Heathen Dawn

Sometime it pays to be of a different background. Those of a Christian background invariably start reading the NT from the book of John, a move that is designed to lead them to one of the mainstream churches, Catholic or Protestant. But when I first read the NT, I did it of my own accord, with no-one to guide me, so I started just as I would start any other book: from the beginning. I started with the three synoptic gospels. And just as starting with the book of John forever taints the perspective of those from a Christian background, even years after leaving, my reading has tainted mine. That sort of reading has led me to believe that none of the churches of today are what Jesus had in mind, and that indeed Jesus and Christianity are two different things.

Matthew 21:12 tells us of Jesus coming to the temple and disrupting the salesmanship going on there. It is clear disapproval: the Kingdom is to be not of this world, and even the guise of spiritual expenditure doesn’t pass muster. But the Catholic Church has done that all the time, levying money from the faithful in order to make towering church building, gold chalices, precious vestiments for the priests and so on. They have made getting to heaven a business. Not that Protestant ministers are free of that (more later on), but the Catholic Church came first in that, and honed it to perfection. The Catholic Church cannot be considered to be the followers of Jesus, for they are the followers of the sellers at the temple.

And now Protestantism: Matthew 7:21 has it that Jesus says that calling him Lord is not enough to make it to heaven; one has to do his will, follow his commands, perform the works he prescribes. But the Protestants have little use for the words of Jesus, instead preferring Paul, who in Romans 10:9 says that if you say with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in his resurrection then you will get to heaven. And indeed Protestantism’s central doctrine of salvation by faith alone is an outright repudation of Jesus in Matthew 7:21: Protestantism has it that all you need to get to heaven is call Jesus Lord; even better, it says that any denial of this is a denial of Jesus himself! What a perversion.

On that vein, Matthew 19:24 and Mark 10:25 and Luke 18:25 are all agreed that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get to heaven. Now this is a scary thought: we know of Pat Robertson, for example, how rich he is, with mansions galore. He is one of those of whom Jesus says will find it very hard to get to heaven. But if you ask most Protestant Christians, they’ll say he’s saved and heaven-bound. And why? Because he’s accepted Jesus as Lord and Saviour (as per Romans 10:9), and all those who do that are heaven-bound. Then it is obvious that it is not at all difficult for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God, anyway no more difficult than for any other person. Then what Jesus said about its being easier for the camel to go through the eye of a needle was an out and out lie. He also said (Matthew 19:21, Luke 12:33) that perfection is achieved by selling all one’s possessions. Mr Robertson hasn’t done that, clearly because it’s so much more appealing to think you get to heaven by saying unto Jesus “Lord, Lord!” than departing from all that wealth. Therein is proof that Protestants too cannot be considered to be followers of Jesus. They pay lip-service to sola scriptura, but after translating the text for the natives they don’t leave it to them and go away, they sit with them starting with the book of John, and guiding them to a “correct reading” of everything written.

For if anyone read the Bible without that prior steering, their chances of becoming a Catholic or Protestant would be like those of winning the lottery.

fromdownunder

Why Matthew? Mark was the earliest Gospel by a good 10 years.

Matthew and Luke were both based on Mark and Q and possibly other sources, and all three were written at least, at a minimum, about forty years after Jesus was supposedly crucified and at least 20 - 25 years after the letters that we can definately attribute to Saul of Tarsus..

Norm.

Heathen Dawn

Beginning = beginning of the book, not chronologically first. Matthew is the first book of the NT you see when you open the NT. I’m not talking here about the scholarly point of view, I’m talking about the plain reading of the man in the street.

Clivedurdle

I would recommend an attempt in the order they were possibly written, in a translation like the New English Bible.

What about this?

Hebrews/ Revelation
Accepted Paul
Gospels Acts
Other epistles.

But why only these?

What about Didache, Thomas and many more?

(Hebrews and Revelation are important because of the Jewish stuff in them)

Heathen Dawn

*sigh*

Carry on without me, scholarship junkies.

I should have posted it on GRD.

fromdownunder

Clivedurdle

We are going off topic, but as far as I understand, Thomas was very late (at least 150 - 200 CE). I have actually read a translation.

Revelation, as you are probably aware, got into the Bible as we know it by a very few votes, and authorship is highly doubtful.

But as far as I can understand, the original author of this thread is arguing that the Bible should be read in order, which is the point you made. But, (and there is always a but) the creator of the thread has simply decided that the sequence of the NT books is relevant, and has disregarded when they were written.

This is simply another theist error, deliberate or otherwise to justify personal belief in order to rationalise their own beliefs at the expense of those who, according to them, are not "real Christians".

Norm.