Posted on 09/20/2013 4:29:03 AM PDT by spirited irish
Nor did claiming to be the Messiah result in Jesus' death in the incident we are discussing, from John 10:32-33.
But that incident certainly does disprove your claim that Roman approval was necessary for Jewish authorities to stone blasphemers.
In that incident, Jesus only escaped death, literally because "he escaped their grasp".
Kevmo: "***Sure they are, and if you had read my article you would be aware of them. By stating such a thing it puts you into the rarified atmosphere of heretics. Read the article."
Sorry, FRiend, but I'm not going to debate your article.
It's all I can do to keep up with what you're posting here -- including all your Four-D's.
If you wish a response to some linked article, then I'd refer you to the Library of Congress where you can go to look up the answers... ;-)
Kevmo: "***Yes, the debate is between faithful christians and heretics who deny the deity of Christ, as the title of this thread suggests."
In fact, no Christian denies what the Bible actually says on this subject.
Many Christians assert far more than the Bible actually says, and historically those Christians have been eager to murder & burn anyone who disagreed.
Our Founding Fathers found those Christians to be repulsive & repugnant, and wrote their Constitution with the intention of defanging such monsters.
Kevmo: "*** You are right that it has been long debated, but the debate is between heretics and christians.
Heretics like you enjoy clothing themselves in scholarly accoutrements, but eventually the truth wins out and your spiritual & intellectual ugliness is exposed."
Exposed? Is that what you call it, "exposed"?
When "heretics" are burning at the stake, their flesh "exposed" & made "ugly" by the flames, you think that's a victory for Christ?
You wish to be Christ's judge here on earth, to decide who is "heretic" and who is not?
Who will be thus "exposed" and who will not?
Kevmo, are you really sure about this?
In fact, the New Testament says no such thing directly: that is your theological interpretation, not of what Jesus allegedly said, but of what you think the Jewish authorities might have understood by Jesus' words.
Without doubt, those religious authorities believed Jesus said enough to deserve death, but there is no indisputable evidence that Jesus actually claimed to be God Himself.
Indeed, I've mentioned Bill O'Reilly's book before, which am now about half way through, and a point he makes is worth repeating: it was not Jesus alleged "blasphemy" which motivated those Jewish authorities, "blasphemy" was only their excuse.
Their real reason was justified fear that Jesus' ministry would overturn the established order of things, and threaten their positions of power and wealth.
In that sense, in the end, to them it didn't matter what Jesus said, or didn't say, they were going to "get" him one way or another, says O'Reilly as I read it.
I call his a highly informed historical opinion.
Now, back to the subject of "heresy", FRiend: after you've satisfied your lust to stone, burn and crucify me for it, you might wish to remember that the "heresy" I am here defending is precisely the same "heresy" which most of our Founding Fathers believed.
So, every nasty barb you aim at me, you are aiming at them too.
In that sense, (note the quote here): I and our Founders are one.
Beware of what you say, loser.
FRiend, this is not difficult: the New Testament is chock full of clear statements that Jesus is Messiah, Christ, Son of Man and Son of God, along with some other metaphorical terms.
In no place does the NT indisputably say: "Jesus is God".
Indeed, terms like "God the Son", "God the Holy Spirit" and "Trinity" are found nowhere in the Bible.
Those are all theological terms invented long after the fact by people who believed that "Son of God" was not glorification enough.
Many of our Founders were Unitarian-leaning and did not accept Trinitarian theology, and that is why I am here defending their religious beliefs.
So why do you, Kevmo, condemn them?
Kevmo: "***Read John1:1 and 1:14.
Then read my article, and perhaps many of the thousands of articles on apologetics and the incarnation.
Youre woefully and willfully ignorant, and pushing heresy at the same time."
None of those "proof-texts" are indisputable.
All can be and have been interpreted differently, as we've seen in this thread with a few random examples.
So your beliefs are 100% theological, they have 0% to do with actual history.
The "heresy" that you seem so eager to stone/burn/crucify for is what gave us our Declaration of Independence and Constitution.
That's why I'm here defending it and them.
"Spiraling"? What do you mean, "spiraling"?
You've already, several posts ago, condemned, stoned, burned & crucified me for it, and now I'm just "spiraling"?
Do you even know what you posted before?
Kevmo: "***Youve posted all kinds of unhistorical and idealogically driven nonsense.
Which of these have I refused to acknowledge?"
As of now you won't even acknowledge your recent posts where you rant insanely about "damnable heretics".
Indeed, a little calculation could demonstrate that your ratio of logical argument to insane insults has gone from something like 90% logic & 10% insults to now the reverse.
So there really is nothing serious coming out of you in recent posts.
Why do you bother?
Kevmo: "***Wow. Then what could possibly be the problem, heretic?"
You see, now it's not even 10% logical argument, it's 100% insane insults.
So really, what is your problem, FRiend?
Kevmo: "...historical-invention mode about christians supposedly killing millions of heretics.
I don't personally know how many heretics/apostates/infidels/etc. Christians killed beginning after the Council of Nicaea in 326 AD, but I think it's a pretty big number.
So, whenever you launch spurious accusations of "heresy", you align yourself with those who historically were driven insane by their love of doctrinal consistency.
And I detect some of that insanity in you, FRiend.
I think it's a problem you may need professional help for.
Please don't hesitate to seek it.
Remember we all love you, FRiend.
Kevmo: "Its ever apparent now that youre here to discuss religion rather than the historicity of Jesus."
FRiend, I'm here to discuss whatever subject you wish, and to oppose whatever insane accusations you launch.
Kevmo: "***Oh, save the best religious claptrap for last.
Youre not here to discuss the historicity of christ, youre here to spread heresy and deny His divinity."
FRiend, I'm only here to respond to your insane rantings, whether those are "historical" or "theological" or just utterly nuts.
Whatever you pitch at me, I'll try to bat right back at you.
So pitch away...
Your alleged interest in history has little or nothing to do with this thread's title & purpose.
But your accusations of "heresy" go to the heart of what this thread is all about, don't you think?
Kevmo: "***It has been posted earlier that BroJoeK has become well known for projecting his own garbage onto others, and we see it here."
In fact, I have accused nobody of "heresy".
That's all you FRiend, and it has nothing to do with historicity.
But your repeated claims that I have denied the New Testament's statements about Jesus are first lies, and second have nothing to do with history.
My views on this are essentially the same as our Founders, and I don't think they would like you much, Kevmo.
You're not a nice person.
Your ratio of insult to serious argument is running near 100% to zero.
Nothing for me to respond to here.
So you confirm what I said: Pilate never asked about Jesus' theological status, i.e., "Son of God".
Pilate's only concerns were political: King of the Jews.
These are not controversial ideas, and are well within the bounds of civilized conversation, but you seem well beyond all reach of reason.
Kevmo: "***Dude, here you are arguing against your own pet theory."
FRiend, you've been so inflamed with passion against my supposed "heresy" that you really have no grasp of what I've argued.
Instead, you are utterly confused and flailing wildly with accusations, none of which make sense.
FRiend, please think about this: if the plaque "King of the Jews" did not mean what it said, then what did it mean?
Or, to put it another way: if Pilate let Jesus be crucified for "blasphemy", then why didn't he write the word "blasphemy" on his plaque?
Kevmo from his 2008 link: "Greco-Roman historian Michael Grant, who certainly has no theological axe to grind, indicates that there is more evidence for the existence of Jesus than there is for a large number of famous pagan personages - yet no one would dare to argue their non-existence. "
Michael Grant is my source for saying that the New Testament is rather well attested to.
But neither Michael Grant nor any other serious historian would interpret that to mean every jot & tittle of the New Testament can be considered as historically accurate, especially where one account differs from others.
Sorry, FRiend, but history is not all about trying to prove the Bible.
It is partly about using as much of the Bible as possible to help confirm other data.
Crossan's is one of two dozen books I have here on biblical subjects.
I mention him only because I consider his work "pure history" as opposed to, oh, say, Bill O'Reilly's book which is intended as "popular history", and makes no critical analyses of his various sources.
Kevmo on distinguishing between religion & history: "***I can. You cant. heres proof.
Post #1864 where you confuse a historical observation with a religious belief."
Friend it is a simple fact that not every historian agrees with your claim in your post #1,864 that Jesus said he was "equal" with God (iirc, Crossan, for one, discards the whole discussion as being the invention of generations later gospel writers).
But such a claim certainly is included in some religious creeds.
Kevmo: "***I would suggest to FReepers that theyd have to take your word for it, but judging from your writings on this thread that is a spiritually unwise thing to do."
Of course, anybody reading these posts can judge for themselves, but I am here doing my level best to represent the religious views of our Founding Fathers.
So your criticisms of me are criticisms of them too.
This debate is not Kevmo versus BroJoeK, it's Kevmo versus our Founding Fathers as represented by BroJoeK.
Kevmo on whether history is "just another religion": "***Where did I claim that?
I didnt. You projected it.
Again with the projection thing, youre worse than the average libtard troll on these threads."
In fact you've strongly suggested that people who disagree with your alleged "historical" beliefs do so for religious reasons -- indeed that is the very basis for your claim of BroJoeK's "heresy", is it not?
Perhaps I have too quickly assumed that you would apply the same "logic" to the works of John Dominic Crossan, accuse him of an "ideological" or "religious" agenda and call him a "heretic".
But, if it turns out that you study his works and decide otherwise, then I'll be happy to revise my thinking.
Kevmo: "Proof that youre here on idealogical grounds and now youre just trolling and pushing a heresy.
A damnable heresy, as the title suggests."
You know, I think I'm starting to like the company I'm in so far -- Founding Fathers, John Calvin at least partly, maybe Crossan if I can get you to condemn him too?
Oh, no doubt Abraham Lincoln, and while were thinking about it wouldn't even Ronald Reagan fall into this category...?
I mean, after all, he wasn't such a big church-goer, maybe had ideas of his own?
Obviously, you had no serious intention of discussion history and every intention of venting you bile on somebody you could label "heretic".
Kevmo: "***Where have I generated such a pretense... lets see... nowhere. I posted about history and then I posted my religious viewpoint after I had already been forced to endure your bowlsheet."
Your alleged "history" is nothing more than religion masquerading as history.
Now at least you've dropped all pretense and revealed your true purpose, which is to label those who disagree with your "history" as "heretics".
Kevmo: "***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."
Sorry, FRiend, but there's no "evidence".
It is simply your interpretation of text which others may well interpret differently.
It's a little like that old story of the emperor's new clothes -- sorry, but I just don't see them.
Kevmo: "Youre incredibly ignorant, youre accusatory, projecting, and now I see you are a simple heretic."
FRiend, you can't know how relieved I am that Kevmo is not also "ignorant", "accusatory" and "projecting", to say nothing of "heretic".
</sarc>
Sorry, but post #1,864 is your post, where you make unsubstantiated claims, nothing more.
But I do rescind one of my opinions about you: now that you have revealed the true essence of your core nature, I could not consider you a "poser".
But I'm starting to wonder if maybe "poser" wasn't a bit better than your "real deal"?
I mean, as a "poser" you were at least half rational.
Now the ratio of rational discussion to insane accusations is nearing zero to 100%.
FRiend, I am familiar with many, if not all, of your "proof texts", and I also know the historical arguments which conclude they have been misunderstood.
We have even mentioned some of them on this thread.
Exactly how anybody interprets those "proof texts" is a matter of religion not history.
Kevmo: "***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 lets see.
So far you are a troll, a heretic, and a liar.
And a crappy historian. That about sums it up."
Whew... for a moment there I was afraid you might get " "ignorant", "accusatory" and "projecting", to say nothing of "heretic"."
But you didn't.
;-)
Thanks so much for a refreshingly reasonable question.
It's not complicated and you already put your finger on it at least once.
When I was a boy, my grandfather told me: "people say Christianity was tried and it failed.
Well, it was never really tried."
Today I'd say that both were right.
"Tried and failed" refers to state religions, beginning with the Roman Empire around 326 AD all the way into early modern times, where people were persecuted & murdered for "crimes" of heresy, apostasy, infidelity, etc.
"Never tried" refers to what my grandfather considered the "true principles" of Christianity, which have less to do with types of government than with our individual virtues or vices.
Our Founders explicitly rejected state religions because, in their eyes and in ours, such had already "been tried and failed."
But our Founders clearly understood that their own Constitution would only work for good people motivated by high ideals such as are taught in churches.
Does that clarify?
In fact, that is exactly what we are talking about, since it describes my religious beliefs, beliefs which you have at great length derided as "heretical" and even "trollish".
So, in opposition to what the Gospel writer John actually, explicitly did say in this passage, which you deem "heretical", you would have us accept as "orthodox" and even "historical" your own interpretations of "proof texts" which never actually say what you claim.
Sorry, but it actually does not say that.
You have to interpret it to mean that, and some people interpret it differently.
I would say all people are entitled to their own interpretations, and I don't think you can tell us which will be rewarded and which punished for their interpretations.
Last I checked, that wasn't Kevmo's job.
Few of these specific details qualify as "history", they are all religious beliefs.
As such they are subject to differing interpretations.
Orthodox interpretations are certainly held by the vast majority of Christians today, but minority opinions have been kept by significant numbers throughout history, including our own Founding Fathers.
That's why I defend them today.
Sorry, FRiend, but the supposed "heretical agenda" is all a figment of your vastly overheated imagination.
It's totally out of control, rendering you no longer capable of rational thought, as this comment demonstrates.
I'm sorry about that.
What a meowfest.
"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 fact, Crossan is a historian, better known than most, but not untypical.
None of his ideas have been presented on this thread.
But here is the good news: we have now achieved absolute clarity in understanding that to Kevmo history = heresy.
I've said often before: I don't have a problem with that.
You can believe whatever you wish, just so long as you don't pretend your religious beliefs are real "history".
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.