Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Falling Stars, Damnable Heresy, and the Spirit of Evolution
Renew America ^ | Sept. 19, 2013 | Linda Kimball

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


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: apologetics; be; crevo; evolution; forum; historicity; historicityofchrist; historicityofjesus; inman; magic; naturalism; pantheism; religion; scientism; should
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 2,881-2,9002,901-2,9202,921-2,940 ... 2,961-2,967 next last
To: Kevmo
I’m done with your stalking.

I'm not setting traps and organizing people to monitor your posts. You don't have any business complaining about "stalking".

2,901 posted on 01/07/2014 2:48:20 PM PST by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2900 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

You don’t have any business complaining about “stalking”.
***Anyone who wants to can just look through your posting history and see how you’ve been following me through multiple threads. I say the same thing as others but you post to me. You are a stalking troll. Get lost.

GLAT

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3069049/posts?page=2832#2832


2,902 posted on 01/07/2014 2:53:57 PM PST by Kevmo ("A person's a person, no matter how small" ~Horton Hears a Who)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2901 | View Replies]

and, since I already know my response to whatever you’re going to post...

GLAT

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3069049/posts?page=2832#2832


2,903 posted on 01/07/2014 2:55:04 PM PST by Kevmo ("A person's a person, no matter how small" ~Horton Hears a Who)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2901 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo

Spam.


2,904 posted on 01/07/2014 2:55:29 PM PST by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2903 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear; redleghunter
CynicalBear: "You evaded the question rather than identify who you believe scripture identifies."

Do you know, you can trace back half a dozen posts and still not find your original question?
In post #2,756 redleghunter answered a question according to his understanding.
In post #2,837 I noted that some people see it differently, and requested forbearance and respect for their views.

I don't agree that Revelation 1:8 refers to Jesus.
It is clearly a reference to Isaiah 44:6, which speaks of Israel's Lord Almighty -- Yahweh and Elohim.

Again, I agree that you can interpret it however you wish, and ask forbearance and respect for those who see it differently.

2,905 posted on 01/09/2014 4:43:08 AM PST by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2854 | View Replies]

To: metmom
metmom quotin g: "BJK: On this question, as on all others, I go by what the New Testament actually says about it."

metmom: Which is who exactly?"

Revelations 1:8 clearly refers to Isaiah 44:6, which speaks of Yahweh and Elohim.
If you wish to believe that Isaiah's words "Yahweh" and "Elohim" mean "Jesus", I will forbear and respectfully disagree.

2,906 posted on 01/09/2014 4:49:34 AM PST by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2855 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear
CynicalBear: "Not before the 14th century ey?
Time and time again documented proofs of your errors on multiple subjects have been produced yet you persist.
It might be time you take your poorly researched views to a different and less educated forum."

Rubbish.
My statement is 100% true, and your "documented proofs" prove it.

The reason most New Testament translations do not include the words you've quoted is because no Greek manuscripts before the 14th century contain them.
Indeed, when they finally do begin turning up in Greek manuscripts, it is as translations from Latin.

So, it should give you pause, CynicalBear, to realize that the only specifically Trinitarian language in the entire New Testament is disputed at best, and rejected by most biblical scholars.

That's why I am here to ask your forbearance and respect for Christians who see it much as our Founders did.

2,907 posted on 01/09/2014 5:01:31 AM PST by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2856 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear
CynicalBear: "No “forbearance” will be given for proven error."

You have proven no errors.

2,908 posted on 01/09/2014 5:03:13 AM PST by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2857 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear
CynicalBear: "Franklin didn’t deny the trinity per his own admission when he said, “Tho it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it”.
He took no particular position."

In fact, Franklin's quote said nothing about the trinity at all, merely expressed doubts on the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth.

Your full quote from Franklin reflects exactly my own opinion, one over which CynicalBear and many others here are howling "God Damned Heretic".

So I am here to request that you treat such views with forbearance and respect, whether they come from Franklin or from yours truly, BroJoeK.

2,909 posted on 01/09/2014 5:21:30 AM PST by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2858 | View Replies]

To: GarySpFc
GarySpFc: "I never stated Franklin was a Christian.
Clearly, he wasn't, but he grew with age, and his quotes indicate he was at least a theist near the end of his life."

Whether "theist" or "deist", Franklin still considered himself Christian, and in his will gave money to every denomination in Philadelphia, including the Synagogue.
That is the religious view I am here to request you treat with forbearance and respect.

2,910 posted on 01/09/2014 5:26:46 AM PST by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2859 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
MHGinTN: "You’re a liar.
Anyone reading your posts from the beginning of this thread can see through your lie.
But you depend upon folks not seeing the entire picture so your lies float like fecal material in a fetted pool."

Your claim here is not supported by any evidence you've presented.
If you care to present evidence, I'll be happy to address it.
The fact of this matter is that everything I've posted here is truthful to the best of my knowledge.

2,911 posted on 01/09/2014 5:33:45 AM PST by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2864 | View Replies]

To: redleghunter
redleghunter: "There it is again, the notion that “many” founders think as you.
I posted four times the church affiliations of the founders and 51 of 55 belonged to churches with Trinitarian confessions."

And each time you've posted your misleading data, I've corrected you.
Among our "top tier" Founders, nearly all expressed deistic/theistic or Unitarian ideas, ideas which on this thread have been labeled "God Damned Heretic".

That's why I'm here to request that such ideas be treated with forbearance and respect, especially on Free Republic New/Activism threads.

2,912 posted on 01/09/2014 5:42:29 AM PST by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2866 | View Replies]

To: redleghunter
redleghunter: "You seem fixated on the Mason aspect.
Perhaps you can share what high level Masons believe about God and Christianity?"

I know little about Freemasons, except that many of our Founders were, and of those, Washington himself was probably typical.
American Freemasons were not (then or now) anti-Christian, but Washington's religious views, as expressed in his own correspondence did not extend much beyond acknowledging the hand of "Providence" in helping American success.

Many Christian denominations (especially Roman Catholic) have been strongly anti-Mason, but Washington's own church (Anglican/Episcopal) was not:

Roman Catholic opposition is doubtless typical:

I take all this to mean that our Founders were nearly all, to a more-or-less degree, influenced by deistic/theistic, Unitarian and/or Freemason ideas.

That's why I'm here to request they be treated with forbearance and respect.

2,913 posted on 01/09/2014 6:06:43 AM PST by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2867 | View Replies]

To: GarySpFc; CynicalBear
GarySpFc: "If we treat those expressing anti-Christ theology with respect, then we become the enemy of Christ.
So, you will never receive respect from us."

No "anti-Christ theology" has been expressed here, and what you think of BroJoeK makes no difference.
I am here to request that you treat our Founders' religious ideas, and those similar, with forbearance and respect.

I think those ideas were essential to the Republic they founded, and to any hope we have of ever restoring it.

2,914 posted on 01/09/2014 6:12:38 AM PST by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2870 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
Thanks for the link.
I doubt if more than one or two posting here fully meet its definitions.
2,915 posted on 01/09/2014 6:34:11 AM PST by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2894 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

Then you ignore the entire context of Revelation 1.


2,916 posted on 01/09/2014 7:00:43 AM PST by redleghunter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2905 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

And again you points are assertions and inferences and not based on historical evidence.


2,917 posted on 01/09/2014 7:02:31 AM PST by redleghunter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2913 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK; redleghunter
>>I don't agree that Revelation 1:8 refers to Jesus.<<

I have no doubt that you don’t. But those of us who read scripture as it is written understand who it is that the message is from.

Revelation 1:5 And from Jesus Christ,

Revelation 1: 7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen. 8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

You don’t need to agree. Just understand the consequences of denying he words of Jesus.

>>Again, I agree that you can interpret it however you wish, and ask forbearance and respect for those who see it differently.<<

You can beg “forbearance and respect” all you want but will not get either from those of us who follow Christ.

“But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.” Galatians 1:8-9

2,918 posted on 01/09/2014 7:45:17 AM PST by CynicalBear (For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2905 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK; metmom
>>Revelations 1:8 clearly refers to Isaiah 44:6, which speaks of Yahweh and Elohim.<<

Dude! I think you need to read Isaiah 44:6 again.

Isaiah 44:6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

Who is the King of Israel from the lineage of David?

2,919 posted on 01/09/2014 8:21:43 AM PST by CynicalBear (For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2906 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK; GarySpFc
>>No "anti-Christ theology" has been expressed here,<<

That is exactly what you have been doing here.

1 John 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

You keep denying that Jesus was God come in the flesh.

John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

You have consistently denied that Jesus is The mighty God, The everlasting Father and thus are expressing antichrist theology.

2,920 posted on 01/09/2014 8:38:18 AM PST by CynicalBear (For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2914 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 2,881-2,9002,901-2,9202,921-2,940 ... 2,961-2,967 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson