What is the Good News to a Secular World?

[timothyu]

You have been arguing that the Church lost its vision of the spiritual kingdom of God when it went from being Jewish to Gentile. But now you admit that the Jews did not have the vision of the spiritual, either. And your comeback is that two wrongs don't make a right????

No, when it went from Kingdom back to the kingdoms of man.

 

[timothyu]

I am starting to realize how radical you are. You do sound like you are advocating something that sounds like a form of the New Age Movement.

No just putting forth the Gospel of the Kingdom. Of course that was seen as radical in it's time also. Man doesn't change when faced with God's truth over man's truth. The institutions/governance of man model each other. God's Kingdom stand alone in it's identity.

I noticed that you avoided my sex question.

Because it has nothing to do with the OP but I do believe in a proper union and holding to commitments. That falls under loving all as self.

Do you go to church every week?

No.. not feasible. If course neither is it necessary as real church is people in servitude to each other, not through a middleman like the Pharisees/Sadducees insisted upon..

 

[packermann]

Final canonization means nothing. That's like a talentless recording studio picking out a greatest hit album of a talented musician.

That is an argument from analogy, which is a poor argument. It is not a recording studio. It is not an album. It is not a talented musician.

Picking out the greatest album is subjective. It is a matter of taste. Picking out four gospels out of 19 is not a matter of taste. It is a matter of truth. And besides, the easier the canonization is, the easier it would be for a corrupt church to select the false gospel over the true one.

 

[timothyu]

And besides, the easier the canonization is, the easier it would be for a corrupt church to select the false gospel over the true one.

As I said the canon was all but established before Constantine. But it would have to include Kingdom so they could build their own and call it God's will.

 

[packermann]

No, when it went from Kingdom back to the kingdoms of man.

Then a Gentile church is irrelevant. You were making a big deal about this happened because the Church became Gentile. You are always moving the goal post.

 

[packermann]

As I said the canon was all but established before Constantine. But it would have to include Kingdom so they could build their own and call it God's will.

"all but" is a loaded term. But be that as may, if the Church was so corrupt as you say, then how do you know that it did not change the canonization? How do you know that the corrupt Church did not forge the evidence that determine that "the canon was all but established". That is the problem with your position. If true then everything is suspect.

 

[timothyu]

How do you know that the corrupt Church did not forge the evidence that determine that "the canon was all but established". That is the problem with your position. If true then everything is suspect.

Canon is irrelevant. What is in the scripture is what matters and that is Kingdom vs world of man. Can a church teach Kingdom of God and live in the ways of man?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Saying everything is suspect is equivalent to saying everything must be tested before accepting it.... or close perhaps anyway....

so since everything must be tested before accepting it,
then might as well acknowledge that , gently, mildly, everything is suspect
until proven for each one that it is truth in harmony with the original ...

 

[packermann]

Because it has nothing to do with the OP but I do believe in a proper union and holding to commitments. That falls under loving all as self.

The OP wanted to know how to share the gospel in a secular world. You were the one to change it to a slam against the Catholic Church. You were the one who went off-topic, not I.

I question you being a Christian at all. You are still vague on your answers. What is a "proper union"? Is a proper union just a mutual consent between adults? What commitments are needed? You do not seem to hold to a traditional view of marriage. A commitment to shacking up seems to be sufficient. I asked you to give a straightforward answer and you still respond by being ambiguous. I can only assume that you are for free love with minimal commitment.

No.. not feasible. If course neither is it necessary as real church is people in servitude to each other, not through a middleman like the Pharisees/Sadducees insisted upon..

Even a Protestant church have a pastor, a middleman. So since you reject a middleman, it looks like you do not go to a church where some middleman preaches to you what the Word of God says.

So we now know you reject the traditional church structure of all churches. You believe in some sort of "proper union" for couples, but you do not bother to precisely define it.

More and more you are sounding like a proponent of the New Age Movement. All that matters is love. I have given you enough chances to clarify yourself.

Since you do not go to church and you do not believe in a traditional marriage (you refuse to say otherwise so you force me to believe this), I think that most people here, Catholic or Protestant, would not even consider you a Christian at all. So why are you even on this thread?

I will give you one more chance to clarify yourself. What do see is the gospel? Is it that Christ died for our sins or is it that we should love?

 

[timothyu]

You were the one to change it to a slam against the Catholic Church

Absolutely not. I pointed out the traitorous Christian religion.

 

[timothyu]

So since you reject a middleman, it looks like you do not go to a church where some middleman preaches to you what the Word of God says.

Not if they ignore the Gospel of the Kingdom, Jesus' only Gospel.

More and more you are sounding like a proponent of the New Age Movement

YOU keep saying that but I keep telling you I'm more old school old age movement. The time of the Jesus and the Apostles and the Way. Before the gentiles took over and made it back into the image of man 's world.

(you refuse to say otherwise so you force me to believe this)

How can I force you to believe anything . You're just not wanting to hear anything but your way. I'm quite familiar with that way. Heard it for years before getting into the Gospel of the Kingdom for myself. But you are welcome to it.

What do see is the gospel?

Luke 4: 43 And he said unto them, I must preach the kingdom of God to other cities also: for therefore am I sent.

Mark 1: 14 Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, 15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.

Matthew 4: 23 And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom...

Matthew 24: 14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

Matthew 9: 35 And Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom

ETC.

 

[packermann]

Not if they ignore the Gospel of the Kingdom, Jesus' only Gospel.

You keep on saying this but you present no evidence that they ignored it.

YOU keep saying that but I keep telling you I'm more old school old age movement. The time of the Jesus and the Apostles and the Way. Before the gentiles took over and made it back into the image of man 's world.

The New Age Movement would also say that they are going back to Jesus and the apostles. All liberals do that. They say they are getting back to the real historical Jesus instead of the Christ of [the Catholic] Faith.

How can I force you to believe anything . You're just not wanting to hear anything but your way. I'm quite familiar with that way. Heard it for years before getting into the Gospel of the Kingdom for myself. But you are welcome to it.

You still refuse to answer my questions.

Luke 4: 43 And he said unto them, I must preach the kingdom of God to other cities also: for therefore am I sent.

Mark 1: 14 Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, 15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.

Matthew 4: 23 And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom...

Matthew 24: 14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

Matthew 9: 35 And Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom

Well, if that is what you define as the gospel, the kingdom of God, then the Catholic is right on.

1. The kingdom of God means that God is king. We are His subjects. That means that we must obey Him if we want to be continue to be part of His kingdom. Faith is not enough.

2. The king would be Christ. And it is customary for the king to appoint a royal steward, a prime minister, a vicar to take care of everyday business, especially if the king leaves to visit another kingdom. We Catholics believe that Jesus did just that. He appointed Peter and his successors to be that vicar to take care of business until He returns

3. Since Jesus would be king it would be natural to expect that there should be a queen. In medieval and modern times the queen has been the wife of the king. But this was not so in the Old Testament times. It was common for the Hebrew king to have many wives. They cannot all be queen. So back then the mother of the king was the queen. She was called Geborah, which in Hebrew meant "Queen Mother". So when the Jews heard that Jesus was king of this kingdom they would naturally see Mary as the queen. This is why we call Mary the Queen of Heaven - since she is the mother of the king then she would be queen. This would be totally Jewish.

A kingdom would have obedience to the king, a royal steward to the king, and the mother of the king being the queen. The Catholic Church is more into the kingdom of God than any other church.

 

[timothyu]

You keep on saying this but you present no evidence that they ignored it.

Kingdom.. God's governance versus the governance of man. They chose the latter.

The New Age Movement would also say that they are going back to Jesus and the apostles. All liberals do that. They say they are getting back to the real historical Jesus instead of the Christ of [the Catholic] Faith.

No idea about either.

Well, if that is what you define as the gospel, the kingdom of God, then the Catholic is right on.

Glad to hear it. They completely put the governance of God before the governance of man and they love all in the world as self. Yet... for some reason the Christian religion took the Adversary's offer of all this can be yours and worked together with the Empire and others since to not only rule in the same way as other governments of man over the centuries, but become a world power with human wealth and territory and became king creators themselves (wrong kings and wrong world). Something fell by the wayside and the seed became unfruitful in Christianity except for a minority within who reject the world man has made in favour of the real Kingdom and reject the same deal Christianity made as did the Pharisees with the Romans, partnership in controlling the masses

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

"The Good News"


When??? When did it first in the Bible get to be available to the gentiles?

 

[packermann]

Kingdom.. God's governance versus the governance of man. They chose the latter.

Evidence. To show from Catholic Church documents that the Church is against the governance of God.

Also, you talk about loving each other, and yet you violate one of commandments by our Lord concerning love - judge not lest you be judged. You judge us Catholics to be for the governance of man rather than the governance of God. You do not know me. You do not know what is in my heart. You do not know how much Jesus the King means to me. It is one thing to disagree with our doctrines. It is another thing to judge us not to be part of the kingdom, and therefor going to hell. This is what the Pharisees did. You call our Church a traitorous religion. I do not exactly feel the love from you.

No idea about either.

I know. Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it. Since you have no idea of the New Age Movement or liberal, it makes sense that you are repeating their mistakes.

Glad to hear it. They completely put the governance of God before the governance of man and they love all in the world as self. Yet... for some reason the Christian religion took the Adversary's offer of all this can be yours and worked together with the Empire and others since to not only rule in the same way as other governments of man over the centuries, but become a world power with human wealth and territory and became king creators themselves (wrong kings and wrong world). Something fell by the wayside and the seed became unfruitful in Christianity except for a minority within who reject the world man has made in favour of the real Kingdom and reject the same deal Christianity made as did the Pharisees with the Romans, partnership in controlling the masses

I am not denying that some, even many, in the Church hierarchy, has become worldly. This is inevitable. It is not the fault of any visible institution. The fault is in the heart (Matthew 15:18, Matthew 12:34). We are all guilty of this - all churches and all Christians. I know I am. That does not excuse it but it means that we should take the beam out of our own eyes before we take the twig out of another (Matthew 7:5). The only ones we are encouraged to judge is ourselves (1 Corinthians 11:31). I often fail at this. But I am working at it. I am trying to be harder on myself and easier on others. I can only encourage you to also work on this. Consider more the times that you have failed God and not how others have failed God. Every time we have sinned we have made a partnership with the world, the flesh, and the devil. And no one is without sin. One of our saints, St. Phillip Neri, would pray every night, pointing to himself, "Be careful, Lord. This servant will betray You." We are all traitors to God. This is because of our fallen natures.

Each one of us will be judged by the Great King in our own partnership with evil. It will go bad for us if we are easy on ourselves and harder on others.

 

[timothyu]

Evidence. To show from Catholic Church documents that the Church is against the governance of God.

I was talking of Christianity.

You judge us Catholics to be for the governance of man rather than the governance of God.

Again, I said Christianity.

I know. Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it. Since you have no idea of the New Age Movement or liberal, it makes sense that you are repeating their mistakes.

Why continually accuse me of being that which I am not? To what advantage?

I am not denying that some, even many, in the Church hierarchy, has become worldly. This is inevitable. It is not the fault of any visible institution. The fault is in the heart

As I have said all along.

 

[packermann]

I was talking of Christianity.

So you are against Christianity as a whole?

Why continually accuse me of being that which I am not? To what advantage?

You are the one to say it is a "traitorous religion". Either you meant to say that of Catholicism and Christianity, it a very judgmental, unloving thing to say. Now if you would say that we are all traitorous, including you and me, then I would agree. We all have sinned. But you did not. You accuse us, and did not include yourself, and then play the victim when you are called out on this.

 

[timothyu]

So you are against Christianity as a whole?

No, just those within who use God to justify themselves rather than change to suit His will; or defend the ways of man over the will of God. Can't have it both ways, or truthfully promote the Gospel of the Kingdom while living by the governance of man. Jesus turned down the kingdoms of this world so why not emulate?

Now if you would say that we are all traitorous, including you and me, then I would agree. We all have sinned.

We have all sinned by putting our will before God but how many of us purposely build empires and lord authourity over fellow man, defending the ways of man over those of the Kingdom?

 

[packermann]

As I have said all along.

No, you are not. I am a Catholic . I admit that my own Church has warts and so do I. But you have shown no indication that you or your Church (if you have one) has any fault or has ever given into the governance of man.

Show me just one post where you accused your own Church (if you have one) of the same worldliness. Show me just one post where you accuse yourself of the same worldliness. You are pointing your finger to others and not to yourself.

That is what the Pharisee did in Luke 18:9-14 - Lord, I praise you that I am not like this other "Christian". I have not made partnership with the world! I do not submit to the governance of man! I do not rely on institutions! I was not a traitor to God! My church never had a stand-up army!

You sound so much like the Pharisee. The man who was so quick to point the finger at others is not justified before God.

 

[packermann]

No, just those within who use God to justify themselves rather than change to suit His will; or defend the ways of man over the will of God. Can't have it both ways, or truthfully promote the Gospel of the Kingdom while living by the governance of man. Jesus turned down the kingdoms of this world so why not emulate?

Yes, Jesus turned down the kingdoms of this world. He was homeless. Do you own or rent a home? Actually, the ones who have literally turned down this world are Catholics. Did you ever hear of Francis of Assisi? He gave up EVERYTHING! He even gave up the clothes off his back. He just trusted God for his sustenance. He worked for no one. Do you work for someone? As you say, you can't have it both ways. How can you submit to the governance of man and then submit to the governance of God? Others followed him and made themselves into the Franciscan order. Or more recently there is Mother Theresa of Calcutta. She lived in poverty, being poor among the poor. She emulated Jesus. She turned down the kingdoms of the world.

Now, although the Catholic Church considers Francis and Therese as saints, the Church does not tell the rest of us that we must live like this. But you seem to be telling us that. I will listen to you if you have actually taken a vow of poverty and are deliberately living as a homeless person for the sake of the gospel. Have you?

We have all sinned by putting our will before God but how many of us purposely build empires and lord authourity over fellow man, defending the ways of man over those of the Kingdom?

Do you have a job? Is not any job contributing to empire-building of that company? Would not a ruler of a country be building an empire? Does that mean that a Christian should never run for office? Would you turn down a promotion to be a manager? If you were a manager, would you not be lording authority over men? It seems to me that, in order to truthfully promote the gospel, you should not have any job that could contribute to empire-building - which is just about any job. So, do you have a job? Did you turn down all job offers? Or do you work for some institution? Do not preach to us about emulating Jesus in His complete denial of the world unless you yourself are doing it. Practice what you preach!

Now, maybe you are practicing what you preach. Maybe you are deliberately poor and homeless, as Jesus was, for the sake of the gospel. But I doubt it. If you were poor as Jesus was then you would not have a computer to write on this forum!