ETE,
when you say Jesus didn’t become God until the 4th century this is obviously misleading. The doctrine of Christ’s divinity may have been declared in a formalised way there but the Church for the first 300 years was an underground organisation who was persecuted by the state. You can’t do anything in a formalised official way until you become formalised and official yourself.
And things are not needed to be defined unless something is prompting the need for it, such as heresies and misunderstandings with the faith.
webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/heresies.html
Look for me if Jesus’ message means anything it is more likely to be found in the continuous body of orthodox Christians that can be traced back to Christ.
From my point of view - your founder went over to the USA and learned bible studies from Protestants there and like so many before him decided that he could read the “Catholic” scriptures uniquely and decide what is true. And like a small subsection of people he then claimed to have a revelation from God to establish God’s ‘true’ church on earth, just like Muhammad and Joseph Smith.
If you are going to criticise some group for not following the bible then you 1) leave yourself open to the same charge and 2) elevate the bible to the supreme teaching authority.
do you keep holy the lords day ? do you not draw water on that day ? Saturday or Sunday or both. The OT says Saturday, the NT says now Sunday. Do you stone adulturers, do you stay away from your wife when she is menstruating. do you slay a calf once a year to God ?
If you want to criticise someone for not being the ‘true’ church by citing the bible then that applies to everybody and therefore there are no people following God. The thing is the bible is not the supreme teaching. Because basically if you do that you run into the same problems the muslims and some protestants have - that is, the individual interpretations become more important than the words, which makes God look stupid and weak and the sower of divisions and arguements.
Even if you look at the bible itself it says the ‘pillar and foundation of the truth’ is the church.
Look at it’s history. When God gave Moses the ten commandments he made him his representative on earth. Look at the last paragraph of Exodus. When Moses dies Aaron takes his place. Look at Jesus’ comments regarding the High Priest pharisees - that they “sit on the chair of Moses and should therefore be obeyed”. Look at Isaiah 22 and Matthew 16. The authority since Moses is not a book it is a people and there is a shepard to the people. It is that authority which writes and authorises the books for instruction.
You my friend, are appearing to simply quote the authorities books against the authorities themselves.
If you are upset with any ambiguous words regarding statues in the millions of words written by that authority, it would seem to be a much more obvious thing to do - to question those words or receive clarification from that authority rather than to ditch the whole history of Christianity and follow one of the many people who have decided for themselves that they know best.
The result is division and arguement. If God thinks we have made a major mistake he will tell us in a dramatic way, the same as he raised Jesus from the dead.
Simply quoting that a people, in your opinion, are not following the writings given from that people, or who are not interpreting it the right way (in accordance with you) is a very weak arguement.
It is a destructive arguement that anybody can play. It is based on the fallacy of scripture as the supreme authority, or more accurately, your interpretation of that scripture as the supreme authority.
That whole idea for me cuts at any authenticity of Christianity.
Someone tomorrow could claim to receive a message from God and tell us he/she now knows the one true correct way.
Now if they were to perform miracles and be raised from the dead in accordance with Jewish prophecies then i might take an interest. Otherwise you are making your founder out to be more successful than Jesus Christ. It is Christs actions on earth that builds the authenticity of the church. By citing him as a failure regarding the subsequant church’s apostacy, you weaken the impact of his acts here on earth. Which again cuts away at the whole basis for the authenticity of Christianity. All of these ‘break-aways’ ultimately weaken Christianity and sow division.
I would wish you to look again at the early church and take on board the Catholic responses and use your obvious zeal for God to promote his message, his church and his authenticity rather than use your gifts as a pointless mud-slinging exercise on the inheritors of the chair of Moses my friend.
Of course, you may see it differently. May God bless you.
