Discerning the wheat from the tares.

[Sassy]

You do not understand the scriptures.

The Oracle has spoken! 

Despite your snipe, what he says is true!

It isn't true... It is a fact that John warned against the very thing of who came in the flesh.

1 John 4King James Version (KJV)

4 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

Jesus Christ came in the flesh NOT God.

The OT does NOT teach God will come in flesh.
It teaches God will raise them up a Prophet from amongst their own people whom he will put his words into his mouth.

All the Prophets and men of God spoke by the power of Gods Holy Spirit.
Christ himself said: "My Words are SPIRIT and they are life."
He also taught he did not speak of himself but whatever the Father gave him he spoke.

Acts 10:38King James Version (KJV)

38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.

As you can see Peter lays it out as it is...

Luke spells it out:-

Luke 1:35King James Version (KJV)

35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

The Mystery is that it is the false teaching of SAYING that Christ is God made flesh is what stops the Jews believing he is the Messiah. For they knew he would be a Prophet from amongst their own people. To be called the Son of God would be blasphemy if Christ was not Gods Son. Hence the teaching of Blasphemy dealt with. We know to be called a Son of someone was to be like the Father.
So when the Jews said: " Abraham is our Father" Christ said: " If Abraham was truly your Father you would do as he did." We know the rest. Jesus is Gods son because he did the will of his Father and did as God would do.

The Mystery is also the fact that if you call Jesus God and say God came in the flesh then you are breaking the first commandment and the commandment Christ gave you. " Love the LORD thy GOD with all thy heart, mind, body, soul and strength." Because this is what Jesus did. The NT are just letters but the OT is fact. The words of Christ are the truth to follow.

Christ shows that LOVE is the important role. That loving God and others is more important than anything else because this is the basis of his teachings.
So if you call Jesus God by saying God came in the flesh you deny the teachings of Christ.

It was the ONE way against Christs way that stopped the Jews coming to Christ and stopped the Roman Catholic Church losing it's power.

Not everyone who calls him Lord, Lord, will be saved.

So think about it... the only person who will make himself out to be God and put himself above God is the Son of Perdition spoken about by Daniel and in the book of Revelations. The Kingdom of God is within a person and perfectly safe from any outward attack in the world or by the teachings of men.

You need to guard your heart and mind because of false teachings.
Jesus is the Son of God and he came in the flesh.
He is the chosen Messiah and Saviour. As Paul taught when all things and powers are subdued under him then he place himself and all things back under God.

[Leonard James]

Have to disagree with that, I'm afraid -  you owe your parents nothing unless they merit it through their actions. They choose to have children for their reasons, and whilst it would be nice if all parents cared well for their children that isn't the case. The majority, yes, but you don't merit anything simply by producing offspring, you earn love, respect and care by how you treat them.

O.

I agree! However, you wouldn't exist if your parents hadn't given you life, so at least be grateful to them for that.

[Hope]

There is plenty to be sceptical about where that not so good book is concerned.

Yet another airing for your unevidenced claim, Floo.  How many times is that over the last 3 months?

[Sassy]

Well considering that a central aspect of Paul's preaching was to claim that Jesus was both God and Christ, and considering that after diligently searching the (OT) Scriptures to check Paul's claims, and considering once more that many of them became believers we can only come to one conclusion.  Those 'more noble' Jews at Berea must have found OT evidence to their satisfaction that Paul's claims were indeed correct and that Jesus is in fact God.

Wrong: Paul NEVER claimed that Jesus was God but that the truth of the OT showed God spoke through him.
There is NOTHING about the mention of Beareans which shows they had any evidence for such a notion as you suggest.

[Outrider]

Absolutely, Roses. We can only be guided by the strength of the evidence presented by their followers/detractors.

And n my opinion it is always better to err on the side of scepticism rather than credulity.

So, despite the strength of the evidence of the time being considerably greater than that of the detractors (who, of course, would have had the best opportunity to produce contradictory evidence - such as a body), you choose to side with theose detractors.  Where is your scepticism regarding their un-evidenced argument?

What could be a stronger argument from the 'detractors' as to think so little of you as to fail to pass comment at all?

The contemporaries of Jesus were so ambivalent about his existence they failed in their entirety to say anything at all. A cynic might suggest that the entire idea was invented after the fact...

O.

[Hope]

The Jewish answer made a lot more sense to me.

You would have to read it yourself Len, but I suspect the Rabbis answer would make more sense to you as well.

It wasn't about testafiable proof, but different perpectives on the same questions.

What book would that have been, Rose? 

Like you, I have spoken to a number of Jewish people about the claims of Christ, and I have to say that I have found their arguments often contradict their own scriptures.

[Hope]

What could be a stronger argument from the 'detractors' as to think so little of you as to fail to pass comment at all?

The contemporaries of Jesus were so ambivalent about his existence they failed in their entirety to say anything at all. A cynic might suggest that the entire idea was invented after the fact...

O.

Actually, this is erroneous, O.  The chief detractors - the Jewish religious leaders - were very vocal in their opposition to him.

[Leonard James]

So, despite the strength of the evidence of the time being considerably greater than that of the detractors (who, of course, would have had the best opportunity to produce contradictory evidence - such as a body), you choose to side with theose detractors.  Where is your scepticism regarding their un-evidenced argument?

Both arguments lacked irrefutable evidence. It is all nothing more than what people claimed they saw (or didn't see).

[Outrider]

What could be a stronger argument from the 'detractors' as to think so little of you as to fail to pass comment at all?

The contemporaries of Jesus were so ambivalent about his existence they failed in their entirety to say anything at all. A cynic might suggest that the entire idea was invented after the fact...

O.

Actually, this is erroneous, O.  The chief detractors - the Jewish religious leaders - were very vocal in their opposition to him.

As alleged by the people who came after and lauded the tale of Jesus - no-one at the time was so incensed, aware or awake that they actually put anything down themselves, though.

O.

[Sassy]

Well considering that a central aspect of Paul's preaching was to claim that Jesus was both God and Christ, and considering that after diligently searching the (OT) Scriptures to check Paul's claims, and considering once more that many of them became believers we can only come to one conclusion.  Those 'more noble' Jews at Berea must have found OT evidence to their satisfaction that Paul's claims were indeed correct and that Jesus is in fact God.

Such is the power of a charismatic teacher to sway people to his beliefs.

Excepting that even a casual reading of Acts 17 makes it plain that those in Berea were not the sort to allow themselves to be swayed by a glib talker (which Paul by his own admission was not).  Which is precisely why they were cautious enough and suspicious enough to search the Scriptures daily to check him out.

Those in Berea checked the scriptures to check Jesus was the Messiah not that he was God made man. Because the OT does not teach that Jesus would be God.
In fact it warns that on the Son of Perdition would place himself as God and above all that is God.

At no times did Bearean check scriptures to see if Jesus was God. WHY?
Because the disciples and Paul did not teach that.

Acts 10:38King James Version (KJV)

38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.

As you can see from Peter, he taught God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the HG and POWER. GOD WAS WITH HIM... it did not say he was God and went about doing these things.
So it is clear that NO ONE taught Jesus was God. But they knew the words he spoke came from God.

Deuteronomy 18:18King James Version (KJV)

18 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.
So we know God was WITH Jesus and that the Words Christ spoke were from God.

The people then tried to change it to Christ being God rather than the truth that Peter taught. God was with Christ. It is clear John corrected the wrong teachings that God came in the flesh when he said:

1 John 4King James Version (KJV)

4 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

So as you see Jesus Christ came in the flesh and God spoke through him. That is the teachings of the disciples and Peter would NOT lie because he stated clearly that Jesus was the Messiah Gods chosen one.

[ippy]

King James 2000 Bible
But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.



King James Bible
These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

Note to reader: The NT did not exist and the scriptures they checked were OT.

So to ensure what you believe it must be checked out by the OT not the NT.

So discuss beliefs and origins without using the NT.
Show in the OT where the Prophets taught that the Messiah would be God made man. It is clear that the Messiah was to be a man raised from their own brethren.

Deuteronomy 18: 15-18.

God himself saying he would raise them up a Prophet from amongst their own brethren.

The NT must reflect the truth of the OT. If it cannot be found in the OT it must (as in the times of the disciples) be rejected. Because at no time during the preaching of the good news did a copy of the NT become included in scripture.
Christ fulfilled the scriptures about himself and he foretold of the things still to come.

Which is why, when I want to know what the Jesus of the nt was probably like, I look at Judaism and then try and work out what Christianity has added.

You need to remove all that theology that was only made up to explain for example how Christians could also be worshipping one God, while having a Jesus with a divine nature.

Don't even get me started on the mythology that surrounds Mary 

Immaculate conception? 


http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm

Some of these ideas are fairly modern and it's what you get when you shut a bunch of celibate men away for too long with their own thoughts 

It's Opinion, there's no proof.  ( not even if you took the NT as proof)

Someone's opinion that then had to be accepted by everyone as some sort of ultimate truth.

It's still someone's opinion though.

But you are up against years of brainwashing and discouragement from questioning.

You will just get called a heretic.

Calling people that, means they don't have to look at the contents of your argument.

People's opinion became theology and dogma and no one reading just the NT and the OT would ever come up with the vast majority of it.

Rose, how did you know that our Sass has been through years of being tortured?

"But you are up against years of brainwashing and discouragement from questioning".

I think it's a certainty she was indoctrinated for years.

ippy

[Leonard James]

So as you see Jesus Christ came in the flesh and God spoke through him. That is the teachings of the disciples and Peter would NOT lie because he stated clearly that Jesus was the Messiah Gods chosen one.

Beliefs ... nothing more. Products of the human mind.

[Hope]

Wrong: Paul NEVER claimed that Jesus was God but that the truth of the OT showed God spoke through him.
There is NOTHING about the mention of Beareans which shows they had any evidence for such a notion as you suggest.

Sass, even your much-beloved King James Version has Paul stating that Jesus is God on a number of occasions.  Romans 1: 3-7, 9: 5; Colossians 2: 9.  If you add examples from the books that may or may not have been written by Paul, but traditionally bear his name as author, you also have 1 Timothy 3:16, 6: 14-16; Hebrews 1: 3.

Note that I have taken these examples from the King James Version Chain-Reference Bible by Frank Charles Thompson (4th Edition 1964)

Perhaps you ought to re-read your copy of the KJV rather more carefully.

[Hope]

It's easy to find corroboration in the records of people who all believed the same thing.

However, that is a long way from it proving the truth.

It should also be the case that it is easy to find corroboration of the detractors' argument in their writings and official pronouncements, Len.

[ippy]

King James 2000 Bible
But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.



King James Bible
These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

Note to reader: The NT did not exist and the scriptures they checked were OT.

So to ensure what you believe it must be checked out by the OT not the NT.

So discuss beliefs and origins without using the NT.
Show in the OT where the Prophets taught that the Messiah would be God made man. It is clear that the Messiah was to be a man raised from their own brethren.

Deuteronomy 18: 15-18.

God himself saying he would raise them up a Prophet from amongst their own brethren.

The NT must reflect the truth of the OT. If it cannot be found in the OT it must (as in the times of the disciples) be rejected. Because at no time during the preaching of the good news did a copy of the NT become included in scripture.
Christ fulfilled the scriptures about himself and he foretold of the things still to come.

Which is why, when I want to know what the Jesus of the nt was probably like, I look at Judaism and then try and work out what Christianity has added.

You need to remove all that theology that was only made up to explain for example how Christians could also be worshipping one God, while having a Jesus with a divine nature.

Don't even get me started on the mythology that surrounds Mary 

Immaculate conception? 


http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm

Some of these ideas are fairly modern and it's what you get when you shut a bunch of celibate men away for too long with their own thoughts 

It's Opinion, there's no proof.  ( not even if you took the NT as proof)

Someone's opinion that then had to be accepted by everyone as some sort of ultimate truth.

It's still someone's opinion though.

But you are up against years of brainwashing and discouragement from questioning.

You will just get called a heretic.

Calling people that, means they don't have to look at the contents of your argument.

People's opinion became theology and dogma and no one reading just the NT and the OT would ever come up with the vast majority of it.

Rose, how did you know that our Sass has been through years of being tortured?

"But you are up against years of brainwashing and discouragement from questioning".

I think it's a certainty she was indoctrinated for years.

ippy

What?

Did you actually read my post?

ad O stated Sassy was a heretic.

Go from there

Yes, I wondered why you thought Sass was brainwashed, a practice that was last used in the early fifties by the North Koreans and they abandoned it because they didn't have much success with it.

If you look it up you'll find that you were describing indoctrination and writing brainwashing.

ippy

[ad_orientem]

Your argument is flawed. When Moses wrote the Pentateuch the writings of the prophets did not exist. Does that mean they're not scripture? The NT is scripture because the Church recognises them as such. The same goes for the OT. But then you are a heretic and so it's not surprising that you have a screwed view of the NT and most importantly of Christ, nay, you believe in some other Christ, not the Christ of scripture.

On this occasion I'm with Sassy.

What you have basically said is that you believe in the theology of the church, which was invented to explain the things they didn't have answers for.

Like how Christians can worship one God if Jesus was in some way God.

IMO the Jesus of the "scripture"  isn't the one invented by the church either.

Sassy has as much chance of getting it right as anyone else.

It's all POV and opinions.

The "theology of the Church" comes straight from the Apostles who were taught by Christ himself but, of course, you first have to discern where the Church is.

No it doesn't, that's just what you have been told to believe.  No one in the NT gives any indication that Mary mother of Jesus was in any way special apart from being his mum, Jesus didn't make her one of his disciples.

In fact Jesus complains that those who knew him best had the greatest difficulty accepting his miracles.

At one point he is quite dismissive of his actual family, which leads me to believe that the "church " added all the stuff about Mary. 

Mark 3:31-35New International Reader's Version (NIRV)

Jesus’ Mother and Brothers
31 Jesus’ mother and brothers came and stood outside. They sent someone in to get him. 32 A crowd was sitting around Jesus. They told him, “Your mother and your brothers are outside. They are looking for you.”

33 “Who is my mother? Who are my brothers?” he asked.

34 Then Jesus looked at the people sitting in a circle around him. He said, “Here is my mother! Here are my brothers! 35 Anyone who does what God wants is my brother or sister or mother.”

When did you become sola scriptura? It's bullshit.

[Leonard James]

What's bullshit?

The idea that the Catholic Church might have invented some of its own traditions and Dogmas?

No one has ever told me how to read a bible, Ad O. And if they did I've usually disagreed with them.

That includes much of the Protestant theologies as well.

If anything I tend to read it with an open mind and with the idea that many of the answers are humanitarian and is Jewish in origin.

If anything, over the years I have come to the conclusion that in many cases it is the theology that is the bullshit.

All of it.

If God exists, and if Jesus represented God in some way, it doesn't mean human beings could explain it.

It might not even be explainable in human terms.

So I prefer to go with the basic message of Jesus, who seemed to me, to be largely talking about an ethical and fair way of life.


The bullshit, ( theology) I am happy to leave behind.

I don't need any of it.

Wild speculation most of it.

I love you, Rose! 

[ad_orientem]

Your argument is flawed. When Moses wrote the Pentateuch the writings of the prophets did not exist. Does that mean they're not scripture? The NT is scripture because the Church recognises them as such. The same goes for the OT. But then you are a heretic and so it's not surprising that you have a screwed view of the NT and most importantly of Christ, nay, you believe in some other Christ, not the Christ of scripture.

On this occasion I'm with Sassy.

What you have basically said is that you believe in the theology of the church, which was invented to explain the things they didn't have answers for.

Like how Christians can worship one God if Jesus was in some way God.

IMO the Jesus of the "scripture"  isn't the one invented by the church either.

Sassy has as much chance of getting it right as anyone else.

It's all POV and opinions.

The "theology of the Church" comes straight from the Apostles who were taught by Christ himself but, of course, you first have to discern where the Church is.

No it doesn't, that's just what you have been told to believe.  No one in the NT gives any indication that Mary mother of Jesus was in any way special apart from being his mum, Jesus didn't make her one of his disciples.

In fact Jesus complains that those who knew him best had the greatest difficulty accepting his miracles.

At one point he is quite dismissive of his actual family, which leads me to believe that the "church " added all the stuff about Mary. 

Mark 3:31-35New International Reader's Version (NIRV)

Jesus’ Mother and Brothers
31 Jesus’ mother and brothers came and stood outside. They sent someone in to get him. 32 A crowd was sitting around Jesus. They told him, “Your mother and your brothers are outside. They are looking for you.”

33 “Who is my mother? Who are my brothers?” he asked.

34 Then Jesus looked at the people sitting in a circle around him. He said, “Here is my mother! Here are my brothers! 35 Anyone who does what God wants is my brother or sister or mother.”

When did you become sola scriptura? It's bullshit.

What's bullshit?

The idea that the Catholic Church might have invented some of its own traditions and Dogmas?

Or that the pope is not supposed to be able to make a mistake?

Papal infallibility is a dogma of the Catholic Church that states that, in virtue of the promise of Jesus to Peter, the Pope is preserved from the possibility of error "When, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church."[1][2]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility

History alone has shown us that the Pope is anything but infallible.

You are putting your faith in a person.

No one has ever told me how to read a bible, Ad O. And if they did I've usually disagreed with them.

That includes much of the Protestant theologies as well.

If anything I tend to read it with an open mind and with the idea that many of the answers are humanitarian and is Jewish in origin.

If anything, over the years I have come to the conclusion that in many cases it is the theology that is the bullshit.

All of it.

If God exists, and if Jesus represented God in some way, it doesn't mean human beings could explain it.

It might not even be explainable in human terms.

So I prefer to go with the basic message of Jesus, who seemed to me, to be largely talking about an ethical and fair way of life.


The bullshit, ( theology) I am happy to leave behind.

I don't need any of it.

Wild speculation most of it.


Jesus also said you needed to be like little children to get into the kingdom of heaven, which IMO rules out half a ton of wild speculation known in churches as theology and dogma.

Sola scriptura is bullshit and btw I'm not a Roman Catholic. The scriptures cannot be understood apart from the life of the Church, which is the work of the Holy Spirit confirming the faith of the Apostles.

[ad_orientem]

Yes, you are a heretic, a follower of Arius, and you do not believe in Christ otherwise you would acknowledge that that Christ is God. You do not understand the scriptures.

It is you who is an heretic because you go beyond the teachings of Christ. As for scripture you only have manmade teachings but I was taught by God. He opened my mind to the Scriptures so I know the truth of OT and was taught that before the NT. So when it comes to your two line replies which has nothing to prove me wrong about Scripture you are telling the whole world you have nothing but tradition and manmade beliefs.

You cannot answer the fact that both Peter and John teach Christ was a human being and that God gave Jesus power and anointed him with the Holy Spirit.
You cannot bear the truth like those Stephen spoke to before he was stoned.
John warning people that Jesus Christ came in the flesh. Because as Jews they knew the truth about the Messiah.

HERETIC is more befitting of you because your beliefs are not biblical and you have no way of producing anything from the OT which says the Messiah would be God made man. Even Luke tells you that God through an angel told Mary that Christ being a Holy Thing...that he was to be called the Son of God.

You ignore the things written for a manmade belief which started out even at the time of the disciples preaching. But the disciples DID NOT TEACH but warned against it.

The faith confirmed by the holy councils is the faith of the Apostles taught to them by Christ himself. You are no better than a Marcionite in rejecting the scriptures that disagree with you and you are a follower of men in your Arian beliefs. Quite frankly your Christ, which is not the Christ of the scriptures, cannot save you.

[Outrider]

Sola scriptura is bullshit and btw I'm not a Roman Catholic. The scriptures cannot be understood apart from the life of the Church, which is the work of the Holy Spirit confirming the faith of the Apostles.

... he asserted, with authority. However, the Pope just as firmly asserted that Sola Scriptura is the dogs bollocks (perhaps not a direct quote) and he's infallible on issues of scripture, because he asserted so, authoritatively...

You see the problem we have?

O.

[floo]

There is plenty to be sceptical about where that not so good book is concerned.

Yet another airing for your unevidenced claim, Floo.  How many times is that over the last 3 months?

That is a good one coming from you, who believes in the unbelievable without any evidence to back it up!

[floo]

Yes, you are a heretic, a follower of Arius, and you do not believe in Christ otherwise you would acknowledge that that Christ is God. You do not understand the scriptures.

It is you who is an heretic because you go beyond the teachings of Christ. As for scripture you only have manmade teachings but I was taught by God. He opened my mind to the Scriptures so I know the truth of OT and was taught that before the NT. So when it comes to your two line replies which has nothing to prove me wrong about Scripture you are telling the whole world you have nothing but tradition and manmade beliefs.

You cannot answer the fact that both Peter and John teach Christ was a human being and that God gave Jesus power and anointed him with the Holy Spirit.
You cannot bear the truth like those Stephen spoke to before he was stoned.
John warning people that Jesus Christ came in the flesh. Because as Jews they knew the truth about the Messiah.

HERETIC is more befitting of you because your beliefs are not biblical and you have no way of producing anything from the OT which says the Messiah would be God made man. Even Luke tells you that God through an angel told Mary that Christ being a Holy Thing...that he was to be called the Son of God.

You ignore the things written for a manmade belief which started out even at the time of the disciples preaching. But the disciples DID NOT TEACH but warned against it.

The faith confirmed by the holy councils is the faith of the Apostles taught to them by Christ himself. You are no better than a Marcionite in rejecting the scriptures that disagree with you and you are a follower of men in your Arian beliefs. Quite frankly your Christ, which is not the Christ of the scriptures, cannot save you.

Nor can yours if you need saving from anything!

[ad_orientem]

Sola scriptura is bullshit and btw I'm not a Roman Catholic. The scriptures cannot be understood apart from the life of the Church, which is the work of the Holy Spirit confirming the faith of the Apostles.

... he asserted, with authority. However, the Pope just as firmly asserted that Sola Scriptura is the dogs bollocks (perhaps not a direct quote) and he's infallible on issues of scripture, because he asserted so, authoritatively...

You see the problem we have?

O.

There is no problem if you happen to have eyes with which to see.

[ad_orientem]

Your argument is flawed. When Moses wrote the Pentateuch the writings of the prophets did not exist. Does that mean they're not scripture? The NT is scripture because the Church recognises them as such. The same goes for the OT. But then you are a heretic and so it's not surprising that you have a screwed view of the NT and most importantly of Christ, nay, you believe in some other Christ, not the Christ of scripture.

On this occasion I'm with Sassy.

What you have basically said is that you believe in the theology of the church, which was invented to explain the things they didn't have answers for.

Like how Christians can worship one God if Jesus was in some way God.

IMO the Jesus of the "scripture"  isn't the one invented by the church either.

Sassy has as much chance of getting it right as anyone else.

It's all POV and opinions.

The "theology of the Church" comes straight from the Apostles who were taught by Christ himself but, of course, you first have to discern where the Church is.

No it doesn't, that's just what you have been told to believe.  No one in the NT gives any indication that Mary mother of Jesus was in any way special apart from being his mum, Jesus didn't make her one of his disciples.

In fact Jesus complains that those who knew him best had the greatest difficulty accepting his miracles.

At one point he is quite dismissive of his actual family, which leads me to believe that the "church " added all the stuff about Mary. 

Mark 3:31-35New International Reader's Version (NIRV)

Jesus’ Mother and Brothers
31 Jesus’ mother and brothers came and stood outside. They sent someone in to get him. 32 A crowd was sitting around Jesus. They told him, “Your mother and your brothers are outside. They are looking for you.”

33 “Who is my mother? Who are my brothers?” he asked.

34 Then Jesus looked at the people sitting in a circle around him. He said, “Here is my mother! Here are my brothers! 35 Anyone who does what God wants is my brother or sister or mother.”

When did you become sola scriptura? It's bullshit.

What's bullshit?

The idea that the Catholic Church might have invented some of its own traditions and Dogmas?

Or that the pope is not supposed to be able to make a mistake?

Papal infallibility is a dogma of the Catholic Church that states that, in virtue of the promise of Jesus to Peter, the Pope is preserved from the possibility of error "When, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church."[1][2]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility

History alone has shown us that the Pope is anything but infallible.

You are putting your faith in a person.

No one has ever told me how to read a bible, Ad O. And if they did I've usually disagreed with them.

That includes much of the Protestant theologies as well.

If anything I tend to read it with an open mind and with the idea that many of the answers are humanitarian and is Jewish in origin.

If anything, over the years I have come to the conclusion that in many cases it is the theology that is the bullshit.

All of it.

If God exists, and if Jesus represented God in some way, it doesn't mean human beings could explain it.

It might not even be explainable in human terms.

So I prefer to go with the basic message of Jesus, who seemed to me, to be largely talking about an ethical and fair way of life.


The bullshit, ( theology) I am happy to leave behind.

I don't need any of it.

Wild speculation most of it.


Jesus also said you needed to be like little children to get into the kingdom of heaven, which IMO rules out half a ton of wild speculation known in churches as theology and dogma.

Sola scriptura is bullshit and btw I'm not a Roman Catholic. The scriptures cannot be understood apart from the life of the Church, which is the work of the Holy Spirit confirming the faith of the Apostles.

Which takes Jesus even further away from what a Messiah was supposed to do.

Isaiah 2:4: Usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore."

Zechariah 14:9: Spread universal knowledge of the G-d of Israel - uniting the entire human race as one: "G-d will be King over all the world—on that day, G-d will be One and His Name will be One"

What has that in common with how you have just described what you belong to?

The scriptures cannot be understood apart from the life of the Church, which is the work of the Holy Spirit confirming the faith of the Apostles.

What you are describing is something which has its faith firmly rooted in things people tell you to believe, that cannot be worked out in anyway from what Jesus has actually said.

It sounds controlling Ad O.

You can't think your own thoughts on something but have to accept other people's?  ( not Jesus, not God, but your particular church's "take" on it.)

As I said, the proof is there in the life of the Church, but you need eyes to see, otherwise you are lost in the dark. Christ founded his Church precisely so that we might know where to go, a light in the darkness so that we might not be overcome by that darkness.

[Leonard James]

The scriptures cannot be understood apart from the life of the Church, which is the work of the Holy Spirit confirming the faith of the Apostles.

The non-existent leading the gullible.