The New Testament: Fact or Fiction?
I recently chatted with someone who had come to the opinion that the New Testament and the character of Yahshua (Jesus) is a work of fiction contrived by the Rome to make people believe what Rome wanted people to believe. If his statement is true, then Rome has pulled off the greatest fraud of all times. Yet, even if his statement isn't true, the handprint of Rome in the Christian religion has had a tremendous influence on the forms of worship and beliefs today.
It is the very stark difference between the church as described in the Bible (including the New Testament)and the Romanized church (including protestant forms) that leads me to disagree. Many of todays practices and beliefs are not mentioned and sometimes even condemned in this collection of books and letters that he believes was only propoganda. This is likely the very reason why there was a period of time when lay people were not permitted to read the Bible at all. Why prevent these people from reading a work of propaganda that was to cause them to give their allegiance to the church? Reverse psychology? I think it was because if the laity would read the Bible themselves, they would have discovered the truth and rejected the lies they were being threatened into believing.
There has indeed been extensive propaganda, but the majority of it has come through swords and tortures, death and pain. Those who disagreed with the church were tortured into a confession or killed. Hundreds of years of coercion have been so effective that glowing hot irons and shackles are no longer necessary; most people are already blind and imprisoned although their eyes can see and their feet are free to move.
Can the New Testament be trusted? For the most part, I think so. There are always people who twist scripture, who take words out of context, so it is important to read the context, and compare related scriptures including their context to understand what is being said. Just because someone sounds convincing doesn't mean that they are teaching the truth. Test everything, and prove scripture with scripture.
It is the very stark difference between the church as described in the Bible (including the New Testament)and the Romanized church (including protestant forms) that leads me to disagree. Many of todays practices and beliefs are not mentioned and sometimes even condemned in this collection of books and letters that he believes was only propoganda. This is likely the very reason why there was a period of time when lay people were not permitted to read the Bible at all. Why prevent these people from reading a work of propaganda that was to cause them to give their allegiance to the church? Reverse psychology? I think it was because if the laity would read the Bible themselves, they would have discovered the truth and rejected the lies they were being threatened into believing.
There has indeed been extensive propaganda, but the majority of it has come through swords and tortures, death and pain. Those who disagreed with the church were tortured into a confession or killed. Hundreds of years of coercion have been so effective that glowing hot irons and shackles are no longer necessary; most people are already blind and imprisoned although their eyes can see and their feet are free to move.
Can the New Testament be trusted? For the most part, I think so. There are always people who twist scripture, who take words out of context, so it is important to read the context, and compare related scriptures including their context to understand what is being said. Just because someone sounds convincing doesn't mean that they are teaching the truth. Test everything, and prove scripture with scripture.
posted by fencekicker | 8:59 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home