It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Sometimes I wonder about the Trinitarian view.

page: 17
4
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 3 2013 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 

You know those last replies tell me one thing, you are just ignoring the bible whenever it does not fit your perspective, you always have some bizarre answer for everything.
No, I'm not ignoring the Bible.

Didn't you say recently that you thought that Acts was a work of fiction? That would certainly fall in line with "ignoring the Bible".

Your liberal theology pal Elaine Pagels dismisses Acts because it furthers her cause, but if you look at non-biased scholars, you will find near universal support of that book as an historical document.

It is ironic that you paint everyone, from me as a Roman Catholic, to NOTurTypical as a non-denimational, to Blue_Jay as a Jehovah's Witness, as being "cult members", and yet it is you who has adopted the cult of liberal theology and historical revisionism, and apparently done so proudly.




posted on May, 3 2013 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by adjensen
 


What's with the personal attacks?

Because it is incredibly irritating to try and hold an intelligent conversation with someone who not only doesn't understand the topic at hand, but who seems to have zero interest in putting forth the effort to understand the topic at hand. If you set aside an hour, maybe two, you could read, and understand Acts of the Apostles and we would be spared statements like "Paul was a Roman Pharisee who was an agent of the government" and maybe we could have a reasonable discussion.

But you'd rather slog on, in your ignorance, because it suits your case. I have no interest in promoting that, I'd rather that you learned, and did, actually, become an "Enlightened 1".



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 11:34 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


Due to these these silly ad hominem attacks you keep using over and over again.

I leave you with this final scripture, Matthew 7:6; as too why I will cease my dialogue with you at this time as per Jesus instructions in these types of situations. I particular liked the People's New Testament commentary on this verse.


edit on 3-5-2013 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 11:35 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


So Acts says that Paul wasn't a Roman or a Pharisee? Sources or verses? You obviously misunderstood my meaning, probably because you are just looking for reasons to disagree with me. He was a Roman who was also a Pharisee, that was my point, but I guess it flew over your head because, like I said, you are just looking for reasons to disagree.


And I agree with jmdewey about Acts being historical fiction. It wasn't written by a man named Luke either, but Plutarch. Maybe if you'd do a bit of studying with an open mind you'd see that too, but you ignore it because it doesn't suit YOUR case.
edit on 3-5-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 11:39 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 

Didn't you say recently that you thought that Acts was a work of fiction? That would certainly fall in line with "ignoring the Bible".
That is not ignoring the Bible, and I don't even know what Blue Jay was even talking about when he said that. Acts may be a good representation of what people may have thought, in a very general way, back in the third century, but it is not what it claims to be, which is an eyewitness report, which makes it fiction.

Your liberal theology pal Elaine Pagels dismisses Acts because it furthers her cause, but if you look at non-biased scholars, you will find near universal support of that book as an historical document.
I don't know what her take is on Acts. I don't know where you are getting your information from unless you are reading something over a hundred years old.


It is ironic that you paint everyone, from me as a Roman Catholic, to NOTurTypical as a non-denominational, to Blue_Jay as a Jehovah's Witness, as being "cult members", and yet it is you who has adopted the cult of liberal theology and historical revisionism, and apparently done so proudly.
"Roman Catholic" is a cult. "Jehovah's Witness" is a cult. "Dispensationalism" is a cult. "Pentecostalism" is a cult.
So you are claiming that "Liberal" Christianity is a cult? That's funny! It's just being modern, which in biblical studies, is important. You want to be up to date on the latest research. That is just good practice, not a cult and that you think that it is, seems very weird to me, coming from someone fascinated with living according to Medieval ideals.
edit on 3-5-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 11:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 

Due to these these silly ad hominem attacks you keep using over and over again.

It isn't if I am pointing out that you are using flawed and deceptive arguments put out by a cult.
That is not a personal attack, it is attacking your argument.
You are probably just frustrated because you can only support your "side" with what amounts to so much tripe.
The Watchtower is a disseminator of propaganda of a fantastic scenario not supported by anyone not a member of that cult.



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
So you are claiming that "Liberal" Christianity is a cult? That's funny! It's just being modern, which in biblical studies, is important.

No, it is not "being modern". It is no different than the 19th Century "Quest for the Historical Jesus" before it -- an effort to redefine historical Christianity in terms of what it wants it to be, not what it was. That's intellectually dishonest, pure and simple.

You're buying into a political agenda, Dewey, make no mistake about it. Pick up a copy of The Real Jesus : The Misguided Quest for the Historical Jesus and the Truth of the Traditional Gospels by Luke Timothy Johnson and, despite the fact that you're not an historian, you will see what is really going on.



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 11:58 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 

You're buying into a political agenda, Dewey, make no mistake about it. Pick up a copy of The Real Jesus : The Misguided Quest for the Historical Jesus and the Truth of the Traditional Gospels by Luke Timothy Johnson and, despite the fact that you're not an historian, you will see what is really going on.

I'm some dude on the internet giving personal opinions.
If I was a "historian", I would probably have a job and be too busy to be goofing around on forums.
I'm not being duped into any agenda and ignore a lot of stuff that I think is a waste of time like people in committees deciding if Jesus was "real" or not.
I'm into theology and read other people with that same interest.
"Liberal" to me means not believing that God "wrote" the Bible.
edit on 3-5-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2013 @ 12:06 AM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


It has nothing to do with religion, Dewey. It is political, pure and simple -- the "religious left" has the same agenda as the "political left", they just have different means of achieving it.



posted on May, 4 2013 @ 12:22 AM
link   


"Roman Catholic" is a cult. "Jehovah's Witness" is a cult. "Dispensationalism" is a cult. "Pentecostalism" is a cult.


Oh man did he just go there, wow he did.
So get this people, all forms of Christianity are wrong except his, the pure arrogance, just wow.

Individual members of those groups if they were good Christians did have God's blessing in the past.
And at one point the Catholics were the only game in town so to speak, yes some of the clergy may have been evil. It does not mean historically it's members are all bad or doomed. The bible said Christians would be judged by there actions.(by their fruits) Then you would know who the true and false Christians were.

And really I can't believe I am defending Catholics, but again I have to acknowledge that if a person wanted to be a Christian for centuries it meant being a Catholic. And if you lived in a far away land and heard about Jesus and accepted him from a Catholic missionary, well that was better than being a pagan and worshiping a myriad of imaginary gods.




edit on 4-5-2013 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2013 @ 12:28 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 

It has nothing to do with religion, Dewey. It is political, pure and simple -- the "religious left" has the same agenda as the "political left", they just have different means of achieving it.
Most of the stuff that you consider liberal, I don't buy into, as simple as that, and I'm not politically liberal. What I am into is analyzing the text of the Bible to see what the author actually had on his mind when he wrote whatever it is that he wrote.
I actually have a pretty strong aversion to what you are talking about when you say liberal.
I am liberal in that I don't feel obligated to accept what some church said about what the Bible means, some hundreds of years ago.



posted on May, 4 2013 @ 12:40 AM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


When you cite Elaine Pagels, Helen King, or the assorted idiots that comprise the Jesus Seminar, you are citing liberal hacks who view Christian scripture not as truth, but as something to be distorted, disputed or otherwise dispensed with, in order to conform to a political, not religious, view.

In the course of this discussion, you have cited Pagels, so one is left with the inevitable conclusion that you either agree with her political views (making you a liberal theologian) or you didn't know her position (making you lazy in vetting your sources.)



posted on May, 4 2013 @ 12:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 

. . . the pure arrogance, just wow.

Actually having your own opinion, rather than having one jammed into you by a cult is "arrogant"?
What I believe, I think is right.
Cults by definition, are naturally wrong.
People can think whatever they want, that is their right.
Making other people believe it by threats or inducing fear (or any other form of brainwashing), is not right.

edit on 4-5-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2013 @ 12:46 AM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


If I'm not mistaken, BlueJay doesn't accept the OT, so he does have his own unique opinion.

Correct me if I'm wrong in that Blue.



posted on May, 4 2013 @ 12:47 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 

In the course of this discussion, you have cited Pagels, so one is left with the inevitable conclusion that you either agree with her political views (making you a liberal theologian) or you didn't know her position (making you lazy in vetting your sources.)
None of that makes any sense.
This thread is on the Trinity, and what usually comes up in that kind of discussion is the Council of Nicaea. Instrumental in getting the trinity topic on the agenda of that council was Athanasius.
I was citing Pagels because she gives a concise history of the person.
Maybe you think that is liberal, to criticise someone the church made a saint.
I don't.
edit on 4-5-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2013 @ 12:48 AM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 


I accept the Old Testament, but we aren't under the Mosaic law because Jesus ended it.



posted on May, 4 2013 @ 12:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


I disagree. According to Jesus, nothing would/will pass from the Law until heaven and Earth disappear. The Earth is still here, meaning nothing has passed from the Law.

Read Matthew 5:17-18, Jesus said that he didn't come to abolish (end) the Law.
edit on 4-5-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2013 @ 01:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by adjensen
 


I stated very clearly that "Bob" is Jesus. Are you denying that Jesus died for us?


Jesus died for us. Therefore only baptism in Jesus name is valid.

So someone who honestly believed that Jesus' name was Bob can legitimately baptize people with the name Bob, because they think that's how you pronounce Jesus' name. Okay, glad that we have that behind us.


The apostles baptized in Jesus Christ. That is Christian baptism and you are arguing against it.

No, I'm not -- you and I and the Apostles are in agreement -- it doesn't matter what the spelling or pronunciation is, the words associated with baptism are not what is important, rather that it is done by the authority of Christ, which is what "in the name of" means.


I said only baptism into Jesus Christ is valid. Again, Bob did not die for us. Stop twisting what I say.



posted on May, 4 2013 @ 02:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


I disagree. According to Jesus, nothing would/will pass from the Law until heaven and Earth disappear. The Earth is still here, meaning nothing has passed from the Law.

Read Matthew 5:17-18, Jesus said that he didn't come to abolish (end) the Law.
edit on 4-5-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)


We can't be under that law or we would still be stoning adulterers and killing sheep as sacrifices.
That Scripture alludes to the fact that the Law leads to Christ and was a starting point for people to understand good from bad, a basic morality that carried through into the New Testament.


Romans 7: 6&7 ASV

But now we have been discharged from the law, having died to that wherein we were held; so that we serve in newness of the spirit, and not in oldness of the letter.

7What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Howbeit, I had not known sin, except through the law: for I had not known coveting, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet:



posted on May, 4 2013 @ 09:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


Correct. Jesus fulfilled Daniel's 70th week. He made an end to the sacrifices.

That is why God destroyed the temple in 70 AD.




top topics



 
4
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join