Tommy Robinson’s ‘put Christ back into Christmas’ message"

That’s a strange parallel to draw GRAMERCY, given that Polanski changed his surname back to the original Jewish surname of his family, who had changed it when they came to the UK. Does that qualify as an alias?
Tommy Robinson's real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon (born Stephen Yaxley), and he's also used aliases like Andrew McMaster, Paul Harris, and Wayne King.

MaizieD

Smileless2012

The New Testament is the fulfilment of the Old Testament Maizie.

I know that.

But is what it says part of Christian teaching?

Or does Christian teaching just stick with the New Testament and the Epistles?

Christianity become a principle-based rather than law-based religion through Jesus. I don't know what that makes those who align there views with the pre-Jesus ones but the certainly aren't Christians. You can't be a Christian while turning your back on Jesus' teachings.

Can I just say thank you for this mind awakening thread

Yes Maizie the Old Testament is just as relevant to Christian teaching as the New.

Being a Christian isn't about following the Bible Wylllow it's about belief in and a relationship with God and Jesus.

Thank you DAR for your thought provoking posts .

Smileless2012

Yes Maizie the Old Testament is just as relevant to Christian teaching as the New.

Being a Christian isn't about following the Bible Wylllow it's about belief in and a relationship with God and Jesus.

Indeed, (I was trying to say that?)

.....and we all have different views on that relationship and what we believe, what we conceive "god" to be.

Christians share the same belief Wyllow, that's what makes us Christians.

Stephen Yaxley Lennon changed his name to Tommy Robinson to honour a football hooligan in Luton. Charming.

The first recorded history of Christmas being celebrated, was in Rome in 336 AD.

Saint Francis of Assisi developed the first Christian Crib in 1223, when he created the first Nativity scene to cultivate the worship of Christ.

There are a range of beliefs within Christianity, Smileless, just as there are within other religions. Just compare different beliefs even within one church, the C of E: within it you will find those who believe literally in the virgin birth and the resurrection of the body, others who interpret these biblical reports as symbolic elements of their faith.

People of good will can sit alongside each other and acknowledge that which they have in common as well as those ares where they have differences. The key is the life that Jesus lived, its lessons, its guidances. he doesn't need to be literally/physicall the "son of god" to be followed.

Many peope who call them selves Christian also believe there is much to be learnt from other faiths, and do not try to impose a view of being the only faith that has anything to offer.

Or are agnostic, seeking faith, its conflicts and comforts, as a path to understanding our lives.

The differences in beliefs between Christian denominations has actually lead to wars in Europe.
Hopefully, there is more acceptance now.

I also believe there is much to be learnt from other faiths Wyllow not because I call myself a Christian I just happen to be one.

The core beliefs of Christianity are the virgin birth and the resurrection. These are not interpretations for as St. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15 verse 14 "If Christ has not been raised our preaching is useless and so is your faith".

My posts are not about trying to impose my view of being the only faith that has anything to offer, I am merely stating that unless you believe in the virgin birth and resurrection of Jesus, you are not a Christian because these are the keys.

I agree that Jesus doesn't need to be literally/physical "the son of God" (I never us a small 'g' because for me that is disrespectful) but following his teachings without believing in the circumstances of his conception and resurrection, does not a Christian make.

Smileless,

You believe they are the keys.

This doesn't make it so.

Not much point pursuing it further as clearly we won't agree. Ditto on use of God/god(s)

But whatever we think are key beliefs, I'm very much in favour of church bodies making clear statements about Tommy Robinsons "interventions"

The Bible makes it so Wyllow.

To say the Nicene Creed but not believe it ? Never

sigh.

The Nicene creed was not written until AD 323 in the Council of Nicea, and reaffirmed later that century.

There were a series of councils around that time to define what was to be the core doctrine of the Christians church of the time against beliefs like Arianism, which was considered by a majority to be heretical.

So the doctrine of the Trinity was only finalised then, and of course that was around the same time that the books of what was to be the Bible as we know it was finalised.

Arianism did not claim that Jesus was the son of God, it had a different view oh his divinity.

So we have a creed declared to be true, the only one, the only way, dictated by the church thinkers of that time.

It was about power and control of a narrative to suit the leaders of the Christian church.

I don't therefore see the Nicene creed as anything else than it was, a human construct of its time, and do not think it necessary for someone who calls themselves a christian to be bound by one set of contructs.

As far as I am concerned, being a Christian means following the lessons from Jesus himself. There is no reason that we should not use our understanding of the way the early church developed,

especially given the existence of the Gnostic gospels (gospels that were not included in the bible, especially the Gospel of Thomas and the gospel of Mary Magdelene) all which display alternative ways of understanding Jesus.

So "Nic

Sigh , I am speaking of now not ad323,

Sorry - clarification needed - I wasn't sighing at you, Annie, I actually wasn't sure what you meant - I assumed tongue in cheek?

But whatever we think are key beliefs, I'm very much in favour of church bodies making clear statements about Tommy Robinsons "interventions"

I think they are horrified and rightly so, as in your link and others.

Kathy Gynell writing in Conservative Woman today has a video of Bishop Dewar which is worth watching. Basically Bishop Dewar is all in favour of a grassroots revival of Christianity but it seems the CofE is not!

To see that video, ronib, do you go on to a website for Conservative Women? TIA

Christmas Carol events are uplifting. He is going to destroy those celebrations.
Not a 'charitable' thing to do.

Maremia

Christmas Carol events are uplifting. He is going to destroy those celebrations.
Not a 'charitable' thing to do.

Quite. He’s finding ways of being divisive and malignant as ever.

So what do we do? Go and sing gustily with a clear head in the hope of bringing cheer to ourselves and others? Or give it a miss this year on some pretext or another?
I shall join in locally as usual but certainly won’t be travelling to London or anywhere else to join the ‘big event’ there.

Well Bisop Dewar isn't a CofE bishop and has said a number of things at Unite the kingdom meetings which are unacceptable to most Bishops who are. I suspect most CofE bishops see TR for exactly what he is ie a racist thug with a criminal record for violence. Does a leopard change his spots? Not if you listen to what TR tells his followers.