The Doctrine of Christ

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Register Log in
No. I think God is the energy/ undefined name for something way bigger than we can comprehend, whatever we call it, that created us. The Creator - which is how many conceptualize what we can't define. Jesus is the archetype, likely a real person who was mythologized in story to teach a deeper meaning (I believe this is likely the worldly reality but that does not make the myth less "real" in spiritual importance) and Jesus exemplifies perfect Grace as a human being should show to other human beings. Again, I think this exists independent of religious identity - so showing grace is not unique to Christians and one could be a follower of Jesus - it's a spiritual thing not a brand - without claiming a religious identity. If it's in the heart it's in the heart, to do so. The Bible pointed me to that realization but I already knew that's the right way to be (harder to do at all times). I think, therefore, that others know that too and they don't have to claim Christianity as their religion to know that. It's something that's been available for the whole of existence.
 
I'm not sure what about 2 John 9-11 is "controversial." There are differing interpretation - primarily what revjohn has described - but on the list of biblical controversies, this would probably rank far down the list!

Now. Do all roads lead to God? That's the essential question (or, at least, the inevitable question) in formulating a doctrine about Jesus Christ. Is he the only way, or are there other ways? Are there paths that lead away from God? I think of the Arctic watershed. If you're driving to Timmins, for example, at some point you see a sign that says "you are now passing the Arctic watershed. From here all rivers flow north into the Arctic Ocean." Is there a similar spiritual watershed? Is there a sign somewhere that says "You are now passing the spiritual watershed. From here all paths lead away from God." I think there are certainly paths that are inconsistent with God. At a minimum, any path which is unloving, any path which is selfish and self-centred, any path which is violent - these and similar paths are inconsistent with God. Do they lead us away from God? Well, is God not always present? A path probably does not lead us away from God, but it may put up barriers between ourselves and God. Just as there's something in the topography that causes all streams to begin to flow north rather than south, there must be something in the spiritual life that causes us to move either closer to or farther away from God in spirit. But God is still there. Rivers may have a divide which causes them to flow either north into the Arctic Ocean or south in the Atlantic Ocean, but ultimately they all go to the ocean. Does a spiritual watershed work the same way? We move in different directions but end up in essentially the same place? That would be universalism. And here you find the two extremes. One would say that all paths eventually lead to the spiritual ocean which is God (do the waters of the Arctic and Atlantic and all other oceans not eventually mix together and flow between one another); another would say that it makes a huge difference whether you end up in the Arctic Ocean or the Atlantic Ocean (the deepest waters of the Arctic are apparenrly much more dense than any other water in any other ocean) - in other words, if you're on a path leading one way instead of the other then something is very wrong and you're leaving God behind and heading to an entirely different place. Given that there are both universalist Christians and "Jesus only" Christians, there's no clear answer to that - although those in both camps will likely say that they're correct and everybody else is wrong.

I stand with those who believe that all doctrine is an entry point to faith rather than the last word on faith. Personally, I believe in the divinity of Christ and in the resurrection of Christ. As the incarnate word of God, I believe that the life of Jesus, revoliving around love - for God, for one another, for neighbours, even for enemies - points us to what a truly godly and righteous life would look like, and it becomes the target for which we shoot (and, unfortunately, which we too often miss.) To the extent that I have a "doctrine" of Christ, those would be the key points.
 
revsdd said:
I'm not sure what about 2 John 9-11 is "controversial." There are differing interpretation - primarily what revjohn has described - but on the list of biblical controversies, this would probably rank far down the list!

Now. Do all roads lead to God? That's the essential question (or, at least, the inevitable question) in formulating a doctrine about Jesus Christ. Is he the only way, or are there other ways? Are there paths that lead away from God? I think of the Arctic watershed. If you're driving to Timmins, for example, at some point you see a sign that says "you are now passing the Arctic watershed. From here all rivers flow north into the Arctic Ocean." Is there a similar spiritual watershed? Is there a sign somewhere that says "You are now passing the spiritual watershed. From here all paths lead away from God." I think there are certainly paths that are inconsistent with God. At a minimum, any path which is unloving, any path which is selfish and self-centred, any path which is violent - these and similar paths are inconsistent with God. Do they lead us away from God? Well, is God not always present? A path probably does not lead us away from God, but it may put up barriers between ourselves and God. Just as there's something in the topography that causes all streams to begin to flow north rather than south, there must be something in the spiritual life that causes us to move either closer to or farther away from God in spirit. But God is still there. Rivers may have a divide which causes them to flow either north into the Arctic Ocean or south in the Atlantic Ocean, but ultimately they all go to the ocean. Does a spiritual watershed work the same way? We move in different directions but end up in essentially the same place? That would be universalism. And here you find the two extremes. One would say that all paths eventually lead to the spiritual ocean which is God (do the waters of the Arctic and Atlantic and all other oceans not eventually mix together and flow between one another); another would say that it makes a huge difference whether you end up in the Arctic Ocean or the Atlantic Ocean (the deepest waters of the Arctic are apparenrly much more dense than any other water in any other ocean) - in other words, if you're on a path leading one way instead of the other then something is very wrong and you're leaving God behind and heading to an entirely different place. Given that there are both universalist Christians and "Jesus only" Christians, there's no clear answer to that - although those in both camps will likely say that they're correct and everybody else is wrong.

I stand with those who believe that all doctrine is an entry point to faith rather than the last word on faith. Personally, I believe in the divinity of Christ and in the resurrection of Christ. As the incarnate word of God, I believe that the life of Jesus, revoliving around love - for God, for one another, for neighbours, even for enemies - points us to what a truly godly and righteous life would look like, and it becomes the target for which we shoot (and, unfortunately, which we too often miss.) To the extent that I have a "doctrine" of Christ, those would be the key points.
Click to expand...
I was just reading that every disagreement over the meaning of scripture, falls within the meaning of 2 John 9. True or not....???
 
Waterfall said:
I was just reading that every disagreement over the meaning of scripture, falls within the meaning of 2 John 9. True or not....???
Click to expand...

Certainly, the doctrine either of or about Jesus is a dividing line of sorts. In that sense, 2 John 9-11 identifies the source of controversy within the Christian faith, but I don't think that it is, in itself, especially controversial.
 
Waterfall said:
Is grace a part of every system? Is grace unique to Christianity? Does grace exist without following Jesus?
Click to expand...
Grace is not a part of every system. Christianity has no exclusive license on grace. Grace exists whether one follows Jesus or not. It's my belief that only those who don't reject God's saving grace will be saved
 
The Doctrine of Christ could mean what He taught here on this earth or that Doctrine of which Christ is the subject ------The Doctrine of Christ could be the whole body of truth made know to us by Christ and His disciples concerning Him -----His Doctrine came from His Father He only delivered what He was told and He was the sum and substance of the Doctrine delivered to Him in my view ---so in my view His Doctrine was that He was Fully Divine and Fully Human ---nothing can remove that --not all the false teachers ----nor the snares of this world ------nor the persecutions of men --He was the Messenger of God's New Covenant -----and His teachings of how this New Covenant would be implemented -----


Hebrews 2:3Amplified Bible (AMP)
3 how will we escape [the penalty] if we ignore such a great salvation [the gospel, the new covenant]? For it was spoken at first by the Lord, and it was confirmed to us and proved authentic by those who personally heard [Him speak],

Romans 16:17Amplified Bible (AMP)

17 I urge you, brothers and sisters, to keep your eyes on those who cause dissensions and create obstacles or introduce temptations [for others] to commit sin, [acting in ways] contrary to the doctrine which you have learned. Turn away from them.
 
What if it's not either Jesus or about Jesus but 'is' Jesus?

Jesus is love - personified, God's love, through a human being in action. We can't see energy unless there is some catalyst for being able to see it. We can't see electricity but we can tell it's working when something is plugged into it, connecting with it, animated by it. It exists regardless. So, the metaphor - using electricity, is that love is the energy, the Spirit, which comes from God/ the Creator - Jesus is the catalyst in Bible story enabling us to see it. But it exists regardless. And it exists in others independent of religious identity. Love shown through people is love - we know it when we see it, independent of religious identity. And anyone can be a catalyst for it.

I guess I am still a Universalist Christian - because although I deeply believe that Jesus is the truth the way and the Life, I don't think that excludes people from other religions to understand in the same Spirit that Jesus taught - I believe the Bible points to it but doesn't own a patent on love, or who can show it or what religion they must belong to to be living with love. There is no such thing as fake love. That's an oxymoron. It is love, or it isn't. And people of all religions can show love, can be faithful, or not.

When Jesus pointed out the Good Samaritan and his faithfulness - he wasn't telling everybody they must all go and claim the same religious identity as the Samaritans in order to be following his teachings. He was saying, "look what he was doing - that's what I want you to learn to do" but the Good Samaritan was already doing it.
 
Jesus is the torch ... the love is dark and abstract from presence ... and thus some roads lead not to God but to a'nell of a learning curve ... and given the real world it wavers on some portions ...

What does that mean? I'am not allowed to know under emotional law of the powers that wanted to control ... while the devil collected all the rejected alien intelligence ... thus that goatish outlander ... with a peculiar aura ...
 
This is my view on the Doctrine of The Love of God ------

It is not a simple Doctrine ------We Humans have used God's Love to down play God's Judgment ------We can't get our heads around how a God of Love could be so harsh to judge the very people He Loves ---So in order to down play or get rid of anything we consider unacceptable in God's word we came up with this concept of God's Love that has been sanitised and sentimentalised ---We think of God like an old man who is suppose to help us in our sticky situations and forgive all our transgressions while we don't give one minute of our time to having a relationship with Him ----and criticize His word which sits on our coffee table for months before we decide to read a few lines cause all we have to do is to help others cause that is showing we are doing what God has called us to do love our neighbour and that is enough to get us into paradise and then when we curse our neighbour God because of His Love forgives us so all is OK -----there is no bad that will happen in the next world because our God is a loving and forgiving God ------We can reject His Son ---we don't have to believe in the blood that was Shed for us ---God is Love and that Love alone is enough

The Truth is The Love of God is a hard Doctrine ---we really can't understand God's Love if we separate it from His Sovereignty ---Holiness and His Judgment ------God is a God of Love but He is also a God who keeps His Word and the Doctrine of Judgment is very real in His word -----especially when it comes to accepting His Son as our Lord and Savior -------who is the only one who can save us from Judgment --------no other person or Religion will or can do that ------all according to His word --------We will know the real truth when we die and go before Him -----
 
Quotations like this from the Amplified Bible annoy and puzzle me. Despite the fact that the 'amplified' words are set apart in brackets, I find it difficult to read the 'scripture' smoothly without being distracted by the 'amplified' addditions.
It also puzzles me to read in the 'amplified' section "If anyone ... does not bring this teaching [but diminishes or adds to ...] " when this version is itself adding to the original text. How can you 'add to' a text while at the same time stating that it is evil to 'add to'? Isn't it one or the other?

Edit: I was pleased to read down just a few posts and find a better translation. It seems to me that the writer was refering to believing in and following the Way of Jesus, rather than simply believing.
 
Last edited:
revsdd said:
I'm not sure what about 2 John 9-11 is "controversial." There are differing interpretation - primarily what revjohn has described - but on the list of biblical controversies, this would probably rank far down the list!

Now. Do all roads lead to God? That's the essential question (or, at least, the inevitable question) in formulating a doctrine about Jesus Christ. Is he the only way, or are there other ways? Are there paths that lead away from God? I think of the Arctic watershed. If you're driving to Timmins, for example, at some point you see a sign that says "you are now passing the Arctic watershed. From here all rivers flow north into the Arctic Ocean." Is there a similar spiritual watershed? Is there a sign somewhere that says "You are now passing the spiritual watershed. From here all paths lead away from God." I think there are certainly paths that are inconsistent with God. At a minimum, any path which is unloving, any path which is selfish and self-centred, any path which is violent - these and similar paths are inconsistent with God. Do they lead us away from God? Well, is God not always present? A path probably does not lead us away from God, but it may put up barriers between ourselves and God. Just as there's something in the topography that causes all streams to begin to flow north rather than south, there must be something in the spiritual life that causes us to move either closer to or farther away from God in spirit. But God is still there. Rivers may have a divide which causes them to flow either north into the Arctic Ocean or south in the Atlantic Ocean, but ultimately they all go to the ocean. Does a spiritual watershed work the same way? We move in different directions but end up in essentially the same place? That would be universalism. And here you find the two extremes. One would say that all paths eventually lead to the spiritual ocean which is God (do the waters of the Arctic and Atlantic and all other oceans not eventually mix together and flow between one another); another would say that it makes a huge difference whether you end up in the Arctic Ocean or the Atlantic Ocean (the deepest waters of the Arctic are apparenrly much more dense than any other water in any other ocean) - in other words, if you're on a path leading one way instead of the other then something is very wrong and you're leaving God behind and heading to an entirely different place. Given that there are both universalist Christians and "Jesus only" Christians, there's no clear answer to that - although those in both camps will likely say that they're correct and everybody else is wrong.

I stand with those who believe that all doctrine is an entry point to faith rather than the last word on faith. Personally, I believe in the divinity of Christ and in the resurrection of Christ. As the incarnate word of God, I believe that the life of Jesus, revoliving around love - for God, for one another, for neighbours, even for enemies - points us to what a truly godly and righteous life would look like, and it becomes the target for which we shoot (and, unfortunately, which we too often miss.) To the extent that I have a "doctrine" of Christ, those would be the key points.
Click to expand...


I like this comparison to a river. I would also point out that rivers do not all lead directly to their destination (the Arctic, or the Atlantic, or whatever). They wind around. They split around islands and come together again. They widen out into lakes and seem to disappear only to reappear, perhaps in a different form and with a different name at the other side. They take detours, sometimes seemingly flowing in the opposite direction to their ultimate destination. They have rapids, waterfalls, and dead waters. Even the best and most direct is sometimes in danger of going off course and others, less promising, eventually make it to the sea. My birth, my culture and upbringing, started me down the river of Christianity. I try to stay on course, but sometimes I have to make choices of which channel to follow - which is most direct, or swifter, or more dangerous, or perhaps ends in a boggan or backwater, or lead off in the wrong direction all together. I feel the current carrying me; eventually I trust that I will reach the sea. But who am I to say that my friend who follows a river called Buddhism will not also eventually reach the sea.
 
Complexity vs simple doctrine ...

To avoid complex knowledge will the modern Christian KISS that one off ... like Jude'ns did? The KISS Prin. worked well with the Middle Eastern Power (the well-Jew-Cid) so why not maintain stagnation ... what say eu but the same old thing?
 
"Nous" things are dangerous to nostalgic Romans ... they cannot deal with past and look to the future collapse of world systems simultaneously and thus they support a one way thought ... disastrous!

We need a Nous world of looking ... like through the shadow's eyes ... seeing the higher errors from background conditions ... sort of sublime ... never, never be up front with an idea or the autocrats will cut you down ... thye can't stand anything except the way it is!

Anything else would be devious, or consist in variety ... and any variation would demand they learn something else ... thus creation changes the setting ... why the settees of the ottoman empire are gone ... or at least leaving the land to the autocrats to see how they do single handed! I'm willing to bet they can't even carry out their own chit ...

Never, never, eliminate the wee populations ... industrial activity needs the subtle powers as machines will get too smart to do the chitty JOB's ... even Trump demands cheep Hispanic house people ... then heh can pile up physical gold ...
 
Last edited:
Why do we worship rich and powerful people? Is it hope or the desire to have an object to learn from on negative thoughts ... or how not to do something allegorically pragmatic? Anyone understand the defined term pragmatic ... or do you just find it a useful word to abuse?
 
Seeler said:
I feel the current carrying me; eventually I trust that I will reach the sea. But who am I to say that my friend who follows a river called Buddhism will not also eventually reach the sea.
Click to expand...

The bigger question is whether you will reach the same sea. Perhaps there are not just multiple paths, but also multiple destinations. All accomplish roughly the same thing for those making the journey (provide meaning in and relationship to existence).

Goldenrule, a member of WC, provided the model of fish swimming in the vast ocean of existence. Some swim alone, some in schools. Each fish or school explores the sea in its own way, finds its own path through it. The sea is existence, the fish are us, the schools of fish are religions/philosophies/other groups sharing a path. The key being that there is not a destination that all are trying to reach, but an environment that they are trying to understand and relate to. At least that's roughly it. I'll check the old board and see if I can find his original version (which I think was from his blog).
 
Okay, here's the thread where we discussed it, but David's page that is linked in the OP is gone so I can't find his original blog that we were discussing. Some of my thoughts above seem to come from that discussion rather than David himself. Off to the Wayback Machine, I guess, to see if there is a copy there.

http://wondercafe.altervista.org/ww...gion-and-faith/destinations-and-journeys.html

Wayback Machine to the rescue:

https://web.archive.org/web/2010112...ikegod.org/archives/destinations-and-journeys

The fish image image begins about a third of the way from the end but read the whole thing to get the background.
 
Last edited:
Mendalla, what a blast from the past.....were we smarter back then? Some pretty good insights!
 
Seeler said:
Quotations like this from the Amplified Bible annoy and puzzle me. Despite the fact that the 'amplified' words are set apart in brackets, I find it difficult to read the 'scripture' smoothly without being distracted by the 'amplified' addditions.
It also puzzles me to read in the 'amplified' section "If anyone ... does not bring this teaching [but diminishes or adds to ...] " when this version is itself adding to the original text. How can you 'add to' a text while at the same time stating that it is evil to 'add to'? Isn't it one or the other?

Edit: I was pleased to read down just a few posts and find a better translation. It seems to me that the writer was refering to believing in and following the Way of Jesus, rather than simply believing.
Click to expand...
I realized after posting the amplified didn't seem to be the "best version" too. Glad you found the better translation....I agree.
 
Seeler said:
I like this comparison to a river. I would also point out that rivers do not all lead directly to their destination (the Arctic, or the Atlantic, or whatever). They wind around. They split around islands and come together again. They widen out into lakes and seem to disappear only to reappear, perhaps in a different form and with a different name at the other side. They take detours, sometimes seemingly flowing in the opposite direction to their ultimate destination. They have rapids, waterfalls, and dead waters. Even the best and most direct is sometimes in danger of going off course and others, less promising, eventually make it to the sea. My birth, my culture and upbringing, started me down the river of Christianity. I try to stay on course, but sometimes I have to make choices of which channel to follow - which is most direct, or swifter, or more dangerous, or perhaps ends in a boggan or backwater, or lead off in the wrong direction all together. I feel the current carrying me; eventually I trust that I will reach the sea. But who am I to say that my friend who follows a river called Buddhism will not also eventually reach the sea.
Click to expand...
Too bad Jesus and Buddha never met, would love to have read about that conversation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top