Posted on 09/20/2013 4:29:03 AM PDT by spirited irish
Then obviously, you don't wish me to read anything of yours, right?
"Now that you’re properly identified as a heretic, the right thing to do is follow Christ’s warnings about false teachers."
You have demanded that I read your religious tracts, and yet in all fairness will not read my suggested historical analyses (Crossan)?
Sure, I get it.
FRiend, your accusations of "heresy" are false, and so your responses are inappropriate.
In none of your many quotes did Jesus claim to be God Himself.
Kevmo: "The concept of Jesus as divine existed within at least 10 to 20 years of his crucifixion, and therefore likely to have been asserted by Jesus himself."
There has been no debate here about Jesus divinity or deity.
The question is whether Jesus claimed to be God Himself, or some "person" in a Triune Godhead.
The clear and obvious answer is: no, never.
Kevmo: "The claims of Jesus to be God make sense of his trial and crucifixion i.e. blasphemy."
First, "blasphemy" did not require Jesus to claim he was God Himself.
Second, from all the texts, it's not obvious what Jesus said, or how the Sanhedrin interpreted his words.
Third, what is obvious from all contexts is that it didn't matter what Jesus actually said, because they were "out to get him."
Kevmo: "The early enemies of Christ would have declared that Jesus never made such claim."
In fact, Arians considered themselves to be loyal Christians, not "enemies of Christ", and they did not believe Jesus ever made such a claim.
Kevmo: "A parallel movement, that claimed Jesus as merely a good teacher, would have emerged alongside Christianity."
At lest three certainly did: Adoptionism, Apollinarism and Arianism.
Included were certainly all the early Jewish followers of Christ.
All these movements were ruthlessly murdered & exterminated under the Roman Empire's new state religion: orthodox Christianity.
Kevmo: "Additional claims to be God:"
Every one of those proof-texts can be, and have been, interpreted in ways that do not justify the full Trinitarian orthodoxy.
I'm not even saying that one interpretation is necessarily wrong or right.
I am saying that those who accepted a "non-orthodox" interpretation deserved better treatment than they received under the Roman Empire's new state religion: Orthodox Christianity.
Most important point here: that's why our Founding Fathers' first clause of their First Amendment says:
The divinity of Christ is not being debated here.
In none of your quotes does Jesus directly claim to be God Himself.
No, you've provided no quotes of mine to "prove" any of your accusations.
So, your accusations are utterly false, FRiend.
Please provide quotes to prove your claim.
And how, exactly, does this justify any of your accusations against yours truly, BroJoeK?
Sorry FRiend, but it's like the Emperor's new clothes: no matter how hard you may look, they're still not there.
:-)
FRiend, I contend that your utterly insane behavior now was, in fact, your intention from the beginning.
It's why you're here.
My words are only your excuse not your reason for going crazy on us.
Kevmo: "I don’t have to put up with it any more if I don’t want to."
FRiend, I'm certain you realize that I only respond to your inputs.
You can shut me up in a minute by not posting any more craziness.
Go ahead, try it.
In fact, Jesus' response was to people who denied his divinity.
And despite all your ceaseless false accusations, you have never yet produced a quote where I did that.
Nor have I, in fact.
In fact, I've done no such thing, and you are making ludicrous false accusations, over and over and over again.
And if you think I'm lying, then just produce a quote where I said what you accuse me of.
I've found that on this thread there is no such thing as "no possible definition".
Thank you for your patience with them.
I can't tell you how much I appreciate seeing your posts.
As an aside:
Descartes walks into a bar.
Bartender says "Want a drink?"
He says "I don't think.", and disappears.
How did Dana Carvey used to say that?
;-)
IMHO, it’s pretty low go start up a caucus thread and snipe from there.
Oh really??? Tell that to the Sanhedrin: They were really worried about this guy....
He was an existential threat to their own power and authority, which was increasingly dubious under the Roman occupation in the first place.
In the end, they persuaded Pontius Pilate to accept a "mutually-beneficial" political accommodation, wherein the rabble would be coached to free the thief Barrabas instead of Jesus. Thus both the Sanhedrin and Rome could "save face."
How dare you say such things, Betty Boop. Your sanity will now be questioned on this forum. /s
Well, it looks like the butt hurt heretic troll is jabbering away again. T4BTT
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.