Posted on 09/20/2013 4:29:03 AM PDT by spirited irish
Is Kevmo’s job here to make certain no post of BroJoeK’s goes unanswered — in the most vile, murderous language imaginable?
***Murderous? Where do you get that? Such bowlsheet would obviously be removed on a religion thread. So, aren’t you happy that you get to push your heresy here with relative impunity? Is BroJoke’s job here to make certain that Christ’s warning against false teachers should be ignored by “reasonable” people? That Christ was being unChrist-like when he keyed up on heretics like brojoke?
Jesus warned us of false teachers who would call themselves christians and deny the very central tenets of the faith. It is perhaps better for someone who IS a christian not to call themselves christian than for someone who is a false teacher to call themselves a christian so they can poison the well of the faith. Jesus was vehement in his denunciation of false teachers & heretics, and so I follow in His steps on this issue.
The very first sentence of this thread:
“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 also in this thread...
John identifies antichrists, ... they specifically deny the living, personal Holy Trinity in favor of Gnostic pagan, immanent or Eastern pantheist conceptions.
So you admit to making unfounded accusations.
Please quote any and all statements "proving" your accusations.
FRiend, everything in the Bible is religion, period.
To call certain texts "religious" is not an "insult" and can in no possible way be false.
Some of the Bible is considered "historical" in a non-religious, academic-standards sort of way.
Academic standards for what qualifies as "history" can vary, but one person who's applied the most stringent academic standards to the Bible is John Domonic Crossan.
Crossan's standards allow as "historical" events which have multiple attestations -- for example, that plaque, "King of the Jews" is recorded in all four Gospels.
Crossan would say that is certainly historical, as is the role of Pontius Pilate, the Roman Prefect.
But Crossan would deny "historical" status to, for example, private conversations without witnesses.
Crossan also gives credit for events which may have only one Biblical source, but are confirmed by other non-biblical sources.
FRiend, Kevmo, that's real history -- it's how history is supposed to work.
Your religious beliefs are something different.
They require you to accept the Bible as true regardless of whatever historical or archaeological or any other scientific confirmations you might wish.
The Bible was not written or intended to be confirmed scientifically, and if you insist on scientific confirmations, then you yourself are not religious enough to believe.
Yes, it does turn out that much of the Bible can be confirmed by various tests, but those tests and any confirmations, cannot be, must not be the source or the rock of your belief, period.
What I'm telling you is that "historicity" and scientific confirmations are irrelevant to your belief.
Sure, some will go in your favor, while others do not, regardless, you still believe for reasons which have nothing to do with those tests.
Others also believe, for their own reasons, beliefs which are not identical to yours but still beliefs which do not deserve such deadly epithets as "damable heretics".
I admit to a mistake. But it is no mistake to bring attention to your trolling behavior over so many years. So it would not surprise me that a troll like you would drift into heresy, but it’s neither here nor there. Unless you want to call yourself a christian.
Thanks for bumping the thread T4BTT
Take a pill, psycho.
Please quote any and all statements “proving” your accusations.
***I just did. What are you, in copy & paste mode, not even reading the post? It wouldn’t surprise me.
FRiend, everything in the Bible is religion, period.
***bzzzt, wrong. When Romans 16 mentions Erastus as the city Treasurer and we can see for ourselves an inscription that says exactly the same thing, it is an intersection with undeniable historicity. There are thousands of such intersections with mundane things in the bible, but that would be far, far above your head. Especially since you’re here to push a heretical idealogy and the historicity gets in your way. Why I even bother educating you is actually what’s crossing my mind at this time, it’s throwing pearls after swine. You’re no historian, your just a simple heretic.
No doubt Jesus was a psycho when He confronted the false teachers of His day.
Sorry for that senior moment, really, I've studied these matters -- at least somewhat -- and "get" what it's all about.
More important, when needed, I know where to go for precise data.
My basic attitude toward all that theological fantasizing is the same as Rhett Butler's, at the very end, after the war and everything is lost: "Frankly my dear..."
I prefer to think that the Bible means what it says, and says what it means, and where the meanings are not clear, that's because they were not intended to be clear, and we are free to interpret them according to our best judgments.
You can interpret them as you see them...
So, if poor benighted souls, like our own Kevmo, imagine this or that interpretation to be "damnable heresy", that is his problem, it's a theological sickness which desperately needs treatment, but in the final analysis, as the man said, "Frankly, my dear...".
Our Founding Fathers were, generally, deistic-Freemason-Unitarian Christians, and that is the religious viewpoint I am here to defend -- regardless of how insanely Kevmo or anybody else may howl about it.
I prefer to think that the Bible means what it says,
***Hogwash. John 1:1 The Word was God. John1:14 The Word became flesh and we beheld His glory, the the glory of the one and only Son,.... This and other scriptures you call “Proof Texts” and deny their simple meaning because you are pushing the heresy of denying the Deity of Christ.
and says what it means, and where the meanings are not clear, that’s because they were not intended to be clear
***Other than the fact that you’ve been twisting what the bible says and pushing heretical teachings onto this thread, that’s a very noble sentiment.
Of course "Damnable Heresy" is what the Christian churches were all about eliminating for the better part of 1,500 years.
And they did their level best -- they murdered "heretics", burned them at the stake, draw-and-quartered them, whatever it took they did, to eliminate "Damnable Heresy".
And today we have our FRiend, Kevmo, supporting spirited irish in carrying on the ancient tradition.
Thankfully, our Founding Fathers guaranteed that people like Kevmo will never again have the political power to enforce their wills on "Damnable Heresy".
And this one thinks he's Jean Dixon and knows dead men better than they know themselves.
Love Christ. Avoid His followers.
You skipped 500 years, right to where Jesus, who was God Himself, says that heretics like you are worthy of less than contempt. He calls you “sons of your father the devil” for spreading false teachings. Of course, you would accuse Jesus of not being Christ like when He does such a thing.
How did that happen?
FRiend, again I challenge you to quote where I have denied anything the Bible actually says about Jesus.
What I have challenged is your interpretations, interpretations which fall into the category of "orthodoxy".
But "orthodoxy" is a very broad category, and today's liberal/progressive "orthodoxy" makes all of us here is some sense "heretics".
Even amongst Christians, "orthodoxy" is very hard to define in hundreds and hundreds of Protestant denominations.
For many years, the Roman Catholic Church labeled all Protestants as "heretics" and supported wars to murder them.
Today the Church looks more kindly on most Protestants, especially since Catholicism competes so well religiously against Protestants in many areas of the world.
Today I couldn't say where, exactly, the Church draws its lines, but I am certain they don't make as big a fuss over "heresy" as they used to.
I mean, seriously, FRiends, think of this: if Nancy Pelosi (or for that matter Adolf Hitler) is not an official "heretic", then how could somebody as innocent as yours truly, BroJoeK, meet any criteria for "Damnable Heretic"?
Please provide quotes where I "taught" anything contrary to what Jesus actually said.
What I have challenged is your interpretations,
***Bowlsheet, heretic. You want to argue that what you call “proof texts” don’t actually say what they do, that’s your business, but it is still heresy.
I'll tell you what, FRiend, I'll make you a deal: I'll read & study your article just as carefully as you read & study some of John Domonic Crossan's books.
Now, isn't that fair?
You report back to me when you've read some of Crossan's books, and then I'll go study your article, OK?
I see no need to go fetch anything you ask for, heretic.
Thanks 4 bumping the thread T4BTT
I think being christian is something to aspire to. I'm not arrogant enough to lay claim personification.
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.