What is Evangelism?

I don’t think the church or the pope is Devine. The Church didn’t do those things, members of the church did. The core teachings do not contradict natural law and have not changed.

People acting on behalf of the church did them, that makes the church complicit and corrupt. The corruption in the Catholic church is the main reason the prophet declared that God has no clergy.

This corruption started right at the beginning with Peter, Paul and the Canonic gospels. Look at Thomas whose gospel does not sit well with the message given by the church, his role is diminished to that of Doubting Thomas, but his gospel unlike that of Matthew Mark and Luke was written by someone who was around at the time.

The whole thing stinks, Peter wasn't concerned with Jesus' legacy or teachings he was concerned with his own.

Why doesn’t Thomas’s gospel sit well with the message of the church? Where does he differ?

I'm done with explaining things to you. Why don't you tell me why it was left out of the Bible, and while you're at it you can say why the gospels of Philip and Mary Magdalene were also left out.

If you google demiurge you might get some answers.

So do you accept Thomas’s gospel as true?

What I believe or don't believe is nobody's business but my own.

Probably not a good forum for you then.

I've never had a problem discussing things in the abstract. What I may or may not believe is irrelevant anyway.

It's your problem not mine, you're the only one who feels the need to constantly ask the same question, everyone else accepts it.

Well then I guess that must make it true then.

If the core teachings should not contradict natural law, why does the New Testament talk of a new nature? What was wrong with the old one?

Does this new nature mean we are no longer connected to this world and our humble evolution? Does it mean we no longer need to care for "nature" the earth, science and other life forms on this planet?

If most people actually read the book they might be a bit more ahead of the game when it comes to understanding its meaning.

Heb 2:16 (KJV)
For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.

Colossians 3:10 (KJV)
10 And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him:

Comment:
The Bible talks of a person "transforming"...

And a "spiritual" change on the inside.

This "new nature" is supposed to be when things instead of gravitating from worse and worse start to get better and better.

It seems that positive thinking or even a little "hope" can achieve the same thing without swallowing all the rest of the hogwash.

Those who swallow all the rest seem to get worse not better...

Does this new nature mean that people are supposed to care more about unborn fetuses than school lunches for poor and impoverished children?

Does it mean I have to hate immigrants or are we all not part of the same world, nation and habitation?

Does it mean that people care more about not taxing the rich more than helping those with little?

Does it mean drill baby drill or harness the power of the sun?

Does it mean we neglect this world and the life in it because Jesus may be coming back?

Does it excuse people for imposing their stone age sense of wrong and right on others?

Does it excuse racism, sexism and bigotry?

Does is impose blind obedience to a book of fables while turning away from science, evidence and fact?

If this is what this "new nature" brings, I don't want it.

I am perfectly happy being a part of this world rather than turning away from this world for the next.

I cherish this life and do not take it for granted...

If one does not, or cannot love this world, what makes one think they have the capacity to love a new world?

The spirit of evil is at work in the universe causing man to introduce corruption and death into the physical universe.

The perfect reality that God created is still possible to discern in the way the universe and man is designed.

Somethings are obvious (like what a fetus, a penis, and a vagina, were designed for). Some are harder (like why some people are allowed to have feelings that feel so go good that it causes them to use fetuses, vaginas and penises in ways that are contrary to their purpose.)

How come good feelings can lead to bad things?



Could it be, in the new nature (introduced at the second coming of Jesus) that our feelings will match reality?



I agree. so. . .

Should we be looking forward to to the second coming by, transforming and preparing for it by acting like it already happened and, not act on the feelings that don't match the reality that the God of the Bible created because evil has spiritually corrupted our feelings?

Do you believe evil exists in a discernible way?

Some people think one should let their genitals dictate their heart and mind...



I believe the extent that we cherish, value and do good for others with compassion and tolerance in this life will have a bearing in a next life... (Karma)

If one does not achieve human love and compassion in this world, despising it for a better world, then they have not gained a rational for entrance into a future world. Love and cherish this world and the door will open to the next. Make the best of it.



A lack of love and compassion, applying the letter of the law over personal freedom and liberty could be construed as "evil".

When a person's motives are love... then, using a heartless law to deny that love is, well, "evil"....

James 1:25
But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.

Comment:
What do you think this "law of liberty" is?

God built no heartless laws into the laws of nature or the moral law.

The law of liberty is the liberty for every man to determine how God relates to oneself and then determine God’s plan for his life.

The object of government is to promote good and punish evil. The government can guide people toward good with that purpose in mind.

It sounds like you are making stuff up as you go along.

I am alright with you speaking from your heart anyway.

The laws of nature are not perfect, so it takes human laws of liberty to correct what natures fails to accomplish. It takes charity, tolerance, forgiveness, acceptance, kindness and unconditional love to bring the laws of nature into balance.

Liberty requires that we fulfill our duty to society and the world.

Those who have much should not use their power to cause the neglect of those who have nothing...

The law of liberty regulates social balance providing a safety net that protects the poor, the vulnerable and supports diversity of lifestyles.

It is what the writers of the US constitution believed anyway. I live there and belive it too.

Now you sound like Jesus.



Only people (including people in power) can take care of the poor and vulnerable. Social balance is not a person. It is impossible to obtain social balance in a fallen world.

I thought the Law of liberty was the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Anybody stopping you from doing that where you live?

The law of liberty is explicitly mentioned quite a few times in the New Testament and it is inferred to hundreds of times.

My understanding of this new law of liberty (2000 years old) is that.

Today's Christians were, through God's foreknowledge, in the body of Christ and thus were (past tense) crucified with Christ, they were raised with Christ and they were judged with Christ and through Christ they triumphed over the law of sin and death (Old Testament Law). Jesus fulfilled the requirements of the law and led captivity captive freeing us from wrath (judgement).

Romans 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation [judgement] to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

Comment:
Therefore, since God and Jesus so loved the world to offer this blessing of liberty to the saints, out of gratitude we are by our own compulsion asked to live the best life we can within our own means.

That is the heart of the "Law of Liberty".

Judgement has been removed and out of gratitude and thanks we are asked to simply live love.

Does that mean the supreme court is out of a job when it comes to believers?

Today's supreme court is what in the Bible is referred to as man's judgment or man's day (I did not make the sexist terminology).

Freedom from the law is in regard to God's judgment, not man's judgment.

The Bible talks of a time in the future when only God will do the judging, when all of the dead will be alive or resurrected. On this day the church will be free from wrath or judgment...

Those judging harshly today will possibly face future judgment. Judge not lest ye be judged.

Those who do not acknowledge (gnosis) the law of liberty, live by another law structure where judgment is required to preserve order and collective human rights.

This is what is written in the Bible whatever if any of it is true is another consideration.

Both the Jews of Jesus' time and the Roman detested ancient Jewish laws that were both barbaric and burdensome. The law of liberty was justification for leaving "many" of the old testament laws behind for both rabbinic Judaism and free thinking Romans who were appalled by ancient Jewish legalism. This newfound freedom from the law ushered in an new age of reason and "liberty". Wars would have progressed to the point of cataclysmic annihilation of the Jews of Jesus' day had not this "compromise" been reached with the law of liberty.

From this point on not every Jewish child was forced to become a lawyer.

Schools were able to drop law as a requirement and changed from reading, writing, arithmetic AND LAW to just reading, writing and arithmetic.

Secularism was born in the Jewish culture.

In a way, human nature and psyche was allowed to live by grace.

A child was not taught every perversion through law school rather they were allowed to grow up free and experiment with life and become who and what their own predilection was to be. Innocence was protected, shielded and guarded rather than defiled by law at a young age.

The over emphasis of law did nothing but bring people headaches and guilt complexes (sin consciousness) leading to persecution, witch hunts and often suicide.

I hope this sort of makes sense.

Galatians 5: Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.

I have heard it said that Christians live by rules instead of laws.

Rule of law?

What is the difference?

I would assume that a rule helps one determine if a law is just.

The WWJD (what would Jesus do) rule.

Love thy neighbor, he (she) who is without sin cast the first stone, something about rich people and camels and the greatest is love, God is love, the kind Samaritan, free health care, the prodigal son, feed my lambs and the laborers are few type of thing. etc.

These rules help one draw conclusions as to the validity of some laws.

For instance if a woman commits adultery by leaving her husband (or vise versa) it might do one justice to find out why she left her husband, was he abusive or was he also cheating on her?

Laws are not cut and dry.

Love needs purpose.