False teaching by separating Scripture from Scripture

[GWH]

Weren’t they responsible for the Crusades? This wasn’t biblical.

Someone was responsible for not evangelizing the Middle East, which allowed Mohammed to convert the people to Islam, which some RC kings decided to oppose via crusades.

 

[TruthDefender]

Someone was responsible for not evangelizing the Middle East, which allowed Mohammed to convert the people to Islam, which some RC kings decided to oppose via crusades.

7 churches were started in Anatolya (Turkey), none remain. The Turks and Mongols wiped them out. Thanks to the Lord, they tried to conquer Europe, but eventually failed.

 

[rewriter]

There is also evidence that the Arabian Peninsula was evangelized. But if the church was allowed to wither, then it would be easy to overtake it.

 

[GWH]

7 churches were started in Anatolya (Turkey), none remain. The Turks and Mongols wiped them out. Thanks to the Lord, they tried to conquer Europe, but eventually failed.

Yes, but no apostle started churches in Mecca and Medina, unfortunately.

 

[Journey_man]

You also make very wild claims. I base my claims on well-documented history. I merely do not have the time or patience to spoon feed you everything that you should have learned with a decent education.

As for the church being consistent with their teachings, I suppose that is why the Council of Nicaea in 325 directly contradicted earlier councils and was in turn contradicted by later, better attended and more representative councils, only to be defended as a "greater" council which could not be contradicted as it was attended (likely dictated) by the emperor (who at the time was still a pagan) by a bishop who used thugs to assist in controlling his diocese and who also clearly overstated his own importance at Nicaea (his status there did not permit him to speak, yet he claimed to have given a marvelous speech that swayed everyone).

As for me, I consult experts widely recognized within Christian circles, quite possibly people who you admire and whose works you read. But they are awaiting my completed work, having only been made aware of fragments that they find truly insightful and inspired if damning to human based tradition.

By the way, why are you not jumping on those who attack me by contradicting clear scripture if you are such a defender of truth?

I get the sense that your theology is based on Gnosticism. I read through your posts and found I don't agree with the majority of your views.

Your theology is not systematic, it's incoherent and strange. By strange, I mean it's not not taught or held by any of the great Theologians and Bible Scholars, that I've read.

I'm not jumping on those who refute your interpretation of the "clear scriptures", because I agree with them.

 

[rewriter]

Yes, but no apostle started churches in Mecca and Medina, unfortunately.

There is no official record of any evangelism in those regions, but there is some archeological evidence in ancient graffiti from parts of the region.

 

[GWH]

There is no official record of any evangelism in those regions, but there is some archeological evidence in ancient graffiti from parts of the region.

Well, it is too bad that nobody converted Mohammed, because now Islam—like Judaism—needs a reformation to rectify being anti-Christ.

 

[Journey_man]

The true believers follow the NT pattern, only….

If you know the NT Scripture then you will know who is teaching the correct gospel.

I don't think it's wise to separate the Old and New Testaments. The entire Bible is about the Lord Jesus Christ, from Genesis to Revelation.

The writers of the Bible didn't compile scripture, into chapters, verses and OT& NT. The Bible only has one story, and it's all about the Lord Jesus period. The New Testament, wouldn't make sense without the Old Testament and vice-versa.

The Lord Jesus is the Word of God, and He is God, all things that exist were made by Him and for Him. He sustains all things and nothing can happen outside of His will.

 

[Journey_man]

But have you looked into why the Roman Catholics are so well received as opposed to many Protestant denominations? In the USA, Roman Catholics were not well received until after the Civil War. During the Civil War a high percentage of the doctors and nurses were Roman Catholics who acted to help the wounded without regards to which side they were on. The soldiers who received such help remembered. Today we see far more Roman Catholic charities operating in many third world countries providing aid without preaching attached. The people receiving the aid distinguish between aid given because it is the right thing to do and aid given as part of an evangelism program. Jesus fed and healed people because the people needed it, not to promote Himself.

My Church doesn't support any secular benevolent charities, we only support Churches and Church plants. Let the secular authorities deal with the secular world and let the Church take care of the Church. We believe in separation of Church and State.

We aren't seeking to to promote ourselves as a Church, we're seeking to promote the gospel because it's more important than food and water. We do feed our hungry and take care of our widows, it's not our job to feed a God forsaken wicked world.

 

[rewriter]

I get the sense that your theology is based on Gnosticism. I read through your posts and found I don't agree with the majority of your views.

Your theology is not systematic, it's incoherent and strange. By strange, I mean it's not not taught or held by any of the great Theologians and Bible Scholars, that I've read.

I'm not jumping on those who refute your interpretation of the "clear scriptures", because I agree with them.

I acknowledge that my theology is different, but it is not gnostic in nature. It might seem inconsistent because you are seeing just fragments, and not the bulk of underlying support. But to give you an idea of the extent of my research, I have divided my bibliography into three sections. In the first half of my section on the Bible, just up to authors with a last name beginning with "L" I am citing the following numbers of works that would be acceptable for any research paper from undergrad level in the Bible to Post-doc level, commentaries on one to three works, 49, peer reviewed articles, on a variety of related topics, sometimes just a few verses (PhD call for at least 30% of the total bibliography) 53, other more indirect sources 15.

I include passing comments by C.H. Dodd, Rudolph Bultmann and Raymond Brown that all note a strange coincidence and suggest that it is not a coincidence but part of a plan and then provide supporting evidence. If my perception of a plan is correct, it changes a lot, but also explains puzzles like the issue of women's hair in Corinthians as well as the identity of Theophilus.

Now it takes roughly 40 8 1/2 x 11 pages to set up the initial premise that we are missing something huge in the NT, and that does not even touch upon the passing comments, those come in the 5th chapter, roughly another 40 pages in.

So, if you think in terms of how many coordinated pages all my posts in here would make, do you see a potential problem in understanding what I am saying? Those few scholars who have read the first 80-100 or so pages of my work praise it and wonder where I am going with my outlined future writings. The comments include that I am more consistent than any other scholar they are aware of and how did I gain such insight. My only possible response is that it was either divine guidance or pure dumb luck, because for most of my research I was floundering.

But when I considered that Rome won the 1st Jewish War and that victors get to dictate the recorded history it became easier. The NT as we have it would not have survived unless Rome allowed it and how much divine intervention do we want to invoke to support or chosen understanding. Bear in mind that since that time, God has tolerated however many different denominations, bible translations and theologies many contradicting. He hardly seems overly concerned about maintaining the purity of our understanding of the message

 

[rewriter]

My Church doesn't support any secular benevolent charities, we only support Churches and Church plants. Let the secular authorities deal with the secular world and let the Church take care of the Church. We believe in separation of Church and State.

We aren't seeking to to promote ourselves as a Church, we're seeking to promote the gospel because it's more important than food and water. We do feed our hungry and take care of our widows, it's not our job to feed a God forsaken wicked world.

I am glad that Jesus took a different approach and fed and healed first, then presented the Gospel and established a church.

 

[GWH]

I don't think it's wise to separate the Old and New Testaments. The entire Bible is about the Lord Jesus Christ, from Genesis to Revelation.

The writers of the Bible didn't compile scripture, into chapters, verses and OT& NT. The Bible only has one story, and it's all about the Lord Jesus period. The New Testament, wouldn't make sense without the Old Testament and vice-versa.

The Lord Jesus is the Word of God, and He is God, all things that exist were made by Him and for Him. He sustains all things and nothing can happen outside of His will.

Yes, just be sure to interpret the OT in light of the NT rather than the reverse direction.

Also, realize that God’s will includes humans having MFW.

 

[rewriter]

Yes, just be sure to interpret the OT in light of the NT rather than the reverse direction.

Also, realize that God’s will includes humans having MFW.

Be careful about that though. There are many passages in the OT that were recognized as messianic prophesies in the early 1st century CE that got ignored after Jesus in favor of other prophesies that could be understood as referring to Jesus.

 

[Journey_man]

I acknowledge that my theology is different, but it is not gnostic in nature. It might seem inconsistent because you are seeing just fragments, and not the bulk of underlying support. But to give you an idea of the extent of my research, I have divided my bibliography into three sections. In the first half of my section on the Bible, just up to authors with a last name beginning with "L" I am citing the following numbers of works that would be acceptable for any research paper from undergrad level in the Bible to Post-doc level, commentaries on one to three works, 49, peer reviewed articles, on a variety of related topics, sometimes just a few verses (PhD call for at least 30% of the total bibliography) 53, other more indirect sources 15.

I include passing comments by C.H. Dodd, Rudolph Bultmann and Raymond Brown that all note a strange coincidence and suggest that it is not a coincidence but part of a plan and then provide supporting evidence. If my perception of a plan is correct, it changes a lot, but also explains puzzles like the issue of women's hair in Corinthians as well as the identity of Theophilus.

Now it takes roughly 40 8 1/2 x 11 pages to set up the initial premise that we are missing something huge in the NT, and that does not even touch upon the passing comments, those come in the 5th chapter, roughly another 40 pages in.

So, if you think in terms of how many coordinated pages all my posts in here would make, do you see a potential problem in understanding what I am saying? Those few scholars who have read the first 80-100 or so pages of my work praise it and wonder where I am going with my outlined future writings. The comments include that I am more consistent than any other scholar they are aware of and how did I gain such insight. My only possible response is that it was either divine guidance or pure dumb luck, because for most of my research I was floundering.

But when I considered that Rome won the 1st Jewish War and that victors get to dictate the recorded history it became easier. The NT as we have it would not have survived unless Rome allowed it and how much divine intervention do we want to invoke to support or chosen understanding. Bear in mind that since that time, God has tolerated however many different denominations, bible translations and theologies many contradicting. He hardly seems overly concerned about maintaining the purity of our understanding of the message

We have the complete canon of scripture, perfectly preserved in the Holy Bible. I'm not aware of anything that might be missing, in fact many books were removed because they were not inspired by God. So the 66 books are all God revealed to us, He hasn't spoken a Word in the past 2000 years. He has remained silent, so every generation has the same old Bible for instruction.

Thankfully the Church fathers have studied the Bible for the past 2000 years and our generation is blessed to have all of their combined knoledge at our disposal.
My Pastor told us, not to take anyone who claims to have found some new revelation or doctrine or interpretation, seriously. He said there is nothing more to be discovered, every verse of the Bible has been exhaustively studied and interpreted.

 

[Journey_man]

I am glad that Jesus took a different approach and fed and healed first, then presented the Gospel and established a church.

We can't match, Jesus and feed 5000 with a few loaves and fishes. He understands our limitations and loves us in spite of them.

Many followed Jesus to see if they could use Him to get free food or healing, but they hated Him and His gospel message. We don't feed God haters, we let other God haters feed them.

 

[Journey_man]

Yes, just be sure to interpret the OT in light of the NT rather than the reverse direction.

Also, realize that God’s will includes humans having MFW.

Why would I interpret the OT, in light of the NT. That doesn't seem right at all, it's like reading a book and begging at the last page, then reading it backwards to the first page

 

[GWH]

Be careful about that though. There are many passages in the OT that were recognized as messianic prophesies in the early 1st century CE that got ignored after Jesus in favor of other prophesies that could be understood as referring to Jesus.

Not sure what that refers to, but yes, interpreting Scripture is not an exact science.

 

[GWH]

Why would I interpret the OT, in light of the NT. That doesn't seem right at all, it's like reading a book and begging at the last page, then reading it backwards to the first page

Exactly what Jesus and Paul do, which is why we Christians do too.
Right to left. Otherwise one gets stuck in reverting to Judaism/perverting the Gospel.
(Heb. 7:21-10:1)

 

[rewriter]

Not sure what that refers to, but yes, interpreting Scripture is not an exact science.

At least one 1st century recognized prophesy about the Messiah is remembered in Hebrews while another in remembered in Revelation. But since Jesus fulfilled neither according to the gospels, they must not count.

Messianic prophesies of the 2nd Temple period included that the Messiah would be of the line of David, royal but NOT of the line of David, not royal but priestly of one of four different lines and that there would be two Messiahs. No single individual could fulfill all the prophesies, so some were discarded in the gospel proof accounts.

 

[GWH]

At least one 1st century recognized prophesy about the Messiah is remembered in Hebrews while another in remembered in Revelation. But since Jesus fulfilled neither according to the gospels, they must not count.

Messianic prophesies of the 2nd Temple period included that the Messiah would be of the line of David, royal but NOT of the line of David, not royal but priestly of one of four different lines and that there would be two Messiahs. No single individual could fulfill all the prophesies, so some were discarded in the gospel proof accounts.

Not sure what does not count, but some prophecies will be fulfilled at the Second Coming/Judgment.

Prophecy is not an exact science, either.
Sufficiency is satisfactory.