Posted on 09/20/2013 4:29:03 AM PDT by spirited irish
“Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son” (1 John 2:22).
“And the fifth angel sounded the trumpet, and I saw a star fall from heaven upon the earth, and there was given to him the key of the bottomless pit." (Rev. 9:1)
In his Concise Commentary Matthew Henry identifies falling stars as tepid, indecisive, weak or apostate clergy who,
"Having ceased to be a minister of Christ, he who is represented by this star becomes the minister of the devil; and lets loose the powers of hell against the churches of Christ."
John identifies antichrists, in this case clergy who serve the devil rather than Christ, sequentially. First, like Bultmann, Teilhard de Chardin, Robert Funk, Paul Tillich, and John Shelby Spong, they specifically deny the living, personal Holy Trinity in favor of Gnostic pagan, immanent or Eastern pantheist conceptions. Though God the Father Almighty in three Persons upholds the souls of men and maintains life and creation, His substance is not within nature (space-time dimension) as pantheism maintains, but outside of it. Sinful men live within nature and are burdened by time and mortality; God is not.
Second, the specific denial of the Father logically negates Jesus the Christ, the Word who was in the beginning (John 1), was with God, and is God from the creation of all things (1 John 1). In a pre-incarnate theophany, Jesus is the Angel who spoke “mouth to mouth” to Moses (Num. 12:6-9; John 9:20) and at sundry times and in many ways “spoke in times past to the fathers by the prophets, last of all…” (Hebrews 1:1) Jesus the Christ is the incarnate Son of God who is the life and light of men, who by His shed blood on the Cross died for the remission of all sins and bestowed the privilege of adoption on all who put their faith in Him.
Therefore, to deny the Holy Father is to logically deny the deity of Jesus Christ, the incarnate Son of God, hence,
“…every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist . . . and even now already is it in the world” (1 John 4:3).
According to Peter (2 Peter 2:1), falling stars will work among the faithful, teaching damnable heresies that deny the Lord, cause the fall of men into unbelief, and bring destruction upon themselves:
“The natural parents of modern unbelief turn out to have been the guardians of belief.” Many thinking people came at last “to realize that it was religion, not science or social change that gave birth to unbelief. Having made God more and more like man---intellectually, morally, emotionally---the shapers of religion made it feasible to abandon God, to believe simply in man.” (James Turner of the University of Michigan in “American Babylon,” Richard John Neuhaus, p. 95)
Falling Stars and Damnable Heresy
Almost thirty years ago, two well-respected social science scholars, William Sims Bainbridge and Rodney Stark found themselves alarmed by what they saw as a rising tide of irrationalism, superstition and occultism---channeling cults, spirit familiars, necromancers, Wiccans, Satanists, Luciferians, goddess worshippers, 'gay' shamans, Hermetic magicians and other occult madness at every level of society, particularly within the most influential--- Hollywood, academia and the highest corridors of political power.
Like many scientists, they were equally concerned by Christian opposition to naturalistic evolution. As is common in the science community, they assumed the cause of these social pathologies was somehow due to fundamentalism, their term for authentic Christian theism as opposed to liberalized Christianity. Yet to their credit, the research they undertook to discover the cause was conducted both scientifically and with great integrity. What they found was so startling it caused them to re-evaluate their attitude toward authentic Christian theism. Their findings led them to say:
"It would be a mistake to conclude that fundamentalists oppose all science (when in reality they but oppose) a single theory (that) directly contradicts the bible. But it would be an equally great mistake to conclude that religious liberals and the irreligious possess superior minds of great rationality, to see them as modern personalities who have no need of the supernatural or any propensity to believe unscientific superstitions. On the contrary...they are much more likely to accept the new superstitions. It is the fundamentalists who appear most virtuous according to scientific standards when we examine the cults and pseudo-sciences proliferating in our society today." ("Superstitions, Old and New," The Skeptical Inquirer, Vol. IV, No. 4; summer, 1980)
In more detail they observed that authentic ‘born again’ Christians are far less likely to accept cults and pseudoscientific beliefs while the irreligious and liberalized Christians (i.e., progressive Catholics, Protestant emergent, NAR, word faith, prosperity gospel) are open to unscientific notions. In fact, these two groups are most disposed toward occultism.
As Bainbridge and Stark admitted, evolution directly contradicts the Bible, beginning with the Genesis account of creation ex nihilo. This means that evolution is the antithesis of the Genesis account. For this reason, discerning Christians refuse to submit to the evolutionary thinking that has swept Western and American society. Nor do they accept the evolutionary theism brought into the whole body of the Church by weak, tepid, indecisive, or apostate clergy.
Over eighty years ago, Rev. C. Leopold Clarke wrote that priests who embrace evolution (evolutionary theists) are apostates from the ‘Truth as it is in Jesus.’ (1 John2:2) Rev. Clarke, a lecturer at a London Bible college, discerned that evolution is the antithesis to the Revelation of God in the Deity of Jesus Christ, thus it is the greatest and most active agent of moral and spiritual disintegration:
“It is a battering-ram of unbelief---a sapping and mining operation that intends to blow Religion sky-high. The one thing which the human mind demands in its conception of God, is that, being Almighty, He works sovereignly and miraculously---and this is the thing with which Evolution dispenses….Already a tremendous effect, on a wide scale has been produced by the impact of this teaching---an effect which can only be likened to the…collapse of foundations…” (Evolution and the Break-Up of Christendom, Philip Bell, creation.com, Nov. 27, 2012)
The faith of the Christian Church and of the average Christian has had, and still has, its foundation as much in the literal and historic meaning of Genesis, the book of beginnings revealed ‘mouth to mouth’ by the Angel to Moses, as in that of the person and deity of Jesus Christ. But how horrible a travesty of the sacred office of the Christian Ministry to see church leaders more eager to be abreast of the times, than earnestly contending for the Faith once delivered unto the saints (Jude 1:3). It is high time, said Rev. Clarke, that the Church,
“…. separated herself from the humiliating entanglement attending her desire to be thought up to date…What, after all, have custodians of Divine Revelation to do making terms with speculative Biology, which has….no message of comfort or help to the soul?” (ibid)
The primary tactic employed by priests eager to accommodate themselves and the Church to modern science and evolutionary thinking is predictable. It is the argument that evolution is entirely compatible with the Bible when we see Genesis, especially the first three chapters, in a non-literal, non-historical context. This is the argument embraced and advanced by mega-church pastor Timothy J. Keller.
With a position paper Keller published with the theistic evolutionary organization Bio Logos he joined the ranks of falling stars (Catholic and Protestant priests) stretching back to the Renaissance. Their slippery-slide into apostasy began when they gave into the temptation to embrace a non-literal, non-historical view of Genesis. (A response to Timothy Keller’s ‘Creation, Evolution and Christian Laypeople,” Lita Cosner, Sept. 9, 2010, creation.com)
This is not a heresy unique to modern times. The early Church Fathers dealt with this damnable heresy as well, counting it among the heretical tendencies of the Origenists. Fourth-century Fathers such as John Chrysostom, Basil the Great and Ephraim the Syrian, all of whom wrote commentaries on Genesis, specifically warned against treating Genesis as an unhistorical myth or allegory. John Chrysostom strongly warned against paying heed to these heretics,
“…let us stop up our hearing against them, and let us believe the Divine Scripture, and following what is written in it, let us strive to preserve in our souls sound dogmas.” (Genesis, Creation, and Early Man, Fr. Seraphim Rose, p. 31)
As St. Cyril of Alexandria wrote, higher theological, spiritual meaning is founded upon humble, simple faith in the literal and historic meaning of Genesis and one cannot apprehend rightly the Scriptures without believing in the historical reality of the events and people they describe. (ibid, Seraphim Rose, p. 40)
In the integral worldview teachings of the Fathers, neither the literal nor historical meaning of the Revelations of the pre-incarnate Jesus, the Angel who spoke to Moses, can be regarded as expendable. There are at least four critically important reasons why. First, to reduce the Revelation of God to allegory and myth is to contradict and usurp the authority of God, ultimately deny the deity of Jesus Christ; twist, distort, add to and subtract from the entire Bible and finally, to imperil the salvation of believers.
Scenarios commonly proposed by modern Origenists posit a cleverly disguised pantheist/immanent nature deity subject to the space-time dimension and forces of evolution. But as noted previously, it is sinful man who carries the burden of time, not God. This is a crucial point, for when evolutionary theists add millions and billions of zeros (time) to God they have transferred their own limitations onto Him. They have ‘limited’ God and made Him over in their own image. This is not only idolatrous but satanic.
Additionally, evolution inverts creation. In place of God’s good creation from which men fell there is an evolutionary escalator starting at the bottom with matter, then progressing upward toward life, then up and through the life and death of millions of evolved creatures that preceded humans by millions of years until at long last an apish humanoid emerges into which a deity that is always in a state of becoming (evolving) places a soul.
Evolution amputates the entire historical precedent from the Gospel and makes Jesus Christ unnecessary as the atheist Frank Zindler enthusiastically points out:
“The most devastating thing that biology did to Christianity was the discovery of biological evolution. Now that we know that Adam and Eve never were real people the central myth of Christianity is destroyed. If there never was an Adam and Eve, there never was an original sin. If there never was an original sin there is no need of salvation. If there is no need of salvation there is no need of a saviour. And I submit that puts Jesus…into the ranks of the unemployed. I think evolution absolutely is the death knell of Christianity.” (“Atheism vs. Christianity,” 1996, Lita Cosner, creation.com, June 13, 2013)
None of this was lost on Darwin’s bulldog, Thomas Henry Huxley (1825-1985). Huxley was thoroughly familiar with the Bible, thus he understood that if Genesis is not the authoritative Word of God, is not historical and literal despite its’ symbolic and poetic elements, then the entirety of Scripture becomes a collection of fairytales resulting in tragic downward spiraling consequences as the Catholic Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation makes clear in part:
“By denying the historical truth of the first chapters of Genesis, theistic evolutionism has fostered a preoccupation with natural causes almost to the exclusion of supernatural ones. By denying the several supernatural creative acts of God in Genesis, and by downplaying the importance of the supernatural activity of Satan, theistic evolutionists slip into a naturalistic mentality which seeks to explain everything in terms of natural causes. Once this mentality takes hold, it is easy for men to regard the concept of spiritual warfare as a holdover from the days of primitive superstition. Diabolical activity is reduced to material or psychological causes. The devil and his demons come to be seen as irrelevant. Soon ‘hell’ joins the devil and his demons in the category of antiquated concepts. And the theistic evolutionist easily makes the fatal mistake of thinking that he has nothing more to fear from the devil and his angels. According to Fr. Gabriele Amorth, the chief exorcist of Rome, there is a tremendous increase in diabolical activity and influence in the formerly Christian world. And yet most of the bishops of Europe no longer believe in the existence of evil spirits….To the Fathers of the Church who believed in the truth of Genesis, this would be incredible. But in view of the almost universal acceptance of theistic evolution, it is hardly surprising.” (The Difference it makes: The Importance of the Traditional Doctrine of Creation, Hugh Owen, kolbecenter.org)
Huxley had ‘zero’ respect for modern Origenists and received enormous pleasure from heaping piles of hot coals and burning contempt upon them, thereby exposing their shallow-reasoning, hypocrisy, timidity, fear of non-acceptance, and unfaithfulness. With sarcasm dripping from his words he quipped,
“I am fairly at a loss to comprehend how any one, for a moment, can doubt that Christian theology must stand or fall with the historical trustworthiness of the Jewish Scriptures. The very conception of the Messiah, or Christ, is inextricably interwoven with Jewish history; the identification of Jesus of Nazareth with that Messiah rests upon the interpretation of passages of the Hebrew Scriptures which have no evidential value unless they possess the historical character assigned to them. If the covenant with Abraham was not made; if circumcision and sacrifices were not ordained by Jahveh; if the “ten words” were not written by God’s hand on the stone tables; if Abraham is more or less a mythical hero, such as Theseus; the story of the Deluge a fiction; that of the Fall a legend; and that of the creation the dream of a seer; if all these definite and detailed narratives of apparently real events have no more value as history than have the stories of the regal period of Rome—what is to be said about the Messianic doctrine, which is so much less clearly enunciated? And what about the authority of the writers of the books of the New Testament, who, on this theory, have not merely accepted flimsy fictions for solid truths, but have built the very foundations of Christian dogma upon legendary quicksands?” (Darwin’s Bulldog---Thomas Huxley, Russell Grigg, creation.com, Oct. 14, 2008)
Pouring more contempt on them he asked,
“When Jesus spoke, as of a matter of fact, that "the Flood came and destroyed them all," did he believe that the Deluge really took place, or not? It seems to me that, as the narrative mentions Noah’s wife, and his sons’ wives, there is good scriptural warranty for the statement that the antediluvians married and were given in marriage; and I should have thought that their eating and drinking might be assumed by the firmest believer in the literal truth of the story. Moreover, I venture to ask what sort of value, as an illustration of God’s methods of dealing with sin, has an account of an event that never happened? If no Flood swept the careless people away, how is the warning of more worth than the cry of “Wolf” when there is no wolf? If Jonah’s three days’ residence in the whale is not an “admitted reality,” how could it “warrant belief” in the “coming resurrection?” … Suppose that a Conservative orator warns his hearers to beware of great political and social changes, lest they end, as in France, in the domination of a Robespierre; what becomes, not only of his argument, but of his veracity, if he, personally, does not believe that Robespierre existed and did the deeds attributed to him?” (ibid)
Concerning Matthew 19:5:
“If divine authority is not here claimed for the twenty-fourth verse of the second chapter of Genesis, what is the value of language? And again, I ask, if one may play fast and loose with the story of the Fall as a “type” or “allegory,” what becomes of the foundation of Pauline theology?” (ibid)
And concerning Cor. 15:21-22:
“If Adam may be held to be no more real a personage than Prometheus, and if the story of the Fall is merely an instructive “type,” comparable to the profound Promethean mythus, what value has Paul’s dialectic?” (ibid)
After much thought, C.S. Lewis concluded that evolution is the central, most radical lie at the center of a vast network of lies within which modern Westerners are entangled while Rev. Clarke identifies the central lie as the Gospel of another Spirit. The fiendish aim of this Spirit is to help men lose God, not find Him, and by contradicting the Divine Redeemer, compromising Priests are serving this Spirit and its’ diabolical purposes. To contradict the Divine Redeemer is the very essence of unfaithfulness, and that it should be done while reverence is professed,
“…. is an illustration of the intellectual and moral topsy-turvydom of Modernism…’He whom God hath sent speaketh the Words of God,’ claimed Christ of Himself (John 3:34), and no assumption of error can hold water in the face of that declaration, without blasphemy.” Evolutionary theists are serving the devil, therefore “no considerations of Christian charity, of tolerance, of policy, can exonerate Christian leaders or Churches who fail to condemn and to sever themselves from compromising, cowardly, shilly-shallying priests”---the falling stars who “challenge the Divine Authority of Jesus Christ.” (ibid)
The rebuttals, warnings and counsels of the Fathers against listening to Origenists (and their modern evolutionary counterparts) indicates that the spirit of antichrist operating through modern rationalistic criticism of the Revelation of God is not a heresy unique to our times but was inveighed against by early Church Fathers.
From the scholarly writings of the Eastern Orthodox priest, Fr. Seraphim Rose, to the incisive analysis, rebuttals and warnings of the Catholic Kolbe Center, creation.com, Creation Research Institute, Rev. Clarke, and many other stalwart defenders of the faith once delivered, all are a clear, compelling call to the whole body of the Church to hold fast to the traditional doctrine of creation as it was handed down from the Apostles, for as God spoke and Jesus is the Living Word incarnate, it is incumbent upon the faithful to submit their wills to the Divine Will and Authority of God rather than to the damnable heresy proffered by falling stars eager to embrace naturalistic science and the devil's antithesis--- evolution. But if it seem evil to you to serve the Lord,
“…you have your choice: choose this day that which pleases you, whom you would rather serve….but as for me and my house we will serve the Lord.” Joshua 24:15
I didn't say you made accusations. I inquired about the relevance of the question.
By “attack” do you mean any criticism of which you do not approve?
That depends. By "defend" do you mean being insufficiently critical to suit you?
Why do you refuse to give a straight answer to a simple question?
Because I don't owe you any answers. I certainly haven't gotten an answer to the first question I posed, and you aren't the least bit concerned about that.
Indeed, apparently you do wish only to discuss heresy within the narrow confines of Christianity (not even considering the greater accurateness of acknowledging the wider context of Judeo-Christian Tradition in pursuit of the narrow propagandist talking points to which you obviously wish to confine yourself), and to restrict yourself further to the Euro-centric margins of Thirteenth Century RC doctrine.
The comment was made early in the thread, in the context of the posted article. If you don't like that it didn't address every context that was explored by everyone else before and after that, that's just too bad. You can go pound sand.
The Gospel of tactica: “Because I don't owe you any answers.”
Back at ‘ch.
The first question you asked me was post #13: a sadly transparent attempt to change the subject. In post #22 You complained that I took “17 paragraphs” to answer your sadly transparent attempt at subject changing.
According to a famous (or perhaps infamous) troll, I now know the answer should have been, “I don’t owe you any answers.”
Not your side when you declare the Freemasonry of our Founders to be “satanic, Gnostic, and statist.”
“In fact, tacticalogic has done yeoman work defending reason against a lot of nonsense.”
In fact, tactica has done yeoman work being a troll.
And yes, "multiplex" is a much better word for it than "multi-dimensional." Thank you!
Always has been.
You know where the button is.
Have you not been paying attention to spirited irish's posts?
She has vacuumed up every wickedness known to mankind and dumped them all together in her vacuum's dirt-bag under the label: "Gnosticism".
Included under her heading as "gnostics" are Renaissance and Enlightenment thinkers, natural-science philosophers and, yes, those most evil and wicked of all: satanic, statist Freemasons.
So I have merely correctly pointed out that most of our Founders were Freemasons, and some (i.e., Benjamin Franklin) were among the highest ranked Freemasons in America.
And I ask the logical question: does this mean our Founders should be considered among those satanic gnostics about whom spirited irish is so concerned?
If so, then why?
If not, then why not?
FRiend, I would make a strong distinction between the words "history" and "science".
They are not the same thing.
History is all about developing an accurate narrative of past events, based on the best data available, including archaeology, but beginning with eyewitness reports from that time.
Indeed, the very term "prehistoric" refers to any time before written accounts were produced.
So, by standards of most ancient history, the crucifixion and even resurrection of Jesus are rather well attested.
This makes them historical "facts".
However, by more exacting scientific standards -- such as you might find in any C.S.I. episode -- there's no serious evidence to "prove" any of it.
Indeed, the closest I've ever heard of is the Shroud of Turin, and that is still a long way from being scientific "proof".
FRiend, I've not yet read Bill O'Reilly's book, Killing Jesus, but I did read four original accounts, plus many epistles and other commentaries on it -- but the point of O'Reilly's book is to emphasize the historicity of the event, and perhaps includes facts that not everyone is familiar with.
My only point here is: please to do not confuse "facts" of ancient-history with other more scientific data.
Those who say it's a historical fact are correct.
Those who say there's no scientific proof are also correct.
The report that Jesus said, "I and my Father are one" comes only in John 10:30, and is not reported as leading directly to his crucifixion.
Nor does the context here & elsewhere suggest Jesus meant anything other than you or I might mean in saying: "when you're talking to me, you're talking to my boss."
In fact, there are different schools of thought on exactly why Jesus was crucified, including one which emphasizes the Romans' political fears that Jews might raise up a new king -- hence the plaque saying "King of the Jews" on his cross, reported by all four gospel writers.
I don't know of any "Obamatrons" on Free Republic, but I notice that I do get rather regularly attacked at the ad hominem level by people claiming to be "more conservative than thou".
YHAOS: "The simple matter is this whole “struggle” is all about seizing the control of power and wealth: power over Conservatives and the confiscation of Conservative wealth (Liberals will surrender their very souls with barely a whimper - if even so much as that).
Yes or no?"
You know, I travel a lot (it's why I can't post every day) and am a great fan of conservative talk show hosts -- Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin, Beck, Wilkow, even secessionist Mike Church -- they all say that's exactly what's happening, and I agree.
I also think, at least for now, we are losing the struggle.
YHAOS: "Liberals have taken over Science and use it to demonstrate their “superiority” over Conservatives.
Yes or no?"
Certainly, in the case of government funded research on "Anthropogenic Global Warming", where they've skewed the data and corrupted computer models to produce politically inspired results.
But I am not aware of such large-scale corruptions in other fields of natural-science.
As for precisely who claims "superiority" to whom, seems to me there's quite a bit of that going around, even right here, on Free Republic.
My whole suggestion here is that much of this "superiority" issue disappears if we simply recognize the stark boundaries between what is "natural-science" and what is not.
Back in the Old Days, many other branches of knowledge (i.e., theology, metaphysics) were considered equal or superior to natural-science.
Indeed, iirc, wasn't it you YHAOS who told me theology was called the "Queen of sciences"?
YHAOS: "Liberals do not believe anything of value exists beyond backsides.
Yes or no?"
I would give them more credit than that.
As Rush says, liberals claim they are out to "help the poooooooooor", and doubtless the youngest among them actually believe that.
Cynical older pols are a different matter, of course.
YHAOS: "It is not the Judeo-Christian Tradition that mistakenly thinks Science is an ethical and moral system designed to guide us in the value judgments with which we must deal.
Yes or no?
Yes, but why the double negative and what's your point?
Do you suppose that's controversial?
YHAOS: "The truth is both Liberals and Scientists know better, but dare not admit it.
Yes or no?"
Better than what, exactly?
YHAOS: "In fact, Paine died in poverty, unforgiven for his betrayal of the American People."
False, false & false.
In fact, 72-year-old Paine died "poor" only relative to his previous wealth.
He was far from "poor" by average American standards.
In fact, there was no "betrayal of the American People", period.
The real American list of indictments against Paine consists of exactly two items: 1) in 1779 he criticized wealthy Pennsylvanian Robert Morris for war profiteering, and 2) in 1796 Paine publically criticized George Washington, in the belief that Washington had left Paine rot in a French jail, almost to the point of beheading.
Yes, in fact, many religious Americans of the early 1800s strongly disagreed with Paine's ideas in Rights of Man (1792) and Age of Reason (completed 1807).
But Age of Reason was a best seller, so Paine at even that late date still had admirers in America, including President Jefferson.
So there was no "betrayal" and no "forgiveness" required.
Some Americans -- then and now -- strongly disagreed with Paine's ideas, others as strongly agreed.
YHAOS: "Included among those six, neither you, I, nor Thomas Jefferson?"
Do you want to explain to us why, exactly, you so wish to gloat over the death and burial of a great British citizen supporter of the American Revolution?
What is your problem, exactly?
FRiend, I "get" that you're an old man (maybe older than I am), easily confused & disoriented, but you still need to get a grip -- one last time...
It's not me -- yours truly, FRiendly, historically accurate BroJoeK -- who calls Freemasons "satanic, Gnostic and statist."
It is, rather, your bosom buddy, spirited irish who has devoted this thread to a broad-based assault on wicked Gnostics, among whom she includes Freemasons.
And neither she, nor you, nor anybody else has denied that our Founders were largely Freemasons.
And only betty boop has so-far made a weak-spirited, half-hearted attempt to justify our Founders despite their Freemasonry.
Nobody has yet come out with a full-throated defense of our Founders' Freemasonry as the basis for their Revolution and Constitution.
Nor has anybody had the honesty to confess that American Freemasonry may well have been quite different from what developed in Europe.
Bottom line: if you reject American Freemasonry, then you also reject our Founders and that makes you dear friends, something very different than an American conservative.
Why don't you present such a defense? You seem to be the one suggesting that the Framers' Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, are documents whose formative basis come straight out of Freemasonry, not out of the classical and Judeo-Christian traditions.
I'd say it's up to you, not me, to present such a defense. Your very suggestion — that the American Revolution and our founding documents are the products of Masonic culture — is something that has never occurred to me — and could not occur to me. I simply dismiss it as an outlandish, anhistorical fishing expedition.
Anyhoot, it's not my idea; I certainly don't have to defend it.
If you think it needs defending, then get to it!
Dear BroJoeK, this is just silly; you've set up a "strawman." Your "logical" question is thoroughly unserious; I'd be a fool to answer it.
So, by standards of most ancient history, the crucifixion and even resurrection of Jesus are rather well attested.
This makes them historical “facts”.
***It is utterly surprising that you would say such a thing.
However, by more exacting scientific standards — such as you might find in any C.S.I. episode — there’s no serious evidence to “prove” any of it.
***To deny the historicity of what you call a historical fact is to impinge the science behind it.
Indeed, the closest I’ve ever heard of is the Shroud of Turin, and that is still a long way from being scientific “proof”.
***I don’t need to examine the shroud, it has been carbon dated to 13th or 14th century IIRC. There’s even a biblical contradiction to what the cloths should look like. It is not nearly as good evidence as other facts in history.
FRiend, I’ve not yet read Bill O’Reilly’s book, Killing Jesus,
***I haven’t read it either. I do not intend to. That guy is too much of a blowhard for me. But if it’s a good book, let me know.
but I did read four original accounts, plus many epistles and other commentaries on it — but the point of O’Reilly’s book is to emphasize the historicity of the event, and perhaps includes facts that not everyone is familiar with.
***BOR and I have the same emphasis when it comes to this piece of history.
My only point here is: please to do not confuse “facts” of ancient-history with other more scientific data.
***I do not.
Those who say it’s a historical fact are correct.
Those who say there’s no scientific proof are also correct.
***And those who demand scientific proof for a historical fact have thrown out the baby with the bathwater, denying wide swaths history so they can deny Christ.
Jesus was put to death for blasphemy. It’s right there in the gospels. If you want to come up to speed on the historicity of His claim before the sanhedrin, I recommend the book “Jesus: God Ghost or Guru” by Hyde & Buell.
As a ferinstance, He claimed to be coming on the clouds of Heaven. Only God comes on the clouds of Heaven. He also said he’d sit at the right hand of Power, which is a claim of equality to God. Both claims are quotes from Daniel.
He also said “Ani Hu”, which gets translated as “I am” or “I am He”, and was too holy to utter in public except by the high priest on a holy day.
And look at the response: let’s put this guy to death for blasphemy, followed by the loud sound of tearing cloth. Even the sanhedrin put out a circular letter saying that they had Jesus killed for blasphemy.
It is among the most best attested events in history.
In fact, there are different schools of thought on exactly why Jesus was crucified,
***There was only one school of thought in the first century. It was shared by the friends and enemies of Jesus — He was put to death for blasphemy. When both sides of a conflict agree to certain facts, it is an established fact of history.
including one which emphasizes the Romans’ political fears that Jews might raise up a new king — hence the plaque saying “King of the Jews” on his cross, reported by all four gospel writers.
***Then you accept that aspect as established history, good. Because in the same historical accounts the jews said they were prevented from putting someone to death. They had lost their sovereignty over Judea when the Romans came. And Romans being who they were, they “reserved the right of the sword and neglected all else”. This loss of sovereignty over Judah was a fulfillment of a bible prophecy in Genesis 49:10. Judah would have self-rule until Messiah came.
From Ethelbert Stauffer:
“For if a confrontation of witnesses yields statements that agree on some points, then these points
must represent facts accepted by both sides. This principle certainly holds true if the historical traditions of
the two groups of witnesses are independent of each other. But it holds true almost as completely in cases where
the traditions intersect. For it is highly significant that the witness for the prosecution admits that the witness
for the defense is right on certain points; that he agrees with his opponents about certain common facts.”
In fact, there is no -- zero, zip, nada -- "Judeo-Christian tradition" of constitutionally limited republics, guaranteeing freedom of religion, speech, press, etc.
Virtually all of Christendom then remained under the rule of centralized monarchies in alliance with their official state religions, whether those were the Catholic Church, Orthodox or Protestant.
By stark contrast, Masons were highly tolerant of all religions (including Jews), and organized along lines our Founders adapted in their Constitution.
But don't take my word for it, take those of George Washington, delivered in Rhode Island:
I conclude that masonic Founders like Washington, Franklin & John Marshall, along with non-mason kindred spirits like Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, they found the principles of American Freemasonry highly compatible with their own views on a free and virtuous republic.
Therefore, Ms boop, I utterly reject your suggestions, and those of Ms irish, that Freemasonry was somehow an evil influence on the world in general, and the United States in particular.
Of course, I'm no mason, and wouldn't make an effort to defend them, except that our Founders were largely masons or of like minds with them.
So, just can't have people on Free Republic throwing stones at the very reasons we are here.
Boop, it's not my strawman, it's yours!
You & Ms irish created it, you own it, so take possession and defend it.
Yes or no! Are Freemasons the Gnostic monsters Ms irish claims, or were they the highly benign & beneficial influences on our Founders that people like George Washington reported them to be?
So my questions are deadly serious, but how serious are you?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.