|
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
Jesus did not align Himself with the Psalm 82 reference to “gods” He was contrasting the use of Psalm 82 with His authority. Another point is within context they were receivers of The Word, as opposed to the actual Word standing in front of them. This is consistent with John 1.
Pre-existing in the Mind of God...
Now we are well beyond my "Peter Principle" capabilities, but I can refer you for in-depth scholarly analysis on this question, and related questions, to one of my own sources: The Doctrine of the Trinity.
I take it as not necessarily authoritative, but representative of views of Christians otherwise described as "Unitarian" or "restorationists".
Since those included some of our Founding Fathers and about 50 million believers today, I am here asking they be treated with all due respect, as something better than "God Damned Heretics".
No! You apparently have never studied Greek.
The word Paul uses for God in Col. 2:9 (theotēs), translated “Deity,” is distinguished from another word (theiotēs) used often by ancient philosophers when referring to something or someone “divine.” The distinction is important for understanding Paul’s Christology. Christ is not “divine” in the sense that we speak of superb food as “simply divine” or of virtuous individuals as “godly.” Christ is much more than a superb person of godly virtue. Paul asserts that Christ Jesus is God in bodily form.
Col 2:9 is the only use of (theotēs) in the N.T. Clearly 2:9 does not refer to all Christians.
FRiend, the key to understanding here is realizing that, first and foremost, New Testament writers were all Jews, and while they certainly believed in Christ's divinity, they would, as Jews, in no possible way compromise the Oneness of God.
If that creates certain theological problems, I would suggest those can well remain unanswered, since obviously nobody knows enough to more concretely define God.
Firstly, I studied under a Jew for 9 years, and I understand their beliefs.
Secondly, Luke was a NT writer and a gentile.
Thirdly, God defines His attributes throughout the Word.
Fourthly, you are wrong on all points.
betty boop responding: "Absolutely not. Why should I?"
So, should I take you to mean you have no respect -- zero? -- for our Founding Fathers' religious views, that along with Kevmo you consider them to be "God Damned Heretics"?
You believe the United States was founded based on religious ideas of "God Damned Heretics"?
Are you sure?
To repeat myself: Jesus himself, in John 10:34 quotes Psalms 82:6 where human beings are called "gods".
It's a title of highest respect, not a suggestion of equality with the Almighty.
Likewise, the Old Testament term for "worship" is the same word used for bowing down to a king.
It does not mean the human king is God.
redleghunter: "If Jesus Christ was a divine being other than Deity, thus God, then the Jews of His time would not worship Him thus setting up a violation of Exodus 20."
Seems clear to me that the earliest Christians saw Jesus as the Son of God, sent by God to be their Messiah/Christ.
As such, he was divine/deity, but not God Himself.
Yes, I "get" that might cause certain theological problems in the minds of ancient Greek philosophers or Roman politicians, but I don't think such problems concerned the earliest Christians, or our Founding Fathers, or many believers today.
That's why I don't think any of those people should be condemned as "God Damned Heretics".
Do you?
Yes, but Ephesians 3:19 does, and with the same "fullness" you used to claim Paul wants us to believe that Jesus is God Himself.
GarySpFc: "Firstly, I studied under a Jew for 9 years, and I understand their beliefs. Secondly, Luke was a NT writer and a gentile. Thirdly, God defines His attributes throughout the Word. Fourthly, you are wrong on all points."
And Luke says explicitly that Jesus is God Himself where, exactly?
But God is just, and His love is not promiscuous.
God is NOT just.. God needs no justification..
Why?.... because he’s God... what he deems right is right..
Only under democracy is justification needed..
Gods Kingdom is not democratic..
Humans have no vote..
Jesus, Holy Spirit and God are not elected..
And Love is a nebulous word..
Operative words: Kingdom... and obedience..
|
I know what you are saying. My point is believers are to fellowship in the Name of Jesus Christ. Seeking personal visions that are for you only were not the type of gifts given in the NT. They were for the benefit of all believers.
You’re wrong... and the comment flys in the face of the Golden Rule..
You’re to fellowship with everyone as much as possible...
You’re idea of what visions are and supposed to be is jaded by your agenda..
Obviously you have had no vision... else you wouldn’t say that..
When I asked the HS what I should do with “the” visions..
Tell people... inform various ones about this information...
The HS said it makes no difference because they will not believe you anyway.. (they don’t)..
After trying to share with a few I know.. he was/is correct..
Whats actually going on(on this planet) is quite different than “ALL I know” think is going on..
People seem to effected by millennia of religious clap trap and political propaganda.. and cultural nonsense..
But I do share with a few than tolerate me just so I can have any fellowship..
Even sharing this with you is a bit much.. but I’m generous..
FRiend, none of the proof-texts you quote actually say, “Jesus is God Himself”.
***Already covered by Betty Boop with you upthread. But a heretic troll like you likes to just blithely go on.
No one on this thread has denied the divinity of Christ.
But many followers of Christ — now and historically — do not agree that “divinity” necessarily means Jesus was God Himself.
***Jesus was a first century jew and so were his first followers, all believing that there was only ONE God. If you deny that He was that one God Himself, you deny His divinity and you are properly labelled a heretic. Jesus calls such false teachers ‘sons of the devil’.
In historical fact, Jesus was the “heretic” — the “blasphemer” — of his day, who was being “rooted out” by the Kevmo’s and spirited irish’s of the time.
***Sounds like you’ve been drinking too much heretic juice, troll.
Historically, the charge of “heresy”, like “blasphemy” was a threat of murder
***So what? Today you post on FR your heresies, and it means what it means TODAY. You’re a heretic. Today. We’re not posting on the wayback machine, we’re posting today, and today you are a heretic. Yes, God damns heretics and God has damned you as a heretic, so you are a God damned heretic. That’s no different than Jesus calling false teachers like you ‘sons of the devil’.
In fact, Jesus was not guilty of “blasphemy”, since he was speaking the truth.
*** I agree, Jesus was speaking the truth when He claimed equality with God before the sanhedrin and was condemned to death for it.
I have merely tried to speak the truth about Jesus, as it is reported in the New Testament.
***You have merely been spreading an ancient heresy of denying the that Jesus was God Himself. You are, quite simply, a heretic.
The necessity for proclaiming Jesus “God the Son” of the triune God-head, arises out of much-later challenges from Greek philosophy, and if I dare say this: Roman Empire politics.
NOT SO... Me, You, Jesus, Angels(good and bad) even Satan are Sons of God... men/women, good/bad, smart/dumb..
Not sexually/carnally but Creatively..
(A)IF indeed God created us all... (B)IF NOT then that is another narrative..
I’m going with “A”..
Is Jesus the Messiah?... I would say Jesus is “A” Messiah..
He said; “Pick up YOUR Cross and follow me”.. <<— he may have been serious..
Some do, many do NOT... they deny their Sonship..
Is Jesus God?... or is God Jesus?... Who cares?...
What is.... “IS”....... What isn’t.............. ISN’T...
Your bitterly foul language towards yours truly, BroJoeK, notwithstanding,
***My language towards you pales in comparison to the God of the Universe, Who properly condemns you as a son of the devil, a son of Satan.
the fact remains that historically and even today, millions of people have not interpreted those words in the same way you do.
***And hundreds of millions have properly interpreted the plain meanings of these words. They haven’t seen the need to twist historically reliable documents to fit their idealogical agenda the same way you have done. And yes, there are millions of people who hold onto a simple heresy that Jesus was not God Himself.
And historically many of those were persecuted and murdered for their “heretical” beliefs.
***Many, many more have been persecuted and murdered for holding onto the belief that Jesus is God Himself. Your point is ridiculous and moot. Quit spreading your damnable heresy on Free Republic.
So I am here to tell you, Kevmo, that neither they nor I deserve the verbal abuse you’ve dished out.
***Jesus dished out verbal abuse to false teachers and you would no doubt tell Him that you don’t deserve it. But you do, and I follow in Christ’s footsteps properly when I battle your false teachings and properly label you the same way Jesus would have: You’re a damnable heretic.
Jesus had no contempt for the New Testament.
***You’re supposedly a history buff, then you’d know that the New testament was written after Jesus was assumed to Heaven as Coequal with God Himself.
I have denied nothing the New Testament says about Jesus.
***Sure you have. Others have seen it, and properly condemned it as heresy right on this thread.
Your claims to the contrary, from the beginning have been false accusations.
***From the beginning I was being polite with you, but you accused me of all kinds of horse manure. It was only after I realized that you’re pushing heresy that I have risen to the same level of vehemence that the Lord has for false teachers as yourself, properly condemning your heresy. No doubt you would accuse Jesus of pushing “false accusations”.
Your false accusations are what make Kevmo equivalent to those who accused Jesus of “blasphemy”.
***You’re starting to lose touch with reality and with simple, straightforward writing. Perhaps you should take a writing class so you can promote your heresies more clearly. But I would not encourage it. What I would encourage is that you submit to the plain reading of scripture and what the vast majority of historians acknowledge about the death of Christ Jesus.
Indeed, proselytization is obviously the purpose of Kevmo,
***Why thank you. God tells us to do so, and I do it. Even you acknowledge that I’m following God’s command.
spirited irish & others on this News/Activism thread.
***And other threads, don’t forget.
It appears they have grown weary of their own Religion Forum’s many restrictions,
***Hah hah hah hah hah, the troll blithely hand waves over the experiment I posted and how all of his nonsense crap in the beginning of this thread would have been unceremoniously deleted on such threads. The heretic troll doesn’t read posts sent directly to him, doesn’t read any Free Republic threads that have been set up to discuss the kind of historical nonsense he pushes, and now that an open thread comes up he can’t handle the same medicine he dishes out. What an incredible, hypocritical, troll heretic.
and wish to unleash their “inner satans” on somebody, anybody, they can find to condemn as “God Damned Heretics”.
***You forgot to say, “Properly condemn as God damned heretics.” It’s so rare to be able to put that phrase together and not have it be a profanity. In this case it actually means what it says: YOu are damned by God as a Heretic and you should simply pull your head out of your rear orifice before there are severe spiritual consequences to pay for such actions.
This is their big break-out, and one can clearly sense their excitement.
***You would no doubt say that Jesus was excited when he condemned false teachers of His day as ‘vipers’ and ‘sons of the devil’. One can clearly sense the excitement in the plain reading of scripture. But going with the plain reading of scripture isn’t your bag, you prefer to twist it and engage in historical revisionism in order to push your damnable heresy.
Lots of very fine hair-splitting going on here.
***Yeah, by your troll companion.
The original Old Testament definitions are often today referred to as, “God Damned Heresies”.
***Well, it’s good to see you coming out into the open with your heretical beliefs. I would normally suggest that you present such definitions but I’m tired of cleaning puke off my screen. Keep your heresies to yourself. Stop spreading them on Free Republic.
But what if we are merely here to defend our Founding Fathers’ religious ideas,
***It doesn’t matter who held such heretical ideas in the past. It matters that you hold them, you heretic.
and those of millions today,
***Millions of heretics. Hundreds of millions, perhaps billions of true and faithful christians who uphold that Jesus is God Himself.
against false and often insane accusations: i.e., “God Damned Heretics”?
***Jesus labelled false teachers of His day in similar terms, such as ‘sons of satan’. No doubt you would say Christ wasn’t being Christlike when He did so, that he was false and often insane. Truly you are a God damned heretic.
You believe the United States was founded based on religious ideas of “God Damned Heretics”?
***It’s interesting that you try to steer the argument over here rather than to your own heretical beliefs. Heretical beliefs are heretical, regardless of who holds them. It is obvious that you hold heretical beliefs in denying that Jesus is God Himself, so are properly labelled a damned heretic, a God damned heretic. Yes, God properly damns you for holding such heretical beliefs.
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.
