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
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.
You’re 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: "***You’ve 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: "It’s ever apparent now that you’re 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.
You’re not here to discuss the historicity of christ, you’re 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 can’t. here’s 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 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."
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 didn’t. You projected it.
Again with the projection thing, you’re 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 you’re here on idealogical grounds and now you’re 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... 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."
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: "You’re incredibly ignorant, you’re 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 let’s 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.