Non-Christian follower of Jesus

Longfellow said:
I can understand Trinity doctrine in a way that I think makes it true and in agreement with the Bible, with some of the fathers, and with some of the bishops who signed the creeds, but not in any way that Christians understand it.
Click to expand...
Say more
Thomas said:
This is, I have to admit, intriguing!
Click to expand...
Indeed, intriguing!
 
wil said:
I am a non theist follower of Jesus.

I grok what he is purported to have said, but dont buy the supernatural god being.
Click to expand...
I find the purported teachings attractive too. I have finally arrived at a point in my life where belief in God is my usual state as opposed to constant fluctuation.
My problem with becoming a Christian is that I do not believe in a virgin birth, or a physical resurrection. The idea of dying for our sins has never made sense either.
I have for some years now, been strangely attracted to the Catholic Church and would probably enjoy becoming involved. I am not prepared to pretend to be a believer, so I guess that is ruled out.
 
rocala said:
My problem with becoming a Christian is that I do not believe in a virgin birth ....
Click to expand...
What if I said it was possible to interpret Scripture to suggest that Jesus was born naturally to Mary and Joseph, without in any way detracting from the idea of the Incarnation?

Don't worry, it's a rhetorical question – I would not expect my answers to your objections magically removing any impediment to your becoming a Catholic (or even Orthodox, as I would be equally happy with that, and at a push could accept Anglicanism or Lutheranism without too much whining.)

rocala said:
or a physical resurrection.
Click to expand...
Well you're in good company there, because Paul ruled out physical resurrection from the get-go. The Pharisees were believers of it, but not our Paul! Then again, what type of body Paul was talking about in 1 Corinthians 15 is another question.

rocala said:
The idea of dying for our sins has never made sense either.
Click to expand...
A more acceptable solution takes a little more explaining.

rocala said:
I have for some years now, been strangely attracted to the Catholic Church and would probably enjoy becoming involved.
Click to expand...
My association with the Catholic Church ranges from 'strange' to 'strained' and various stops in between, and sometimes simultanously!
 
Thomas said:
What if I said it was possible to interpret Scripture to suggest that Jesus was born naturally to Mary and Joseph, without in any way detracting from the idea of the Incarnation?
Click to expand...
That probably helps some people, but raises questions about what the belief is in
Thomas said:
Well you're in good company there, because Paul ruled out physical resurrection from the get-go. The Pharisees were believers of it, but not our Paul! Then again, what type of body Paul was talking about in 1 Corinthians 15 is another question.
Click to expand...
This too

Interestingly, for all the problems I have with Christian doctrine and theology, these items always bothered me the least. Or truthfully didn't bother me at all. Why couldn't there have been a virgin birth?(either unique, or part of a larger system including other religious events worldwide?) WHY couldn't there be either bodily resurrection or the emergence of a "spiritual body" (as mentioned in the New Testament, I think by Paul) Either in a unique way or part of a larger system (the bible does report other resurrection events)

No, the miraculous items are firmly okay and untroubling to me. What they mean or imply is where trouble starts happening.
 
TheLightWithin said:
Interestingly, for all the problems I have with Christian doctrine and theology, these items always bothered me the least. Or truthfully didn't bother me at all. Why couldn't there have been a virgin birth?(either unique, or part of a larger system including other religious events worldwide?) WHY couldn't there be either bodily resurrection or the emergence of a "spiritual body" (as mentioned in the New Testament, I think by Paul) Either in a unique way or part of a larger system (the bible does report other resurrection events)

No, the miraculous items are firmly okay and untroubling to me. What they mean or imply is where trouble starts happening.
Click to expand...
It’s the same for me. I don’t consider anything impossible. It’s my interpretation that’s different. I can’t decipher what Paul says about the kind of body the resurrection is in, or even what it means in the OT, except that it has something to do with the Day of Judgment. Even if Jesus was born of a virgin, that isn’t what makes him God or the Son of God.
 
TheLightWithin said:
Interestingly, for all the problems I have with Christian doctrine and theology, these items always bothered me the least. Or truthfully didn't bother me at all. Why couldn't there have been a virgin birth?(either unique, or part of a larger system including other religious events worldwide?) WHY couldn't there be either bodily resurrection or the emergence of a "spiritual body"
Click to expand...
I am sorry but all that seems rather pointless. In fact, it seems like a death sentence on discussion. One can say absolutely anything and then defend the remark with "why couldn't there be".
 
Longfellow said:
This is my intro thread. If people want to talk to each other instead of me, they can find or start a thread for it, instead of removing my intro thread from the Introduction forum.
Click to expand...
I apologise Longfellow and of course you are right. In fact I was only referring to the part that has become a discussion that is beyond the nature of an intro, but I did not make that clear.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top