Oh no, now you are going to make me confess on the board that I don't see myself as a Protestant either. (I don't believe that there are only two options, Catholicism and Protestant.) Protestants still held on to some Catholic traditions, and never entirely let go of that system. Interesting about Martin Luther. I'm still looking at it.

My belief is that anyone can be saved, in any denomination, and then become 'In Christ' and a Christian. (Just attending a Christian church doesn't mean that you are automatically one (in my belief system)) I don't judge any individual as being a true Christian or not as only God knows and sees the heart.

I have to say that I have never seen Christians write it with an x either. I also don't write xmas, the same as you don't Jasperstone. So it would depend upon Eliana's own reason for writing it like that, which only she can know.

They were first called "Christians" in Antioch. (Acts 11:26) 'And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.' So it's not like I have a choice. Catholics are very proud to call themselves Catholic. I don't think they see themselves as just a 'denomination'. I was replying to Albeto who didn't mention Catholicism, but Catholism is behind the persecution of the Jews. Which is why I used quotation marks. I was trying to say it indirectly in an attempt to be a little discreet knowing that it wouldn't go down well.

Honestly, I am separating myself. I am separating myself from Catholicism, and I don't see a way to get around that. It is not my religion. Catholics may also call themselves by the same label at times as myself "Christian", but that doesn't mean that we hold to the same belief system. I'm really not trying to offend anyone, it's simply a conviction. I understand that this is a most unpopular opinion, especially with the ecumenical drive on at the moment. I don't want to be a Catholic, and I am sorry to the Catholics out there. It's nothing personal. Feel free to let me know any further thoughts...

That's 'the damned if I do, damned if I don't' scenario that I mentioned earlier. Christendom is a big place, and obviously beliefs are very vast. I don't want to belong to an organised religion that comes with a hierarchy and power, that I see as a very separate thing to my belief system. I just simply believe that being in the church means that the person is 'in the body of Christ.' I hope that makes some sense. I don't want to be lumped in altogether with people who's whole belief system is a contradiction to mine. (My belief system is salvation by faith alone. The other type of Christianity is salvation by faith plus works).

Albeto, thankyou so much for not making this personally about myself or an attack on me. I still feel like I am being lumped in with a theology that is not quite mine though, and hope that you can recognise what I see as the significant difference. You quite often say how Christians hold to many different interpretations of scripture. This is the very case here, you are not talking about MY theology. You are talking about a theology that is close-to it, but is a twisted perverted version of it. The same scriptures may be being referenced but by different belief systems. (Actually in this case, even the underlying sources of scripture are not the same, so I can't even be sure of what further differences there may be behind this driving it along.... But that's a separate topic.) I shared the stern warning from Paul that we are to esteem Jews and remember our place as Gentiles, which is NOT above the Jewish people. And various other reasons I gave for praying for the peace of Jerusalem and so on. Which you seem to not accept as some Christians belief systems as having legitimate respect for Jews, because you seem to want to hold to only one possible interpretation, blaming every different type of Christian (so it sounds like) for hate towards Jews and the suffering for them caused throughout history. One very same 'sect of Christianity' you are pointing the finger at for being responsible for killing the Jews, are the very ones who also murdered my "type" of Christian linage. Lest we not forget the many thousands of poor souls who were martyred and faced such awful torture and deaths because they just wanted to own the holy scriptures and have them translated into their own language. Let's not forget translators Tyndale who was burnt at the stake, and also Wycliffe who was hated so much by this 'Christian sect' that not only did they kill him, but years later they dug him back up again to burn his bones! (Please lets not get off topic with further exploring that, but hopefully that can help drive my point home for the significant difference in belief, and my type of Christianity actually sharing something in common with the Jewish people in regards to persecution..) I think that you should please accept that my theology is NOT the same as what other "Christian" groups may hold to. It may have some similarities, but it has no hateful or persecuting aspect to it. There are Christians who are not responsible for variations in the theology used for ill will.

I briefly mentioned this earlier, and have no problem repeating and even expanding a little :-) I don't attend a church these-days, but I do believe in maintaining fellowship for the exact reason that you mentioned. I just find alternative ways to do that, and don't believe that it is limited to what happens on a Sunday. I have a couple of close, like-minded friends to fellowship with, and also like-minded friends who I have met online. Our family studies the bible together, and we were about to have a home church situation with some local friends but that has just fallen through for the time being. If we attended a church we would not become official members as we believe that we are members of the real church anyway (the body of Christ). We don't need to be attached to one particular kind so to speak. A 'denomination' I tend to view more as a business type of setup if I can say it like that, however I believe that there are true Christians in many different denominations and I believe that a Christian can with a clear conscience belong to one. It's just not for our family. If I had to use a denomination for a label the closest would be Baptist (even though there are so many variations with what Baptist means today.) I'm not sure what the church sign would say! I think part of the problem might be our end in not attending a church, so I wouldn't place any expectation to be won into a church by a sign, or through any other means. We can't expect any church to be perfect as the individuals within them aren't. We just had convictions not to keep going to our local ones that were options to us here. There were things we felt that we couldn't go along with.

Thanks Patty! I'll go quiet again and continue to read as the thread goes along, and let the info about OC keep coming together for me.

Eliana, please accept my humble apology for upsetting and sickening you, that is the last thing I would ever want to do. This is another case where I should have stopped and thought before posting. I was on my phone and the easiest thing to do at the time was post the link, rather try to quote it, as I was concerned I'd lose my whole post here and was working quickly... My post was in response to Alberto to examine possible evidence which I was further exploring, and I was not yet drawing any conclusions. You both looked at that link more than I did, as I was only interested in the first source listed and no further. I believe that Albeto is misrepresenting my beliefs to some degree, so I am defending them. Which is what you are doing as well when you are speaking against the Xtain belief. Thankyou for saying that you see good in some xtians though.. I hope you still feel loved and safe on this forum. Katie.

It was the opposite of what I was looking for. But it used the same keywords which was accepted in a different order than I put it. I was looking for Christians persecuting Jews. I don't know if these things are true, and was only surprised to see such an early account. That's the only one I was looking at. In my understanding, the Jews were fleeing for their lives after the crucifixion when the temple was destroyed. But on the other hand, if Paul had written that they had persecuted them, and these manuscripts were passed around, you think that there would be enough people to verify it. Why would he be believed if it weren't true? In that case the manuscripts would not have spread around like wildfire. (Eta: my point of the post was because you quoted Paul saying it was evidence that he hated Jews (even though he was one). You quoted him saying that Jews were persecuting Christians. My point was perhaps that was just him telling the truth of the situation in the day that he lived. I had stumbled across that link before you said this, I didnt put it up as hate speech against Jews. I didn't even read past the first reference, as I said. I was simply curious if there was any evidence for it in the time that Paul lived.)

Gotcha now. So if this teaching believes that God is chastising this nation, then that is directly causing people (Christians) to either not care an inch about them suffering, causing them directly to suffer, allowing them to suffer and so on. I haven't ever thought this way myself. And I can't think of any Christians who I know personally ever speak that way. I know Christians who pray for the peace of Israel to hurry up and come already, and I know that there are Christian groups who even send money to Israel (I think to help build their temple.) It is a very sad situation with Israel. In Old Testament times before the Christian church existed, they also suffered a lot then also. This isn't a subjective thing. Their own scriptures record this. (It is out of a Christian's control.) Which is why Paul said that they killed their prophets - he was just referencing the Jewish Scriptures which he knew back to front, inside out. If there is any balanced view, the bible says that other nations are also punished, chastised, and judged. Naming them and what will happen. The bible talks about the end of the period of the Gentiles when they will be then subject to the nation of Israel.

Thankyou for reminding me about the little "c" in catholic, I will keep that in mind. I do remember learning this when I was talking online to some Catholics, and looking at quotes with the word used this way.

I could have expressed bible-believing Christians better as scripture believing Christians. The Jews who penned the NT scriptures for us often referred to scripture and also emphasised its importance. And I'm not saying you deny the importance of scripture at all when I say this! Just pointing out that it did mean very much to them. As regarding traditions, I didn't think they were into many traditions at the time of the apostles except for the Lord's supper and baptism. Example: Paul writes to Timothy: 15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. (2 Timothy 3) And the Bereans in Acts 17 who lived during the very early church - they weren't just relying on men to teach them by word of mouth (oral tradition): 11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. In regards to the local church at this time, in my limited understanding what I am believing is that after the apostles died out that believers continued to pop up in all sorts of locations. I'm picturing believers in homes fellowshipping together (just as in the early days with the apostles). And because of persecution, they wouldn't have had any choice not to meet like this. My view is that it wasn't a hierarchal system, but one where the elders ran it, bishops were still elders etc. So not one head Pastor, Bishop, or Pope being at the very top. So that makes me think of another question: Do you have a hierarchal system and what does it look like? Is there one head priest for every church and the hierarchy stops there? (I've heard it said in this thread that you don't accept the Pope's position.)

Albeto, when you said this as your proof that Paul was blaming the Jews and the Jews persecuting Christians, do you believe that there was no such thing happening? "Yep. And he also accused them of killing your lord and their own prophets, and persecuting Christians, not allowing them to spread the gospel. He said they do not please God and are "contrary to all men." That seems to me like first century speak for "despicable," but I'm sure other words could be substituted (l Thessalonians 2.14-16). That's not to say I am right and you are wrong, or that you are right and I am wrong. That's to say anti semitism can be traced back to the Christian texts, including the bible, and the some of the earliest Christian leaders. It's part of the history of Christendom." I had read this link which talked of persecutions by Jews of Christians - the earliest mentioned, and the one I was interested in, was in 132. So maybe Paul was just speaking the truth about that. [LINK REMOVED BY MODERATOR]

Yeah, I don't take responsibility for killing the Jews. Just as an athiest today wouldn't take responsibility for any killing of Christians or Jews in past persecutions. I think the way that you are putting it is the correct way, saying that it's the theology. However, from my perspective it is a twisted view of that theology. A "result" of twisted theology. I don't see any instruction in the bible to kill the Jewish race or to hate them as a people. I don't even see it as saying Christians have replaced the Jews or have taken any blessing from away from them. But that's just me and what I think :-)

Thankyou both. I have quite a bit of reading and study ahead of me...

"I believe you, only you do pick and choose. Please understand, I'm not blaming you. Every Christian has to do this because the bible supports diametrically opposing theologies and you can't have it all. You just happen to be a minority voice in this community, a voice that picks and chooses different verses from most of the posters here (or the ones interested in speaking up). But as far as believing every word of the bible, I would submit many Christians who interpret the bible differently from you believe the same exact thing. The problem is, you believe the words mean different things. And therein lies one of the OP's epiphanies - there is no objective way of knowing what the bible means when it says what it says. So she asked. And the answer is predictably, You can't, you can only believe it anyway." I am coming from a traditional dispensational understanding. We believe that there aren't contradictions in the bible, that each piece fits where it should. I'm happy to leave it at that. I understand the differences in biblical interpretation, and also recognise that this is the root of confusion in the church and the ever-increasing differences and splits. Many Christian spiritualise a lot of it away, whereas I take literally what I can take literally.

(I will only be able to reply to each small part at a time as I can find time, and if I think I should reply.) Can you please clarify on your own understanding you say "Christian" here do you mean Catholic and/or other organised Christian religions? From my perspective, this is where I'm put into position of the "I'm in a damned if I do, damned if I don't". If I say that I am a born again Christian, not a part of any church denomination/organised religion, then I am accused of being hateful towards my fellow Christians. If I am convicted that the other parts of Christendom are not the parts that I belong to and believe in, then I am freed from being associated with this type of non-Christian behaviour. The category that I fit into is of bible believing Christians who existed from the time of Christ and were persecuted also, and pressured to convert to a specific organised religion. The early NT times were very dark times, and politically motivated. Not every born again Christian came to be a Catholic (unless you disagree or can prove otherwise.)

No worries, that would be my fault, and I hope that I can express it a little better. What I am asking really is if an Orthodox Christian believes that all of the very early local New Testament churches all joined together into one organised church that runs (or one might say in a negative way "dominates") them all. Did every Christian become Catholic in other words? There are 87 references in the bible to the local churches recorded in the New Testament, and they did not go by a denomination name, nor were they structured in the same way with Cardinals, Archbishops, Popes etc. This is why I am confused.

Hello milovany, thankyou for this. I'm still back on this first post... I was just looking at the church timeline link and it made me wonder if you believe in the early local churches that were separate from organised ones such as the Catholic church? And if you accept all Catholic Church history as the true and only church history?

Many Christians believe in Bible numerics, and there is common understanding on what specific numbers represent. Please also keep in mind that no one person is messing around with the numbers, these things have shown up over time. They are revealed by God in his timeframe. It's not circular reasoning in that no one has sought to find out a pattern first, then found it out or put it in there. (Although there are those who try to manipulate such things. I'm not saying that there aren't people doing that. One must be very careful in their own study.) My faith comes first above bible numerics, yes. A scriptural example of God wanting us to understand the significance could be this verse here: 'Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.' (Revelation 13:18) (Interesting aside, even the verse number here is 18, who's factor is 3 lots of 6 = 6 + 6 + 6. And 13 symbolises rebellion of man.)

(Eek, yes I do... ) The ages of lifespans are recorded in the Old Testament, and they gradually decrease in length. Adam lived for 930 years. (And that just reminded me of yet another "coinkydink" in regards to my chapter numbering and significance. Since you will already think I'm coo-coo I may as well share it. The 930th chapter of the Bible is the first chapter of the New Testament. The 'last Adam' was made in the first chapter of the Old Testament. 'The last Adam', who Christians know as Jesus, is also revealed through his genealogy in Chapter 1 of the New Testament. So the 930 just happens to connect both "Adams.")

Actually, thinking about that a bit further. I think they will believe that life will be extended again like it was to begin with, when people lived for hundreds of years as in the start of the OT.

You know, I never thought of that! Maybe they just believe that the time of peace lasts for the thousand years.. Hmmm. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_6000