Jesus is NEVER coming back in the flesh

page: 5
9
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 5 2011 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by ICEKOHLD
reply to post by IAMIAM
 


please tell me you live somewhere near atlanta. i'm sure that's a far cry...but one can hope. sure is a shame that some of the best folks i've met have been on the web and not in real life!


No my friend, I am in Baltimore, Md.

I moved back up here a year ago from Jacksonville, NC and the closest I ever came to Atlanta was a brief stop In Macon back in 94.

God bless the internet.



With Love,

Your Brother




posted on Nov, 8 2011 @ 08:18 PM
link   
reply to post by IAMIAM
 


IAM, I love you, and I know that you love as you have been commanded, because it permeates your writing. Therefor I must tell you out of love and concern, that you are being mislead. Behind all of the pietism you display are undercurrents of delusion, I would say arrogance too, but that's not entirely accurate because it's apart from you. The blasphemy and self assurance of your writing is not who you are, but it shows from whence these ideas came. You have fallen for pietism, my friend. The idea that creed does not matter, only your personal relationship with God. Christ left a Church on Earth, but many don't believe this is true, because they know Protestantism couldn't have been that Church, and they've fallen for Roman Catholic propaganda and anti-Christian propaganda that claims that the Roman Church was the first and only Church until Protestantism.

Look to the past my friend at what those early Christians who learned from the apostles believed. They do not share your views. The Father is the Godhead, and all glory honor and worship is due unto Him. The Logos (the Word), who in His incarnation is Yahshuah ha-Moshiach, the ladder connecting mankind with their Father, proceeds from the Father. The Word proceeds from He who spoke, and is subject to His will, but it is not apart from Him (Isaiah 55:9-11 and John 1). The spirit proceeds from the Father and shall do His will, but it is Him, and not apart from Him. These three persons share one nature as you and I share one nature as created beings. You and I are man. The Three are One and He is God.

Christ is unbegotten and uncreated, though He is the son of God because He proceeds from the Father. He is also Son of Man because he took human flesh from the Theotokos: the Virgin Mary. Christ needed to become incarnate; become the Theanthropos (God-man) to restore the nature of humanity from its fallen nature of corruption and elevate it to glory. Since the moment of the incarnation, Christ has had the nature of both God and Man in their entirety, and it shall be this way forever. Our bodies shall be raised at the resurrection and judgment and those who have accepted His sacrifice and His sovereignty (evident throughout ALL of the NT, you can't escape it: Yahshuah is LORD) shall partake of the divine nature (2 Peter 1) in perfect communion and love with God. For Christ to truly be the ladder connecting heaven and earth this cannot change. Therefor he shall return in the flesh, though likely not in our lifetimes.

Your doctrines stem from a (deeply) flawed private interpretation of the scripture (2 Peter 1:20) and from a mistrust of any earthly institution. Christ came and established a Church on Earth, a visible collection of believers professing ONE faith. None of the early Christians, no, not even those who knew Christ Himself believed as you do. It is heresy, it is divisive, it is the doctrine of demons that you proclaim. You denounce the followers of the Way (first called Christianity in Antioch) and decry their doctrines as backward religionism, because at the heart of your belief, you only trust yourself and who you believe God to be. It is the ultimate test of faith to trust the Church Christ established which is filled with sinners. However, one must remember that all of mankind was made "according to the image of God" and has the capacity to be filled with His Holy Spirit. Herein lies the supreme arrogance of your ideology (not your person) in that according to your belief, you know more than the apostles and those who learned at their feet.

I have seen your work and read of your life and there is much instability in it (I don't mean to poison the well or put you down). We must all guard our hearts and minds from the evil one. Far holier men and women than us have written of demons disguised as angels presenting ideas that appeared beautiful on the outside, but reaked of death from within. Beneath your message of love is a false doctrine of death that will save no one. Again, I say, you have been mislead. We are not saved by love, we are saved by knowing God through his Word made flesh. Herein lies the beauty of the incarnation, that "God became man, so that man might become God" "through grace what He is by nature". God also became man that we may relate to Him. The creator took on the entire mantle of creation, all of it's pain and temptations so that He could reach us and fill the gap. You are not of the divine nature, but in knowing him you may partake of it.

In XC and with love,
Your brother
edit on 8-11-2011 by kallisti36 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2011 @ 10:13 PM
link   
reply to post by kallisti36
 

God became man, so that man might become God
So now you like St. Augustine?
Or just on some issues?



posted on Nov, 8 2011 @ 11:06 PM
link   
reply to post by IAMIAM
 


Ahem. Jesus will return by the way he left, in his glorified body and he will come down on the Mt. of Olives. Everyone saw him go, so he was in his physical self, so obviously he will return and will be seen returning. He was also seen talking to Moses and Eliyah. The events of his return were spoken of by himself and to say otherwise is to call him a liar.

Nuff said.



posted on Nov, 8 2011 @ 11:16 PM
link   
reply to post by kallisti36
 


I can agree with this statement. It's nice to see someone who knows who Christ really is even though we have been told all through the Old Testament and New Testament who he really is, many cannot accept it.

This link below shows what some muslim believe about him, that he will be one of the divine prophet Muhammad's people and that he is not really the creator.

www.jesuswillreturn.com...

Imam Rabbani wrote: "Jesus (pbuh) will descend from the sky and will be a member of Prophet Muhammad's (may God bless him and grant him peace) community. In other words, he will be one of his people and will abide by the Divine law."88

They seem a bit confused as to whom is going to whose people. The Prophet Muhammad does not come before the messiah, he is below him.



posted on Nov, 8 2011 @ 11:31 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


That was actually St. Athanasius, who defended the Trinity against Arius and established the 27 book NT canon that *all* Christians now use. Needless to say, I love him.


addendum: I don't totally dislike Blessed Augustine. His devotional works are beautiful and I would gladly recommend his Confessions to anyone. It's his theologuemen (theological opinions) I have a problem with. His refutation of Pelagius, while well intended, went way overboard in emphasizing the depravity of man and deemphasizing the cooperation with grace that is necessary for salvation (faith *through* works). Also, as a former Gnostic libertine, his about-face into Catholicism left him with some very unhealthy ideas about sex, which coupled with the flawed Vulgate translation of a passage concerning Adam's sin (I can't remember) brought about the doctrine of Original Sin. Blessed Augustine was a wonderful Christian who always strove to defend Orthodoxy and would be appalled at how many heresies have been extrapolated from his writing (Sola Fide, the Immaculate Conception, Predestinationism, Purgatory, Limbo, Papal Supremacy, and pretty much all of Calvinism)
edit on 8-11-2011 by kallisti36 because: (no reason given)
edit on 8-11-2011 by kallisti36 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 05:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
reply to post by IAMIAM
 


Ahem. Jesus will return by the way he left, in his glorified body and he will come down on the Mt. of Olives. Everyone saw him go, so he was in his physical self, so obviously he will return and will be seen returning. He was also seen talking to Moses and Eliyah. The events of his return were spoken of by himself and to say otherwise is to call him a liar.

Nuff said.
The word in the Greek in Acts 1:11, where Jesus' ascension and the subsequent explanation was given, at the Mount of Olives, is, erchomai, which can mean, coming, or, going, depending on the context.
It does not say anything about coming to that particular spot, and most likely was explaining how Jesus was not just going up as high as normal clouds, but was in fact going to keep going (in that same way, the same mode of transportation, ie. clouds) until he fulfills the Prophecy in Daniel where the Son of Man comes to the Ancient of Days. There is nothing in the verse that would suggest otherwise.
For a more detailed exposition on this subject, go to my earlier posts on this thread, starting at the fifth post down on page 2.
My guess is that Jesus' glorified body would be like those bodies which the Apostles looked upon, when they saw Elijah and Moses talking with Jesus. This would be the same kind of glorified bodies we will have when we go to heaven to meet Jesus.
We never heard Jesus speak directly and we have one Gospel, the Gospel of John, which contains no such apocalyptic imagery. If someone had never read the synoptics, and only knew about Jesus by somehow coming across the Gospel of John, they would know nothing about a return, other than the return of Jesus to his Apostles, after his resurrection, to breath on them to give them the spirit, personally. We have the ability to have the same sort of spirit, today, though not receiving it in such a dramatic fashion as that.
edit on 9-11-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


Matthew 24: 30,31 "Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory. And he will send his angels with a great sound of trumpet, and they will gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other."

Mark 13:26 "Then they will see the Son of Man coming in the clouds with great power and glory."



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
reply to post by IAMIAM
 


Ahem. Jesus will return by the way he left, in his glorified body and he will come down on the Mt. of Olives. Everyone saw him go, so he was in his physical self, so obviously he will return and will be seen returning. He was also seen talking to Moses and Eliyah. The events of his return were spoken of by himself and to say otherwise is to call him a liar.

Nuff said.
The word in the Greek in Acts 1:11, where Jesus' ascension and the subsequent explanation was given, at the Mount of Olives, is, erchomai, which can mean, coming, or, going, depending on the context.
It does not say anything about coming to that particular spot, and most likely was explaining how Jesus was not just going up as high as normal clouds, but was in fact going to keep going (in that same way, the same mode of transportation, ie. clouds) until he fulfills the Prophecy in Daniel where the Son of Man comes to the Ancient of Days. There is nothing in the verse that would suggest otherwise.
For a more detailed exposition on this subject, go to my earlier posts on this thread, starting at the fifth post down on page 2.
My guess is that Jesus' glorified body would be like those bodies which the Apostles looked upon, when they saw Elijah and Moses talking with Jesus. This would be the same kind of glorified bodies we will have when we go to heaven to meet Jesus.
We never heard Jesus speak directly and we have one Gospel, the Gospel of John, which contains no such apocalyptic imagery. If someone had never read the synoptics, and only knew about Jesus by somehow coming across the Gospel of John, they would know nothing about a return, other than the return of Jesus to his Apostles, after his resurrection, to breath on them to give them the spirit, personally. We have the ability to have the same sort of spirit, today, though not receiving it in such a dramatic fashion as that.
edit on 9-11-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

Yet, by the context within the text and historically (this is why I don't like Sola Scriptura) it is evident that Christ would return even in John.


20 Then Peter, turning around, saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following, who also had leaned on His breast at the supper, and said, “Lord, who is the one who betrays You?” 21 Peter, seeing him, said to Jesus, “But Lord, what about this man?” 22 Jesus said to him, “If I will that he remain till I come, what is that to you? You follow Me.” 23 Then this saying went out among the brethren that this disciple would not die. Yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but, “If I will that he remain till I come, what is that to you?” 24 This is the disciple who testifies of these things, and wrote these things; and we know that his testimony is true.


The context of this passage clearly indicates a return, despite the ambiguous nature of erchomai. Furthermore, your idea of someone simply running across John and becoming a Christian from that, is a strawman. The way John's gospel is written is to elaborate on what was already written in the Church. You cannot divorce scripture from the Church nor its history or traditions. Scripture is not given to private interpretation (2 Peter 1:20). John's Gospel contains things that the synoptics left out, or understandings that came to the Beloved Disciple later in life. The whole purpose of the above quotation was to clear up the misconception among early Christians that Yahshuah was bound to return while the apostles were still alive. John was the last living apostle and many believed that Christ would return before he met death. John in this passage clarifies that Yahshuah never said that, but rather told people that He would return on his own time.



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 07:52 PM
link   
reply to post by kallisti36
 

Yet, by the context within the text and historically (this is why I don't like Sola Scriptura) it is evident that Christ would return even in John.
Historically, the early church fathers were wrong about a lot of things.
I don't see what the context is that you are basing your assumption on.
I probably need to take another look at John to see if I missed something but right now I think that according to the Jesus of John, the Apocalypse happened at his crucifixion. The future coming is to every person, in a spiritual way.

The context of this passage clearly indicates a return, despite the ambiguous nature of erchomai.
If you are seeing something I am not, you might want to point that out.

Furthermore, your idea of someone simply running across John and becoming a Christian from that, is a strawman.
It's a hypothetical, and I did not say anything about someone becoming a Christian. I don't think it is far fetched and I recall a time when there were people encouraging anyone curious about the Bible to start by reading John. I guess now days they would suggest reading Revelation about warrior killers on horseback.

The way John's gospel is written is to elaborate on what was already written in the Church.
I would contend that John was written to refute the synoptics for their errors.

You cannot divorce scripture from the Church nor its history or traditions.
I don't think there are genuine traditions in the church. I think those that were genuine were done away with through the various factional fights that went on and broke the chain of succession, so to speak, between the Apostolic doctrines, and those who came after.

Scripture is not given to private interpretation (2 Peter 1:20).
I don't take 2 Peter as being a legitimate letter from the Apostle Peter and was likely a later forgery.

John's Gospel contains things that the synoptics left out, or understandings that came to the Beloved Disciple later in life.
I think that the synoptics were written by people with an agenda to promote the idea of a future apocalypse, like the one they were expecting and caused most Jews to reject Jesus. This was a way to get what they wanted, anyway, by putting their hoped for kingdom in the mouth of their version of Jesus. John went and fixed the evil of those others.

The whole purpose of the above quotation was to clear up the misconception among early Christians that Yahshuah was bound to return while the apostles were still alive. John was the last living apostle and many believed that Christ would return before he met death. John in this passage clarifies that Yahshuah never said that, but rather told people that He would return on his own time.
You are seeing something I don't.
edit on 9-11-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 11:15 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


"Well.. that's just like.. your opinion man"

I've run into an impasse with several of your ideas, because you are very set on them despite evidence to the contrary. And there is *always* evidence to the contrary. Yes 2 Peter was up in the air for centuries, but the Church ultimately accepted it and it has withstood the test of time (I always feel that that is a sign of God's favor in a document, but that's hardly scholastically compelling). You can make a good case for and against Peter and I stand with the Church.

I'm not saying Eusebius was a good historian (God forbid, and he was an iconoclast), but very early writings mention St. John in Ephesis living to an incredibly old age. This is backed up by the text.

I would point you to Christ's prophecy of an enduring Church that "hades would not prevail against", but you have a bias against the synoptics anyway. Christ left a Church, end of story. There *has* to be an enduring tradition or else he failed. It isn't gnosticism, arianism, evtychianism, pnuematomachianism, montanism, or Macedonianism because they did not endure through history. It has to be Orthodox Catholic, Roman Catholic, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian Church of the East, or Mar Thomas Christians.

I don't think John was refuting anything in the synoptics, though he may have corrected some details such as when the crucifixion occurred (or maybe he was making a theological point by placing the crucifixion at the time of the temple sacrifice and it isn't historical). It's the gaps in my opinion that show that John was filling in the gaps of the synoptics and not writing apart from them. John doesn't write about the Last Supper, but makes a clear reference to it in John 6 "Unless you eat of the flesh of the son of man..". Instead he elaborates on an event, the foot washing, that likely seemed unimportant to the writers of the synoptics, but John in retrospect realized the importance of the event. John does contain apocalyptic imagery and does speak of the second coming and the Judgment, but doesn't emphasize it, because there were already scores of epistles and three Gospels talking about it.
edit on 9-11-2011 by kallisti36 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 11:40 PM
link   
reply to post by kallisti36
 

"Well.. that's just like.. your opinion man"
That's right.
And a fair thing to say.
I have my opinions but they are not things I came by decades ago and have settled into.
Some of these opinions are only weeks old. I am constantly reevaluating my opinions.
I don't know what evidence you are saying I am ignoring.
You say there is but I am still not seeing it.
I get my opinions from looking at evidence, not by ignoring it.
Obviously there were churches, you can find that in Paul's writings.
I don't think there was a concept of a universal church, early on.
edit on 9-11-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 12:27 AM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


I was speaking of past issues we dealt with, like YHWH being the same as God the Father or not. There's a bit of internal evidence in the differences in the grammar of 1 and 2 Peter, that is fair ground to make the assumption that they were not written by the same person. It also would make perfect sense if he wrote the 2nd himself and used a secretary for the 1st. I am of the latter opinion, because that is the tradition of the Church and it perfectly explains the differences. The same issues pop up between Revelation and the rest of Johannine literature. The Gospel and epistles are written in pretty good Greek, but Revelation is atrocious. Considering that John was an uneducated Galilean fisherman (as was Peter), it would make sense that he would use a secretary, but wouldn't be able to get one in a prison colony. Both sides have valid points and your opinion on the matter certainly isn't intellectually bankrupt. I just opt to side with the Church over secular western scholars who gleefully pounce on every inconsistency.

As for your observation about Christians pushing John on people first or Revelation (ooh flashy) you're totally correct and I'm sick of it. It's actually a very Protestant thing to do. The Orthodox Church on the other hand starts people off on the synoptics; giving them the Earthly things before the Heavenly things. I nearly burst into applause upon finding this out, because I always thought John was last for a reason. The synoptics introduce us to the human messiah and savior and hint at his Godhood (you'll notice ego eimi popping up at very important moments, one of my favorites is totally butchered in English. It's when Christ is walking on water and says "Be of good cheer! *It is I* do not be afraid" literally "I AM, do not be afraid"). They are written for different kinds of people: Matthew for Jews (those who know scripture and somewhere between Mark and Luke in regards to the Philosophy vs. Action paradigm), Mark for Romans (the action oriented and not philosophically minded), and Luke for Greeks (Philosophical and ponderous). John is a kind of everymans' gospel with very simple language but incredibly profound theology and a deeply personal Christ (John can essentially be boiled down to personal experiences with Him; those who rejected Him, loved Him, and could not understand Him). It fills in the gaps of the Synoptics and elaborates on the most important things.

Just out of curiosity, what is it you believe at the moment? The last I checked, you were an Arian with some
Gnostic overtones in your philosophy.

Addition: As far as the universal Church goes, of course they believed in one Church. The texts make a clear distinction between the Church and the collection of Churches therein; just as the modern day Church. Of course there was division early on, that's very evident in the text. However, writers as early as St. Ignatius make a distinction between the Orthodox and the Heterodox, but the big one making the distinction is St. Irenaeus who most certainly believed in a universal Orthodox Church.
edit on 10-11-2011 by kallisti36 because: (no reason given)
edit on 10-11-2011 by kallisti36 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 01:13 AM
link   
reply to post by kallisti36
 

Just out of curiosity, what is it you believe at the moment?
That there are a bunch of anonymous letters in the NT, some with the names of Apostles attached, but not written by them.
Really anonymous would be Hebrews and Acts.
Anonymous but falsely named would be, Mathew, Mark, John, Revelation, James, Jude, 1&2 Peter, 1&2 Timothy, Titus, Letters of John, 2 Thessalonians, Ephesians, and Colossians. Luke is a special case, not being an Apostle, and apparently pure fiction, based on other materials.
Basically most of the NT was written by people we do not know but did it for various reasons and to promote their own philosophy and their writings got accepted as having been written by whoever the forger claimed to be, or in other cases just assigned an Apostle's name to an unknown author's work.
The only ones probably actually written by an "Apostle" was ones written by a self appointed (unless you discard what Acts has to say about him) Apostle, Paul.
So what I am trying to do now is figure out why all these various unknown people were writing what we just blindly accept as "the Bible".
edit on 10-11-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 07:35 AM
link   
reply to post by kallisti36
 



There's a bit of internal evidence in the differences in the grammar of 1 and 2 Peter, that is fair ground to make the assumption that they were not written by the same person.


Yes, Silvanius was Peter's amanuensis. And when Peter chose to write 2 Peter from prison just prior to his martyrdom, Silvanius's services were not available.



posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 10:43 AM
link   
Here is part of an article on 2 Peter:

There has been much debate over the authorship of 2 Peter. Most conservative evangelicals hold to the traditional view that Peter was the author, but historical and literary critics have almost unanimously concluded that to be impossible. For example: Ksemann states that 2 Peter is “perhaps the most dubious writing” in the New Testament. Harris says, “virtually none believe that 2 Peter was written by Jesus’ chief disciple.”
Bible.org
I think the writer of this article meant fundamentalist, people who believe that God somehow wrote the Bible, and that if King James says it's the Bible, then it is, without any higher criticism allowed. People just did whatever they thought the highest authority of the time thought was best, and now we are stuck with the results of people who did not conduct rigorous studies, but went with what they personally liked, and it goes right back to this person, Athanasius who was this mean spirited power hungry megalomaniac who caused the collapse of the early church into internecine warfare (by way of his controversy against Arius), and I would label an anti-christ. He promoted his own version of the NT canon which just so happens to be identical with the one we have today.



posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 12:13 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


This is what confuses me. You make arguments from a semi-Christian standpoint from the text, but think it is entirely bunk. So, have you rejected Christ entirely? If not, how are you supposed to know Him without any sort of Church or reliable written record?



posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
Here is part of an article on 2 Peter:

There has been much debate over the authorship of 2 Peter. Most conservative evangelicals hold to the traditional view that Peter was the author, but historical and literary critics have almost unanimously concluded that to be impossible. For example: Ksemann states that 2 Peter is “perhaps the most dubious writing” in the New Testament. Harris says, “virtually none believe that 2 Peter was written by Jesus’ chief disciple.”
Bible.org
I think the writer of this article meant fundamentalist, people who believe that God somehow wrote the Bible, and that if King James says it's the Bible, then it is, without any higher criticism allowed. People just did whatever they thought the highest authority of the time thought was best, and now we are stuck with the results of people who did not conduct rigorous studies, but went with what they personally liked, and it goes right back to this person, Athanasius who was this mean spirited power hungry megalomaniac who caused the collapse of the early church into internecine warfare (by way of his controversy against Arius), and I would label an anti-christ. He promoted his own version of the NT canon which just so happens to be identical with the one we have today.


Again, we have the word of secular western scholars a millenia removed from the events and the early Christian writings like St. Ignatius, St. Polycarp, St. Justin Martyr, and the Didache, which attest to at least Matthew and John. One of my friends is a retired religious and Hebrew studies professor who taught in Jerusalem and let me tell you: the field of Biblical Archaeology and Historical Criticism is garbage. There are dozens of warring factions, all of which try to present themselves as the whole, and find themselves in trouble for not towing the party line. It's very brutal, full of vitriol, and very very imprecise, which is why I stay agnostic on many of these issues. I don't hold to Sola Scriptura, so my world wouldn't come crashing down if it were revealed that such and such text was a forgery. I don't know and neither do they. Only time will tell.

Now there's the matter of Arius. Arius used much of the same texts as St. Athanasius, but tried to extrapolate from them that Christ was a created being. St. Athanasius stood against this, because not only is it evident from John, that Christ was *always* with and one with the Father, but that anything else would mean that the Trinity were 3 separate deities. Arius had the novel teaching here, and essentially, the council of Nicaea concluded with "that's it! No more arguing, we've always worshiped Christ as God" and the final vote was several hundred in favor of the Trinity and two against. Your accusation of St. Athanasius being a megalomaniac is ridiculous. He spent his entire life being persecuted, because while the assembly of Bishops accepted the Trinity; the Arians had the numbers. Hell, Constantine and Helena were Arians, which certainly shows the impartiality of the council as opposed to this conspiracy theory that Constantine wrote the Bible and gave us the Trinity. If St. Athanasius was a megalomaniac he would have given in to the people and remained in a position of power, but instead when told, "The world is against you, Athanasius!" he replied, "Then I am against the world".

Now, the final absurdity of this idea is this: every single church accepted the Trinity. *All* ancient Christians revere St. Athanasius and there is no enduring Arian church. If St. Athanasius is the anti-Christ, then you are saying he beat God, because he destroyed His Church. So, either you have to say that Christ was wrong, or admit that you are wrong.
edit on 10-11-2011 by kallisti36 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by kallisti36
reply to post by jmdewey60
 
This is what confuses me. You make arguments from a semi-Christian standpoint from the text, but think it is entirely bunk. So, have you rejected Christ entirely? If not, how are you supposed to know Him without any sort of Church or reliable written record?
Think of how you would quote Irenaeus or Eusebius, or what would you think of someone who believes every word of Augustine is the inspired word of God?
I am thinking about what someone would say about a certain thing and if that was said in a way which slanted the readers understanding towards the writer's objective, meaning his own opinion which he wanted to promote over another (earlier) writer's opinion.



posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by kallisti36
 

[color=DarkSlateGray]..There are a lot of problems with your post, as I see it. You say,
"secular Western Scholars" but I think that is an assumption. I read
works by people I consider scholars on biblical criticism and I don't
think they are what I would call secular unless you mean not in the
employ of an official religious institution, such as a monk, or priest,
or working for a church owned college.
[color=DarkSlateGray]..I feel that people who write things about religion and Christianity and
the Bible do so because they have a real personal interest in it because
they have actual religious beliefs. They may not necessarily label themselves
Christians but I would not label them atheists.
[color=DarkSlateGray]..Being removed from the events is not a disadvantage. I used to think that way,
like you said, and 26 years ago I started building my library of the Early
Church Fathers and all those really old books which I could find (this was
before the internet and unless you lived by a university and could use their
library, you had to buy your own copies). What I found was people who
themselves were somewhat isolated, living as hermits sometimes, and using
hearsay, and having almost no direct contact with any original documents
or with actual people. They just passed along what amounted to folklore.
Then they were prone to wild speculation and held, insane to our understanding,
ridiculous superstitious and mythological concepts of what the world was and
how it worked.
[color=DarkSlateGray]..I don't feel the field of Biblical Archaeology and Historical Criticism is garbage,
as you say. I think how a lot of people may interpret it is garbage and I steer clear
as best I can from people who don't use proper methods of coming to conclusions, or
just are heavily biased and distort data to conform to the pre-set ideas.
I think on certain issues, like what I quoted, there is a way to treat scholarship as having a
"as a whole" opinion on some basic things, like the unlikeness of 2 Peter having been in fact
written by Peter.
[color=DarkSlateGray]..Unlike yourself, I trust scripture, which term I would apply to what seems to me to
be legitimate enough books in the NT. I don't trust in "Church traditions" because
of what I stated earlier, which is I don't think there are any because of the break
in handing down those traditions, because of the internal warfare in Christianity over the
Arius / Athanasius issue over the nature of the trinity. A lot of people got killed
and a lot of people were removed from office over this and the old-timers were
eliminated to where their successors had to be recruited from the ranks of the pagans.
[color=DarkSlateGray]..Arius was the foremost defender of the Trinity and understood it quite well and was the hero of the church for his promotion of it. Athanasius was I think Jealous of Arius and had
personal beliefs that contradicted Arius, and once he was able to worm his way into
the position of Bishop, used all the power of that office and worked tirelessly to accumulate
even more power, to fight against someone he could not get to acquiesce to his superiority.
[color=DarkSlateGray]..As for Nicaea, I think it could be another lie. There is no official record of the
controversy ever being discussed at the Council. It is said, later, by people working
to squash Arius, that there was some sort of determination made against him but not
one word of such a thing made it into the canon of the Council.
[color=DarkSlateGray]..I don't know where you are getting your information on this subject but it does not
fit with the facts as I understand them from what I consider a pretty thorough study
on the subject. Arius never said Jesus was created or ever did not exist at any time,
or was not god. I think you are reading some strange source for your information about Arius.
What you are saying makes no sense at all, where you say it is ridiculous for me to say
Athanasius was a megalomaniac and then you quote him saying he is against the world.
What do you call that? what you present as an argument seems absolute absurdity to me.
I really don't know what you are even saying. You are taking the absolutely wrong position
that Arius did not believe in the Trinity.
[color=DarkSlateGray]..All you are doing is promoting the concept of Might makes Right, that eventually after hundreds of years of warfare, the Athanasius side won, by murdering more saints than the
Arius side. Why do you think I go by scripture and not the Church? It is because they
have the blood of the saints on their hands and are the same sort of people who
crucified Jesus.
edit on 10-11-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
9
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum