From Good 1 on page 12:
"My point here is that contrary to the intent of the title of this thread, to justify one branch of Christianity by disparaging another"
The title of the thread is from the video that initiated the thread. The video makes it abundantly clear that it is about biblical doctrines taught by the Catholic church.
The intent of the video you mention is to justify one branch of Christianity by disparaging another. It does this by presumably disparaging biblical doctrines of Catholics. (Once you see the incongruity, the evil, or the wrongness of the Catholic biblical doctrine, you will presumably join the rank, brand, or branch of Christianity that presumed to inform you of the problem within Catholic doctrine.)
The intent of the video imputes to you, the OP, your intentions being the same.
First, don't forget that the bible is Catholic to begin with, and without the Catholic church and it's doctrines, you would not have the bible that you have.
They would not have the bible unless it supports their doctrines.
But if you want to read the bible more closely, closer than any Catholic has read it, yah, you could probably come up with some problems.
"Course I could get a hell of a good look at a T-bone steak by sticking my head up a bull's ass, but I'd rather take the butcher's word for it." Movie quotes.
Well, some butchers did come along and did cut out six books from the Catholic bible and are now calling it a T-bone steak for Protestants, and basically every other brand, rank, or branch of christianity.
But actually it's not a T-bone steak. It's still a very close look up a bull's ass.
Jesus' teaching are there in the first 4 gospels.
There were supposedly 12 apostles, but there are only 4 gospels, which, even the catholics admit, i believe, are technically anonymous, two of which are not even directly from any of the 12 apostles.
This is how catholics prefer their gospel to be. The more remote from the source the better for them...and better for you too.
But don't forget. These gospels are Catholic, that is, they are the result of a collection of people which, at one point came to be the most powerful influencers among the many interpreters of Jesus' teachings. Those powerful influencers came to be known as the "orthodoxy" which evolved into the Catholic version of the orthodoxy.
They are catholic books, and serve it's purposes still, despite your much closer look into the meanings of the words, as you deem to ascribe to them.
When any denomination teaches doctrine that are in contradiction to what Jesus Christ the Son of God taught then they are not Christian.
(Note:"Christian" contains the word "Christ")
As far as i can tell, this is all denominations of christianity, including your eclectic mix, as well as the catholic interpretation. Those ranks that come closest are not considered christian, or christian enough, by any other self-claiming christian person or group. The groups standing near the name are not brought closer to each other by standing so close to the name. The whole culture is so fragmented that it's arguable that there is even such a thing as a christian.
But i have defined what a christian is by finding the common denominator they all share vigorously. They all deny they are Christ. To put is in southern vernacular, "I ain't Christ" is the common refrain of all denominations. From this declaration we get what i call Christ-I-Aintity. This is basically what Christianity actually is.
Jesus' teachings are the way to salvation and the only way. I am the truth the way and the Light and no one shall go to the Father except by the Son, he said
Well that's in the bible. Therefore we don't know for sure if he said it. It is, after all, a Catholic book, which serves their agenda.
But presuming he did say this, we could stick our heads up the ass of a bull in hopes to find a T-bone steak. We could look closer at the words, and we could interpret them, maybe even differently than any other christian (Christ I aint) or catholic will do.
Interpreting this your way, first, deny that you are Christ....even though it's quite clear that Jesus accepted the fact that he was Christ, and requested his followers to actually follow him. So if you follow him then you too will accept that you are Christ. That is the simplest, most Occams Razor interpretation of "except by the Son". That is, except you come to the Father as a Son, then you can't get there from here. Obviously, Jesus went as a Son. But not just any Son, he went as the Only Son. Likewise, you too much go as the Only Son.
But if we interpret this your way, then our default spin is that we deny we are the Son, following Peter's parabolic example (denied Christ three times). That, by the way, is the catholic spin too.
So as soon as you deny you are Christ, it get's complicated, and now you have to give a new spin to what Jesus meant by "I am the way". If you go down that route, you will go down the broad path, the same path as the catholic church. It doesn't matter what "way" you then decide is "the way". All that matters is you are literally NOT going on the SAME PATH as Jesus walked.
So there. I have looked closer and i have found a decent T-bone steak that any decent scholar can chew on.
I would say i'm a pretty good butcher, but then you will tell me i have to consider the context. Well yes, the context is a bull's ass.
Any denomination that tries to conceal hide change the teachings of the Son of God is potentially stopping people reaching salvation.
Well yah . True enough. If you don't understand what Jesus was talking about, you can't benefit from his teachings.
You don't understand what he was talking about until you fully embrace the concept of "follow me". Accepting Christ as his Self was Jesus "way" that he went. Not one christian has ever gone this path.
"Reaching salvation". I would prefer to frame this as escape from hell, which is the current status quo experience of anyone who does not follow on Jesus' path.
Bad interpretations of Jesus teachings, which you choose to believe, will keep you from escaping hell. This is not a bad thing if you consider staying in hell, with as many people as you can, to be your entire agenda. As far as i can tell, that is the agenda of every rank, branch or ideological child that has ever come forth from the ancient catholic orthodoxy.
""to the intent of the title of this thread, to justify one branch of Christianity by disparaging another" is a false statement, and a false charge and unsubstantiated.
I've just substantiated it.
I have not tried - nor is there a single post of mine which tries to - "justify one branch"... "by disparaging another."
You have an agenda. The catholics had/have an agenda. It is the same agenda. You can't hide inside any other branch or denomination of so-called christianity. Nor can you hide by denying you are a member of any particular branch. You will know them by their agenda.
Your reasons for clearly making false accusations against me are your own, but are:
argumentative without merit,
defamatory,
deceptive.
Readers should be able to see clearly what your motives are in disparaging catholic doctrine. Why don't you just admit who, among the other alternatives to catholic doctrine, you have allowed to be the most influential toward your current agenda?
Speaking of merit, the catholics have a concept around the merits of Christ which are defiinitely extreme left wing communistic. And this was long before Marx, but not long after Peter tried to start a commune and had two of the members killed for not contributing all of their stated prior belongings.
Every other brand, rank or branch of christianity is equally extremely leftist communistic when it comes to re-distributing the merits of Christ.
See these articles:
Treasury of merit
Imputed Justice
These are the crazy conclusions you must come to when you first deny you are Christ, against the very example of Jesus. (When you first do deceive yourself about his teachings).
