You can quote scripture without context all you want. Are you a seminary student? What is your qualification as a representative of God on this planet. Sadly, I am traveling this evening on business so it is hard to make a rational response, but I will tomorrow evening when I get to my next stop. As you have put a lot of effort into your writing I do owe you more than what I am writing here this evening.
I assume you are quoting 1 John 2:4 and not 1 John 2:5 - what translation is that? My NIV app has this text as "But if anyone obeys his word, love for God is truly made complete in them. This is how we know we are in him:" I think you meant to reference verse 4, correct? This is a rather cool verse, because of the content and the context of this verse. According to John, God's love is perfected in those who obey the Word of God. The term "perfected" as you know from the translation guide, does not refer to 100 percent flawless living, but rather to maturity. No one is perfect but all believers are called for growth and maturity; this is a process of perfection. And while this is expected, it is not guaranteed.

Again, I am not a Pastor or cannot go beyond my readings and the religion classes I took in college as my electives (which drives much of my interest in the history, content and context of Biblical scripture). In this context, John is speaking of a person's relationship with God. Isn't that a personal relationship? Isn't my relationship with God solely between God and myself? So I am guessing your comeback - this means that believers "ought to walk" as Christ did. But is that even possible?

As for 1 John 2:4, I do "know him" and I follow with all my heart his greatest commandment. Matthew 22:36-40

36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[b] 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

God has bless me in so many ways, successful marriage, successful family, successful business, and a successful sex life. As I have noted from your other postings, you seem to be rather extreme in your views. And while your arguments are compelling written, I believe your views are out of touch.

Respectfully, TMW

Prove that statement, not with opinion, but with a fact? Even the translation of the Bible from its original language to its interpretation is based on opinion and some facts of course. Do you have some "in" with God that grants you the power to determine that my conclusions are false? At least I am careful in my statements and never assume a broad brush stroke. So prove your assumptions and simply saying that you interpretation is the correct on is not proof, it is an assumption.

I have no idea what your point is pertaining to my saying I believe in Christ, the Great Commandment and the Great Commission? What do demons (which I believe in) have to do with my statement? And by your closing statement are you saying that Christ's covenant with believers in John 3:16 is invalidated. I believe in Christ, strongly.

It is clear that there is much interpretation of the Bible. It is also clear that Christ was very specific, especially in his view of his Great Commandment. In the Gospel of John, three times He referred to the necessity of keeping "My commandments" (John 14:15, 21; and 15:10). Those statements were clearly connected to John 13:34. And no, before you state the obvious, I don't believe that when Christ was telling us to love one another, I know perfectly well that he wasn't referring to Recreational Sex.

I think you really should put more thoughts into your argument and remember to capitalize "Christians".

No not at all.

Be glad to chat with you.

This is my favorite part of your post. It's one that I hope we continue to dialog upon. Part of the expression is intractable in a sense.

I stand strong in my belief in Christ, but I look at the specifics of what Christ said and I ignore Church doctrine. There are tens of thousands of them, how can I ever know which is right and which is wrong, and which is somewhat right or somewhat wrong.

There’s an implied question here, but you’ve structured it in such a way that it’s virtually intractable. If you’re going to be honest, then you need to consider what criteria you’re going to use make any determination. One criteria you can easily use is the following: if the Apostles came back today and looked at your church, would they recognize it as being Christian? Would they recognize it at all? Not only in ritual and practice, but more importantly in belief? If the answer is no, then there’s a very serious problem.

In ignoring doctrine, I throw the baby out with the bathwater. If I accept doctrine, then I am nit-picking concepts to form one that appeals to me. Don't want to do that. What I would like to see and am not qualified to participate in, is that someone who understands all of the issues at work here evaluates just what Christ taught, said, and how he behaved, and build doctrine only from that.

So... would the Apostles recognize any modern Church as being Christian. I would stand on the argument that they would absolutely not recognize it. And why should they? All of them and most importantly Jesus were Jewish. All of Jesus' friends, disciples, family members, and associates were Jewish. Part of Christ's actions at the temple was to point out how corrupted the Jewish community had become. Christ followed the dietary guidelines in Leviticus. One Church Pizza Party with sausage and pepperoni pizza, would certainly freak-out the Apostles. So I think there is a VERY serious problem.

The real questions is, how does Christ feel about the modern Church. As he looks upon us, what does he think? When he comes back to earth, what will he have to say about the state of affairs of his massive flock? Christ by all accounts did not come to be among us to create a new religion. He came to us as a promise for salvation. So does that make the Seventh Day Adventists right in their observance of the Jewish Sabbath, Jewish Dietary observances, blended with their spin on what Christ's Church should look like?

Final word, my husband is a physicist and computer scientist and he loves and I hate to discuss the origins of the universe. His position is that the real answer of any problem comes down to the simplest of equations -- such as the seemingly immoral E=mc2. Then he tells me that E=mc2 is not the entire equation and that it may not be 100% true - the BASTARD - I am foiled again. Oh and just to make me feel insecure, he tosses in that we really do not know what the speed of light really is. He didn't get any that evening.

I know, it was a clumsy argument. I wanted to avoid being redundant with another long post about Biblical translations and just how many there are, and the debate about what is in and not in the Bible and why.

​

This was the era when the split began between the Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox Church when the term Christianity began to appear.

Sorry, I’m not sure what this entire paragraph has to do with either my comment or your previous comment. The split between the western and eastern church is complicated. Much of it could be reduced to political and cultural, not to mention a language barrier (Latin vs. Greek).

To me the origins of the early Church are a fascinating subject. And as you point out, it was a very complex time. It was full of intrigue, politics, and Churches excommunicating each other. The ante-Nicene period created much of the foundation of Christianity, but there was so much disagreement; what was the Church? What was to be included in the Bible, and what was not in agreement with what their individual beliefs as to what Christianity is and how Christians should behave.

I grew up having memorized the Nicene Creed in early Sunday School classes and I still think it is a great expression of faith. I grew up being taught that the only true religion was the Catholic religion. That the "Bible" was universal. But there are many versions of the Bible. Dozens of translations. Then I learned there was more revisions to the Nicene Creed than I made to most term papers. When I married and joined the Lutheran Church with my husband, I learned Athanasian Creed, I just added a book on this to my Kindle.

So the point I was and am trying to make is that there was much Human Debate in the early Church and within that discord, I believe that some of what Christ teaches us has been set aside in preference of what humankind has decided over centuries on how a Christian should think, act, and value.

When I used the term polluted, which was a poor choice of words perhaps, I was just trying to express how far we have strayed from Christ's teachings, including the observance of Holy Communion.

You are right, but just because someone tells you that it is wrong, doesn't mean that its bad for you either. I can name dozens of examples; we were told that taking a Baby Aspirin once a day was good for you. Come to find out, not so much.

There are more than 200 denominations in the US, 45,000 globally. Everyone thinks they have the magic formula for salvation. There has been arguments about the Christian Doctrine, Theology, and even the role of sex in the Church since the beginning. This was the era when the split began between the Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox Church when the term Christianity began to appear. It was the ear when Christians switched the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday. So here is a question for you, are you breaking the Commandment, Remember the Sabbath Day and Keep it Holy when you don't follow the rules for it? Technically, the Sabbath that Christ observed started at sundown Friday Evening and ended at Sundown on the Sabbath (Saturday).

I stand strong in my belief in Christ, but I look at the specifics of what Christ said and I ignore Church doctrine. There are tens of thousands of them, how can I ever know which is right and which is wrong, and which is somewhat right or somewhat wrong.

My logic is simple. Christ gave us the Great Commandment, the Great Commission, he taught us how to pray, he gave us the Lord's Supper (look at how polluted that simple teaching has become).

So how I challenge everyone is... how much of what you were taught in Sunday School really matters? How much of it was a man living in the ante-Nicene era who wanted to mirror Judaism by creating all kinds of rules, incorporating Jewish traditions (which there is NOTHING wrong with that), and debating with fellow religious scholars on what is "in the book" and what is "out of the book".

And by your closing statement are you saying that Christ's covenant with believers in John 3:16 is invalidated.

I get the impression you have some lack of biblical knowledge and assume that verse is able to stand by itself when in fact it doesn't. The privilege of eternal life has multiple requirements and belief is only the beginning. And at least from what you wrote, I also suspect you think belief literally means "believing" when the Word is clear it actually means: doing.

So perhaps I am not getting your context here. You stated that I was saying in my closing statement that the covenant with believers in John 3:16 invalidates this or are you saying that John 3:16 invalidates my position?

We may need to fork this discussion depending on where this leads us. You further state that the privilege of eternal life has multiple requirements. Again, I am not a theologian, and while my reading clearly indicates that John 3:16 spawns a lot of interpretation (for example, some point to it as proof of the Trinity while others reject that idea), I have yet to read a scholarly work that states that the only minimum threshold for salvation is "through faith in Jesus". I put the later is quotes because it is a dominating phraseology in multiple publications including several Catechisms. Though I acknowledge a common difference in interpretation is the concept that deeds or belief, or deeds and belief can get you into heaven.

Capitalizing "christians" isn't my custom and I don't have any good reasons to change it now.

Then that is a simple difference in our upbringing. It was drilled into my head at a young age, that anything referring to Christ such as; Christians, Christmas, His (referring to God or Christ), He, God (verses god), all should be capitalized out of respect and acknowledgement.

But I guess this isn't important at all to the debate we are having. So thank you for your point of view on this.

I get the impression you have some lack of biblical knowledge and assume that verse is able stand by itself when in fact it doesn't.

I would be the first to admit, and frequently do state, that I am not a Pastor or a Theologian. I did take Religion as an elective in College, and found it fascinating. Having lots of time on airplanes, my Kindle is loaded with books about religion, as I find it an interesting subject. Especially the history of the Church.

My majors were in Marketing and Communications, so I have a natural love of communications and words, but that does not qualify me to conduct a sermon. But it does not disqualify me from rendering my own opinions and researching the context of assumptions made from the perspective of Church doctrine.

So should I assume that you are a Pastor, and more learned than I? I have shared my background, what is yours?

discernment

You included a lot to unpack in your statement. So I am going to chop it up a bit so I can answer it while focused on a busy day. So forgive the topical extrapolation.

So if I understand your argument, your perception is the absence of judgement is so vastly superior to my own, that you are without question, morally superior?

Discernment is the ability to obtain keen and precise perceptions. Its considered a valued characteristic in every field of endeavor. And in some areas, it is considered "Rocket Science". Sometimes an individuals process of discernment isn't fully valued for a long period of time. For example, Einstein showed a deep perception of his understanding of physics, yet it took a long time for people to recognize his discernment of the nature of gravity was in fact, the truth.

Further, are you stating that the argument being proposed is a "legal one"? I thought it was a spiritual one? Granted, where we a theocracy, then perhaps, but even the Catholic Church has changed many of its "laws" during the history of the Church and supports them all with scripture.

So how can you argue that you moral standing in this debate is based on the superiority of your ability to discern the matter at hand?

No - why would you ever draw that conclusion? Did I not say that I believe in Christ? I believe in his Great Commandment and his Great Commission. But I am quick to separate doctrine from the Gospels.

He gave us the Lord's Supper (look at how polluted that simple teaching has become).

The Lord’s Supper has become polluted? How so? Do you understand what the Lord’s Supper is?

So how I challenge everyone is... how much of what you were taught in Sunday School really matters?

I think you're asking the wrong question. A better question is: how much of it matters to you?

So I kept these two concepts together. The Eucharist growing up was a "goal" of being a Catholic youth. And of course, Christ said nothing about spending a few years going to classes and memorizing the Catechism only to find out later in life there was nothing in the Bible that said anything about good Catholic girls memorizing stuff to get to participate in drinking a little wine and unleavened bread.

Using the term polluted in the concept was a poor choice of words, but is still relative in some ways because Humankind has added so much doctrine about this one humble and deeply spiritual event. I have visited many Churches, some serve grape juice, some water, in the belief that Christ never drank alcohol. Some use loafs of bread that they tear into pieces. Christ being Jewish during pass over would have been serving unleavened bread (I had to explain to my brainiac daughter that unleavened bread was not the same as a tortilla).

So to me, this was a moment, that Christ shared with his disciples. He was teaching one final lesson. And of course, what is a simple act has driven so many variations on a theme. Should we foot wash before communion? Is Communion Open (shared with others) or Closed (should not be shared with those outside of the Church's doctrine)? Are we supposed to Fast prior to the Eucharist? Are we supposed to refrain from marital relations before the Eucharist? Should we only celebrate the Eucharist within the order of events of the Holy Week? During Passover?

Christ clearly planned ahead for the Last Supper (I usually invoke Luke for the dialog) and they were to prepare for the Passover. What I believe is that Christ share wine and broke unleavened bread and that this was one of the last teaching moments directly between Christ and His disciples.

First He took the cup and gave thanks and instructed those present to divide is amongst them, and pledged not to drink of the fruit of the vine until His return.

Next He gave thanks for it, broke it and stated that it was his body given to them and gave them the charge; "do this in remembrance of Me".

After they had eaten, He again took a cup of wine and stated that it was His blood given to them (there are a dozen translations on how to express this).

My questions on the Lord's Supper is simple. When should we celebrate it? At Passover? Or whenever we gather together as Christians? Before every meal? Does it have to be in Church? Is it only a valid remembrance if a Pastor or Priest is officiating? Or is it more simple. Is it something I can do my myself, with a little unleavened bread and a cup of wine as I remember what Christ did for me.

To answer your question, it means a lot to me.