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
It really gets your panties in a wad when people won't take your stupid tests, doesn't it?
No.
Thanks for bumping the thread, troll. T4BTT
FRiend, I understand that is what you intended to say, but are just too, well, modest to come right out with it...
But to all, I ask this question: did spirited irish inadvertently reveal a "mystery" in her use of the term "repetitive scripts"?
So, what is this word "scripts"?
I've never seen it on Free Republic before...
Do people like spirited irish come here with "scripts"?
Is that what they post when you challenge their cockamamie ideas?
Is that why, if you somehow manage to pull them "off script" they can sound so, well, stupid?
"Repetitive script" is precisely the term I'd use for Ms irish's posts, but never actually thought of it in those words.
The hilarious irony here, of course, is that any apparent "repetitiveness" in my responses only reflects the absolute repetitiveness of Ms irish's scripts.
Dear hosey-baby: I read your previous exchanges with tacticalogic, who is far better at swapping these kinds of senseless barbs than I am.
I was very impressed with tacticalogic's patience, and with your utter lack of seriousness.
So now you bring your polemical talents to bear on yours truly, BroJoeK.
I trust you will enjoy yourself, FRiend.
And yet, with all that verbiage, you still won't answer the question of why you refuse to defend our good Freemasons against spirited irish's spurious attacks.
It tells us that someone here is not being sincere, and that certainly isn't me.
But since Ms irish brought up the subject of "repetitive scripts", may I most sincerely ask you, brother YHAOS, are you restricted by your "scripts" to what you can answer, or not?
Is that the reason?
As to that "American Exceptionalism" thingie: For starters, Eric Voegelin [my great teacher of the philosophy or "science" of history] argues that the American Revolution was the only successful revolution in all of human history:
Regarding the institutional realization of existential order, American society seems to have certain advantages over other national societies in the Western world....A great historian of the Founding period, Bernard Bailyn, has likewise noted this curiosity, and posed the question: Was the American political eruption of 1775 revolutionary or conservative in character? It seems the evidence points to the latter understanding: Unlike the French, the Russian, or the German, the American Revolution was not trying to destroy an existing social order and replace it with another, "better" one.
There is first to be considered the problem of the Western revolution. Oswald Spengler observed that the revolutions that occurred before 1789 — meaning the English and the American revolutions — were of a conservative type, retaining the cultural structure of Western civilization. With the French Revolution ... begins a movement of destruction of Western culture.... Obviously a revolution like the American is distinguished from a French or a Russian, or from a German National Socialist revolution, by the fact that it was able to create successfully an open society, with a minimum of violence required for its imposition. Of the major revolutions it is, one might say, the only one that has been truly successful. — Autobiographical Reflections, 2006
The American revolutionaries did not give up ("kill") God to "win" their bloody controversy with King George III. They were simply insisting that George acknowledge his dependence on God for the justice of his reign, and that he must respect the "rights of Englishmen" down to the last jot and tittle — even if they lived in the New World, and thus did not have effective communication or representation before the King or in Parliament.
But the grievance with the King was more than just that: The long physical separation from the Mother Country had made the inhabitants of America self-sufficient in the organization of their daily lives, and they generated their own legislative and juridical institutions to deal with the common or "political" aspects of social organization in a manner acceptable and accountable to the members of society, who themselves would rotate into and out of positions of responsibility in the conduct of the local government.
This was a "government of, by, and for the people." And once you come to expect that sort of thing, the commands/demands of a King (or any other form the projection of state power takes against free individuals) tends to be held in contempt.
What makes America "exceptional" is that it seems the American people decided they could free themselves from kings and/or any unjust consolidation of powers projected by the State against free human beings — human beings who are FREE because they stand "under God," not "under" the State.
In conclusion, American Exceptionalism = the Sovereignty of We the People of the United States of America. One can read this People's intentions in the Preamble to the Constitution.
Thank you so very much, dearest sister in Christ, for making this important resource available to those of us who can benefit from it.
May God ever bless you!!!
Thank you, dear marron. I really miss my Dad....
Now, FRiend Kevmo, you're changing your original question again, which had the Sanhedrin putting Jesus to death for blasphemy.
I think we have established that the Jewish Sanhedrin did not put Jesus to death, the Roman prefect/procurator executed Jesus for the Roman-law crime of rebellion -- for claiming to be "The King of the Jews".
Yes, the Sanhedrin did execute Jesus' disciple Stephen for blasphemy, using the accepted Jewish punishment of stoning.
But you all will be delighted to learn that I've made a very small investment in the Kindle version of Bill O'Reilly's book on this subject -- mainly so that I could compare O'Reilly's historicity to that of a more "neutral" historian like, say, John Dominic Crossan.
Preliminary report after 25% read: O'Reilly is taking biblical sources at much more "face value" and dramatizing them more -- as if they weren't already dramatic enough -- than more scholarly historians like Crossan would ever accept.
But it is a good read.
So far, O'Reilly hits all the high points, and it will be interesting to learn where he comes down on Kevmo's question of "blasphemy versus rebellion".
Now, FRiend Kevmo, you’re changing your original question again, which had the Sanhedrin putting Jesus to death for blasphemy.
***That is because you corrected my inaccuracy. What’s yer problem now?
I think we have established that the Jewish Sanhedrin did not put Jesus to death, the Roman prefect/procurator executed Jesus
***Yes.
for the Roman-law crime of rebellion —
***No.
for claiming to be “The King of the Jews”.
***No.
Yes, the Sanhedrin did execute Jesus’ disciple Stephen for blasphemy, using the accepted Jewish punishment of stoning.
***Yes. But it was an illegal action by the sanhedrin because the Romans explicitly took away their right to kill anyone.
John 18:31
Pilate said, “Take him yourselves and judge him by your own law.” “But we have no right to execute anyone,” they objected.
But you all will be delighted to learn that I’ve made a very small investment in the Kindle version of Bill O’Reilly’s book on this subject — mainly so that I could compare O’Reilly’s historicity to that of a more “neutral” historian like, say, John Dominic Crossan.
***And for an even smaller investment (free) you can read the authoritative FF Bruce’s “New Testament Documents — Are They Reliable?”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2316798/posts
Preliminary report after 25% read: O’Reilly is taking biblical sources at much more “face value” and dramatizing them more — as if they weren’t already dramatic enough — than more scholarly historians like Crossan would ever accept.
***About what I would expect from BOR.
But it is a good read.
***Count me out. He’s a blowhard.
So far, O’Reilly hits all the high points, and it will be interesting to learn where he comes down on Kevmo’s question of “blasphemy versus rebellion”.
***I have very little confidence in the BOR. FF Bruce and other historians are far more authoritative when it comes to simple apologetics.
Historically that has been a matter of great dispute, resulting in untold persecutions, murders and misery.
Indeed, this whole thread represents spirited irish's efforts to hammer, hammer nails into coffins of those who believed otherwise, beginning with the wicked, satanic Gnostics, now represented by those evil-doing Freemasons -- even our beloved Founding Fathers were not totally innocent of such sins, according to our dear sister spirited irish.
The historical term used for people who do not accept such claims is "Unitarian", and today unitarian-type denominations represent something less than 5% of all Christians -- though some are growing very rapidly.
Many of our Founding Fathers were Unitarians and Freemasons.
To people like spirited irish and others, they are a huge threat.
Historically that has been a matter of great dispute, resulting in untold persecutions, murders and misery.
***I propose we start a thread on this topic alone. I doubt there is much history to it until several hundred years after the crucifixion.
For instance, the first religious opposition (other than simple persecution) to christianity was from the Gnostics, who denied Jesus’s HUMANITY. It is evidence from that contemporary period that Jesus laid down a claim to deity.
What powerful ROMAN declined to put the Christ to death and left His fate in the hands of a mob?
Who asked (rhetorically we must think), “Why, what evil hath he done?”
Who surrendered his judgment to the will of the Sanhedrin when he “took water and washed his hands before the multitude, saying I am innocent of the blood of this just person; see ye to it.”
Indeed, it is all but a matter of “interpretation.”
Don’t whine poser. When one constantly brings the sincerity of others into question, his own sincerity soon likewise comes into question. That is a natural consequence of events.
I’m not aware of any historical evidence that contradicts what you just wrote. There is basically no evidence that Jesus was killed by the romans for rebellion. There’s a lot of CONJECTURE, but no historical evidence. And in order to accommodate such a conjecture, you have to throw out known good reliable historical evidence.
A scientist would call it a "theory".
Yes, the Sanhedrin did execute Jesus’ disciple Stephen for blasphemy, using the accepted Jewish punishment of stoning.
***I just realized that this basically backs up the historical fact that Jesus claimed equality with God before the sanhedrin. Stephen was stoned for saying this:
Acts 7:56
“Look,” he said, “I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.”
His blasphemy was the same as Jesus — claiming divine privilege and equality with God Himself on behalf of Jesus of Nazareth. Even the words Stephen used were an echo of what Jesus said at His time.
It is one more piece of evidence that Jesus claimed equality with God and was condemned to death for it.
BroJoeK has made an observation which is that, while we believe our brand of classic liberalism to be deeply rooted in a Judeo-Christian world view, and our founders were for the most part deeply Christian men, it is notable that our republic didn’t sprout in Christian Europe, it sprouted here.
He credits freemasonry with at least fostering the kind of thinking that led to our founding.
For my part, I’ve been chewing on that issue a bit. A couple of things come to mind. One is that the brand of Christianity common here was different in kind. Its not just the protestant/catholic divide, because in Europe Protestantism didn’t lead to an end to the monarchical system. Certain strains of Protestantism seem to have been more inclined to wish for earthly liberty, probably mainly the ones that weren’t able to find official protection. But not all.
The filter is the Atlantic Ocean. The people who felt driven to make that crossing, even if they were of the same sect as the brothers they left behind, were themselves of a different kind. And that made a difference in matters of faith as well.
Its not that the theology itself was different as much as it was the men who believed it who were different and subsequently made more different by the environment they found themselves in once they were in America and far from central authority.
Its hard to imagine now, but at one time being of the wrong sect could get you beaten or killed and your property seized. We are familiar with the story of the Pilgrims, but in some of my digging I came across a migration of church members from what is now northern Ireland in the mid-1700s. They were protestants, but not of the king’s persuasion and were subject to official repression including being beaten publicly, fines levied, property seized. So away they went to the Carolinas.
Previously, the more independent sects would find themselves pushed into the more remote reaches of whatever kingdom they lived in but America provided the refuge that allowed them to stop running and flourish.
These are the kinds of men who a couple of decades later were signing on to fight against the Kings redcoats (as in fact they did).
Another thought comes to mind. There is a difference in freemasonry in countries where it was dangerous to “disbelieve”. In those countries freemasonry provided a ready-made conspiracy which could then be used for other purposes. Being a “freethinker” meant different things in different countries according to the political and religious climate.
I notice in Latin America that some of the technocrat “caudillos” were freemasons. For them “freethinker” had a different context than what was found in the English colonies.
Another thought. We’ve discussed in the past the difference between Locke, who inspired the founders, and Rousseau, who inspired the jacobins. An important distinction is that the jacobins believed freedom required freedom from the Church and freedom from God himself.
They made it a point to slaughter priests when they could get their hands on them.
Locke (and the founders) believed that freedom was a gift of God, and a requirement so that men could better serve God. Since so many people had come to English America for reasons of religious liberty, liberty was always understood in that context. (Granted, for some it was liberty for me, if not for thee, people being people.) Its been noted that revolution in America was preached from the pulpits and followed a religious revival in the years immediately before the fighting started.
BroJoeK has made the point that American freemasonry was different from its counterparts on the continent in part because so many of its members were Christians; the needs for a place for “freethinkers” were different here at least during that era. I do notice that many of the founders who we know to have been Christians were also freemasons. That would not have been true, for example, in catholic countries where freemasonry was a refuge for the anticlericalists and has its own nature and history.
I haven’t known many freemasons, the few I’ve known didn’t strike me as religious. I had the impression they were searching for the kind of brotherhood and opportunities for charity that you would theoretically find in a church, but without the hocus-pocus that they didn’t particularly believe in. I don’t want to go too far with that, though, because some of them subsequently became very religious in later life while remaining masons. So I suppose you can have an organization that on paper is one thing, but as its lived out by its members is another.
The same is true in matters of religion. You have the religion of the written doctrines, and the religion as it is lived out. So you’ll find people whose theology is sketchy but in whom God is alive, who know God and walk with him; and you’ll find people whose theology is right on the money but are deader than a hammer. And every variation in between.
Forgive me for my maunderings. Sometimes you just have to unplug my keyboard.
I see you read the post, because you responded to it. So then, why did you not respond to this:
Romans cared a lot about revolution, and therefore condemned Jesus not for any blasphemous claims, but rather for, in their eyes, pretending to be a “King of the Jews”.
***Interesting theory. From what historical source do you draw this? At this point it is a fact in dispute.
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.