How To Understand Why We Have Bible That Confuses The Church
| Religion And Culture : Christianity Here is a real deception that has confused the church since the Bible was 'compiled' by some extraordinarily short-sighted men. Take Justin for example, writing complete rubbish in AD150 with sentiments that echoed the Roman cult of canonising everything to bind people to laws giving them authority to wage war on a free market of ideas. You can't begin to really grasp the seduction of knowledge as a thing to be worshipped above Christ Himself, until you have read some of the bogus crap written about Christ during the early development of episcopal authority over individual doctrine and a personal walk with Christ. The doctrines that have been handed down by these 'scholars' are a bit of an effrontery to Christ as King of Kings. For example, here's Justin in full sail propounding an idiotic doctrine for the Eucharist:- "For we do not receive them as common bread and common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation; similarly we have been taught that the food which is blessed by the word of prayer transmitted from Him, and by which our blood and flesh are changed and nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh" Basically, he is arguing for the divine transfer of God's substance through pieces of bread and a sip of wine and the error comes when he tries to interpret as literal Jesus' reference to His flesh and blood. The idea that Jesus, who is eternally 'I am' was 'made' by anything, makes this and many of his contemporaries very unreliable as proponents of a canon. Jesus and the word are eternally begotten not made. The bulk of Jesus' mission was to steer the hearts and minds of all men and women to feed off Him as teacher of all things spiritual and He went to extraordinary lengths to get us focussed on His words. After seeing that His disciples were not getting the message He ramped up the metaphor, switching from talking about Himself as bread, and launched into a language that was intended to 'shock' them into understanding the gravity of His presence. 'You must eat my flesh, for it is real food" etc. 'In other words, you must eat Me' He was forever saying. In order to awaken your intellect to a particular maligning influence upon the foundation of much of today's Christian theology that actually offends Christ I have to mention people like Justin who, though probably pious and devoted, nevertheless expressed an understanding of Jesus' words that is so far off the mark that it is no small wonder that many Christians today are still living and praying under the dim light of his thinking. When Jesus took the bread and wine, obviously in the tradition of the Passover so that the meaning of salvation would become apparent to them later when the Holy Spirit fell upon them, He instructed them to eat and drink his flesh and blood. What He didn't mean was to set up a ritual of eating bread and drinking wine as a symbolic act to remember Him by, which is what the ceremony has largely become thanks to these early writings. What Jesus meant by this elaborate use of His own body as bread was to raise the body of his words into the visible realm of food, to show us the truth about what He said to Adam about not eating the fruit from the 'other' tree but eating His fruit as the only source of life in the garden of Eden. God went to extraordinary lengths, humbling Himself in a way that no God should really need to, to try and get His creation to feed off the words from His own mouth instead of off each other's mouths. Adam fed off his own wisdom and off the voice of other creatures, the wrong tree, which is a practice of unbelief that the early church has been busy teaching its adherents to do since the beginning by encouraging the idea of feeding off a 'canon' instead of off Christ. Jesus kept repeating Himself, over and over again, saying 'feed off ME, listen to ME, I am your Teacher, there is no-one else, I am the bread of life, eat me, drink me!' What was the response of early Christians in the 2nd and 3rd generation under Roman influence? Their response was to 'compile' a book that diverted the believer's attention AWAY from Christ by asserting that 'all scripture is God breathed'. We now have a situation where certain men and women have been lifted up to the same status as Christ whose words have been made equal with His. This is idolatry. I pray that Christ will break the seal that has kept the Church bound in idolatry and sin for so long and release His bride to feed ONLY off His flesh and His blood, which are ther words of Christ; not the flesh and blood of men, the words of men! Until this happens, I tell you the truth, Christ cannot come to collect His bride. In fact He will not come to collect His bride while the church is feeding on words that do not raise the dead. The reason I make a point about this is to demonstrate that the men who are responsible for choosing what should and shouldn't be included in a Holy Book called 'The Bible' were men who were looking through the glass darkly, a condition that is not remarkably dissimilar from religious people not born by the Spirit of God. Like the Pharisees, who understood the letter (the form and content of religion) but not God. For example, they killed God's own flesh and blood thinking that it was Him who instructed them to kill Him because they saw a precedent for it in the Old Testament. It would have been better if the Romans had have listened to the objecting voices of other disciples of Christ who at that time argued that only the writings that should be 'compiled' as the canon were those that recorded the life and words of Christ. But the Romans had an agenda and they stuck to it. We live in an age that has largely accepted the Roman influence upon church liturgy and doctrine without any attempt to analyse why we have a book that is full of contradictions. Side by side we have 2 testimonies. In the Old Testimony we have a record of people 'claiming' that God said kill all these people and wipe out all those people, and all we have is the testimony of sinners as a credible source of God's character and will. In the New Testimony we have a record of God Himself saying 'God has not come to kill and destroy but to save', and we have a testimony of the only sinless man that has ever walked this Earth as a credible source of confirming God's true character and will. The latter fulfilled the 1st Commandment in the flesh and in death fulfilled it for those who believe, setting us free to LOVE our enemies - even unto death, not to kill them! And He gives us His promise of Eternal Life, thus making it clear that He never instructs anyone to kill for any reason whatsoever because they already have eternal life in Him. 'God is a God of the living, not of the dead'. Now this dilemma of a Bible as canon is apropos to the erroneous absolute moral position that some Christian leaders have adhered to since the Bible was compiled by men. It is a moral position that has often compelled church leaders to collude with the State in hunting down followers of Jesus and having them slaughtered in great numbers. The position adopted by leaders like Blair and Bush today, and by many Bishops, is that it is right to murder men, women and children, under 'special circumstances'. That it is right, as Christian people, as born again believers, having been washed by the blood of the lamb and made sinless, to engage in, or support the killing of, other people who are then robbed of the opportunity to receive salvation and healing from our wonderful loving Father. Imagine families in Iraq who, one day were sitting as a family, enjoying a meal together, and the next day flattened by tons of concrete and steel. If this isn't Satanic. I'm not in a position to tell you what you should believe, and neither would I ever get involved in any organisation that uses the law to enforce beliefs or values on others. This is what secular authorities do. Law is just a crutch for a religion, ideology or philosophy that can't stand up on it's own two feet without the support of force. But I am in a position to tell you that when Christ calls us out of our graves at the end of time with His words, He will not be using the words of men to judge us by. Oh No. The words of men have had their day. Jesus will not be quoting from the Bible when He returns, not according to the truth He communicated as a whole. He is the canon and the law. He has always been the canon and the law. He will always be the canon. There are lots of other canons but they'll be consigned to the pit on His day.
More bible adviceThe Bible does indeed confuse many, not just the churches. The confusion comes from men and not the Bible. Religious teachers over the centuries have allowed human Philosophy to creep into thier teaching. Since their teachings were at odds with the Bible they had to twist and confuse the Bible to fit their way of thinking. Out of this came unscriptual teachings like: The imortality of the soul. A Hell where people are tortured. The Trinity and many other teachings that cannot be proved using the Bible. So we end up being told that \"It is a great mystery\" In fact the word of God is not a mystery at all and was ment for all men to understand (why would God give us his word and not let us understand it?
 Questions about bible:
|
|
Tweet this!
