Confusing With My Faith

[Nowty V]

I was raised in an Anglican High Church that used the 1662 book of common prayer. All services followed the 1662 format to the letter.

 

Lots of reciting creeds and psalms relevant to the time of year.

 

My Father was an established member of the Church, had been a choirboy, and obstructed incoming Vicars who wanted to change the service format.

 

I could not see the beauty of the 1662 and found it a load of mumbling mumbo jumbo. I got from there as soon as.

 

I have never been able to find fellowship that made my faith feel natural.

 

I quite like the idea of the Mennonites, I also like the idea of the friends meeting house of Quakers but so far nothing has drawn me.

 

I'm Introvert so being alone with my Bible is suiting me just fine. However I have been watching the Christian Channel on TV.

 

This is where I have started to get confused, some Pastors speak of Jesus as God, I always had him as the Son of the father, is this a new concept of Jesus?

 

They speak of the Old Covenant and the New Covenant, is this the Old and New Testament?

 

One Pastor, Bruxey Cavey is Pastor to a Canadian Megachurch with a congregation in excess of 2500 each Sunday.

 

Pastor Cavey had a new Tattoo on his left inner forearm 'Leviticus 19:28'

 

Now Leviticus 19:28 states

 

You shall not make any cuts on your body [in mourning] for the dead, nor make any tattoo marks on yourselves; I am the Lord.

 

Which is the reason Pastor Cavey says he got the tattoo, He was saying the Old Covenant is not for us and Jesus gave us the New Covenant.

 

The Ten Commandments are Old Testament and I have always followed them.

 

So my question really, who's God, God or Jesus?; and are there elements of God's Law that people can disregard, if so which Laws?

 

Can anyone shed some light for me.

Edited October 4, 2016 by Nowty V

[losangelena]

So, they don't teach the notion of the triune God in the 1662 version? God being three-in-one? Father, son, holy ghost? I wouldn't say that's a terribly new concept. Just about 2,000 years old.

 

Wikipedia is your friend!

[BC1980]

I was always taught that Jesus and God are part of the Trinity. That Jesus is God in the flesh.

 

I was also taught that a testament is a covenant. The Old Testament was the covenant with Moses, the 10 written commanents and the 613 oral commandments. The New Testament is the covenant with Jews and Gentiles where Jesus died for humanity's sins, so animal sacrifices are no longer needed to atone.

 

I agree that Wikipedia is your friend on this one.

[Nowty V]

God being three-in-one? Father, son, holy ghost?

 

Now you mention it, yes they did. I always had trouble with the concept.

 

The ' he sits at the right hand of the father' 'his only begotten son' etc. All the one entity, but spoke of as disparate parts.

 

I can see I'm going to confuse myself further with this rather than just be able to accept it.

 

So God was God of the Old Testament, his people messed up and were corrupt, so God came to earth in the Flesh of Jesus of Nazareth to get them back on track? Moreover, to re-evaluate his previous directions and to issue new direction to the populace that they may live in his grace?

 

Forgive my grasp of this, it never sat well.

 

I always found the concepts intangible, it used to tie my head in knots as a child and it appears I haven't really progressed.

 

I'm all over the 'Spirit' as I was introduced 'The Holy Ghost'[although that term jarred with me]. My concept is forming that God is the 'Spirit' that manifests in ways best accessible.

Edited October 4, 2016 by Nowty V

[BC1980]

So God was God of the Old Testament, his people messed up and were corrupt, so God came to earth in the Flesh of Jesus of Nazareth to get them back on track? Moreover, to re-evaluate his previous directions and to issue new direction to the populace that they may live in his grace?

 

I'm not sure if the reason is that the Jewish people messed up. I do know that the New Testament is like a renegotiated covenant. One of the main differences is that Jew and Gentile are now offered a place in God's kingdom. Under the old covenant, only the Jewish people were included in the covenant with the 10 written and 613 oral commandments. The rest of humanity was to follow the Noahide laws to be considered a righteous gentile, but there was no covenant with the gentiles. I don't think it has anything to do with getting anyone back on track, but I could be wrong about that.

 

Of course, the other main difference is what is referred to as deeds vs. works. Under the old covenant, Jews would have to offer animal sacrifices at the Temple to atone for their sins. After the Second Temple was destroyed, all of that ended, but the second covenant (with Jesus) was when Jesus offered himself as the ultimate sacrifice for all of humanity's sins if they would profess faith in him. The 613 oral commandments include things like tattoos (as you mentioned), kosher laws, circumcision, stoning a witch and an adulterer (as is commonly brought up), women covering their hair in public, not having sex when a woman is menstruating, ect. So all of that is wiped out with the second covenant, and it is now faith based.

 

I hope that helps.

[BC1980]

Now you mention it, yes they did. I always had trouble with the concept.

 

The ' he sits at the right hand of the father' 'his only begotten son' etc. All the one entity, but spoke of as disparate parts.

 

I can see I'm going to confuse myself further with this rather than just be able to accept it.

 

It makes no logical sense. You are correct when you say that. You have to take it at face value and just accept it. I have also struggled with these concepts. All of these beliefs are contingent upon the supernatural being real, so good luck finding evidence of that. I certainly haven't been able to, but it also seems just as unfathomable that there is no God/Jesus or the supernatural. I find both ideas (there is a God vs. no God) to require huge leaps on faith on my part.

 

The Trinity was adopted as an official doctrine hundreds of years after Jesus' death. I am not sure exactly when. God is manifested as God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. That is a basic Christian doctrine that as far as I know, all major denominations agree upon. Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons do not believe in the Trinity and are, therefore, not Christians. I just added that last part in because I've seen that question come up before.

[Nowty V]

I hope that helps.

 

Indeed it does, Thank You.

[Nowty V]

You have to take it at face value and just accept it.

 

That is the very essence of 'Faith'

 

I have also struggled with these concepts. All of these beliefs are contingent upon the supernatural being real, so good luck finding evidence of that.

 

Personally I don't feel that there is any benefit in seeking evidence, one has to just 'Be' with it.

 

Going further than that brings me back to Quantum Mechanics, Many Worlds Theory etc.

[Nowty V]

1 John 1:3-4

1. That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ
   
2. And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full.
   

G-ds the Father and G-ds the Son

 

 

the 'and with' throws me if they're the same entity.

 

2 Corinthians 1:2

 

1. Grace be to you and peace from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.
   

This definitely suggests two instances of an entity

Edited October 6, 2016 by Nowty V

[Nowty V]

Apparently the whole Trinity thing DOES have it's origins at the Council of Nicaea and Roman Emperor Constantine.

 

"Constantine convened the Council of Nicaea in the year 325 as much for political reasons—for unity in the empire—as religious ones. The primary issue at that time came to be known as the Arian controversy."

 

"Constantine himself of course neither knew nor cared anything about the matter in dispute but he was eager to bring the controversy to a close."

 

"Arius, a priest from Alexandria, Egypt, taught that Christ, because He was the Son of God, must have had a beginning and therefore was a special creation of God. Further, if Jesus was the Son, the Father of necessity must be older.

 

Opposing the teachings of Arius was Athanasius, a deacon also from Alexandria. His view was an early form of Trinitarianism wherein the Father, Son and Holy Spirit were one but at the same time distinct from each other."

 

"With the emperor’s approval, the Council rejected the minority view of Arius and, having nothing definitive with which to replace it, approved the view of Athanasius—also a minority view.

 

The church was left in the odd position of officially supporting, from that point forward, the decision made at Nicaea.

 

The groundwork for official acceptance of the Trinity was now laid—but it took more than three centuries after Jesus Christ’s death and resurrection for this unbiblical teaching to emerge!"

 

 

"The Arian crisis continued for another sixty years. Arius and his followers fought back and managed to regain imperial favour. Athanasius was exiled no fewer than five times. It was very difficult to make his creed stick"

 

 

"The ongoing disagreements were at times violent and bloody. Of the aftermath of the Council of Nicaea, noted historian Will Durant writes, “Probably more Christians were slaughtered by Christians in these two years (342-3) than by all the persecutions of Christians by pagans in the history of Rome"

 

 

 

( The Story of Civilization, Vol. 4: The Age of Faith, 1950, p. 8).

 

 

"The central doctrines hammered out in this period often appear to have been put through by intrigue or mob violence rather than by the common consent of Christendom led by the Holy Spirit"

 

 

Thus we see that a teaching that was foreign to Jesus Christ, never taught by the apostles and unknown to the other biblical writers, was locked into place and the true biblical revelation about the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit was locked out. Any who disagreed were, in accordance with the edicts of the emperor and church authorities, branded heretics and dealt with accordingly.

 

 

It's a murky business, no wonder I have trouble with it.

[BC1980]

Something else to consider: does Jesus identify himself as God in the NT?

[Nowty V]

Yes, a number of times.

 

John 10:30

 

I and the father are one

 

John 8:58

 

Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, before Abraham was even born, I Am!

[GorillaTheater]

I agree that the triune God concept is a bit hard to fully comprehend. I always found it interesting that in the first few chapters of Genesis, God refers to Himself in the plural: "we".

[TheFinalWord]

So my question really, who's God, God or Jesus?; and are there elements of God's Law that people can disregard, if so which Laws?

 

Can anyone shed some light for me.

 

Great questions!

 

Will answer the first part later!

 

There are actually three classifications of Levitical law:

 

1) Civil: Ceased with the demise of Jewish civil government

2) Ceremonial: Ceased with the fulfillment of Christ, the Great High Priest

3) Moral: Not expired; continuity where reaffirmed in New Testament

 

In regards to the Levitical law regarding dietary customs, I refer you to Peter's vision:

 

About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles and birds. Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.” “Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.” The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.” This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven.

 

Hope this helps!

[Gr8fuln2020]

One Pastor, Bruxey Cavey is Pastor to a Canadian Megachurch with a congregation in excess of 2500 each Sunday.

 

Pastor Cavey had a new Tattoo on his left inner forearm 'Leviticus 19:28'

 

Now Leviticus 19:28 states

 

You shall not make any cuts on your body [in mourning] for the dead, nor make any tattoo marks on yourselves; I am the Lord.

 

Which is the reason Pastor Cavey says he got the tattoo, He was saying the Old Covenant is not for us and Jesus gave us the New Covenant.

 

The Ten Commandments are Old Testament and I have always followed them.

 

So my question really, who's God, God or Jesus?; and are there elements of God's Law that people can disregard, if so which Laws?

 

As a former bible-thumping fundamentalist, NO ONE can shed light on who God is w/o referring back to the scriptures that he/she is biased towards. Even within Christendom, you will get differing answers.

 

Secondly, people within every faith cherry pick whatever principles they choose to. I always find the OT/NT dichotomy interesting. By choosing to believe that the OT no longer applies, it smacks in the face of actual Christian practices today. That pastor who got a tattoo doesn't speak for all Christians for sure. Contemporary Christians recite the OT all the time and make it clear that they are bound by it in practice (and word).

 

For you to say that you have ALWAYS followed the Ten Commandments is also interesting. It is clear in scripture that NO ONE is capable of doing so, thus the reasoning that you are no longer to be condemned by it through Christ. YOU CANNOT FOLLOWING THE TEN COMMANDMENTS ALL OF THE TIME. NOT POSSIBLE.

 

Anyway, good luck on your journey. It will be either be a fruitful struggle or a fruitless blind acceptance of faith.

[Nowty V]

For you to say that you have ALWAYS followed the Ten Commandments is also interesting. It is clear in scripture that NO ONE is capable of doing so, thus the reasoning that you are no longer to be condemned by it through Christ. YOU CANNOT FOLLOWING THE TEN COMMANDMENTS ALL OF THE TIME. NOT POSSIBLE..

 

I do my best. 4 and 5 get a bit shaky, my journey is about improving.

 

If I was perfect to begin with I'd have no journey to make.

 

I'm researching at the moment, the advent of protestantism, Lutheran & Calvinist. What I'm reading indicates Luther misinterpreted. God's law in both testaments stand.

 

It should be enjoyable and nothing to feel bad about.

[Gr8fuln2020]

I do my best. 4 and 5 get a bit shaky, my journey is about improving.

 

If I was perfect to begin with I'd have no journey to make.

 

I'm researching at the moment, the advent of protestantism, Lutheran & Calvinist. What I'm reading indicates Luther misinterpreted. God's law in both testaments stand.

 

It should be enjoyable and nothing to feel bad about.

 

I hope your journey makes you a BETTER man for it. Luther was not a nice guy. Don't even get me started about the Sabbath. :-)

[Nowty V]

Don't even get me started about the Sabbath. :-)

 

Didn't Ozzy Osbourne sing with them?

 

Couldn't resist that ..

 

Indeed becoming a better person is the purpose of my journey.

 

The scripture I have encountered has been beneficial.

 

My Mother knew scripture backwards, I guess that is what put me off. She had a singular experience in a 1920's Welsh market town. There where 3 Christian denominations holding weekly scripture classes for children, she went to each one, you got sweets, she learnt it inside out.

 

If I asked her a question about anything, I got scripture for an answer, I soon stopped asking her questions.

Edited October 9, 2016 by Nowty V