Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page
One need not accept everything, or anything, in any modern New Testament or Old Testament in order to be a Christian.
Gnostic Christians, as an example, looked to the God of the Old Testament as the demiurge, an imperfect emanation of the true God. Yet, these people were and are still Christians.
I'm not sure what other creature could be a Christian but a human being.
For someone who bemoans "theological ego" you seem remarkably concerned with winning, whatever that could possibly mean in a discussion. This is not a wrestling match, and it is impossible to trounce anyone - it is a discussion. For the mutual benefit of all involved. I learn from hearing your take, you learn from hearing mine, even if we still disagree at the end of the day.
Sure, in this passage he most certainly is saying that: but whether or not those are actually his words is debatable. And Christians are capable of engaging in this debate, and they are capable of having different opinions on the matter.
Which book to read.
Again, this depends upon the book you pick up. Unless a person has personally spoken to Jesus, a person must face the question: which of these assorted and sometimes contradictory teachings make sense to me? And they have to answer that question. Apparently, you have answered that question for yourself (unless you accept every shred of apocrypha in addition to canon), but not every must come to the same conclusion you found in order to be a Christian.
This is no spiritual gift. You exercise the same judgment when you chose not to read certain apocrypha.
I have never made that decision, so I don't have a clue.
People should carefully consider the scripture before them, and only accept it if, after observation and analysis, the scripture is found to agree with reason and work for the good of everyone. People should think for themselves and be concerned with how the message of the scripture works in practice, rejecting anything that does not work for the good of mankind.
Are you capable of having a discussion about religion without being sarcastic, abbraisive and condescending?
I make no claims of infalibility: if I did I would demand that everyone accept the same theology that I accept.
May I assist you, dear Didymos, in formulating and extending this logic of yours to its right and proper conclusion?
DIDYMOS' CRITERIA FOR A CHRISTIAN
1. You may believe in everything
2. You may believe in anything
3. You may believe in nothing
I had hoped this simple triad of criteria would eradicate any lingering ambiguity regarding your position, but, to my utter astonishment, it has rather marvelously exemplified and exhibited your argument's manifest nebulosity and incoherence. My apologies.
If they do not believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, who has died for their sins, rose from the dead, lives and reigns to all eternity; true God, who assumed human flesh, rescued them from death and hell, and will raise them up also with Him on the Last Day, then, I am afraid, dear Didymos, that these Gnostics are not truly Christians aside from an empty title you attach to them.
According to what you have called and claimed to be a Christian thus far, Didymos, I do not imagine, nor do I foresee, your hopelessly nebulous and anarchic position inhibiting the slightest contradiction through the proclamation that a rabbit, a wolf, a tree, a stone, yea, even a serpent, could be claimed as a Christian; seeing that without any essential and established doctrinal obligations, yea, even existence, there ceases to be any limit as to whom this title may be ascribed to.
It is these words of yours that define so well the theological chasm that separates us. For you, Didymos, all is a matter of preference, opinion, and fancy; anything, everything, and nothing being ultimately equal in the matter of theological interpretation and belief. Thus, when I contend dogmatically and absolutely against you, you become flustered, confused, and annoyed.
Contrariwise, for me, all is a matter of certainty, authority, and perspicuity, the Scriptures being the very Word of God to man, containing in them our very life, hope, and salvation.
Therefore, this is not a mere "high" and/or "lofty" discussion of which I bear no attachments, but rather it is of supreme importance, as we deal with divine and heavenly matters. And so with St. Augustine I warn you that you ought to take care in your strivings and speculations of God, so that in your effort to define what He is or is not, and to conclude what He has done and not done, you do not make Him or His works into what He or they are not, namely, objects of which to critique and assess by our own vain and puffed up surmisings and conjectures.
This is analogous to our debate in that this man, like your Gnostic, your stone, or your serpent, is not able to be what they claim outside of an aimless, empty "title."
The canon of Scripture was established by the Church, and done with the authority that Christ gave it-a point I have already proven from Scripture. I have not formulated my own canon, as you eagerly encourage all "Christians" to do, but rather I have simply believed in that which has been established by the Church of God.
As I have stated before, the homolegoumena is the universally accepted Scripture of historic, orthodox Christianity.
You err; for I do not accept the canon of the Church upon my own authority-as your "Christians" do their own-but upon the authority Christ gave to His Church, as is written and testified to in the Scriptures themselves.
If you assert that one can be a Christian while accepting portions of Scripture as inspired, and rejecting others as uninspired, how, then, I pray you, is this magic of theirs accomplished? If you, indeed, "do not have a clue", then upon what basis are you making the claim that they are Christians?
Again, you reduce Scripture to something purely sociological, psychological, and philosophical, disregarding any and all opposition to the comprehension allowed by man's fallen and finite reason and meager intellectual capacity. You have called for nothing less here than a complete renovation of Biblical texts based solely upon their social, political, and "moral" utility and benefit for humanity. You have made man the measure of God, thereby leaving us with a god so small, it is hardly worthy of worship.
Forgive me, dear Didymos, as we Lutherans are, by our very nature, polemicists. However, my polemical character is never exhibited (normatively speaking, as I do concede to having a rather poor temper) apart from its demonstrating a significant point, matter, or-in your case, Didymos-contradiction in my opponent's argument.
Do you not recall, most merciful Didymos, what you had decreed only sentences before, namely:
Yes, but even their flawed judgment is irrelevant when it comes to God's truth. God not only has the power and the will, but also the right to take the life of whoever He wishes, as He is the owner of all life.
I'd really like to hear some sources for this entire assertion. And that still doesn't explain why Rome would persecute the Christians it tried so hard assemble.
And I'm still waiting for some quotations from the Mithraist texts that claim Mithras was sacrificed, and resurrected, etc.
Well, sure, but I wasn't arguing that His fulfilling the prophecies is necessarily an evidence for His deity. I was saying that many things about Jesus' character (such as the virgin birth, His sacrifice for the sins of mankind, etc.) were written long before Roman Mithraism, and therefore could not then have been copied from Roman Mithraism. Sorry for any clarity issues.
What it is to be a Christian must come from the minds of men.
1) Different Churches use different Bibles. If the only true scripture has been established by a single Church, then anyone outside of that Church is somehow not a Christian. This is patently false.
2) The source of said Church authority may be disputed - one might reject the source in favor of different texts. Besides, it's a circular argument in the first place: the justification is that Jesus gave the church such authority, but this is only the case if one already accepts the canon authorized by the Church.
The canon that did become official was the brainchild of Athanasius; you are looking at his brain child. This is the man who violently persecuted people who threatened his power by preaching versions of Christianity that contradicted his version.
When did Jesus ever say that any particular Church body had the authority to make such a decision, and demand that every other Christian submit to that decision?
What other measure could there be, but the benefit Scripture has to humanity?
There are many links you can read on this subject but this appears just as good as any..Mithraism & early Christianity ...
Like it or not christianity is a pagan inspired myth.I actually believe a man called jesus did exist but he in no way is or was anything like the pagan god you worship.Read it all please and the links,i would be really interested how you oppose this information.
While I agree with much of what you say, I question the above statement. It seems reasonable from an outside, non-Christian point of view, but I doubt whether many devout Christians would agree with it. Surely most would believe that (a) what it is to be a Christian comes from the mind of God, (b) only those who attend carefully to the true word of God can properly call themselves Christians; and (c) a human claim to be a Christian can therefore be erroneous. (This applies to Churches as well as individuals.) It does not generally follow that if one claims to be an X, one thereby is an X. Hitler was not a socialist by virtue of calling himself a National Socialist; nor was the German Democratic Republic (East Germany) a democracy.
Even if it is accepted that anyone who claims to be a Christian automatically is one, a dogmatic believer can still claim that he/she is a 'true' Christian whereas those with different beliefs are 'false' or 'deluded' ones. The main point (the believer would say) is that he/she is doing God's will, whilst the others are not.
Again, this sounds like an outsider's point of view. Many Churches believe that other Churches' doctrines or choice of Scriptures are simply wrong, and that their members are not true Christians. (Some Churches, of course, are more tolerant of others.)
I agree it's a circular argument. But if the canon as a whole has no divine authority, how can one argue for the authority of any individual text? If the reliability of a text is not guaranteed by God, one must rely on the intellect and honesty of men in having produced and transcribed it accurately - which must be open to doubt.
I see your point, but it's an ad hominem argument.
Surely Jesus thought there was only one correct interpretation of his teachings? Any teacher (except a postmodernist) tries to make his/her lessons unambiguous and capable of only one interpretation.
Seems reasonable to me, but fundamentalists might disagree. They might see this as putting the interests of humanity above those of God.
Well I read the entire page, and I looked around the links but I didn't read everything in those links, because they were entire websites. I did notice, however, that the book most referenced was "Jesus vs. Christianity". Aside from the Zoroastrianism, but that's just a predecessor of Mithraism. I'd like something that cites actual historical documents, rather than a modern book, next time. Still, I can tell this site/the cited books are biased and run by men who are either ignorant or dishonest, as I will show:
"Its priests were Magi; the same Magi assumed to visit Bethlehem when Jesus was born." (Site)
Magi is the plural of Magos. Magos does not mean, in any sense of the word, priest. It can mean either 'Wise Man' or 'Magician'. In this context, though, it's more likely that it means 'Wise man'. Apparently, the wise men in question are believed to be astrologers from the orient, but I digress.
"Paul mistook the Jewish "Messiah" to mean the Hellenistic "Christ". This happened before anything was written down; it happened during Paul's conversations with people as he was working through what had happened. A messiah is a person who is a great leader who leads your people to freedom. The title was taken by Jews from Persian culture. A christ is a god-king who dies as an offering to some divine being as a sacrifice in return for prosperity, especially agricultural prosperity. Both are anointed with oil as a mystical, sexual rite."(a website that was cited, that has closed down)
This is simply dishonest. The Hebrew word 'Messiah' means 'Anointed one'. Christ does not mean a 'god-king who dies as an offering to some divine as a sacrifice'. It also means 'Anointed one'.
Now when a web page has to cite dishonest resources to prove it's point, there's a problem. But wait, it gets better.
"... enabled Emperor Constantine to merge the cult of Mithra with that of Christianity that was developing much. He declared himself a Christian but at the same time maintained his ties to the Mithra cult. He retained the title "Pontifus Maximus" the high priest. On his coins were inscribed: "Sol Invicto comiti" which means, commited to the invincible sun. This new blend of the two faiths, he officially proclaimed as Christianity. Christianity spread all over the Roman empire and Eastern Europe by massive persecution and brought and end to a variety of religions that flourished there. [...]" (geocities.com)
This argument is nonsense. It basically says that Constantine maintained his ties to the Mithra cult even though he declared himself Christian, and so that's how the Christian faith merged with Mithraism. This is nonsense. Constantine's personal belief has little to do with what Christians believed in that day. Constantine did little more than make Christianity legal.
"In 313 A.D., Emperor Constantine declared December 25th to be the birthday of Jesus (December 25th was prescribed earlier as the birthday of Mithra, by emperor Aurelian). Sabbath day, which is literally Saturday (as the Jews still maintain), became Sunday as it was the day of the Sun, another element from the Mithra worship." (Geocities)
Emperor Constantine would not just declare these things. Councils would be held where people debated, discussed, and came to logical conclusions based on the Scriptures. I admit not being totally educated in Constantine, but I'm pretty sure he didn't just declare things that were immediately accepted by everyone.
"Another important point is the fact that the Christian Church abandoned the Jewish sabbath (contrary to the commandment of their God) in favour of the Mithraic day of the sun." (Jesus vs Christianity)
Though I'm pretty sure sabbath worship was more eminent in the early church and was less and less used, the day was changed to sunday not because it was the Mithraic day of the sun, but because it was the day in which Christ was resurrected. Also, to say that "The Christian Church abandoned the Jewish sabbath" is to display utter ignorance. Many Christian groups held to sabbath worship, such as the Puritans.
If you're going to give me a source, atleast give me something that cites actual historical documents, and not a site that cites a book and other webpages that cite books. I'm not going to do the research for you.
As for the similarities:
The supposed pictures that depict Mithras having some sort of 'last supper' with the eucharist are just pictures of Mithras having a banquet with Sol. There's no similarity there at all. There is something that was added over a century after the writing of the Scriptures that depicts Mithras saying "eat and drink my bood and have eternal life" or something of that sort, but that was added later, making Mithraists the copyers of the Christians, if anything.
Also, as for December 25 birthdays, nowhere in the Bible or in the early church is a claim found that Christ was born on the winter solstice. That was something that was done much later, I don't think any educated Christian would make that claim.
Even more, saying that Constantine mixed the religions only weakens your argument, as it points to Christianity as, before Constantine, very different from Mithraism. Also, Constantine was not that big ofan authority to the Church. The Scriptures, however, were and are.
I admire your defence of the indefensible but your obvious ease to accept scriptures without historical evidence but then deny my thread because you claim it is not historically correct is stretching credibility.
It is necessary to attend to what I lately said, that our faith in doctrine is not established until we have a perfect conviction that God is its author. Hence, the highest proof of Scripture is uniformly taken from the character of him whose Word it is. The prophets and apostles boast not their own acuteness or any qualities which win credit to speakers, nor do they dwell on reasons; but they appeal to the sacred name of God, in order that the whole world may be compelled to submission. The next thing to be considered is, how it appears not probable merely, but certain, that the name of God is neither rashly nor cunningly pretended. If, then, we would consult most effectually for our consciences, and save them from being driven about in a whirl of uncertainty, from wavering, and even stumbling at the smallest obstacle, our conviction of the truth of Scripture must be derived from a higher source than human conjectures, Judgments, or reasons; namely, the secret testimony of the Spirit.
The idea that mythras has no similarities to christianity and Constantine did not authorise christianity is blatant avoidance of the truth.
The birthday of Christ was decided by the council so was the virgin birth the trinity and many other mythical similarities.The council by Constantine's demand made the council decide many dogmatic truths that Christians abide to ,to this day.
Considering he was a proclaimed follower of mythras your objections to his having no influence is naive.Paul very aware of the need to make christianity suitable for Roman consumption amalgamated the two faiths, one giving the message more authority than it would have had.
Christians are afraid of looking at the details, they prefer to scrutinise the scriptures for inane revelations rather than face the truth it is a mythical story with a message.
Even the early christian paintings are mythirian inspired,to ignore the blatant similarities is blind faith.
Xris, those Gospels pre-date Constantine. Those Gospels, the Synoptic and John's and most apocrypha, pre-date Constantine.
The Q-document is one of the most prominent theories regarding the origin of the Gospels, but not the only one.
While Constantine most certainly strong armed the Bishops in creating and ratifying the Nicean creed, and did the same for the earliest attempts to create an official canon, Constantine did not use the Q-document. By the time of Constantine, the Q-document was probably lost, unless one accepts the minority theory that the Q-document was the Gospel of Thomas, in which case the Q-document was a Gospel that was suppressed by Constantine's politics, not one used by Constantine.
There is a strong argument to be made that Constantine used Christianity for political ends - in fact, it's almost indisputable among historians today. But this link you have found is not accurate.
Can you honestly say that the gospels you read are an accurate account of the life and mission of Jesus?Do you not see additions and discrepancies?Do you not see myths woven into the scripts to satisfy others beliefs?If we had not had Constantine defining and rewriting the gospels, would we not see a more humane faith?
Thomas, is accuracy and historic value of any consequence.
We may not have the details correct,any of us, but does not our gut reaction to this story not count.
I honestly love this teacher who gave us so much and then I then see the men of power and self interest change this simple message, twist and pervert it to seek their personal gain and domination by fear and dogmatic ignorance over their fellows.
Can you honestly say that the gospels you read are an accurate account of the life and mission of Jesus?Do you not see additions and discrepancies?Do you not see myths woven into the scripts to satisfy others beliefs?
If we had not had Constantine defining and rewriting the gospels, would we not see a more humane faith?
The history you present is incorrect. I urge you to do the research yourself. If you do, I think you will find that you fears of political influence and corruption on the Christian faith are well founded - just not for the reasons put forth in that absurd article you sighted. The "evidence" in that article is bunk, it's garbage, it's nonsense. The real history of Constantine's involvement is far more impressive.
As for mythology and the Buddha: perhaps you are unaware, but the Buddha is as much shrouded in mythology as Jesus - and their mythologies are not too different. Further, Buddhists make as much use of the scripture as any Christian sect. The doctrinal differences and debates between Mahayana and Theravada are essentially disagreements regarding what is and what is not scripture.
Myth is not useless nor misleading - the message is carried in the myth. That's the reason why humans developed mythology, to explain and teach. Myth is, by nature, didactic. Instead of saying, 'oh, it's just mythology, so it's useless' we should study the mythology and learn from the mythology. That's the reason the myth was penned in the first place. Myths are not invented to mislead and distort, but they are invented to educate and enlighten.
I am not saying that the New Testament is historically accurate. However, there is no doubt that the New Testament does contain some historical accuracy (Jesus went to Jerusalem to preach, for example).
Sorry Thomas but do you agree with me or not? Is it a myth or is it an accurate account of christs life?
If it is a myth then who constructed that myth?Paul obviously new of the myth of mythras and its similarities to the jesus story, did he help or was he the culprit?When you say there is no doubt what proof have you?
I dont doubt a man called Jesus existed but his story has been destroyed by those who would turn him into a dogmatic myth,to be used as a tool of control.
I dont share your view that christianity has had a positive effect on humanity,except for the underlying message that did not get destroyed.We see fundamentalist using this bigoted view and refusing to accept the true message of jesus.Millions have died in christs name and it saddens me to think that the man would have been horrified if he had known.How can anyone compare the Jesus message with the god of the old testament?
The sight i referred to is no more distorted than the RC sights that refuse to accept any idea of a mythras connection or the inaccuracies of the gospels.Thanks xris
Who knows what the real story is?
The gospels, in greek, appear after Pauls,who is also greek, conversion and his open attempts at departing from this jewish teachers message,makes him very suspicious.
He then sets a precedent of communion with god that all popes have had the audacity to claim.He knows that no one can dispute his reasoning,he claims more than christ in doctrine and dictates dogma which is further enforced by a pagan dictator.
What or whose faith are you following?Someone wrote the myth and did they destroy more of the messages of christ, whose liberal views where a danger to Romes power.A popular uprising inspired by a learned man was corrupted to serve Rome and the consequences are still felt today.They could not destroy all of the message but kept enough to keep the faithful happy.
I was afraid you would be unable to avoid the straw man argument. Though, I find it especially strange that you conflate the Old and New Testaments with everything that is or could be imagined.
Maybe you missed it: there have been Christians who did not take anything in those texts as scripture. That is a fact of history.
we have to accept that anyone who honestly and seriously self-identifies as a Christian in, indeed, a Christian, even if their particular way of expression Christian faith is objectionable to other Christians.
no one alive can claim ownership over the term "Christian" any more than anyone else. Assuming the person to be honest and sincere, if he/she claims to be Christian, then they are.
You are right to say that simply claiming a title is not enough for one to actually be of that title. But there is more than just claiming involved here, there is honestly claiming. People who honestly devote themselves to what they understand to be a good Christian path have just as much right to be called a Christian as any one else who does the same.
Why? Because you, or someone else says so? What, other than Bible verses, makes this criterion something other than arbitrary?
I never said that such animals could be Christians - that was my point, that they could not be Christians, that only human beings could be Christians.
What it is to be a Christian must come from the minds of men.
How you could possibly perceive my emotional state through the internet is beyond me. For all you know, I could be here having a great laugh at how much trouble you go through to respond to my posts.
If friendly discussion is the great chasm between our theology, I do feel sorry for you.
Which, again, is your prerogative. However, you have yet to give a single reason as to why everyone else must accept your religious preferences.
Man, discussion without condescension really is beyond you, huh?
There are several glaring problems with this:
1) Different Churches use different Bibles. If the only true scripture has been established by a single Church, then anyone outside of that Church is somehow not a Christian. This is patently false.
2) The source of said Church authority may be disputed - one might reject the source in favor of different texts. Besides, it's a circular argument in the first place: the justification is that Jesus gave the church such authority, but this is only the case if one already accepts the canon authorized by the Church.
3) The canon that did become official was the brainchild of Athanasius; you are looking at his brain child. This is the man who violently persecuted people who threatened his power by preaching versions of Christianity that contradicted his version.
4) When did Jesus ever say that any particular Church body had the authority to make such a decision, and demand that every other Christian submit to that decision?
Orthodox, yes: but ask yourself 'why do we have this term, orthodox?' That is because there is Christianity apart from orthodox Christianity.
"Let both [the wheat and the tares] grow together until the harvest, and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, 'Gather the tares first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn."
"Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will recognize them by their fruits." [Matthew 5:15-20]
"I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser. Every branch in me that does not bear fruit he takes away, and every branch that does bear fruit he prunes, that it may bear more fruit. Already you are clean because of the word that I have spoken to you. Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me. I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing. If anyone does not abide in me he is thrown away like a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned. If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you. By this my Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit and so prove to be my disciples." [15:1-8]
"You worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship him. God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth" [John 4:22-24]
"and he fell on his face at Jesus' feet, giving him thanks. Now he was a Samaritan. Then Jesus answered, 'Were not ten cleansed? Where are the nine? Was no one found to return and give praise to God except this foreigner?' And he said to him, 'Rise and go your way; your faith has made you well.'" [Luke 17:16-19]
Again, to assert that there is such an authority is to have already accepted the canon in the first place. It's circular.
Because they think for themselves rather than accept something simply because others tell them it is so. They look with their own eyes rather than allow themselves to be blindfolded and driven about on a leash.
Yeah, Scripture is literature, Scripture is not God. It is sociological, psychological, philosophical, and spiritual.
[I Corinthians]
I have not called for any renovation of the texts, they are fine as they are. Instead, I am suggesting that people believe what makes sense to them, and that they not believe in what does not make sense to them.
What other measure could there be, but the benefit Scripture has to humanity? The greatness of the book is the evidence of God's influence upon the author.
For you, the canon as is makes sense. That's great, I'm happy for you. But neither you nor any particular Church has any authority to tell others what they must believe. One need not even attend or belong to a Church in order to be a Christian - you do recall Jesus telling us to pray in our closets, ye?
"And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. And awe came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were being done through the apostles. And all who believed were together and had all things in common. And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need. And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts, praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved." [Acts 2:42-47]
Actually, I've known a number of kind and humble Lutherans.
But be polemical if you like, that's your business. And maybe you think every Christian who worships in a way that varies from your own form is wrong. I'll tell you a secret - Christians can be wrong. Even if every other Christian is wrong and mistaken, and your way is the only way, that does not mean the others are not Christians.
Oh, I recall - but you mistake that for theology. The advice you sight is not theology, but instead it is simple independent thought.
I do appreciate you ignoring some of my points. Specifically, regarding the apocrypha.
"They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them" [Luke 16:29]
"All things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses, and in the Prophets, and in the Psalms concerning Me" [Luke 24:44]
"Search the Scriptures; for in them you think you have eternal life, and they are they which testify of Me" [John 5:39]
"The Scripture cannot be broken" [John 10:35]
"I will put enmity between you [the serpent] and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he [Christ] shall bruise your head [the defeat of hell, death, and the devil/serpent] and you shall bruise his heel [the death of Christ for sinner's]." [Genesis 3:15]
"Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad." [John 8:57]
"For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but "Through Isaac shall your offspring be named." This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring." [Romans 9:6-8]
"Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, 'In you shall all the nations be blessed.' So, then, those who are faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith." [Galatians 3:7-9]
[Hebrews 12:2]
"And all these, though commended through their faith, did not receive what was promised" [Hebrews 11:39]
And I also appreciate the fact that you were so kind as to prove me quite right - that you are unable to have this conversation without being abrasive and condescending.
That's a shame. And it's also rude. You can get away with that sort of tone dealing with me, but if you take it up with other members there will be problems. This sort of blatant disrespect and thinly veiled name calling is a violation of forum rules.
"If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness, he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing." [I Timothy 6:3-4]
"For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths." [II Timothy 3-4]
[II Corinthians 10:5]
