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
Good one.
So very beautiful, dear brother in Christ! Thank you. May God ever bless you.
The problem you limn here points to the total inadequacy of the arguments presented by tacticalogic and BroJoeK on this thread.
Evidently they believe the Holy Scriptures reduce to mere texts, to be read at the level of a cookbook or an instruction manual or something like.
And so, BroJoeK is looking there for the explicit positive statement: Jesus is God. He does not find that statement in so many words — notwithstanding metmom's insightful list of citations on this very point. Therefore, BroJoeK evidently feels himself entitled to "skepticism" on this point.
The problem here is, it seems none of his main interlocutors on his thread — including spirited irish, Kevmo, YHAOS; me, et al., are in need of purely doctrinal comfort in support of the way they choose to live — as far as possible, in Christ, by His Grace. I imagine most Christians are not as "sola scriptura" in their approach to the biblical idea of human existence as BroJoeK seems to be.
Of course, I suspect that BroJoeK is a poseur, just here to stir up trouble and set off bombs....
BJK's main position appears to be this: All Christians are "wrong" in their belief, and one can use a selective culling of evidence from the Holy Scriptures to prove it. And not just positive evidence; but negative evidence as well — i.e., that the Bible doesn't explicitly say "Jesus is God," in so many words.
In so many words, BJK is telling us that Christianity is basically a "dead letter"; but to say this, he has to "forget" that the people who live in Faith find that letter — the Word — very much alive in their hearts, in their direct experience, in their acts....
The Holy Scriptures are communications of direct experiences, in symbolic form, of the Patriarchs, the Prophets; the Apostles, Saints, and Disciples of God, from First to Last.
Moses' encounter with the I AM started as direct experience — which then needed to be communicated in language. Experience precedes symbolization. Symbolization precedes communication....
The "vertical orientation" of human experience is something that "horizontal" linear types simply do not grasp, let alone understand.
Such folk prefer to build Second Realities — which do not have a snowball's chance in Hell of ever being realized in this World of divine making.
Dear MHGinTN, my very dear brother in Christ, thank you ever so much for "The Black Telephone." It is a simply magnificent short story.
No one here has a problem with their own beliefs. Some of us seem to have a problem with the other's beliefs and feel the need to correct them.
I cannot in principle correct for you what you ought to correct for yourself.
I do not have a clue what your "beliefs" are. In any case, I am not responsible for them.
Though Heaven knows, I do wish you well.
You are the one reading it the way i believe the Holy Spirit intended, which is evident in examining the entire gospel, in which John is revealing Christ to be the Divine Son of God, as in light from light, true God from true God, versus those who deny the Deity of Christ. Bless God.
You’re still here? It seemed like this thread was dying off. Maybe you’ll soon spread your heresies elsewhere besides Free Republic.
Today, these sites — here and here — list about 50 non-Trinitarian Christian denominations.
***If they call themselves ‘christian’ and they deny the divinity of Christ, they are heretics.
or in Kevmo’s delightful version (post #1,983) “God Damned Heresy” -
***Yes, that is a rare event to put those 3 words together in that order and not have it be simply a swear word. In this case it really is God Damned Heresy.
And do not leave out John 12:
“...who is this Son of man?” (John 12:34)
“...they could not believe, because that Esaias said again, He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them. (John 12:39-40)
“These things said Esaias, when he saw His glory, and spake of Him.” (John 12:41)
This refers to Is. 6:
And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not. Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed. (Isaiah 6:9-10)
John says, “These things said Esaias, when he saw His glory, and spake of Him.” (John 12:41)
“Him” and /:His glory” refers to Christ here, but who does Isaiah say he saw in glory?
In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple. Above it stood the seraphims: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly. And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory. And the posts of the door moved at the voice of him that cried, and the house was filled with smoke. (Isaiah 6:1-4)
Thus John (the Holy Spirit by him) says that the Lord whom Isaiah saw in His glory when he gave this prophecy (perhaps the second most quoted in the NT) was Christ!
Also often overlooked but i see as saying more, in relation to Ex. 3:14,
I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am, ye shall die in your sins. (John 8:24)
Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am. (John 13:13)
Jesus therefore, knowing all things that should come upon him, went forth, and said unto them, Whom seek ye? They answered him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I am he. And Judas also, which betrayed him, stood with them. As soon then as he had said unto them, I am, they went backward, and fell to the ground. (John 18:4-6)
And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. (Exodus 3:14)
betty: The “vertical orientation” of human experience is something that “horizontal” linear types simply do not grasp, let alone understand.
Spirited: In the Last Battle, the last book of the Chronicles of Narnia, Lewis masterfully portrays the psychology of horizontal, linear types with the bitter, cynical, mocking black dwarves.
Though they claim to be for ‘dwarves’ (collectively)and no one and nothing else, individually, each embittered, contentious dwarf is for himself alone. They are blood and soil creatures, meaning that like Tolkien’s Gollum, their souls are inward-turned and materialized, thus for them, only the “down here below,” the linear and horizontal dimension of the senses is real. As their darkened hearts blind them to the vertical dimension, they mock and ridicule everything about it, particularly Aslan.
After they have passed through the “door” into eternity, they sit close together, elbows and knees touching, in a small circle—blind to each other as they really were in life-—quarreling, shouting, pinching, poking, cursing, blaming, and hitting each other for all eternity, in the darkness they preferred to the light when they were on the other side of the “door.”
Next question is, is Jesus actually human?...
***In fact, the first religious heresy that christianity was confronted with was Gnosticism, which denied Jesus’s Humanity. That’s how strong the evidence for his Deity was.
So, bottom line, here is the question on the table: in view of their overheated enthusiasm for rooting out “heretics”
***The etymology of the word “enthusiasm” is enlightening. It comes from the greek “en theos” basically meaning “with God”. It also has a strong hint of inspiration from God. Jesus had a strong inspiration, an overheated enthusiasm, when He was rooting out heretics of His day.
I have no desire to join your pissing contest with others on the thread but I take GREAT exception to your easily proven false assertion that the Triune nature of our Almighty God is incorrect or that there are no DIRECT Scripture texts that say Christ IS God in the flesh. There is no other honest way to understand the deity of Jesus with the Father AND the Holy Spirit than one of two conclusions: there are THREE Gods OR God is three persons in ONE Godhead. I think the problem many people have with the idea of the Trinity is that they try to grasp its concept with finite minds - incapable of truly comprehending the INFINITE. Christians are not polytheists - there IS only one, true God. Therefore, the Trinity has ALWAYS been a major tenet of Christianity and those who claim to follow Christ cannot deny this. There are many things that we believe by faith.
Curious, isn’t it, how the denial of Christ’s deity comes out so strongly around the time we celebrate its reality?
No doubt they view it as a Christmas present. You know, a lump of coal is suitable for throwing into the fire...
Yes uncanny indeed. Still waiting for a response on John 20:28. Other than the “OMG” response:)
I take GREAT exception to your easily proven false assertion that the Triune nature of our Almighty God is incorrect or that there are no DIRECT Scripture texts that say Christ IS God in the flesh.
***Would you characterize such a denial of the deity of Christ to be a heresy?
***In fact, the first religious heresy that christianity was confronted with was Gnosticism, which denied Jesus’s Humanity. That’s how strong the evidence for his Deity was.
On the other-hand, a human GOD... is a contradiction of terms..
Religious Narcissism.. sooo.. Gnosticism or Narcissism.. two sides of the same coin..
Perception does not effect reality.. what is... “IS”... what ain’t .... Ain’t..
According to my reading Jesus never used the term Heretic..
A term used to divide seekers of “God”...
However it must be true.. that not all christians are indeed christians..
Separating them must be a HELL of a job.. d;-)~.....
Possibly beyond our grasp, where our concepts of “sameness” and “separateness” might not even apply rationally.
Indeed; Linear reality may indeed be an Illusion.. death could be metamorphosis.. and time an Allusion..
I didn't say you should. The relevant question would be whether you think they need to be corrected, not who should be responsible for doing it.
The question is whether Free Republic can find room in its heart, on this Christmans Day, to tolerate such interpretations?
***Jesus Himself didn’t find room in His heart to tolerate “such interpretations”. He properly called people like you “false teachers”, vipers, sons of your father the devil. The only person for whom He had harsher words was Judas. So if Jesus didn’t tolerate false teachers like you, why should Free Republic? And why do ask that such disagreement be put forth in delicate, flowery and soft tones? Jesus certainly didn’t, so why should I?
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.