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
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.