Title: Francis Demonic Plan To Destroy The Church Revealed Source:
[None] URL Source:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7Obss_Gmu8 Published:Dec 6, 2021 Author:Return To Tradition Post Date:2021-12-06 06:40:18 by A K A Stone Keywords:None Views:3163 Comments:44
I'll stipulate: yeah, God exists. I've talked with him several times. He's real. And Jesus is very probably his son, and very probably divine.
None of which has anything to do with the Catholic Church, the Baptist Church, or any other church.
Jesus of Nazareth, called "the Anointed" (the Christ), lived in the first third of the First Century. Jesus himself wrote nothing.
A handful of texts (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, the first Chapter of Acts and Revelation) date from the first century, allege that they contain the words and deeds of Christ. There is nothing else from the First Century.
Some texts exist from the Second Century that also claim to contain what Jesus said and did, but they differ remarkably from the First Century text. The Churches have all rejected these writings as "gnostic". They are all fragmentary anyway.
The churches as we know them emerged in the Fourth Century, after the Roman Empire legalized Christianity and stopped persecuting in. The first church council since the biblical Council of Jerusalem was held in 325 AD at Nicaea, in modern-day Turkey. It decided that God is a Trinity, and that whoever does not accept the Trinity is not a Christian. Prior to Nicaea, Christianity was persecutved and hidden, and there was wide difference of opinion, but at Nicaea the new, legal church came together and the majority at this, and subsequent councils began to throw people out of the Church who did not agree with them.
The central feature of Christianity - the Trinity - was never taught by Jesus. Jesus speaks of God, but when he says God, he means the God the Father, to whom he prays and instructs us to pray. He speaks of the "paraclete", the "comforter", the Holy Spirit; and Revelation speaks of the "Seven Spirits of God". But Jesus never systematizes it at all.
Jesus' God is God the Father, and that is the only person he ever tells people to pray to. The entire complicated and convulted doctrine of the Trinity was made up by Christians after Jesus, and in the form it became official, hundreds of years after Jesus.
Jesus called on Christians, above all, to be united, and during those three hundred years that Christianity was illegal and persecuted, Arians , Trinitiarians, Monophysites, Nestorians, etc., etc. disagreed about many things, but they were all Christians.
In truth, those doctrines were never stated with authority, there WAS no authoritative position of "The Church" before Nicaea, and Arians and Trinitiarians were both Christians.
After Nicaea and similar councils, that was no longer true. "Christian" came to mean Trinitarian.
My quarrel with the Church does not stem from any recent enactment, but goes all the way back to Nicaea.
Jesus prayed for unity, which included Arians and Trinitiarians, until three hundred years after his death when the Church came out of the shadows,and promptly divided itself over the doctrine of the Trinity, which Jesus himself never taught, and which - in its official form - cannot be true unless Jesus was himself lying.
My religion is scrupulously listening to what Jesus said, which means that dividing over this "Trinity" is illegitimate. "Christians" say that the Trinity is THE decisive doctrine, but Jesus never taught it. Therefore, they are wrong. The Church is wrong about it. It's an overwrought and essentially meaningless hypothetical.
Going further back, Paul taught that to be forgiven sin, one had to believe in Jesus as the perfect sacrifice whose blood took away the sins of the world. But Jesus taught that the way to be forgiven sin was to forgive other's their sin against you, then God forgives you. So, Jesus and Paul conflict. I throw out Nicaea, and I throw out Paul for this very reason.
LIkewise, James taught that if you commit any sin, you commit them all, the doctrine of any sin being deadly. But Jesus taught that there are greater and lesser sins. So I throw out James and stick with Jesus.
Jude taught Enoch, a book that says the angels fell, copulated with women, caused the world to fill up with monsters, which God drowned in the flood. ENouch is about purity of bloodlines. JEsus never said a word about any of this. So I reject Jude in favor of Jesus.
John taught there were different grades of sin, venial and mortal, and he taught that there was no salvation for mortal sinners. But Jesus said that all sins would be forgiven if men forgive. So I reject John also, in favor of Jesus, where John and Jesus differ.
Peter...Peter just gave encouragement and didn't teach anything that contradicts Jesus. So, there you have it, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and the letters of Peter are not objectionable. We have to be more circumspect with the Gospel of John and the Revelation of John. The Revelation of John is, admittedly, John having a vision - it may not even be real. And it was written very late. Scholars say it wasn't John the Apostle who wrote it, but who knows. The only interesting parts in it anyway are the parts where Jesus speaks, at the beginning and at the end.
What Jesus says there can be coordinated with what he says in the Synoptic Gospels, so it can be allowed. The Gospel of John works, but the translations are very treacherous, since "divine" is translated as "God", and this has a different meaning to Christians.
All of these things are important. The Churches all went wrong at Nicaea, so the prattling and rage they have about people following their rules, or not, bores me. Jesus is their emblem, but they've mostly replaced what HE said with what THEY have decided is important. I simply reject all that and return to what Jesus said.
This makes me unpopular with Christians. So what? I don't care. Christianity as a religion is in steep decline, and Christians of different denominations scream at each other. In my own experience, lots of Baptists deny that Catholics are even Christians.
This completely fails to impress me. The Baptists are full of shit for various reasons, and so are the Catholics. Is that reason to chuck them completely?
Well, that depends, doesn't it? Each person has to come to his own conclusions. I choose to call myself Catholic and continue to go through the motions, but core Catholic doctrines like the Trinity? Silly. Not what Jesus taught.
My actual RELIGION is what Jesus taught, no more. The rest are just conventions I tolerate and don't bother to argue about within the Church, but when another denomination asserts them, I reject them for those reasons. The Catholic Church is wrong about a lot, but right, at least, about charity. Why would I leave the Catholic Church to go to some less charitable religion that is also wrong about the same things?
Like I said: it all bores me. Earnest, angry, sweaty Christians bore me. They irritate me with their arrogant wrongness.
