Christianity Facing Similar Chain of Events Leading to Radicalization as Islam

[Nazaroo]

You are walking on very thin ice here. So today some scripture is irrelevant? No wonder you have such a propensity to cherry-pick scriptures to fit your lifestyle.

And again, you still claim that works are still irrelevant? And again:

Here again, Christ ties works to salvation. The goats will think that they have already made it, but their failure to show compassion and love through works for others will mean eternal punishment. Only those willing to show their faith and love for Jesus through obedience and acts of love toward their neighbors will be found righteous by the Judge.

I can actually walk on water.

Your argument is wasted, since I personally believe in obediance to Jesus,
by performing tangible, physical, public, measurable, documentable works.

But your Roman Catholic version of Christianity still remains foreign to me,
a Jewish Christian.

13 When He said, “A new covenant,”
He has made the first obsolete.
But whatever is becoming obsolete
and growing old is [j]ready to disappear.

This scripture can only apply to JEWS.

You can't repossess a car that I don't actually possess, because I never bought it.

You can't make obselete something that was never given to Gentiles,
nor available except by immigration and contract in Moses' day.

Now I suppose that you find the teachings of Jesus, a 1st Century Jew, irrelevant as well. And time does not allow me to quote all of his teachings. Maybe you might start with the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 5-7. It is just full of instructions about how to go about working out our faith.

On the contrary.

I find that the teachings of Jesus, a 1st Century Jew,
have become irrelevant to modern Christians of almost every denomination.
But I like them myself.

The Sermon on the Mount was a bad choice however,
coming from a heavily edited and rearranged version of Luke
suitable for church services, and composed last of all the gospels.

Most of the sayings in Matthew's sermon are mere contextless reminders
of teachings that originally had a historical context in the earlier gospels,
but whose meaning is now lost to hearers without those original contexts.

The Sermon on the Mount cannot stand alone as bona fide teaching of Jesus.
It is addressed to a 'church' that did not exist during His earthly ministry.

It is not a historical event, but a literary creation, meant to
present Jesus' ministry as 'Five Books', like the Five books of Moses.

Its a clever work, but can't stand up as a historical document
when the Synoptics are honestly compared.

You can examine my own full analysis here:

http://pericopedeadultera.org/SYNOP/index.html

If you want the complete and perfect Gospel for Gentiles I'd pick Luke:
it is the most doctrinally accurate and complete version of Jesus' ministry,
and the temporal order of events is more accurate.

For instance, Luke's emphasis on the poor and women's issues
were ahead of their time, and Matthew's account largely deletes both,
in order to attract rich Jews into the early church.

In short, Matthew CONTAINS Holy Scripture, but is more of a Midrash.

 

[Morpheus]

I can actually walk on water.

Your argument is wasted, since I personally believe in obediance to Jesus,
by performing tangible, physical, public, measurable, documentable works.

But your Roman Catholic version of Christianity still remains foreign to me,
a Jewish Christian.

This scripture can only apply to JEWS.

You can't repossess a car that I don't actually possess, because I never bought it.

You can't make obselete something that was never given to Gentiles,
nor available except by immigration and contract in Moses' day.




On the contrary.

I find that the teachings of Jesus, a 1st Century Jew,
have become irrelevant to modern Christians of almost every denomination.
But I like them myself.

The Sermon on the Mount was a bad choice however,
coming from a heavily edited and rearranged version of Luke
suitable for church services, and composed last of all the gospels.

Most of the sayings in Matthew's sermon are mere contextless reminders
of teachings that originally had a historical context in the earlier gospels,
but whose meaning is now lost to hearers without those original contexts.

The Sermon on the Mount cannot stand alone as bona fide teaching of Jesus.
It is addressed to a 'church' that did not exist during His earthly ministry.

It is not a historical event, but a literary creation, meant to
present Jesus' ministry as 'Five Books', like the Five books of Moses.

Its a clever work, but can't stand up as a historical document
when the Synoptics are honestly compared.

You can examine my own full analysis here:

http://pericopedeadultera.org/SYNOP/index.html

If you want the complete and perfect Gospel for Gentiles I'd pick Luke:
it is the most doctrinally accurate and complete version of Jesus' ministry,
and the temporal order of events is more accurate.

For instance, Luke's emphasis on the poor and women's issues
were ahead of their time, and Matthew's account largely deletes both,
in order to attract rich Jews into the early church.

In short, Matthew CONTAINS Holy Scripture, but is more of a Midrash.

2 Timothy 3:16

All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;


2 Peter 1:20

But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation,

You can't just pick what you like and excuse away everything else. I am happy that you "personally believe in obediance to Jesus,
by performing tangible, physical, public, measurable, documentable works." On that we then have no disagreement. The issue I had with Doom is that he contends that no works are required, continually referring to them as a return to the Law. I never said any such thing. Faith, and our love of Christ, must inspire us to obedience and performing good works in his name. If our faith does not lead to works then that "faith" is false and our claims to love Christ are lies. That is what is written. And as for your accusations, I am about as far from Catholicism as one can be. Although I have a church home, I have never seen any denomination that teaches the Word truly accurately. They all have flaw since they are all populated by flawed people. Yet there are some that do pretty well, and are continually trying to do their best to follow.

As far as my own faith goes, in my early 20s, after submitting to the Spirit, I spent my first 5 years in the faith immersed in scripture for 2-6 hours a day as my schedule would allow with a young family. I compared numerous translations after studying the history of how each of them were compiled, along with a Bible dictionary. Only on rare occasion did I refer to some commentary, and even then I found them to generally be some man trying to contort scripture to fit their denominations specific flavor. So by comparing scripture as a whole to those commentaries I generally rejected anything that did not match the Word completely. I did the normal Bible school classes and 2-3 services a week, but overall I found that the Holy Spirit is the best teacher to someone who is willing to draw near and bend to His will.

Yes, I was a deacon by age 29, and there was also one extremely old, elder (who was probably closer to God than anyone else I have ever met) who took me under his wing to direct my path toward numerous ministries with hundreds of children of all classes, races and ethnicities, the handicapped, prisoners and even the wealthy since they needed to hear as much as anyone. Most of these ministries were self-supported from my income. I don't say this to boast. It is just that I have never felt that any of this was a sacrifice.

In the 42 years that my wife and I have been married our love for one another has only grown stronger. I spent little time being concerned about what was in it for me, and she has done the same. If I learned that there was something that she wanted I would do anything in my power to get it or do it for her simply because I love her. The same goes for our children. And never did I resent it for one moment. There is no pride in it; it is just my duty; it's just what a spouse does for the one he loves.

With Christ it is the same. The more you love Him the more you want to do what he asks. His dream becomes your dream. Yet in a marriage if a husband claims to love his wife, but then he neglects her or abuses her, it is obvious that he does not actually love her but he is just parroting words to get what he wants out of her. With Christ it is the same. "Faith without works is dead". That is what I have been trying to convey to Doom, but his relationship with Christ is based on selfishness. Therefore he will (unless something changes) find himself on the left-hand side with the rest of the goats.