canonized until the 4th century, however the oldest bibles we have also do not match the current bible. Some parts are the same, some parts are very different.

So basically, my point is what the gospel says now doesn't really matter to the early Christians, as what you'd refer to as the gospel didn't come about for hundreds and hundreds of years after Christianity became a thing. There never was one unified Christian church.

That actually boils down what assumption has been made. The assumption can either be that "God exists and in control" or that "it's pure human works". The original church built is based on the spiritual church Christ has built in 3 days. There are false doctrines outside won't make it less legitimate for such an original Christian Church being built.

It's more like God's doing God's business (i.e., building His earthly Church), humans doing their own business (i.e., spreading both the truth and fabricating hearsay at the same time by the different groups of people).

 

[brinny]

Supposedly, if you seek, you will find. I have been poking at Christianity for many years and I have read a whole list of books from both sides. I have read the New Testament in full and all 4 Gospels multiple times. I have read Mere Christianity, Case For Christ, A Skeptics Guide To Faith amongst others. I have also read other critical books such as The God Delusion, The Rise of Christianity, and The Evolution of God. I have been open to Christianity and have no hostility towards spirituality. I have attended church semi-regularly. But, the more I learn, the more the following seems clear:

1) The Bible is not historically or literally accurate. There are parts that are likely based off true events and true people, but I would say the majority is either exaggeration, allegory, myth or poetry.

2) Jesus is not the literal "Son of God". I do not know what this means outside of some sort of metaphorical context.

3) Church sermons do not depend on the historical truth of the Bible. Many sermons that I have heard are simply literary analysis of a passage which is independent of the historicity of the passage. For example, just this past Sunday, the pastor at my church preached on Mark 5:21-43 in which Jesus heals a bleeding woman and restores a dead girl to life. He used this passage to talk about spiritual healing in our lives and even mentioned how the writer of Mark set up this story in such a way to contrast Jairus and the bleeding woman. The way he spoke made me realize that the historicity of the passage was irrelevant. You could provide the same literary analysis and spiritual application by reading any myth.

4) Christianity is a 2000-year old evolving misunderstanding; a group of conflicting opinions on God, Jesus, spirituality, and paganism. It was warped so thoroughly by the Roman empire, that it is difficult to try to reconstruct what the "original" Christianity looked like. We look at Jesus, Paul and the Bible through a 2000-year lens of history with all the associated theological and historical baggage.

"poking at Christianity"?

Per chance, would you be so kind as to explain what that means?

Thank you kindly.

 

[Dave Ellis]

That actually boils down what assumption has been made. The assumption can either be that "God exists and in control" or that "it's pure human works". The original church built is based on the spiritual church Christ has built in 3 days. There are false doctrines outside won't make it less legitimate for such an original Christian Church being built.

It's more like God's doing God's business (i.e., building His earthly Church), humans doing their own business (i.e., spreading both the truth and fabricating hearsay at the same time by the different groups of people).

The point is though, there was no original church. Even the early Christians were made up of dozens of fractured and conflicting sects. There never was a fully unified Christian message.

 

[com7fy8]

I used to struggle about what I was supposed to think. Now I find how Christianity is first about submitting to God and discovering how He corrects us in our nature (Hebrews 12:4-11, 1 John 4:17, Matthew 11:28-30), so we become pleasing to Him and discover how to love any and all people, especially how to relate as family with other children of God.

So, if you read the Bible mainly from an intellectual standpoint, this could have you missing the love meaning. Each scripture can somehow help us find out how to love; so every scripture is not first about intellectually understanding if it is history or metaphor or poetry or prophecy.

And yes there may be ways that people have represented the Trinity and Jesus the Son of God, so They seem to be a theoretical and scholarly subject to discuss and argue. But God is personal, not only theoretical. But we can enjoy learning more and more, not to stay with how people we don't even know have represented things while limited to their own ability to understand. God can always bring us to more and better understanding . . . as we grow in His love with His creativity.

So, if we stay stuck in our own nature and ability and how we dictate things have to answer to us, we can get nowhere except to more of ourselves.