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.
Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
No, I'm not ignoring the Bible.
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.
Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by adjensen
What's with the personal attacks?
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.
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".
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.
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it furthers her cause, but if you look at non-biased scholars, you will find near universal support of that book as an historical document.
"Roman Catholic" is a cult. "Jehovah's Witness" is a cult. "Dispensationalism" is a cult. "Pentecostalism" is a cult.
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.
Due to these these silly ad hominem attacks you keep using over and over again.
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.
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.
"Roman Catholic" is a cult. "Jehovah's Witness" is a cult. "Dispensationalism" is a cult. "Pentecostalism" is a cult.
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.
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.
. . . the pure arrogance, just wow.
None of that makes any sense.
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.)
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.
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)
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: