Falling Stars, Damnable Heresy, and the Spirit of Evolution

“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)

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)

“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)

“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)

“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

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.
***About what FReepers would expect from someone pushing heresy.

But your efforts to prove historicity of the Bible, and only the Bible, shows us that you are not interested in history
***Wow, dude. Look at what you wrote. It is incredible to debate with a heretic.

so much as “proving” your religious beliefs.
***Standard BroJoeK projection, as previously noted by other freepers on this thread.

When you can bring yourself to objectively consider non-biblical data & non-traditional interpretations, that will begin your study of real history.
***Perhaps if you took the 5 seconds it takes to click on the link, you would see just how ridiculous your claim is. Because the article contains non biblical sources. But you wouldn’t know that, would you, since you’re here to push your own religious beliefs, and those beliefs are heretical.

5 seconds that would change BroJoke’s life:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2056400/posts

Kevmo: “Everyone does exactly that. Everyone.
I’ve been posting about historicity, not items of faith, using proper historical arguments.
You’ve been running off the steam generated by your idealogy.”

In fact, FRiend, you’ve been defending your religious beliefs,
***In fact, HERETIC, you’ve been doing that. You can’t claim that for the thread I posted before
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2056400/posts
nor for this thread.

using tactics you claim are “historical”.
***You don’t know scrap about historical argumentation. I’m grateful, because it makes your heresy less effective.

But they’re not, because you’ve studied no contemporary history beyond the Bible itself,
***Wow, dude. You KNOW you couldn’t say that if you spent the 3 seconds it took to write that and instead click on the article I wrote. You’re a real, genuine, damnable heretic.

and take no serious account of any historical data outside your orthodox religious beliefs.
***I’m far more serious than you, having already posted an article to FR that included this stuff you so loudly proclaim that I don’t consider. Geez, your heresy is particularly ugly.

Nothing wrong with you defending your religion: good for you.
Just don’t pretend it’s “history”.

Nothing wrong with you defending your religion: good for you. Just don’t pretend it’s “history”.
***That’s precisely what you’ve been doing, heretic.

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.
***Um, no, the comment shows that you only posted one other account and it doesn’t do half of what you think it does for your efforts towards pushing your heresy.

If you had any serious interest in history itself, you’d already know the major texts & arguments.
***Go ahead and keep posting garbage rather than actual sources, heretic.

On the issue of Pilate, once again:
***Before I even read it, I’m guessing you won’t be posting any more sources.

I’ve mentioned this numerous times already, and each time you studiously ignore it, but here is one text which proves Pilate’s motivations:
***Well, whooptedoo. I was right. You didn’t post any more sources, just further conjecture from the gospels which you promptly proceed to discard as reliable sources. Only heretics would dare to do such a thing.

Luke 23:1-3 “Then the whole assembly rose and led him off to Pilate.
2 And they began to accuse him, saying, ‘We have found this man subverting our nation.
He opposes payment of taxes to Caesar and claims to be Messiah, a king.’

3 So Pilate asked Jesus, ‘Are you the king of the Jews?’ “

Of course, the story goes on from there,
***Hah HAH HAH HAH HAH. The full story completely shoots down your wishful viewpoint of Pilate and shows him to have found Jesus innocent of rebellion.

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.
***I see your game. You keep repeating your assertions. But with no historical backup, the only thing to do is to reaffirm that your assertions have been proven flat wrong. Repetitive assertions is a troll thing, something I would probably have to expect from heretics with an idealogical axe to grind.

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.
***Heretic BroJoke, you are showing your selective reading skills. Pilate asked Jesus if he was king of the jews and Jesus said his kingdom was not of this world. Of course, such selective reading of the gospels as you have demonstrated is what we can expect of a heretic.

Instead, Pilate is only concerned about Jesus’ political status as “King of the Jews”.
***Got any sources for that? It is JUST A CONJECTURE. And a crappy one at that. But at least it doesn’t fall to the point of heresy, like most of what else you write.

And that is the sign which all agree was posted on Jesus’ cross.
***Yup. The gospels are really good reliable sources of information, right? That is, until they don’t support your pet theory about Pilate and they directly contradict it, saying that Jesus was found innocent of rebellion by Pilate. But since you’re a troll and a heretic, I expect you to keep repeating your assertion for quite some time. It’s the nature of the beast.

Of course, Pilate’s seeming reluctance to crucify Jesus is entirely possible,
***Dude, here you are arguing against your own pet theory.

especially since, as Luke 23:12 reports: “That day Herod and Pilate became friends—before this they had been enemies.”
***It seems like you read one book about Pontius Pilate and can’t get off this subject. I suppose I shouldn’t expect more from a heretic.

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”.
***The gospels record directly that Pilate held Jesus innocent of rebellion. In your heretical viewpoint, the gospels are reliable sources for the placque but not the other thing. You’re a loon.

Again, I can’t imagine why you so wish to deny what is obviously true, from the texts.
***Oh, look, the heretic repeats what he wrote before. In the heretic’s viewpoint the gospels are reliable, but no they’re not because they don’t support his pet theory. And OF COURSE, he CAN’T IMAGINE why anyone can’t see it his way.

Kevmo: “I object to your particular interpretations because they are unhistorical, and driven by your idealogy.”

You mis-understand,
***No. I’ve seen what you’ve been writing and my understanding is clear. You are a heretic.

doubtless because your religious beliefs won’t allow you to consider broader historical data.
***And if you clicked on the link for 3 seconds rather than writing that ridiculous tripe for 3 seconds, you’d see your position was long ago utterly disproven. But you won’t do that, you’re just a heretic here pushing an idealogy.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2056400/posts

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.
***I can. You can’t. here’s proof. Post #1864 where you confuse a historical observation with a religious belief. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3069049/posts?page=1864#1864

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.
***Maybe you should read someone else besides this guy. But you won’t, because you’ve drifted into that dark territory of heresy.

He writes history, not religious apologetics.
***I would suggest to FReepers that they’d have to take your word for it, but judging from your writings on this thread that is a spiritually unwise thing to do.

Naturally, you claim it’s “just another religion”, since his history doesn’t agree with your beliefs.
***Where did I claim that? I didn’t. You projected it. Again with the projection thing, you’re worse than the average libtard troll on these threads.

But I began this, ahem, discussion trying to distinguish between definitions of the words “science”, “history” and “religious beliefs”.
***And you utterly, COMPLETELY FAILED to do so in post #1864. Proof that you’re here on idealogical grounds and now you’re just trolling and pushing a heresy. A damnable heresy, as the title suggests.

Those are my distinctions, and I’m sticking to them...
***About what one would expect from a troll who’s been proving wrong — and in this case, worse than a troll because you are pushing a HERESY.

Kevmo: “You’re so quick to accuse me of being religious but you can’t establish even one time I’ve done it on this thread.”

Despite your claims to the contrary, in fact none of your arguments are non-religious.
***Yet another repetitive assertion from a heretic, a troll. And an unsubstantiated assertion at that.

All of them are efforts to justify your orthodox religious beliefs.
***No, I came here to discuss history and you started calling me a poser and all kinds of stuff, so it’s time to respond in time... because YOU ARE A HERETIC.

When you begin to study & account for non-religious historical reports, then you can claim to be “historical”.
***I can provide proof that I’ve done this, and FR gets the benefit. Here’s the link. Can you provide such proof? Nope.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2056400/posts

But, dear FRiend Kevmo, here is your real problem: “quick to accuse me of being religious”.
***That is exactly what you’ve been doing on this thread, brojoke.

“Being religious” is only an “accusation” if you pretend to be something else, so why do it?
***Where have I generated such a pretense... let’s see... nowhere. I posted about history and then I posted my religious viewpoint after I had already been forced to endure your bowlsheet.

Why not embrace your own faith?
***I love my faith. It’s the obvious Whole Truth. Your faith, on the other hand, is a simple heresy.

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?
***Because that is not the case. I was an atheist and then ran across this evidence that Jesus had claimed divinity before the Sanhedrin and accepted Christ as Savior. One came before the other. You, as usual, got it wrong. Flat wrong. So flat wrong that you appear to be operating as a heretic.

Nothing to be ashamed of, no need to seek outside “historical” justifications, no need to “debate” anything — it just is what it is.
***Gosh, the exact same thing could be said of you. But you can’t do that, can you, because you are pushing a heresy.

That’s my recommendation to you.
***My recommendation to you is to read more books rather than just this Crosan guy and come up to speed on the history. Click on a link here or there. You’re incredibly ignorant, you’re accusatory, projecting, and now I see you are a simple heretic. So if you educate yourself you might be able to shake free from this heretical unhistorical viewpoint that causes so much ugliness in your soul.

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 istoricity.
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”.
***You sure as hell do NOT. Post #1864, you can’t even tell the difference. What a poser.

Real history may often include data which is contrary to your religious orthodoxy.
***I would love to have seen some “real history” posted by you throughout this thread, but you put up only one source about Pilate and it CONFIRMED the gospel portrait of him. You post and post and post over & over again this same accusation, but a simple click on one link blows your piece of sheeite accusation out of the water. So the reassertion in the face of being proven wrong is a sign that you’ve downshifted into being a troll, not just a simple heretic.
Here’s the link, heretic:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2056400/posts

You will certainly find such data in the books of Crossan.
***It is beyond me why any freeper would want to read this author after seeing your efforts, knowing that you haven’t clicked on links, and seem unaware of plenty of other historians. You’re a heretic, and a loon.

But, since Kevmo allows no such data into your own arguments, that fact proves you’re not here about “history”.
***Here’s the link, heretic:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2056400/posts

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:
***As usual, you screwed the pooch. It was a challenge to you to back up YOUR assertion, not talk about MY assertion. Geez, you aren’t even a very good troll.

all you need do is quote some words of your own which are contrary to your own religious orthodoxy.
***And having seen your posts along those lines, it leads me to believe you are a heretic.

I have certainly seen none such from you.
***What a strange post. I’ve certainly seen anti-orthodox views from you, but most of them are just worthless vanities. It is the heresy you’ve posted that distinguishes you.

Kevmo: “Wow, look how far off you are. Just start with John1:1 &1:14.”

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.
***Sure they can, by heretics. But what we were discussing is that those proof texts actually exist, they are sprinkled throughout the new testament. Those texts are there, and the plain reading of them leads a normal person to acknowledge that Jesus claims Divinity. But heretics like you will argue till the cows come home.

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”.
***I did not call my religious beliefs “history”. You like to accuse me of that, over and over an dover and over ... but it simply aint true. At this point it qualifies as a lie — you are a liar. Now let’s see. So far you are a troll, a heretic, and a liar. And a crappy historian. That about sums it up.

Can we please stipulate that words like "Deist" or "Theist" or even "Gnostic" are mostly just that: words, meaning very little to most people, indeed if even one in a hundred can distinguish between a "deist" and a "theist", I'd be amazed.... So we are here throwing those words around, as if they had deep and profound meanings which everybody understands and agrees to — but they don't.

Well, you're probably right about that, dear BroJoeK.

On the other hand, there is this:

I have always had to explain to the students at the beginning of my seminars all my life: There is no such thing as a right to be stupid; there is no such thing as a right to be illiterate; there is no such thing as a right to be incompetent. — Ellis Sandoz, "Editor's Introduction," The Collected Works of Eric Voegelin, Vol. 34: Autobiographical Reflections, 2006, p. 6.

On an earlier post, you wrote:

But there is a much larger point here, one which I am ill-equipped to defend, but certainly needs a strong defense: our Founders did not found our uniquely free, constitutionally limited federal republic because of their Christian heritage and despite their Freemasonry, but just the opposite.

You lose me right there, dear friend. I just do not see any evidence you could possibly come up with from American historical, cultural experience to defend such a notion. But I'll be glad to hear you out, if you want to try to persuade me otherwise.

What I find most perplexing is this: With you, any question seems to be resolvable only on the terms of Aristotle's Third Law, the Law of the Excluded Middle. It must always be a case of "either/or" with you, when I just see a clear case of "both" in operation.

Christianity goes to the root of American order. To say that the genius of the American order consists in very large degree to its insistence on not having any kind of institutionalized Church does not mean that Americans just routinely want to dispatch God out of their lives.

Anyhoot, must run for now, dear BroJoeK. Perhaps there is more to say on this issue; but the fact of the matter is, right now, I have a pot of chili on the stove which requires my attention, so that I might serve a delicious meal to my hungry husband tonight.

So I will go attend to that, for now,

But hope to be speaking with you again soon!

Thank you so much for writing, and for your kind words!

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,
***and don’t forget, you said that John was reliable as history, that the crucifixion and resurrection were well attested.

in the end, even John is absolutely clear about what he intends for us to understand: John 20:30 “Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 31 But these are written that you may believe[b] that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.”
***What a fascinating, beautiful and nice passage. It also has nothing to do with what we’ve been discussing. So now it would appear that the troll is engaged in obfuscation. Eventually it becomes prudent not to feed the trolls.

only that He “is the Messiah, the Son of God.”
That seems significant to me, personally.
***Well, here we are genuinely talking about religion. I did not come here to debate religion, I wanted to talk about history. But you pushed your heresy onto this forum and it is a sign of diminishing returns.

Indeed, in John 10:34 Jesus himself denies that the title of “god” means “God”:
33 “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”
***Oh, it is so wonderful to see you accepting this part of the scriptures as historical. Because it is yet another piece of historical evidence that Jesus DID claim to be God. His hearers said that directly, and notably, Jesus (as a 1st century monotheistic jew) didn’t retract in Horror and say “Oh NO! You heard wrong!”

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’?
***Good to see that you accept this passage as historical. There are several others where Jesus claims divinity. If you aren’t a heretic, you will accept the historicity of those passages. But my assessment of your character is that you will not, that your heresy will override what you consider to be historical.

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”.
***And yet, reasonable people also think that people who push heresy are damnable heretics. I do not envy you having the position of defending a heresy on FR, and I also do not think FR should even put up with it. But that’s up to the mods, who are “reasonable people”.

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”.
***I see you did not answer the question.

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.
***Interesting. Perhaps if you had been posting like this before it became obvious you have a heretical agenda, we could have had an interesting discussion.

Kevmo: “Do you even know what you’re talking about?”

Yes, and I have expert help from books when needed..
***Yet you don’t click on simple links, right here on FR
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2056400/posts
.

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”
***Bzzzt. Wrong. And it’s obfuscation. It’s from Ephesians 5, yet another example of how the followers of Christ early on were worshipping Him as God.
5Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.…

a term which in no way-shape-or-form can mean a co-equal person in a triune God-head.
***Looks like you simply got another thing wrong, heretic.

Kevmo: “You’re projecting.”

No, but you are certainly deflecting.
***You’re a heretic.

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.”

But some historians certainly
***Woah, wait a second. You don’t even dispute that you can’t tell the difference between a historical observation and a religious belief.

do dispute that Jesus claimed to be God Himself, or part of a triune God-head.
***The vast majority of historians do not dispute it. It is historians with an axe to grind, idealogically driven hacks who push such unhistorical nonsense. Kinda like the Mormon guys who get degrees in history so they can back up mormonism.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2056400/posts

They say you are mis-translating and mis-interpreting what the New Testament writers intended.
***And they are hacks. And you are a heretic.

Of course, you are free to dispute those historians.
***gladly. Click on the link.

I am only here to plead that you do it reasonably, without threatening to burn anybody at the stake as “damnable heretics”.
***Well, heresy is heresy. The title of the thread calls it a damnable heresy. Why you would plead such a thing and defend a heresy is your own problem.

All he can do is some idea claim-jumping, that is repeat what he knows other people already know, and hope he can slip in some of Crossan’s fallacies without anyone noticing.
***Oh my gosh. I just checked Wikipedia as a quick start and found this:

In 1985, Crossan and Robert Funk founded the Jesus Seminar
***This guy is a heretic of the highest order. He is well described in the language of this thread:

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.

I should have started checking sooner. I would have realized that brojoke is a stooge heretic and not wasted time throwing pearls at a pig.

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.