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
Certainly not all historians agree with you,
***The vast majority of them do.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2056400/posts
nor do the Gospels themselves claim that Jesus consistently said he is God,
***Wow, look how far off you are. Just start with John1:1 &1:14. Then click on the link above, and educate yourself.
or equal to God.
***So when doubting Thomas said “behold, my Lord and my God”, then Jesus should have retracted in horror, right? You simply do not know what you are talking about.
He just as often said the opposite — Son of Man, Messiah, even Son of God are not claims of “equality”.
***When Jesus asked about “what think ye of Christ, whose son is he?” And the discussion was about him being son of David. Then is it your position that Christ was supposed to be the ACTUAL son of David (long dead) or was He getting at the level of respect intended? Do you even know what you’re talking about?
Just as often, Jesus acknowledged his Father’s superiority.
***Because He was humble and did not consider equality with God a thing to be grasped. Perhaps you’ve heard that phrase before? Nahh, I doubt it.
Again, I respect your religious beliefs,
***I’m startin’ to really disrespect yours if they’re based upon such historically ridiculous arguments.
but you have not entertained any historical facts or even textual interpretations contrary to them, and that tells me you are no historian, FRiend.
***Methinks the lady doth protest too much. You’re projecting.
Spoken like a real religious believer, and thus negating any and all claims that your views have something to do with scholarship or history.
I see you’re displaying studied incomprehension.
Of course it did. That’s not the subject of debate.
***That’s precisely the subject of the debate.
The issue here is only your personal religious belief that Jesus’ words were somehow tantamount to claiming “equality” with God.
***That is not a religious belief. It is a historical observation. Historians don’t have a problem with it, but apparently you do. And to think, you were the one who went out of his way to point out the differences between religious faith and history. You can’t even tell the difference yourself.
Sorry, FRiend, but you are getting tired and forgetful.
In fact, I've posted chapter & verse where Pilate changes his mind about ordering Jesus' crucifixion after he learns of Jesus' claim to be "King of the Jews".
But your own mind is just too fixed in its religious beliefs to accept anything contrary, right?
That word “equality” is not in the Bible — it is your personal construct, and that of likeminded believers.
***Neither is the word “Trinity”. That’s a worn out old argument. It is NOT my personal construct, it is acknowledged by the vast majority of historians. If you were the history buff you claimed, you’d know this to be the case.
I would only suggest there may be other ways to interpret the words.
***There was only one way: to tear one’s clothes in crying out blasphemy, or, as the bible records, to pick up stones to kill the man or throw him off a cliff. If there is such another way to interpret Jesus’s words, why didn’t he correct the supposed misinterpretation? It would be a hellofa lot easier than dying & being resurrected. Your suggestion and your other correspondence here shows you to be a pisspoor historian.
You said that I was pushing such beliefs as HISTORY. When the time came for me to express my beliefs, I properly identify them as religious, not history.
You’re not too bright. And quite frankly, you appear to be slipping into the realm of those who defend damnable heresy.
Sorry FRiend, but I took you to be at least half way sane.
Here I see that I was mistaken.
Sorry to waste your time...
Sorry, FRiend, but you are getting tired and forgetful.
In fact, I’ve posted chapter & verse where Pilate changes his mind about ordering Jesus’ crucifixion after he learns of Jesus’ claim to be “King of the Jews”.
***And, Mr. Forgetful, I posted chapter & verse showing such a claim was contradicted in scripture.
But your own mind is just too fixed in its religious beliefs to accept anything contrary, right?
***Pot, meet kettle. You’re the one so steeped in idealogy that you can’t see a simple historical FACT for what it is, and keep pushing your own postulate onto the established historical framework even when it’s contradicted by the most reliable documents at the time... because your postulation is so important to you rather than the actual history. I see now why you started out with all that bowlsheet about the differences between science & history & faith because YOU yourself cannot tell them apart.
You got a problem with the biblical accounts of the attempts to kill Jesus?
What ELSE do you have problems with? What parts of the bible will you throw under the bus in your idealogical quest? And at what point does it become heresy? Well, you’re already awfully close.
From the article that this thread is about...
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:
If spirited Irish thinks I have diluted the topic then I’ll open my own thread. “
Spirited: From the start, BroJoeK has been attributing thoughts and intentions to other posters that are not their own but his. That said, I do not now nor have I ever thought that you have been diluting the topic, so please carry on as you have been.
Kevmo responding: "***Neither is the word “Trinity”.
That’s a worn out old argument.
It is NOT my personal construct, it is acknowledged by the vast majority of historians.
If you were the history buff you claimed, you’d know this to be the case."
And vastly more important than what historians say, it's acknowledged by at least 95% of all Chirstians, worldwide.
Only a tiny minority of Christians fall into the category of "Unitarians", who take a different view of Christ's divinity -- a divinity not-equal to God-the-Father.
However, these Unitarian-types included many of our Founders, and that is why I'm here defending them.
Kevmo: "If there is such another way to interpret Jesus’s words, why didn’t he correct the supposed misinterpretation?
It would be a hellofa lot easier than dying & being resurrected."
FRiend, for somebody who claims to be intimate with every jot & tittle of New Testament text, you seem woefully unaware of some very basics: Jesus came to die for the sins of mankind.
So he was not trying to avoid crucifixion, he was trying to incite it, with whatever words were necessary for that.
If claiming to be "Son of God" was adequate, fine, but if discussions of "Coming on the clouds of heaven" or “Ani Hu” were necessary, so be it.
Precisely what Jesus said, or meant, by those words is irrelevant to the fact that they were necessary to incite the Sanhedrin to action.
At least some of the texts and epistles are clear on this: Jesus believed that he must die, and was willing to submit to God's will in the matter.
So, precisely how he accomplished that purpose is a matter of secondary importance, isn't it?
From a historical perspective, of course, none of this is verifiable, since the Gospels are not 100% consistent in what they report, and there are no non-biblical accounts of the details.
From a religious faith perspective, of course, none of that matters, since differences in Gospels can be easily ignored, or reconciled, and interpretations can focus on what matters most to believers.
kevmo: I consider the denial of the Deity of Christ to be a damnable heresy
Kevmo’s stance is entirely scriptural:
“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).
Tolkien’s masterpiece, the “Silmarillion” is the book of beginnings, the all-important Genesis account that sets the stage for all that follows in the towers trilogy.
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God, and there was nothing made that was not made by Him.”
Just as the Genesis account opens with creation ex nihilo, so does Tolkien’s account. In the beginning was Illuvatar, the Word who was, is, and always will be.
Illuvatar ‘thought,’ then Spoke, or Sang, according to Tolkien and CS Lewis in his Magicians Nephew. As Illuvatar sings He instantaneously creates the things of His thought, thus all things are created instantaneously after their own kind.
Returning to Genesis, we are told that the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us. God Incarnate is Jesus Christ, God made flesh, the fulfillment and perfection of all prophecy from the very beginning with Adam and Even who received the knowledge of a coming Redeemer as well as the knowledge that the world would be destroyed two times, once by water, once by fire. Thus Jesus Christ in His office as prophet is the Angel of Prophecy who spoke to Moses in the desert, revealing to him the creation account.
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).
Proud, willful humans deny the deity of Jesus Christ for many reasons, not the least of which is their stubborn refusal to admit their sinful condition together with their arrogant assumption that God is like them. Thus if He thinks at all, it must be like men think, an evolving process that begins with one word, then another and another, each word following another. Because of the way men must think and speak, they are comfortable with evolutionary process, thus they limit God with their inventions:, i.e.,evolutionary theories.
To reject the deity of Jesus is to reject fallen man’s dire need of our Saviour Jesus Christ, the Physician of our souls. All who deny the deity of Jesus Christ deny the Physician thus are anti-Christs who deny His prescription and assign themselves to outer darkness.
Vladimir Soloviev (1850-1900) was a brilliant Russian philosopher and theologian. In a gripping novel, “A Short Tale of the Antichrist” Soloviev offers an amazingly accurate glimpse into the mind of the super-man who will become the Antichrist as well as illustrating the real obstacle to salvation, the refusal by proud, willful men to recognize and admit to their sinful condition.
Prior to his transformation by Satan, Soloviev describes the super-man as outwardly just, but within he is full of pride and is morally reprehensible:
“.... He believes in God but loves nobody but himself. His relationship with Christ was quickly defined as one of superiority (for he will never) bow before Him like the most stupid of Christians (nor) mutter senselessly....’Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me’....’I, the bright genius, the superman! No, never!” (The Wrath of God: The Days of Antichrist, Livio Fanzaga, pp. 39-40)
As the super-mans’ spiritual fall progresses, or evolves downward, instead of the former cold rational respect for Jesus Christ God Incarnate:
“.....there was born and grew in his heart, first, a kind of terror, and then a burning, choking and corroding envy and furious breath-taking hatred.” Devoured with envy of Jesus Christ he cries out “He rotted in the tomb, rotted like the lowest...” (ibid, pp. 40-41)
This is the moment the Evil One has been waiting for. He openly approaches the super-man and possesses him:
“He saw those piercing eyes and heard...a strange voice, toneless...stifled, and yet clear, metallic and absolutely soulless as though coming from a phonograph.” Satan pours out his spirit, saying, “I ask nothing of you, and I will help you for your own sake...Receive my spirit...it gives birth to you in power. At these words...the superman’s lips opened of themselves, two piercing eyes came quite close to his face, and he felt a sharp, frozen stream enter into him and fill his whole being. And at the same time he was conscious of a wonderful strength, energy, lightness and rapture.” (p. 43)
Soloviev masterfully portrays a striking contrast between the apostles of Christ and the Antichrist. The former receive the power of the living Word and are full of wisdom, virtue, truth, and courage while the latter receives the power of the devil and is full of nihilistic pride, lies, burning envy, murderous hate, blasphemy, cursing, resentment, deception, covetousness, and perversion.
The Antichrist, as described by Soloviev, suffers the same massively inflated pride and envy that transformed Lucifer into the devil. This same pride and envy animated Cain, Judas, Nimrod, the pantheist sorcerer Hegel, the occult Luciferian Illuminati who planned and instigated the bloody French Revolution, as well as Madame Blavatsky, Karl Marx, Nietzsche, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Teilhard de Chardin, the West’s “God is dead” theologians, Crossan and the Jesus Seminar gnostics and too many others to be named.
In the end, Hell is the choice of proud, willful men who refuse to recognize and admit to their sinful condition. In affirmation, CS Lewis writes:
“There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, ‘Thy will be done,’ and those to whom God says, in the end, ‘Thy will be done.’ All that are in Hell chose it.”
And arguably anti-semitic.
Sure, "claim of deity", i.e., "Son of God" = "blasphemy", a capital crime to the Jewish Sanhedrin.
Claims of equality with God are never stated explicitly in the New Testament, and whenever hinted at are debatable, and have long been debated, by scholars with opposing views.
But regardless of what scholars debate, at least 95% of Christians accept your claim, Kevmo, of Christ's "equality" with God.
That is religious belief with which I have no problems.
Kemo: "The resurrection Proved to all nearby that Jesus was Who HE said He Was, He was GOD.
The simple historical claim before the sanhedrin was that He was equal with God."
Resurrection would certainly evidence some form of divinity.
But no New Testament writer says explicitly, "Jesus is God".
That is a matter of theological interpretation, not of history.
Kemo: "For you to say the Resurrection is “well attested” but the claim to deity is “ is not indisputably supported by any text” is huge backtracking.
It also betrays an ignorance of history."
Sorry, FRiend, but any ignorance here is yours, since you've utterly refused to acknowledge what I really posted.
Biblical accounts of Christ's "divinity" are not in dispute -- according to them, Jesus certainly did claim to be Son of God, Son of Man, Messiah & other divine titles.
The historical dispute -- leading to millenniums of violent conflict -- has been over theological assertions, reflected in creeds, that Jesus claimed to be "equal to God" or even that "Jesus is God".
These creeds are not supported directly by New Testament texts, regardless of how much blood was shed to impose them.
In the little church I attend, we recite a version of the Apostle's Creed, which originated as early as 180 AD and is not explicit on this subject.
FRiend, I'd say these words prove you are a poser for pretending your arguments here have anything to do with real history.
In fact, you are simply arguing to "prove" that your own religious beliefs are orthodox, while anyone disagreeing are "damnable heretics".
Please, let me try to suggest for you a very simple way to distinguish history from religious beliefs.
If in your analysis you are considering all the data available (i.e., Crossan's work), trying to explain any discrepancies, and largely letting the data speak for itself, that is history.
If you begin with a pre-conceived idea -- i.e., "Jesus is God" -- and then mine the data for "proof texts" to support your theology, that is religious belief.
This certainly does not mean that all "history" is right and all "religious beliefs" wrong.
But it does suggest that these are different ways of understanding, each appropriate to different circumstances.
In fact, FRiend, you've been defending your religious beliefs, using tactics you claim are "historical".
But they're not, because you've studied no contemporary history beyond the Bible itself, and take no serious account of any historical data outside your orthodox religious beliefs.
Nothing wrong with you defending your religion: good for you.
Just don't pretend it's "history".
Kevmo: "By all means, post some non-biblical texts and let’s see how they stack up.
So far you’ve posted one minor reference about Pilate that doesn’t even contradict the biblical account."
This comment again proves that your views have nothing to do with history and everything to do with defending your orthodox religious beliefs.
If you had any serious interest in history itself, you'd already know the major texts & arguments.
On the issue of Pilate, once again: I've mentioned this numerous times already, and each time you studiously ignore it, but here is one text which proves Pilate's motivations:
3 So Pilate asked Jesus, 'Are you the king of the Jews?' "
Of course, the story goes on from there, but in the end these verses -- and others similar -- prove that both Jews and Pilate well knew: rebellion is the only crime for which Pilate might order crucifixion.
FRiend, Kevmo, in no gospel account -- zero, zip, nada -- does Pilate question Jesus about his theological status as "Son of God", "Son of Man" "Messiah", etc.
Instead, Pilate is only concerned about Jesus' political status as "King of the Jews".
And that is the sign which all agree was posted on Jesus' cross.
Of course, Pilate's seeming reluctance to crucify Jesus is entirely possible, especially since, as Luke 23:12 reports:
For Pilate, it was a win-win situation.
Kevmo: "For you to accept gospel accounts of “king of the jews” but then throw out gospel accounts that show Pilate finding Jesus innocent of rebellion is an exercise in religiosity, not history."
No because: despite Pilate's protestations to the contrary, rebellion is exactly what is indicated by his sign, "King of the Jews".
Again, I can't imagine why you so wish to deny what is obviously true, from the texts.
Kevmo: "I object to your particular interpretations because they are unhistorical, and driven by your idealogy."
You mis-understand, doubtless because your religious beliefs won't allow you to consider broader historical data.
Kevmo: "I have read lots of apologetics and historical books.
If your writing is an example of what I can expect from Crossan, I’m not all that interested.
I like real history, not idealogically driven revisionism."
Sorry, but if you can't distinguish between apologetics and real history, then we know what your problem is, FRiend.
My familiarity with Crossan's work is now two decades old, so I can't tell you exactly what any of his ideas are, only that he breaks down the data according to strict historical standards.
He writes history, not religious apologetics.
Naturally, you claim it's "just another religion", since his history doesn't agree with your beliefs.
But I began this, ahem, discussion trying to distinguish between definitions of the words "science", "history" and "religious beliefs".
Those are my distinctions, and I'm sticking to them...
Kevmo: "Did you even click over to the link of the article I wrote?
It PROVES that I have strong historicity backup to what I say.
It seems that perhaps you have read only one book."
Sadly, there are many links on this thread that I've not had time to study.
Maybe someday.
But your efforts to prove historicity of the Bible, and only the Bible, shows us that you are not interested in history so much as "proving" your religious beliefs.
When you can bring yourself to objectively consider non-biblical data & non-traditional interpretations, that will begin your study of real history.
Despite your claims to the contrary, in fact none of your arguments are non-religious.
All of them are efforts to justify your orthodox religious beliefs.
When you begin to study & account for non-religious historical reports, then you can claim to be "historical".
But, dear FRiend Kevmo, here is your real problem: "quick to accuse me of being religious".
"Being religious" is only an "accusation" if you pretend to be something else, so why do it?
Why not embrace your own faith?
Why not just tell us the truth of the matter: Kevmo believes orthodox understandings of the Bible because that is his religious faith, period, end of discussion?
Nothing to be ashamed of, no need to seek outside "historical" justifications, no need to "debate" anything -- it just is what it is.
That's my recommendation to you.
Kevmo: "I don’t dismiss it.
I just don’t want to read it at this time because the first time I’ve heard of it was from you, and you don’t really show a strong grasp of historicity.
So it colors my perception of Crossan.
Have you read anyone else? Yamauchi? Ramsay? FF Bruce? Stauffer? Even Josh McDowell?"
FRiend, I'm a "history buff", not a scholar, but I do "get" the difference between "history" and "religious beliefs".
Real history may often include data which is contrary to your religious orthodoxy.
You will certainly find such data in the books of Crossan.
But, since Kevmo allows no such data into your own arguments, that fact proves you're not here about "history".
Kevmo: "Just ‘cause you say it that way, don’t make it so.
If it were true, what you said, then you could easily point to one or two places in this thread where I pushed a religious viewpoint as historical. Go ahead."
FRiend, it's easy for you to prove me wrong: all you need do is quote some words of your own which are contrary to your own religious orthodoxy.
I have certainly seen none such from you.
FRiend, every one of those traditional "proof-texts" can be, and have been, disputed by scholars who interpret them to mean something different than traditional orthodox religion teaches.
Of course, I think you are entitled to believe whatsoever you wish to believe about your "proof-texts", so long as you don't call your religious beliefs "history".
Kevmo: "So when doubting Thomas said “behold, my Lord and my God”, then Jesus should have retracted in horror, right?
You simply do not know what you are talking about."
FRiend, even the Gospel writer John, who advances Christ's divinity beyond all other New Testament writers, in the end, even John is absolutely clear about what he intends for us to understand:
In the end, even John does not ask us to believe that Jesus is God, only that He "is the Messiah, the Son of God."
That seems significant to me, personally.
Indeed, in John 10:34 Jesus himself denies that the title of "god" means "God":
34 Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods”’[d]?
35 If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came — and Scripture cannot be set aside —
36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world?
Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? "
Here's my point on this: reasonable people should be able to disagree reasonably on these matters without one side or the other feeling the need to burn somebody at the stake as a "damnable heretic".
Kevmo: "is it your position that Christ was supposed to be the ACTUAL son of David (long dead) or was He getting at the level of respect intended?"
Seems to me, Jesus was talking about, in your words, "the level or respect intended" in calling certain human beings "gods" or "Lord".
In both cases, in Matthew 22:44, the word "Lord" translates kyrios.
However, the original Hebrew of Psalms 110:1, which Jesus quotes uses the terms Yahweh and adoni. "adoni", with which Jesus refers to himself, was never a term for God.
Instead, it is a term of respect for human beings.
Kevmo: "Do you even know what you’re talking about?"
Yes, and I have expert help from books when needed...
Kevmo: "Because He was humble and did not consider equality with God a thing to be grasped.
Perhaps you’ve heard that phrase before? Nahh, I doubt it."
Indeed, the word "grasp" in Luke 9:45 refers to the "Son of Man" a term which in no way-shape-or-form can mean a co-equal person in a triune God-head.
Kevmo: "You’re projecting."
No, but you are certainly deflecting.
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.