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
But some historians certainly do dispute that Jesus claimed to be God Himself, or part of a triune God-head.
They say you are mis-translating and mis-interpreting what the New Testament writers intended.
Of course, you are free to dispute those historians.
I am only here to plead that you do it reasonably, without threatening to burn anybody at the stake as "damnable heretics".
Thanks, I've sometimes wondered exactly what the word "troll" means, and when somebody might be said to practice the "trollish arts".
From the link provided above, it appears that the subject is something our mods are pretty good at handling.
A scientist, by definition, has no greater standing than anyone else in this issue and his opinion carries no greater weight than anyone’s. Less, in fact, than many. Science, by definition, takes no interest in matters beyond its competence, and therefore has no “opinion” beyond that held by anyone entertaining the subject.
Don’t put it off on me that you reintroduced the topic.
Nevertheless:
What powerful ROMAN declined to put the Christ to death, leaving His fate in the hands of a mob?
What powerful ROMAN asked, “Why, what evil hath he done?”
What powerful ROMAN 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.”
That's because it isn't science.
The topic was my refusal to take some stupid ideological purity test. We were still on that topic when I made the comment, so there was nothing to "reintroduce".
“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.”
-----------------------------------------------------------------
It seems GOD is extra-semitic.. by including gentiles..
The drama of this is wonderfully dramatic.. and epic...
Maybe... some jews and some gentiles.. but not all..
My life shows this to be true.. and brilliant.. in it's scope..
Must be circumcision is a metaphor of what must must be done to the heart..
Cause excising the prepuce(foreskin) obviously did little or nothing.. except as an "image"..
All the vestments, ceremonies, traditions seem to be amulets.. or totems.. mere customs in a Kabuki production..
The drama of it all.... is and should be entertaining...
Life is merely a stage and we are all merely actors..
Because it is what you "DO" and "do not DO" that counts..
Not what you believe or disbelieve... which changes with preceptions..
ALL are preachers preaching by what you "DO"... and do not do..
What an honor it is to be included in this drama..
IS GOD KOOL or WHAT?... the magnificent production of human existence.. WoW..
To Wit; What will YOU DO and NOT DO today?..
Preaching a message to all that know and see you..
--------
Bonus...
Appearing to disagree with me by agreeing with me. But, I guess for some reason you felt you just had to write something.
Oh, I stand corrected. Don’t put it off on me that you introduced the topic.
BTW, if it was “off topic,” why did you introduce it?
I didn't. But you wouldn't know that because you weren't part of the conversation. You just shoved your nose into the tail end of it.
BroJoeK has been attributing thoughts and intentions to other posters that are not their own but his.
***I have seen that. He has an idealogical agenda.
And vastly more important than what historians say, it’s acknowledged by at least 95% of all Chirstians, worldwide.
***The deity of christ is acknowledged by christians. Others who are aware of Christ’s incarnation claims but deny it are the Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, and various other heretical cults. You appear to be among the heretics on this issue.
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.
***Defending heresy is stupid, regardless of some founding father’s belief or non-belief.
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,
***I never laid down such a claim, you heretic.
you seem woefully unaware of some very basics: Jesus came to die for the sins of mankind.
***Oh, let’s do the POTO dance: Pointing Out The Obvious. You’re starting to go down classic 4D troll paths, heretic.
So he was not trying to avoid crucifixion, he was trying to incite it, with whatever words were necessary for that.
***Interesting theory. Perhaps you should examine the times that He was about to be stoned for claiming equality with God. Starting with John 10:32.
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.
***I have given what historians have those expressions mean. You have given your own OPINION, which now that I see you’re a heretic, is worthless. Especially because you extend your heresy to the historicity itself, and elevate your own opinion above that of eminent historians. That makes you worse than a heretic, it makes you a useless heretic.
Precisely what Jesus said, or meant, by those words is irrelevant to the fact that they were necessary to incite the Sanhedrin to action.
***Interesting theory. Got any sources for it, or are you just going to string along this forum like you have done on the Pontius Pilate thing? Oh, I know the answer already, you’ll string it along because you’re stuck in your heresy.
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.
***Oh, there’s that POTO deflection again. What will the heretic say next?
So, precisely how he accomplished that purpose is a matter of secondary importance, isn’t it?
***For someone discussing religion, yes. I’m not really here to discuss the religion, I’m here to discuss history. But you have such disdain for the science behind the history that it drove you into severe religious territory — the territory belonging to heretics.
From a historical perspective, of course, none of this is verifiable,
***You said the resurrection is a historical fact. I suppose I should expect to see more heretical teachings coming from you so that you can develop some antithetical point. Let’s see what it is...
since the Gospels are not 100% consistent in what they report, and there are no non-biblical accounts of the details.
***Oh, so now it’s a hypercritical historical criticism of the gospels, one consistent with the deniers of Christ who are rightfully called heretics.
From a religious faith perspective, of course, none of that matters,
***I’m here to discuss history, but when heretics like you get involved and start pontificating about religious faith perspectives, I tend to tune out.
since differences in Gospels can be easily ignored, or reconciled, and interpretations can focus on what matters most to believers.
***Finally you say something worth noting, but eventually you’ll backtrack from this position because you’ve demonstrated heresy. It will prove out.
Sure, “claim of deity”, i.e., “Son of God” = “blasphemy”, a capital crime to the Jewish Sanhedrin.
***Ethelbert Stauffer showed that previous incidents of people claiming to be the Messiah could not, and did not, result in their death. It was not a form of blasphemy. When the high priest asked Jesus if he was the son of God, he was basically asking if he was the Messiah. That is not a capital crime to the jewish sanhedrin. Your position is unhistorical, about what I have come to expect from you.
Claims of equality with God are never stated explicitly in the New Testament,
***Sure they are, and if you had read my article you would be aware of them. By stating such a thing it puts you into the rarified atmosphere of heretics. Read the article.
Perhaps it will save you from your own heresy.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2056400/posts
and whenever hinted at are debatable,
***Yes, the debate is between faithful christians and heretics who deny the deity of Christ, as the title of this thread suggests.
and have long been debated, by scholars with opposing views.
*** You are right that it has been long debated, but the debate is between heretics and christians. Heretics like you enjoy clothing themselves in scholarly accoutrements, but eventually the truth wins out and your spiritual & intellectual ugliness is exposed.
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.
***You seem to think that is what I came to debate. I know that faithful christians accept Christ’s equality with God, and that heretics do not. But what I came to discuss on this thread was the Verified HISTORICAL FACT that Jesus claimed equality with God before the Sanhedrin and was condemned to death for it. Significantly, you said that such a position was religious. You’re the poser here. And now it appears you’re a heretic. Double loser.
Previously:
Kevmo: “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.”
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.
***Earlier you said that the resurrection is well attested. So for you to say that this was evidence of “some form” of divinity leads normal people to ask why you would think He is Divine, but did not claim equality with God. Your position is heresy.
But no New Testament writer says explicitly, “Jesus is God”.
That is a matter of theological interpretation, not of history.
***Read John1:1 and 1:14. Then read my article, and perhaps many of the thousands of articles on apologetics and the incarnation. You’re woefully and willfully ignorant, and pushing heresy at the same time.
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,
***Sorry, FRiend, but you are spiralling rapidly downwards into heresy. Pull your head out of your rear orifice before there’s a huge spiritual price to pay.
since you’ve utterly refused to acknowledge what I really posted.
***You’ve posted all kinds of unhistorical and idealogically driven nonsense. Which of these have I “refused to acknowledge”?
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.
***Wow. Then what could possibly be the problem, heretic?
The historical dispute — leading to millenniums of violent conflict —
***Well, I see that christians were persecuted and killed for this belief from the very beginning of the church, starting with Stephen’s explicit claim before the sanhedrin to Christ’s deity. So it would appear you have a problem with that, or you’re going to go into historical-invention mode about christians supposedly killing millions of heretics. Whatever. All that garbage is religion. It’s ever apparent now that you’re here to discuss religion rather than the historicity of Jesus.
has been over theological assertions, reflected in creeds, that Jesus claimed to be “equal to God” or even that “Jesus is God”.
***More heresy from you. When will it stop, no one knows.
These creeds are not supported directly by New Testament texts, regardless of how much blood was shed to impose them.
***Oh, save the best religious claptrap for last. You’re not here to discuss the historicity of christ, you’re here to spread heresy and deny His divinity. Another good book for you is “The Case for Christ” by Lee Stroebel. But you won’t read it, seein’ as how you’re stuck on stupid and clinging to your heresy.
FRiend, I’d say these words prove you are a poser for pretending your arguments here have anything to do with real history.
***Heretic, the reason why I posted this was because of YOU. You accused me of posting religious arguments hiding behind history. I wasn’t. I challenged you to even find ONE time I was posting religious faith stuff, and you couldn’t. You called me a poser. So if I’m gonna already pay the price for something I didn’t do, might as well post the religious aspect of it as well. It does, after all, have MUCH to do with the title of the thread.
The simple fact is that when you deny the deity of christ, you are a heretic. As the thread says, a damnable heretic.
In fact, you are simply arguing to “prove” that your own religious beliefs are orthodox, while anyone disagreeing are “damnable heretics”.
***It has been posted earlier that BroJoeK has become well known for projecting his own garbage onto others, and we see it here.
Please, let me try to suggest for you a very simple way to distinguish history from religious beliefs.
***FReepers will note that JoeK couldn’t even distinguish between a historical observation and a religious belief RIGHT ON THIS THREAD.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3069049/posts?page=1864#1864
If in your analysis you are considering all the data available (i.e., Stauffer, CS Lewis, Buell, Stroebel, Hyder, Ramsay, McDowell ‘s work), trying to explain any discrepancies, and largely letting the data speak for itself, that is history.
***I would say the same thing to you, and have inserted just a few of the authors with whom you should become acquainted.
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.
***Right. And you Mr. Heretic have demonstrated exactly that, right on this thread.
This certainly does not mean that all “history” is right and all “religious beliefs” wrong.
***More POTO so that you can look like you are familiar with historical arguments, but it increasingly is looking like pablum from a heretic.
But it does suggest that these are different ways of understanding, each appropriate to different circumstances.
***Denial of Christ’s divinity is heresy, no matter how you pretty up the arguments.
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.