• ManmothM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    When you say “what Church are you a member of” - you are looking for labels.

    I’m trying to understand your worldview.

    You talk about the age of your cult as if that gives it authority. You are looking for a way to disengage from the topic of scripture so that you can compare institutional history. This is bad faith.

    I’m starting to think you lack an understanding of church history. The “cult” of the Orthodox Church produced the scriptures you’re citing. Based on your responses I’m certain you cannot give an account for why the scriptures are inerrant much less why your interpretation is correct. Christ left us the church not a bible. The church produced the canon of scriptures after many hundreds of years being guided by the Holy Spirit.

    Early Christians might have only had one book of what we recognize as the New Testament in the first centuries following Christs resurrection. How would your worldview apply then? Early Christians engaged in liturgical worship led by an episcopate. (e.g. the churches the apostles set up in Ephesus, Corinth, Alexandria etc.) Tradition was integral to Christian life as was an episcopate that extended throughout the known world.

    Jesus was a Jewish Rabbi who taught and practiced Judaism. I follow those teachings and the scripture upon which they are based. I do follow Roman cults or the unscriptural Hellenist paganism they have added. That is the “tradition” you mention.

    Lol okay now we’re getting somewhere. When Christ died on the cross the old covenant ended, human nature was sanctified and he preached to all the souls in Hades until he was resurrected on the third day. When Christ ascended into heaven the Holy Spirit descended upon the apostles who then ministered to gentiles that they might receive Christ and enter the Kingdom of God. In 70AD the Jewish Temple was destroyed ending Temple Judaism entirely. Rabbinical Judaism which is what exists today would not reach any kind of formal existence until the 7th century.

    The Old Testament is Christian. Isaiah isn’t called the fifth gospel for no reason. Theophanies in the old testament reveal the trinitarian nature of God. Modern jews are schismatics who denied their Messiah despite Christ ministering only to jews during the life of his ministry.

    What Jesus taught is painfully simple: the way you treat others, God takes that personally. Love (respect/honor/obey/take joy in) God and love (respect/honor/obey/take joy in) others as you would God. These are the commandments upon which all other Law is based.

    God has commandments. Love is his cardinal commandment but it is paired with repentance. (e.g. faith amd works)

    Whatever else you believe is inconsequential, unless it runs afoul of those.

    Hating sin does not run afoul of loving someone. Loving each other despite our sinful natures actually what being a Christian is all about.

    Also unrepentant sin is literally the only thing God will not forgive. It’s not inconsequential which is why allowing sin in a place of worship is most egregious.

    I warn you, that twisting scriptures explicitly concerning abuse of others into something else entirely - and the biases and treatment of others result from such twisted reinterpretations - that is a danger to both you and others.

    You are the one that eschewing “labels”, using a (I’m assuming edited) bible that was received from the church you call a cult yet acting as if you have any authority to tell anyone anything. It’s peak hypocrisy.

    Woe to you, conservative politicians and religious leaders; you hypocrites! You close off the Kingdom of Heaven to others. It is not enough that that you do not enter, but you block the entrance for others trying to go in!

    Woe to you, conservative politicians and religious leaders. Hypocrites! You travel far and wide (over land and sea) to win one convert, and when you are done with them, they are twice the force of evil that you are.

    This bit kind of explains this dialog. Historical Christianity doesn’t fit the insane politics and values of today so it needs to be edited to make things like homosexuality tenable.

    conservative politicians

    Where is this in scripture?

    And honestly I have to know where you are getting this stuff please give me link.

    Edit: Also a clarification that should be made because I get the feeling you think I want to set gay people on fire or something. Homosexuals can (and absolutely should) be welcomed as Christians but part of that is repenting of sins including but not limited to anything related to acting on their same sex attraction. We all must repent. Be it envy, sloth, lust, pride etc etc

    • Veraxus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

      Where is this in scripture?

      If you don’t know who the scribes and Pharisees are, or who their analogues are today… well, like I said before, that explains everything… including your twisted, hateful, anti-Christ beliefs. There’s nothing left to be said here. The scripture is as it has always been… written black-and-white in Koine and Hebrew and Aramaic. It’s still there, unchanged. Ready to be read, as it always has and always will be. Jesus left behind the teaching… not a political institution that can just add whatever it wants whenever it wants to suit it’s purposes.

      • ManmothM
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Fair enough. Can you send me a link to whatever source you are using for this theology? (assuming you didnt just make it up)

          • ManmothM
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            2 months ago

            I have a Bible. I want to know where you get your screwball exegesis from.

            • Veraxus@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              2 months ago

              Well, if you have one you should read it some time. But since most english versions are awful at best, and deliberately deceptive at worst, I recommend the one I linked.

              • ManmothM
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                2 months ago

                Ad hominem

                Unjustified claim

                nth challenge to theological position ignored in favor of the above-mentioned

                • Veraxus@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  You asked where my plain recitation of scripture comes from, and I answered you. If you don’t like that scripture doesn’t support your wickedness, that’s between you and God, not me. That you can only attack me rather than the scripture itself is telling. 😞

                  • ManmothM
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    5
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    2 months ago

                    Ignores the term exegesis which exists because objectivity is impossible when reading historical texts

                    Doubles down on anachronistic interpretation that projects modern poltical and social climate onto 2000 year old scriptures which by own admission require anthropological awareness

                    Another ad hominem for good measure

                    Won’t touch argument about origin of the scriptural canon with a ten foot pole