>>1435461

1/2

If you don't have faith in the Bible, then you have no business preaching, period. If you think it's been misinterpreted, then that is fine–there are plenty of different sects of Christianity that have branched off for exactly that reason. But to say "I don't believe the bible is accurate" marks you as a potential false prophet. Just where exactly would you make your changes–and where would they come from? Your feelings?

History is littered with thousands of those who would twist and/or add to the Bible to fit their agenda. Look up the Family, David Koresh, and Jonestown Massacre for just a few examples–you can find more of them preaching on the streets. These people decided that they would teach others the true meaning of the Bible, and a scant few of them are undoubtedly inspired. But for most, it didn't end well.

It would be best to start with humility. You need to put your "I believe" aside and weigh it against what was said by Jesus, because the temptation to reinterpret the Bible for one's own gain is a temptation not strictly limited to "other" people. We are all tempted by sin–when I was younger I had the same feelings you do now, and was even given a clear, inspired message that changed the course of my life–often for the worse. I did not associate it with Christianity at the time, having been raised with the freedom to choose my own faith. But as I grew older, I started to make the connections and chose Christianity, based off of what I knew to be true regarding human nature and reality. It is simply the only doctrine that could produce the prosperity we take for granted–it is the reason why the United States was referred to by President Reagan as the "shining city upon a hill."

America is exceptional because the founders rejected the rule of men in favor of God. You can see evidence of such faith throughout our laws–Christianity, when interpreted strictly through the Bible, is what gave our forefathers the humility to allow that others might be "more right" than themselves, and therefore could practice Christianity (and indeed, all religions) as they wish. But step outside the details, and you see that there is a divinely-inspired philosophy behind, for instance, the authors of the Bill of Rights: "do unto others as you would have them do unto yourself." Surely, they did not want to have their guns or free speech taken away–so they granted those rights to others, as instructed (in the form of the Golden Rule) by Jesus.

>>1471687

2/2

My suggestion is simply this: read up on history, and think critically. If the Catholic Church wanted to leave certain parts of the Bible out, then why did they elect to leave in the parts where Jesus rails against organized religion (in the form of the Pharisees and Saducees)? Can it not be easily said that everything that Jesus accused the Jews of could easily be attested to almost every large body of organized Christian religion today? In fact, I would argue that parts of the bible like Mathew 23 were likely the biggest reason for the Catholic-Protestant split–Jesus spends a huge proportion of his teachings on addressing the failings and sins of organized religion. Clearly the Catholics did not want others to have the ability to read the Bible–it's probably one of the biggest reasons why they kept it in Latin. But if they had taken out all of the parts they didn't like, then why bother obfuscating?

http://biblehub.com/niv/matthew/23.htm

While it is true that the Catholic Church omitted parts of the Bible, those parts are readily available–they're called the Apocrypha. I suggest you do some research on "canonicity" or "canonical scripture" so you can learn how the distinction was made between what made it into the Bible, and what was designated as apocryphal (personally, I found the Book of Enoch to be a revelation, and I think they screwed-up by omitting it). But make sure you do your research before you give any of the Apocrypha the same level of credence you give to the rest of the Bible, because there were often good, not-so-obvious reasons why the works were left out (such as plagiarism, date of first appearance, etc.). Indeed, if you read over some of the Apocrypha, it becomes evident pretty quickly why some of them were omitted–even back then, there were shysters looking to make a buck and pervert the message for their own gain.

I hear a lot of this "I don't believe the Bible is accurate"—type argument from Millenials. What you fail to recognize is that it is sewn into modern pop-culture. You have been taught to infer meaning where there is none (microaggressions) and ignore obvious attacks; if you are to embark on a quest for the Truth, then you need to recognize how you've been manipulated in such a way as to fill you with unfounded doubt. Take a careful look at the characters that play Christians in most pop culture–the ones that are faithful are shown as being dogmatic and stupid, whereas the ones that are charismatic invariably end up questioning their faith and engaging in sin. Actors and singers that vocalize their faith have guaranteed themselves a quick path to retirement. If you do open your eyes, you will recognize how you have been duped all your life…and the realization will fill you with righteous anger–at how you were almost denied the Truth.

If you believe in God and Jesus, and you believe that They love us, then you have to allow that their message would get to us in the way it was meant to be heard by us. If that isn't enough, you can read up on the Apocrypha. If that isn't enough, you can learn Greek and Hebrew, then translate the words yourself–pages from the Dead Sea Scrolls are displayed online. But choosing to preach based on your "feelings" and "beliefs" is an assured way to utter destruction.