beginning of the rise of the anti-Christ upon the nations

[GearHeaded]

To you it's an intimate private ceremony that is an exercise of your devotion, to him it was a total mystery. He had no idea anything about it.

just to clarify .. when I said it was an "intimate private ceremony" , I didn't necessarily mean it was intimate to me personally at all.
it is intimate to Christ himself. it is his body and blood. its HIS ceremony. not mine and surely not some random stranger off the street.
he is the one acting and giving in the ceremony, the believer is merely responding. its his private intimate ceremony. which again why the first time he conducted the ceremony it was done behind closed doors in a private setting with only a few select people invited.

the gospel message is a public proclamation to all the world. the communion ceremony on the other hand is a private intimate ceremony of Christ himself done behind closed doors in private.

of course different churches and denominations have different practices on this matter .. so its no surprise to me that random strangers off the street may go into a church and take communion. but most traditional (non modern) Churches over the last 2000 years have kept the communion ceremony private and for baptized disciples only (just like it was in the Apostles day).

which makes sense to me , cause again I don't see why a random person who isn't really even a devout Christian to begin with would even want to partake in such a profound, bloody, and intimate religious ceremony (in so doing they are actually eating and drinking judgment onto themselves)

27 Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body
1 Corinthians 11

so you can see here why 'fencing' the communion table and keeping it private and for devout Christians only , is in a way 'protecting' judgment and condemnation for those random strangers who may partake in the ceremony and have no clue what they are doing. Their soul is essentially in danger if they partake of this ceremony without discernment and understanding

[Obs]

just to clarify .. when I said it was an "intimate private ceremony" , I didn't necessarily mean it was intimate to me personally at all.
it is intimate to Christ himself. it is his body and blood. its HIS ceremony. not mine and surely not some random stranger off the street.
he is the one acting and giving in the ceremony, the believer is merely responding. its his private intimate ceremony. which again why the first time he conducted the ceremony it was done behind closed doors in a private setting with only a few select people invited.

the gospel message is a public proclamation to all the world. the communion ceremony on the other hand is a private intimate ceremony of Christ himself done behind closed doors in private.

of course different churches and denominations have different practices on this matter .. so its no surprise to me that random strangers off the street may go into a church and take communion. but most traditional (non modern) Churches over the last 2000 years have kept the communion ceremony private and for baptized disciples only (just like it was in the Apostles day).

which makes sense to me , cause again I don't see why a random person who isn't really even a devout Christian to begin with would even want to partake in such a profound, bloody, and intimate religious ceremony .

At our church it was monthly and only the baptised members participated. No kids either. I felt all growed up when I got that shot of grape juice and unleavened crust my grammaw made.

Only active members for sure.
I tgink it was ironic that southern baptists were so against drinking they used grape juice instead of wine.
No.... That ain't how they did it but it was only symbolic so it really didn't matter.

[Proximal]

GH, Obs & AG, I still have my original question. I am NOT looking to debate. I did a fair amount of reading myself.

Did Jesus refer to himself as THE son on of God or the ONLY son of God?

Not the apostles, but Jesus himself (yes I am aware there were not tape recorders back then, lol)?

[GearHeaded]

GH, Obs & AG, I still have my original question. I am NOT looking to debate. I did a fair amount of reading myself.

Did Jesus refer to himself as THE son on of God or the ONLY son of God?

Not the apostles, but Jesus himself (yes I am aware there were not tape recorders back then, lol)?

in Matthew 26, the high priest of Israel asked Jesus this exact same question "are you THE son of God" ,, Jesus' answer was basically , I am God himself, not just the Son, and I am the judge of the world and sit on the throne of heaven.
then the high priest accused Jesus of Blasphemy and had him executed..

so yeah, its pretty obvious that Jesus referred to himself as THE son of God. to the point that it ended up getting him put on trial and then executed.

also in John chapter 10, speaking to the pharisees, Jesus tells them " I have said, I am the Son of God"

[almostgone]

GH, Obs & AG, I still have my original question. I am NOT looking to debate. I did a fair amount of reading myself.

Did Jesus refer to himself as THE son on of God or the ONLY son of God?

Not the apostles, but Jesus himself (yes I am aware there were not tape recorders back then, lol)?

I'll defer to John 3:16, Prox. Jesus was the only begotten (born in the flesh) Son of God, as recorded by John. There is some debate as to whether John 3:16 was a commentary by John or words actually spoken by Christ.

When you see sons of God used (lowercase "s") as in Genesis 6:2, it refers to angelic beings, particularly if it is used with Elohim.

[GearHeaded]

also Prox, keep in mind that its not only the Apostles that refer to Jesus as THE Son of God , but God himself calls him by this title, as well as do evil sprits and Angels

[Fluidic Kimbo]

Did Jesus refer to himself as THE son on of God or the ONLY son of God?

I wouldn't rely on the definite article, e.g. 'the', to ascertain whether Jesus was claiming to be one of kind (or if anyone else claimed that he was one of a kind). Here's 3 reasons why:
(1) I can speak a dialect of the Thai language, and it has no articles, so you always just say "I ate apple" instead of "I ate an apple" or "I ate the apple". I can communicate just fine in this language so this really shows that articles aren't important.
(2) I'm currently learning Italian, and they almost always use 'the', for example if you simply want to say "I like cats" or "I drink sparkling water", then you say "I like the cats", and "I drink the sparkling water".
(3) The Bible is in Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic, and we don't even know if quotes are direct or if they're translated, for example in the New Testament, in Paul's letters, he quotes Jesus in Greek however Jesus was probably speaking Aramaic. Therefore we don't know exactly how the articles were used.

If you want to know whether Jesus was 'just one of many', or if he was 'the one and only', then you'd have to look for more verbose language than simply relying on the articles.

For what it's worth, I think the title of the Hip Hop album by Nas, entitled "God's Son", was a very poor choice of wording.

[GearHeaded]

wither the definite article is used or not used, scripture makes it pretty clear when terms such as "ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD" are used. there does not need to be a "the" to clarify that there was only one Son of God. and he is never referred to as "a" son of God. he is simply titled the one and only son of God.
also Jesus went so far as to say that him and God are "one in the same". so its safe to say that Jesus was THE Son of God, the one and only , one of a kind.

[Proximal]

TY all. I greatly appreciate your expertise.

God & spirituality are important to me, but I’ve always had my own take on Christianity to simplify it & make it reasonable to me.

This forum is always a pleasant surprise in the group of individuals that share of themselves and their beliefs.

What a great start to a new year imo.

[Fluidic Kimbo]

God & spirituality are important to me, but I’ve always had my own take on Christianity to simplify it & make it reasonable to me.

The absolute easiest and simplest way to do Christianity is to listen to an audiobook of John's gospel while you work out at the gym. It doesn't get simpler than that. Ok maybe just looking at paintings of the crucifixion would be a little simpler.

[Proximal]

The absolute easiest and simplest way to do Christianity is to listen to an audiobook of John's gospel while you work out at the gym. It doesn't get simpler than that. Ok maybe just looking at paintings of the crucifixion would be a little simpler.

Strongly disagree with the last sentence FC. Nor do I want to rely exclusively on the words of another (Gospels). It’s the entire concept that intrigues me and makes me accept Christ.

BTW, my personal belief in God is not tied to Christ.

[almostgone]

The absolute easiest and simplest way to do Christianity is to listen to an audiobook of John's gospel while you work out at the gym. It doesn't get simpler than that. Ok maybe just looking at paintings of the crucifixion would be a little simpler.

Absolutely, totally disagree. There are 66 canonized books, (more if you include the Apocryphal texts). Why would I rely on 1.5% or less of the content?

[Fluidic Kimbo]

Ok then the most simple approach to Christianity was probably the guy Tony Mac who was doing life in prison and didn't even have a Bible so he wrote "Jesus" on the ceiling of his cell above his bed, and this became his altar. You can listen to his testimony on SermonAudio.com.

You can't deny that John's gospel is the most important of the 66 books. The chat Jesus had with Nicodemus is only documented in John's gospel.