Doktor S wrote:You're using yourself as an authority to support your own meanderings again rex, you gotta stop doing that. I'm getting dizzy from the spinning.
Guess what?
I too have studied the bible extensively! Not as the 'word of god', mind you, but as one of the oldest surviving historical fictions, as the work of literature that it is.(Although for considerably less time than timbers impressive 'several decades')
I know the bible better than any christian I've ever discussed religion with in person that's for sure. What makes you think you know anything I don't? My conclusions about the bible share nothing in common with yours. Having studied it extensively with no religious agenda, shouldn't I have come to the same 'correct' conclusions you have?
What of the umpteen zillion professed christians that constitute vanilla flavor christianity..are they ALL wrong?
Where are all the
other people besides yourself, today and throughout history, that have also reached your 'correct' conclusions about what the bible really says/means? I certainly haven't read them. Perhaps they all took an oath of secrecy?
Rex, delusions of grandeur may not be your only delusions, but they are certainly part of the set.
This is actually a very good post you have written...
Well I might say that you have finally met someone who knows the word better than you...
I plan to show you much more "biblical" evidence to corroborate my position. This is how we have evolved from God...
Why does the world get it wrong and sprout their "vanilla flavored" (as you called it) religion?
Well it may have something to do with why the faith was lost in the first time...
The truth is the most likely to become counterfeited... It is attacked the most because it IS truth.
As we know from the presence of the gnostic writings that the true message was lost quite soon AFTER the first century church.
We do not need to go to extraneous writings to find this...
We find Paul going from city to city and spreading a "more perfect understanding".
When Paul's letters are analyzed one notices a pattern.
Romans is the magna charta of the Christian church.
Romans is the first "doctrinal" epistle of the church.
This book I have studied quite a bit. Romans lays out the very first Christian doctrine delivered to the first century church.
It details why and how we are saved and the legal standing we have as sons and daughters of God. (Highlight: Romans teaches the new birth.)
Yet this doctrine did not go over well...
In fact once the people got hold of it they began to practice erroneous behaviors. They twisted and contorted the words into extraneous practices.
They practiced these practices openly. Once news of these practices reached back to Paul then in response Paul wrote first and second Corinthians.
The purpose of Corinthians was to rid the church of the "practical" error (wrong practice) that had crept into the church due to the in-adherence to the revelation given in Romans. (Highlight: Corinthians teaches speaking in tongues.)
But it did not stop there.
After people openly practiced error for a long time they then formed doctrines and held them up as true prophecy.
(Much of this was because of old Jewish or gentile perceptions that they still clung onto.)
So then Paul wrote another letter. Galatians. [Highlight: Galatians frees the Church from the OT Law (as does Romans to a degree...)]
He wrote Galatians to directly address the "doctrinal" error (after people have practiced something for a long time the make a doctrine out of it... ahem..) that had crept into the church due to the in-adherence to revelation given in Romans and Corinthians..
Ephesians is the next and (Highlight) greatest "doctrinal" epistle to the church. (Ephesians teaches the "live love" walk of the spirit.)
Then we have Philippians which corrects practical error from wrong practice of Ephesians
Colossians corrects doctrinal error...
So you can see even in the first century the church had it's problems...
This is why the Bible is profitable for doctrine reproof and correction... (which is instruction in righteousness)
Then we get to Thessalonians which many scholars argue was written first... perhaps so.
Thessalonians is all about hope. It is also a "doctrinal" epistle. It deals with the subject of the return of Christ (the gathering day). It was reasoned that it was written first because people first need hope first...
Yet there is no practical or doctrinal reproof or correction because the return of christ will have no practical or doctrinal error.
It is not a function performed by the church but a function performed by Christ.
So why do people look at the Bible and see their own message rather than the message written? Perhaps they do not study it or they are just so abstract that it is such a long leap to perceive, change and understand "truth". Why do many scientists look at the world and not see God? (Because they are too abstract from where truth is.)
Some people just don't get it I guess...