'Bad Religion'

[JayPierce]

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
You keep leaving out vital parts of the Scriptures you quote. Matthew 5:18, Jesus said “I did not come to destroy, but fulfill”
[/quote]

So, the law and prophets were not destroyed. They still exist. Glad we concur.[/quote]

The teachings of the prophets were fulfilled and still stand as proof that Jesus is the Messiah.

The law stands because "The Law and the Prophets were until John; since then, the good news of the kingdom of God has been proclaimed, and everyone is strongly urged to enter it. But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one stroke of a letter in the law to drop out.

He told this to the Pharisees (clergy) who were lovers of money, when they were scoffing at him for saying that you can’t be a slave to both God and money

[quote]So how much is a tithe supposed to be, and to whom should it be paid?

Tithe = 10 percent.[/quote]
Prove it. With scripture.

[quote]I’ll go with what Jesus said “sell that thou hast, and give to the poor”

Have you done this? [/quote]
Matthew 6:3. That is none of your business.

[Karado]

Hard Pill to swallow eh’ Brother Chris? Just because it’s sounds strange doesn’t automatically
qualify it as you put it, “Blaspheme”…why EXACTLY is it Blasphame? Enlighten us a bit, will
ya?
Where is YOUR strong scriptual evidence for us that the “Sons Of God” in Genesis 6, or in all of the O.T.
for that matter, was NOT refering to Angels?

[Headhunter]

I wish that the churches were dependent on me, for tithing.

[KingKai25]

[quote]Karado wrote:
Hard Pill to swallow eh’ Brother Chris? Just because it’s sounds strange doesn’t automatically
qualify it as you put it, “Blaspheme”…why EXACTLY is it Blasphame? Enlighten us a bit, will
ya?
Where is YOUR strong scriptual evidence for us that the “Sons Of God” in Genesis 6, or in all of the O.T.
for that matter, was NOT refering to Angels?
[/quote]

You are extrapolating WAAAAAYYY too much out of that passage. Yes, the Sons of God in Genesis 6 can refer to supernatural beings (particularly the members of the heavenly council, NOT servile messengers); that was a common use of the phrase in the Hebrew Scriptures, and many “early” (early being 3rd century B.C-2nd century A.D. - still centuries after Genesis was composed) interpreters understood the story as a discussion of sexual relations between supernatural beings and human women. HOWEVER, the fact is that ancient Near Eastern kings were also referred to as Sons of Gods in their respective languages, and given the early date and provenance of Genesis’ composition, it is just as likely that Sons of God refers to human kings.

Furthermore, even if “Sons of God” refers to supernatural beings, the fact remains that their progeny are explicitly referred to as “men” (anashim in Hebrew). Moreover, to the construct aneshe (men) is added hashem (“the name”), and thus the phrase is best translated, “the famous men.” The Nephilim are NOT Sphinxes or mermaids or any half-human, half-whatever mythical figure you can imagine; they are still counted among human beings. And the reference to the six-toed, six fingered giant is from the works of the Chronicler, not from Genesis, and should not be read back into Genesis as a characterizing trait of the Nephilim.

You need to do more studying in credible sources - real biblical scholars (not the self-proclaimed bible gurus, armed only with their KJVs, Amplified translations, and useless Hebrew dictionaries) have possessed the modicum of knowledge you actually DO exhibit for hundreds of years; the rest of your statements are utter nonsense, reflecting either way too much time watching Ancient Aliens on the History Channel or browsing conspiracy websites. Get off the internet and read some books - a good starting place is Dr. John Walton’s Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament. I took several courses with the man and can vouch for his brilliance, erudition, and intellectual honesty.

[KingKai25]

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
What I meant was after Jesus left, not book dates. The apostles rarely knew what Jesus was talking about unless he explained it to them in detail, therefore I lend little credence to their interpretations.

Basically, if Jesus didn’t say it, I’m really not interested. I know that rubs some people the wrong way, but most of the contradictions in the Bible are in the books after John’s account of the Gospel.[/quote]

I see, so God gave you the charism of infallibility.[/quote]
Me? No. Jesus? Yes. Peter? Paul? Simon? I don’t know for sure, so I follow Jesus. Can’t go wrong that way.

See Tirib, this is a logical conclusion of denying that the Church is the channel of salvation. Round of applause to Luther, he was so obedient and an example to our youth!

John 14:6 “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me”

Now you give me a direct quote that proves that the church is the way to the Father.[/quote]

Wow… I am literally stunned by your comments, dude. Your reading of Scripture is superficial at best, and your reliance on the KJV is a major weak point. That translation needs to be put aside as the historical significant but nevertheless flawed relic it is.

So in your mind, Jesus is infallible, but his apostles were not. Working under this assumption, you only consider the gospels authoritative, not the epistles. Here are three big problems with your previous statements (including your denigration of the apostles’ ability to understand Jesus)…

(1) You fail to recognize any difference between the pre and post resurrection discernment of the apostles. Before Jesus’ death, his followers expected the institution of the Messianic kingdom on earth through the Messiah’s conquering of foreign forces. The death and resurrection of Jesus (as recognized through his post-resurrection appearances and CONVERSATIONS with his followers) incited a fundamental paradigm shift for the apostles, causing them to see all of Jesus’ past teaching differently. In short, they were finally ready to listen.

(2) Jesus purposefully equipped his disciples in two ways, first by opening their minds to a REAL understanding of the Scriptures (Luke 24:45), and secondly by sending them the Holy Spirit with the promise, “the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, WILL TEACH YOU ALL THINGS AND WILL REMIND YOU OF EVERYTHING I SAID TO YOU” (John 14:26). Thus he rendered them the authoritative interpreters of Scripture and the authoritative guarantors and TEACHERS of the church. He didn’t say, “here’s a book, morons - do your best.” Instead, He promised them he would give them the Spirit who would teach them everything! These aren’t the same guys who ran away when he was crucified, dude.

(3) Did first century Palestinian Jewish peasants speak Greek well enough for one to teach in the language and expect to be understood by his (often enormous) crowds? NO. Jesus would have spoken Aramaic. However, the gospels are written in Greek. More importantly, the gospels aren’t transcripts; they were written decades after Jesus’ ascension by men who INTERPRETED his sayings, both in the act of translating his sayings from Aramaic into Greek (translation IS interpretation) and in organizing them into narrative frameworks (i.e., the gospels). Moreover, the gospels are not independent compositions; one of them came first and became the template for two of the others (and was likely consulted by John). And John’s gospel in particular is HIGHLY interpretive, not only in its organization of material, but even its depiction of Jesus’ sayings. You don’t find it odd that Jesus sounds A LOT like the guy who wrote 1, 2, and 3 John? The fact is, the gospels are not transcripts of Jesus’ sayings nor exhaustive enumerations of his deeds; they are selective treatments of a handful of deeds and a handful of INTERPRETED sayings. THe point is, your idea that you can rely on the words of Jesus alone, as if you have unmediated access, is ludicrous. The historical Jesus (while, I believe, being depicted truly) is filtered through the apostles. You cannot escape them. Consequently, if their further interpretations of Jesus’ teachings, as represented by their epistles, are not authoritative, then neither are the gospels, because the gospels are ALSO interpretation.

I believe the gospels are authoritative (and by definition, interpretive) depictions of the life of Jesus. If you believe that, then you have no basis for denying the authority of the epistles. If you don’t, then you have no grounds for accepting the words of Jesus as depicted by Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John.

[system]

Oh boy! This is shaping up into another one of PWI’s fine fine belief bashing threads! And why not? With a title like ‘Bad Religion’ there’s enough to go around and cover everybody! So why do the posters only bash the ‘other guy’? They don’t see the log?

[orion]

[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:
Oh boy! This is shaping up into another one of PWI’s fine fine belief bashing threads! And why not? With a title like ‘Bad Religion’ there’s enough to go around and cover everybody! So why do the posters only bash the ‘other guy’? They don’t see the log?[/quote]

Yeah well, this is pretty much a belief bashing subforum.

[Severiano]

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
What I meant was after Jesus left, not book dates. The apostles rarely knew what Jesus was talking about unless he explained it to them in detail, therefore I lend little credence to their interpretations.

Basically, if Jesus didn’t say it, I’m really not interested. I know that rubs some people the wrong way, but most of the contradictions in the Bible are in the books after John’s account of the Gospel.[/quote]

I see, so God gave you the charism of infallibility.[/quote]
Me? No. Jesus? Yes. Peter? Paul? Simon? I don’t know for sure, so I follow Jesus. Can’t go wrong that way.

See Tirib, this is a logical conclusion of denying that the Church is the channel of salvation. Round of applause to Luther, he was so obedient and an example to our youth!

John 14:6 “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me”

Now you give me a direct quote that proves that the church is the way to the Father.[/quote]

Wow… I am literally stunned by your comments, dude. Your reading of Scripture is superficial at best, and your reliance on the KJV is a major weak point. That translation needs to be put aside as the historical significant but nevertheless flawed relic it is.

So in your mind, Jesus is infallible, but his apostles were not. Working under this assumption, you only consider the gospels authoritative, not the epistles. Here are three big problems with your previous statements (including your denigration of the apostles’ ability to understand Jesus)…

(1) You fail to recognize any difference between the pre and post resurrection discernment of the apostles. Before Jesus’ death, his followers expected the institution of the Messianic kingdom on earth through the Messiah’s conquering of foreign forces. The death and resurrection of Jesus (as recognized through his post-resurrection appearances and CONVERSATIONS with his followers) incited a fundamental paradigm shift for the apostles, causing them to see all of Jesus’ past teaching differently. In short, they were finally ready to listen.

(2) Jesus purposefully equipped his disciples in two ways, first by opening their minds to a REAL understanding of the Scriptures (Luke 24:45), and secondly by sending them the Holy Spirit with the promise, “the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, WILL TEACH YOU ALL THINGS AND WILL REMIND YOU OF EVERYTHING I SAID TO YOU” (John 14:26). Thus he rendered them the authoritative interpreters of Scripture and the authoritative guarantors and TEACHERS of the church. He didn’t say, “here’s a book, morons - do your best.” Instead, He promised them he would give them the Spirit who would teach them everything! These aren’t the same guys who ran away when he was crucified, dude.

(3) Did first century Palestinian Jewish peasants speak Greek well enough for one to teach in the language and expect to be understood by his (often enormous) crowds? NO. Jesus would have spoken Aramaic. However, the gospels are written in Greek. More importantly, the gospels aren’t transcripts; they were written decades after Jesus’ ascension by men who INTERPRETED his sayings, both in the act of translating his sayings from Aramaic into Greek (translation IS interpretation) and in organizing them into narrative frameworks (i.e., the gospels). Moreover, the gospels are not independent compositions; one of them came first and became the template for two of the others (and was likely consulted by John). And John’s gospel in particular is HIGHLY interpretive, not only in its organization of material, but even its depiction of Jesus’ sayings. You don’t find it odd that Jesus sounds A LOT like the guy who wrote 1, 2, and 3 John? The fact is, the gospels are not transcripts of Jesus’ sayings nor exhaustive enumerations of his deeds; they are selective treatments of a handful of deeds and a handful of INTERPRETED sayings. THe point is, your idea that you can rely on the words of Jesus alone, as if you have unmediated access, is ludicrous. The historical Jesus (while, I believe, being depicted truly) is filtered through the apostles. You cannot escape them. Consequently, if their further interpretations of Jesus’ teachings, as represented by their epistles, are not authoritative, then neither are the gospels, because the gospels are ALSO interpretation.

I believe the gospels are authoritative (and by definition, interpretive) depictions of the life of Jesus. If you believe that, then you have no basis for denying the authority of the epistles. If you don’t, then you have no grounds for accepting the words of Jesus as depicted by Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John.[/quote]

What about all the other gospels that are left out? It would seem like the account of all the apostles would be important so we could get a solid understanding, but noooo, the gnostics and other sects of Christians were killed off for not believing correctly.

Do you think Christ would want us giving our money to an ostentatious organization like the Catholic Church? The same one that went out of it’s way to relocate and hide priests from prosecution after they molested and raped little children?

[Khazad]

“Now you give me a direct quote that proves that the church is the way to the Father.”
Here you go:

“7 And Jesus answered him, <<Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock[b] I will build my church, and the gates of hell[c] shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed[d] in heaven.>> 20”
MT 16,17-19

[JayPierce]

Ok, so then why did the church itself brand Peter a heretic? Why is that the only mention of those words out of the accounts of that moment, if those words are so important?

You keep following the Apostles. I’ll keep following Jesus.

[JayPierce]

[quote]Severiano wrote:

What about all the other gospels that are left out? It would seem like the account of all the apostles would be important so we could get a solid understanding, but noooo, the gnostics and other sects of Christians were killed off for not believing correctly.

Do you think Christ would want us giving our money to an ostentatious organization like the Catholic Church? The same one that went out of it’s way to relocate and hide priests from prosecution after they molested and raped little children?

[/quote]

Exactly. Did you know that the Gospel According to Peter included an eye-witness account of the Resurrection? Did you know that Peter’s account was left out solely because he said that during Jesus’ torture, He ever appeared to be in pain? Because that fact somehow diminishes Jesus’ suffering for our sins?

There are verses from the apostles that contradict the words of God and Jesus, even outright defiance to the instructions given by Jesus Christ. Paul even says, in I Corinthians 19, that circumcision and uncircumcision is nothing but the keeping of the commandments of God. And again, in 34-36, that it is OK to marry your daughter if she is past marriageable age and you just can’t help yourself.

So Paul trivializes obedience to God, yet the church follows his lead?

[Tiribulus]

[quote]JayPierce wrote:<<< You keep following the Apostles. I’ll keep following Jesus. [/quote]Jesus commissioned the Apostles, and by direct extension His church, to authoritatively represent Him after His ascension. The church is His body and bride in the earth over which He is the head. There is no such thing as following Jesus while repudiating His church. (Here comes Christopher =] ) “Church”, the usual rendering of the Greek word “ekklesia”, meaning a body of folks called out and or apart for a purpose. It is a compound from a couple others I won’t get into and has a rich etymology in the ancient Greek speaking world. A person who refuses communion with His Church refuses communion with Christ Himself. (Christopher is beating his head on his keyboard now =] ). The difference between protestants and Catholics (big C Chris) is how this ekklesia is constituted and manifested in the Earth. NOT whether communion with her is commanded. The “CHURCH” in my view was formally founded in time, in the 12th chapter of the book of Genesis with God’s initiating of His covenant with Abraham which is gloriously fulfilled in every way and on every level in the divine incarnation, person and work of Jesus Christ of Nazareth. His “Church” IS the continuing fulfillment of that covenant and allll that that means which, I highly suspect, is vastly more than you realize my friend. I could write for 10 more pages and barely scratch the surface. Literally. OR… you could just seriously study the rest of the new testament (along with the old). Romans, Galatians, HEBREWS!!! WooooHOOOO!!! You just might see what Jesus was actually ALLLLLL about. His entire ministry took place under the OLD covenant and was itself announcing the new which we get from, yessir, the apostles.

[JayPierce]

So again, if the apostles are infallible, and Peter is the rock upon which Jesus built his church, why was it that Peter was branded a heretic by the church and his book was thrown out of the Bible?

[Tiribulus]

JayPierce wrote:So again, if the apostles are infallible, and Peter is the rock upon which Jesus built his church, why was it that Peter was branded a heretic by the church and his book was thrown out of the Bible?[/quote]Peter IS NOT the rock upon which the Church of Christ is built. Christ Himself is. Peter was not EVER branded a heretic. He slipped into some judaizing legalism for a minute and was straightened out by Paul. Peter gave the “inaugural” sermon after the bestowal of the Holy Spirit in the 2nd chapter of the book of the acts of the apostles. (read that book too) He was EXACTLY the bungling boneheaded type of man God just LOVES to show off through. I AM NOT beating you up. Truly I’m not. You are simply misinformed. There is no such thing as “just me n the Lord, I don’t need no church”. Ephesians 4:11-16 NIV[quote]11-It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, 12-to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up 13-until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ. 14-Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming. 15-Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ. 16-From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work. . >>>

[JayPierce]

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Jesus commissioned the Apostles, and by direct extension His church, to authoritatively represent Him after His ascension. The church is His body and bride in the earth over which He is the head. There is no such thing as following Jesus while repudiating His church.
[/quote]
Here we are again.

John 8:12 “I am the light of the world. Anyone who follows Me will never walk in the darkness but will have the light of life.” No mention of the Church.

And what did he specifically tell the apostles to do? Mark 16:15 “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation.” THE GOSPEL!! Not “what you think”, not “what you have interpreted”. THE GOSPEL!! The story and the teachings of CHRIST HIMSELF!!

He also specifically told them that they must not rule over anyone. Luke 22:25 “The kings of the Gentiles dominate them, and those who have authority over them are called ‘Benefactors.’ But it must not be like that among you. On the contrary, whoever is greatest among you must become like the youngest, and whoever leads, like the one serving.”

These are not my words, but the words of Christ Himself. Words that were disobeyed by the same apostles you accept as infallible.

[JayPierce]

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

JayPierce wrote:So again, if the apostles are infallible, and Peter is the rock upon which Jesus built his church, why was it that Peter was branded a heretic by the church and his book was thrown out of the Bible?[/quote]Peter IS NOT the rock upon which the Church of Christ is built. Christ Himself is. Peter was not EVER branded a heretic. He slipped into some judaizing legalism for a minute and was straightened out by Paul. Peter gave the “inaugural” sermon after the bestowal of the Holy Spirit in the 2nd chapter of the book of the acts of the apostles. (read that book too) He was EXACTLY the bungling boneheaded type of man God just LOVES to show off through. I AM NOT beating you up. Truly I’m not. You are simply misinformed. There is no such thing as “just me n the Lord, I don’t need no church”. Ephesians 4:11-16 NIV[quote]11-It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, 12-to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up 13-until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ. 14-Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming. 15-Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ. 16-From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work. . >>>

[/quote]

You are wrong. I am not talking about him stumbling while he was alive (although, that does speak to his fallibility).

Do some research on the Docetic Heresy. Peter was branded a heretic and his account of the Gospel was thrown out by Serapion in the late 2nd century

[Tiribulus]

I am telling you ahead of time. Not to be an ass, this is going to get embarrassing for you if you continue this way. Very little to do with me, but it is. Believe what you want, but what you are espousing here is not the gospel of Jesus Christ or the Christian faith.

[JayPierce]

The story of the life and teachings of Jesus Christ is indeed the Gospel. I am not quoting my own words, but the words of Christ Himself, as I said before. If anything written by anyone in this world contradicts the words of Christ, it is wrong. If you do not agree with the words of Christ, you are wrong. There is no other way to say it.

A quote from Isaiah, which Christ himself quoted: Isaiah 29:13 “Because these people approach Me with their mouths to honor Me lip-service - yet their hearts are far from Me, and their worship consists of man-made rules learned by rote.”

Stop following the words and rules of men.

[KingKai25]

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
What I meant was after Jesus left, not book dates. The apostles rarely knew what Jesus was talking about unless he explained it to them in detail, therefore I lend little credence to their interpretations.

Basically, if Jesus didn’t say it, I’m really not interested. I know that rubs some people the wrong way, but most of the contradictions in the Bible are in the books after John’s account of the Gospel.[/quote]

I see, so God gave you the charism of infallibility.[/quote]
Me? No. Jesus? Yes. Peter? Paul? Simon? I don’t know for sure, so I follow Jesus. Can’t go wrong that way.

See Tirib, this is a logical conclusion of denying that the Church is the channel of salvation. Round of applause to Luther, he was so obedient and an example to our youth!

John 14:6 “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me”

Now you give me a direct quote that proves that the church is the way to the Father.[/quote]

Wow… I am literally stunned by your comments, dude. Your reading of Scripture is superficial at best, and your reliance on the KJV is a major weak point. That translation needs to be put aside as the historical significant but nevertheless flawed relic it is.

So in your mind, Jesus is infallible, but his apostles were not. Working under this assumption, you only consider the gospels authoritative, not the epistles. Here are three big problems with your previous statements (including your denigration of the apostles’ ability to understand Jesus)…

(1) You fail to recognize any difference between the pre and post resurrection discernment of the apostles. Before Jesus’ death, his followers expected the institution of the Messianic kingdom on earth through the Messiah’s conquering of foreign forces. The death and resurrection of Jesus (as recognized through his post-resurrection appearances and CONVERSATIONS with his followers) incited a fundamental paradigm shift for the apostles, causing them to see all of Jesus’ past teaching differently. In short, they were finally ready to listen.

(2) Jesus purposefully equipped his disciples in two ways, first by opening their minds to a REAL understanding of the Scriptures (Luke 24:45), and secondly by sending them the Holy Spirit with the promise, “the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, WILL TEACH YOU ALL THINGS AND WILL REMIND YOU OF EVERYTHING I SAID TO YOU” (John 14:26). Thus he rendered them the authoritative interpreters of Scripture and the authoritative guarantors and TEACHERS of the church. He didn’t say, “here’s a book, morons - do your best.” Instead, He promised them he would give them the Spirit who would teach them everything! These aren’t the same guys who ran away when he was crucified, dude.

(3) Did first century Palestinian Jewish peasants speak Greek well enough for one to teach in the language and expect to be understood by his (often enormous) crowds? NO. Jesus would have spoken Aramaic. However, the gospels are written in Greek. More importantly, the gospels aren’t transcripts; they were written decades after Jesus’ ascension by men who INTERPRETED his sayings, both in the act of translating his sayings from Aramaic into Greek (translation IS interpretation) and in organizing them into narrative frameworks (i.e., the gospels). Moreover, the gospels are not independent compositions; one of them came first and became the template for two of the others (and was likely consulted by John). And John’s gospel in particular is HIGHLY interpretive, not only in its organization of material, but even its depiction of Jesus’ sayings. You don’t find it odd that Jesus sounds A LOT like the guy who wrote 1, 2, and 3 John? The fact is, the gospels are not transcripts of Jesus’ sayings nor exhaustive enumerations of his deeds; they are selective treatments of a handful of deeds and a handful of INTERPRETED sayings. THe point is, your idea that you can rely on the words of Jesus alone, as if you have unmediated access, is ludicrous. The historical Jesus (while, I believe, being depicted truly) is filtered through the apostles. You cannot escape them. Consequently, if their further interpretations of Jesus’ teachings, as represented by their epistles, are not authoritative, then neither are the gospels, because the gospels are ALSO interpretation.

I believe the gospels are authoritative (and by definition, interpretive) depictions of the life of Jesus. If you believe that, then you have no basis for denying the authority of the epistles. If you don’t, then you have no grounds for accepting the words of Jesus as depicted by Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John.[/quote]

What about all the other gospels that are left out? It would seem like the account of all the apostles would be important so we could get a solid understanding, but noooo, the gnostics and other sects of Christians were killed off for not believing correctly.

Do you think Christ would want us giving our money to an ostentatious organization like the Catholic Church? The same one that went out of it’s way to relocate and hide priests from prosecution after they molested and raped little children?

[/quote]

Yes, PLEEEASE bring up more of your pop religious history references. The “other” gospels? Only four gospels were written in the first century A.D. by the figures to whom they were attributed; the others all come from THE SECOND CENTURY (most of them using the original four gospels as a basic template), are pseudonymous (meaning they claim to be authored by people who were dead at the time of composition), incorporate countless anachronisms, and were generally created specifically to provided support to specific heresies. They are NOT legitimate historical witnesses; a handful of pseudo-scholars, craving attention, have attempted to argue that Christianity was initially composed of numerous sects, all vying for power, and that the Gnostics were one such sect. In reality, the gnostics were not a legitimate (and certainly not early) permutation; Gnosticism arose in the SECOND CENTURY A.D., not in the first, and it was a syncretistic movement (i.e., it was an attempt to harmonize Christianity with Platonic thought).

And as far as “killing off the Gnostics,” you need to read some credible sources. This is the typical uneducated nonsense you put up, Severiano. THe church of the second and third centuries A.D. (the Gnostic heyday) did not possess the power to execute ANYONE; they would simply force the dissenters to leave the orthodox communities. THe dissenters left and would have formed their own groups, but because of the nonsense they taught, the Gnostics mostly died out on their own.

[Tiribulus]

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
The story of the life and teachings of Jesus Christ is indeed the Gospel. I am not quoting my own words, but the words of Christ Himself, as I said before. If anything written by anyone in this world contradicts the words of Christ, it is wrong. If you do not agree with the words of Christ, you are wrong. There is no other way to say it.

A quote from Isaiah, which Christ himself quoted: Isaiah 29:13 “Because these people approach Me with their mouths to honor Me lip-service - yet their hearts are far from Me, and their worship consists of man-made rules learned by rote.”

Stop following the words and rules of men.[/quote]I see you pulled that quote from Matt 16 that you edited in. That was not a good idea. Let’s take just these words of Jesus Himself. “I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it”. Forget about Peter for a minute. What does he mean He will build HIS CHURCH and the gates of hades will not prevail against THAT. "Church there is indeed the accusative feminine singular form of the word “ekklesia”. The matching article along with the possessive pronoun that precede it would make it read something like “the church of me (or mine)”, “my church” in our English. His majesty’s koine Greek is one million times better than mine ever was at it’s best which it isn’t even that now. I suspect the article has some significance that doesn’t translate well into English, but he would know better than I would. The bottom line is. What about this “church” of His that He’s building and, unlike individuals will overcome the gates of hell. (Yes, I stated it that way on purpose KK) His highness also beat me to the gospel of Peter thing with Severiano. Not Peter’s work.