Posted on 09/20/2013 4:29:03 AM PDT by spirited irish
OK. But only if you promise not to feel the need to report any FReeper to the FBI as a possible terrorist.
By the way, for anybody who is truly interested — and I mean seriously interested —
***I should have checked Crossan’s Wikipedia page before engaging with you. Crossan is a prime example of an idealogically driven revisionist, basically a heretic.
in the historicity of the New Testament, I could not more highly recommend another very spirited Irishman, former Catholic priest, John Dominic Crossan.
***Crossan is no more interested in historicity than the Bolsheviks were.
If I may use the term, Crossan is religiously historical,
***Having gone a few rounds with you, I see that you aren’t quite naive, so it’s obviously you were pushing an agenda, idealogically twisting history in revisionism and even crossing the line to heresy.
reducing the New Testament to what can be justified based on critical textual analyses.
***No, just reducing the New Testament. That’s his aim, and appears to be your aim. FReepers who are interested in reading heresy would be well recommended to follow Crossan and uphold his quackery & the ridiculous Jesus Project. Historicity by way of voting! Amazing. Face palm amazing.
OK. But only if you promise not to feel the need to report any FReeper to the FBI as a possible terrorist.
***Not necessary. We’re already on their radar because
1) we post on FR and
2) you just used a keyword combination that pushes us to the top of their list
I think we have much more serious political issues to deal with right now than hunting heretics.
I get your point.
My only motive in raising the issue was to issue a rejoinder to BroJoe’s rather feeble attempt at intimidation involved in suggesting that You or I, or some other Judeo-Christian might feel the need to “burn somebody at the stake as a ‘damnable heretic.’”
We get this kind of crap from our worthy antagonists all the time. It is the kind of tactics in which only 0bamatrons and other Alinskyite haters of Western Civilization of various stripes happily engage. Not surprising (considering the source).
OK Just as soon as you give up your “Jihad” on non-existent 12th Century Crusaders.
I don't recall doing that but apparently it was successful since they've been wiped out of existence.
So says one anti-christian troll on a thread titled “Falling Stars, Damnable Heresy, and the Spirit of Evolution”. Damnable heresy is the actual subject of the thread. The question for FR is... does this troll go onto other threads and say that the subject isn’t worth pursuing? Yes, he does. An exercise left up to the readers.
Then why your present tense reference to “Hunting Heretics”? Oh, do you mean the Crusaders? Why yes, they have gone out of existence. That’s why we call them 12th Century (or 13th). But, it appears that some people need the occasional reminder. Like Islamics (constantly). Or others, who make reference to “hunting heretics.”
Perhaps you mean the more modern moral intimidation wrapped up in ominous references to the Salem Witch Trials of the 1690s. Or, even the more modern references to the Communist “Witch Trials” of the fifties, launched by Hollywood producers and College Presidents, but certainly not the work of Senator McCarthy (who turned out to be more right drunk, than his Liberal critics did sober)?
Do you refer to the identification of any other group as the “hunting” of them? Is the identification of the Socialist tendencies in 0bamatrons to be regarded as “Commie hunting,” or perhaps as some other variation of “witch hunting”? Liberals, of course, might indulge in behavior of that stripe. But, anyone else?
Or . . . is it just the Christian identification of heretics that bugs you?
Or . . . is it just the Christian identification of heretics that bugs you?
***No doubt it is this, but don’t expect a troll to be honest. Looking through the troll’s posting history will reveal the truth. But who has the time? That’s why such behavior is allowed on FR. There is a solution to this problem, from my home page...
___________________________________________________________________
I would like to see a VOLUNTARY idealogy litmus matrix here on Free Republic, but when I proposed it to Jimrob, he called me a newbie.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2145065/posts?page=130#130
To: babygene I don’t think he’s all that interested.
To: MHGinTN It doesn’t matter what a FReeper thinks. It’s just a list that they tell us what they think. That way we can tell who we’re dealing with.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2145065/posts?page=130#130
To: Jim Robinson Hah hah, that’s great. I signed up 2 months after you and I’m a newbie. Back then no one even said, “Welcome to FR”. But yeah, I do think that there are tons of RINOs. To be more accurate, the term would be CINOs.
I’ve been pushing for an idealogical litmus matrix here on FR, not to get rid of RINOs but to expose them.
THE GOP DOESN’T WANT US- SO WHAT’S NEXT?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1965735/posts?page=762#762
***It simply takes too long. Look at this thread alone. I see evidence of RINOism in some of the FReepers on this thread. It takes 700 posts to drill down. We need the matrix posted and available so that we don’t have to drill down on every FReeping thread. They’re wasting our time. Deliberately.
Agreed to a large degree. Perhaps a way to rate members by other members???
762 posted on Thursday, February 07, 2008 8:43:23 PM by roamer_1
130 posted on Monday, December 08, 2008 2:39:20 PM by Kevmo (Palin/Hunter 2012)
49 posted on Monday, December 22, 2008 7:29:27 PM by Kevmo ( It’s all over for this Country as a Constitutional Republic. ~Leo Donofrio, 12/14/08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies] 48 posted on Thursday, November 26, 2009 10:25:08 PM by Kevmo (So America gets what America deserves - the destruction of its Constitution. ~Leo Donofrio, 6/1/09)
___________________________________________________________________
That. Christian sectarian difference over doctrine should not be matter of politics or public policy.
Nothing new. The GOP has made their disdain for Conservatives (and conservative Christians, which is about the same thing) known since 1928 when they put Herbie Hoover in charge of this country. They’ve made their preference for RINOs (or CINOs, as you put it; I’ve likewise used that term on occasion) known ever since. In the Forties and Fifties, Repubics were known as the “Me Too” party, describing their insistence that they could to the same as FDR, or later Truman, and the Democrat Congress, only better. Sound familiar? They’re back to the time of my youth. In truth, they never left it.
Tell it to JimRob, you anti-conservative, antichristian heretic troll.
From the very front page of Free Republic, the very first thing he uses to describe conservatism.
Statement by FR’s Founder:
As a conservative site, Free Republic is pro-God....
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1103363/posts
Seeing where this thread started out and where it has taken us, it would perhaps have been wiser to look at the religion admin’s guidelines and open it under a caucus or ecumenical tag under the religion forum.
http://www.freerepublic.com/~religionmoderator/
In the past, threads have been opened in more than one forum, for instance if the original poster felt it was a mistake to put it in the “open” religious forum.
FRiend, there's no doubt about what the New Testament says, and that it works hard to let Pontius Pilate off the hook for crucifying Jesus.
There's no doubt that all four Gospel writers want to blame the "crowd" and more specifically the Jewish leaders, not their Roman ruler, for Christ's death.
That is not a matter of debate, and if the Bible's authority is all that interests you, then the subject is closed, period.
But there are non-biblical historical records which paint a much different portrait of Pontius Pilate, and if we give them credence, then it puts the whole "trial" scene in a very different light.
We start with the claim that -- far from being the caring, sensitive philosophical administrator the NT tells us -- Pilate was actually a cruel, callous & inflexible dictator, who brutalized the citizenry & routinely executed people without trials.
Indeed, Josephus reported an incident where Pilate hid his own agents in a crowd he was addressing, then unleashed them to attack & murder after the crowd did not follow Pilate's demands.
So Pilate was not a man easily cowed by a mob.
And in the end his cruelty got Pilate fired from his job.
All this suggests the scene of Pilate publically washing his hands is not exactly what it appears.
And the Gospel writers themselves provide clues that Pilate was not such an innocent bystander, the chief one being the sign he personally wrote calling Jesus "King of the Jews".
That sign confirms that Pilate did not just "allow" crucifixion, but ordered it, and for the obvious reason of rebellion.
By the way, for those who like to appeal to "historians", this is the accepted historical view of the matter.
Kevmo: " ***I have seen that.
He has an idealogical agenda."
FRiends, I have not called anyone on this thread (or any other) a "damnable heretic", but isn't it both of your purposes here to identify and label people with that delightful sobriquet?
Indeed, haven't both of you practiced the fine arts of false accusations whenever rational arguments failed you?
Do you deny that?
Well, then please provide us with quotes where I have done what you claim above.
YHAOS: “What powerful ROMAN declined to put the Christ to death, leaving His fate in the hands of a mob?”
FRiend, there’s no doubt about what the New Testament says, and that it works hard to let Pontius Pilate off the hook for crucifying Jesus.
***Then why do you heretics try to remove it from the historical record? Because you’re idealogy drives you to unrealistic historical viewpoints.
There’s no doubt that all four Gospel writers want to blame the “crowd”
***I have plenty of doubt. THey’re simply telling it like it was, recording what they saw. If you have something that counteracts that historical record, bring it on. But you don’t, all you have is your own conjecture. And your idealogy, driven by heresy.
and more specifically the Jewish leaders, not their Roman ruler, for Christ’s death.
***By all means, heretic, bring on the evidence. If the gospels are historically accurate, don’t throw them under the bus.
That is not a matter of debate, and if the Bible’s authority is all that interests you, then the subject is closed, period.
***I’m interested in all historical records, but you have repeatedly said I wasn’t, even though multiple times I’ve given you quick links to where I posted such things. You simply don’t like it because it doesn’t conform to your heresy.
But there are non-biblical historical records which paint a much different portrait of Pontius Pilate,
***Bowlsheet. The records you’ve posted so far agree with the gospels’ assessment of Pilate’s lack of character.
and if we give them credence, then it puts the whole “trial” scene in a very different light.
***Again, bowlsheet. You keep posting this over and over and you’re still wrong, heretic.
We start with the claim that — far from being the caring, sensitive philosophical administrator the NT tells us —
***Proven wrong, over and over again but you keep posting it. Now it is at the point where this is simply a lie. You are a liar. A liar, a troll, and a heretic.
Pilate was actually a cruel, callous & inflexible dictator, who brutalized the citizenry & routinely executed people without trials.
***So it’s not a stretch that he’d allow Jesus to be crucified right after he washes his hands of the whole affair. And significantly, you have produced ZERO evidence against Pilate holding Jesus innocent of rebellion.
Indeed, Josephus reported an incident where Pilate hid his own agents in a crowd he was addressing, then unleashed them to attack & murder after the crowd did not follow Pilate’s demands.
***Sounds in agreement with the gospel description of this bloodthirsty soul. But heretics like you try to change it into something else.
So Pilate was not a man easily cowed by a mob.
***Wow, after all this, you finally make a good point. Too bad your heresy has been exposed. It’s simple to reconcile, really: Pilate learned from his experience.
And in the end his cruelty got Pilate fired from his job.
***Good.
All this suggests
***Only to those interested in promoting heresy.
the scene of Pilate publically washing his hands is not exactly what it appears.
***Then the burden of proof is on you. All the HISTORICAL evidence is in agreement, but heretics like you like to argue against the gospel record accounts when it suits them.
And the Gospel writers themselves provide clues that Pilate was not such an innocent bystander, the chief one being the sign he personally wrote calling Jesus “King of the Jews”.
***Over and over and over again, troll. Your point has been proven wrong, heretic.
That sign confirms
***No it doesn’t, heretic.
that Pilate did not just “allow” crucifixion, but ordered it, and for the obvious reason of rebellion.
***It’s an interesting theory but there’s no historical account which supports it. It is simply your own conjecture, and since you’re a proven heretic, it’s worthless.
By the way, for those who like to appeal to “historians”, this is the accepted historical view of the matter.
***bowlsheet, bowlsheet, bowlsheet. The only historians who accept the views you’ve been pushing are those with axes to grind, heretic.
Like I said: fewer than 5% of all Christians, but some of those denominations are growing quite rapidly.
I can't speak for them, don't know their exact formulations, but it does seem to me that Mormons are quick to acknowledge Jesus as "Son of God", since that's what the New Testament calls him.
The New Testament does not speak of a "Trinity", and I suspect such denominations dismiss it as being a post-NT theological construct.
My own view is that if you can point to it in the Bible, then I accept it as genuine.
In cases where a text is difficult to understand, I generally go with the "Occam's Razor" theory: simplest explanation is best.
Kevmo: "Defending heresy is stupid, regardless of some founding father’s belief or non-belief."
Of course, I don't consider our deistically inspired Unitarian-oriented Freemason-brother Founding Fathers to be "heretics".
But the long sad history of Christians convicting and burning "heretics" at the stake is absolutely their reason why the first clause of their First Amendment says:
Our Founders did not want people like Kevmo and mean-spirited irish going around calling good people "heretics", and neither do I.
Especially on Free Republic!
I'll let you explain to him how anyone who's a heretic by your account has to be anti-God.
But you are certainly highly qualified to identify "damnable heretics", and that has to mean that you are intimately familiar with every jot & tittle of New Testament language.
How else could you know the difference between what is "heretic" and what's not?
Kevmo: "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."
In John 10:30, Jesus says, "I and the Father are one."
This is a key passage justifying Trinitarianism.
But the exact word for "one", "hen" is the same word used in John 17:11, where Jesus prays that his followers may all be "one", "hen" -- meaning united in purpose.
FRiend Kevmo, are you at all familiar with that French & Swiss heretic, John Calvin?
Here's what Calvin said on this verse:
You know, I don't know much about Calvin, but I like what he said here, so can I ask you a favor Kevmo?
When you & mean-spirited irish go out killing "heretics" would you kill me beside Calvin?
I'd be honored.
Kevmo: "I have given what historians have those expressions mean."
You have quoted no historians.
You have given your opinion.
I don't necessarily disagree with your opinion, but I think there's more to the story.
Kevmo: "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?"
Actually, my source here is Kevmo, since I'm taking your word for it that events happened as you described.
I have merely added an obvious interpretation based on Jesus' reported foreknowledge of his death and resurrection.
Theologically speaking, it had to happen, and only Jesus himself could make it happen.
By the way, this is standard Christian doctrine, not "heresy".
You know that, don't you?
You know if you deny it, that makes Kevmo the heretic, don't you?
Kevmo: "Oh, there’s that POTO deflection again.
What will the heretic say next?"
So, FRiend, do you wish to crucify this "heretic"?
What a novel idea that would be.
Kevmo: "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."
FRiend, the truth of this matter is that Kevmo wouldn't know real history if it walked up and slapped him in the face.
Kevmo cares nothing about "history".
Kevmo cares everything about condemning "heretics".
Isn't that the purpose of this thread?
Let's see, do you burn "heretics" at the stake these days, or stone them, or crucify them... now I forget...
Kevmo: "You said the resurrection is a historical fact."
Please provide quote.
Kevmo: "Oh, so now it’s a hypercritical historical criticism of the gospels, one consistent with the deniers of Christ who are rightfully called heretics."
Oh, oh, now I think I get it... according to Kevmo, to be historical is to be heretical... right?
Yes, I guess that makes sense... in an insane lunatic sort of way, FRiend.
Do you wish to try to express that more clearly?
Kevmo: "***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."
But you haven't discussed history at all.
All you're doing now is stoning a heretic, or is it burning?
Kevmo: "***Finally you say something worth noting, but eventually you’ll backtrack from this position because you’ve demonstrated heresy.
It will prove out."
Sorry, but on this post the whole of your comments amount to nothing more that YHAOS Four-D's -- ducking, dancing, dodging & discharging.
I assume that's because you've used up your small stock of rational thoughts.
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.