If you interpret it wrongly to say works are necessary than you have to discount all of Romans as false and many other scriptures. As I've said many times scripture must be interpreted so that it all agrees, otherwise you have misunderstood.
Read Romans 13:1-6 and tell me Paul was not a crackpot or a Roman agent. If a witness once gives provable false testimony his testimony is no longer accepted.
1800 years ago, the church saw fit to include Paul's works in the Bible, and they were not only much closer in time and understanding than you, but they were trained pro's. They also disregarded the apocrypha.
I am sure you think you have outsmarted them, all these 18 centuries later, and a world away, but you have not.
Leave it to the professionals, and those who were there, so much closer in time.
Maybe you are right, I should just accept what the Roman state religion decided to give me. They would not have an agenda. They wouldn't add or deduct from the truth. Would they?
And after all the Christianity we have today is basically a lineal descendant of the Roman church. There are exceptions. Some think for themselves and reach back to the origin. You know, the OT and Jesus' words only.
What source do you have, free from the influence of the Roman state church, for what Jesus actually said?
And you trust the OT uncritically? Which version?
You are nowhere near as smart as you think you are.
You are right in a way, except the deal is that I realize my ignorance. As for what Jesus had to say I like the book of Matthew starting with chapter 3. As for which version of the OT, do you mean which translation? I have 6 of them not counting the Living Bible.
I am trying to alleviate my ignorance by not having preconceived boundaries such as the inerrancy of scripture. If something doesn't fit or make sense I check it out and nowadays you can do a search and see if someone else noticed the discrepancy. Jesus' teachings and doctrine are pretty easy to understand and really nothing extraordinarily new. He was calling his listeners to repentance and pointing out the malfeasance and misfeasance of their religious leaders who had basically turned the Jewish religion and temple into a den of thieves
He did not ever disown the Jewish people or the Hebrew covenant and his most ardent followers were Jewish. I think the folks that blame the Jews for killing Jesus ignore the account of his triumphant entry into Jerusalem only a week before the same Jewish leaders he had previously exposed convinced the governor to allow his execution as a warning to his (Jesus') followers.
The bible story of that final week of Jesus' life is very sparse and leaves us guessing what happened in those few days. I suspect there was a wholesale rebellion against the Jewish hierarchy and their Roman sponsors that was brutally put down by the Roman soldiers. Pilate used the corrupt Pharisees to control the common people and that situation had obviously gotten out of hand.
In any case my point is that the early Christians were primarily Jewish and Christianity should be viewed as a reform of Judaism that had strayed from its roots. It is obvious from Jesus' interactions with non Jews that they were welcome into the fold although he did say he had come for the "lost sheep of Israel"
Patriotism (and religion) is the last refuge of a scoundrel. Jesus: "Take heed that no man deceive you." Hebrew Roots Judaizer
