Jesus Died On the Cross For Our Sins.. WHERE is the logic?

reply to post by jmdewey60


just curious, do you ignore the creation accounts, flood accounts, and so forth?
and if so, any particular reason why? did you know the book of daniel helps to elucidate the book of revelation?

reply to post by pthena


From the looks of it, very much so. Have you read the Ra Material?

reply to post by adjensen


You send me to a Catholic apologetic page that is obsessed with Shirley McClain and her book that came out when Johnny Carson was still hosting "The Tonight Show."!? It's very suspicious to me that the documents they quote from Origen are "recently discovered!" Just in time to refute Shirley McClain's book! How convenient!

St. Jerome (347-420) has been considered the pre-eminent scriptural commentator among the Latin Church Fathers. His Commentary on Matthew, written in 398 and profoundly influential in the West, appears here for the first time in English translation.

ABOUT THE TRANSLATOR:

Thomas P. Scheck is assistant professor of classics and theology at Ave Maria University. He is the translator of two previous volumes in the series, Origen's Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, Books 1-5 and Books 6-10, and author of Origen and the History of Justificationcuapress.cua.edu...

I'd like see to another translation from someone not so bias. His constant disclaimer "that's not what the church teaches" seems forced and his convoluted logic is unbelievable.

It seems that Origen is clearly having a problem with Jesus' statement affirming that John is Elijah, but remedies his conundrum by claiming that John the Baptist had 3 spiritual attachments, the Holy Ghost, Elijah and his own soul, all to avoid the plainly obvious suggestion of the"transmutation of the soul" (that the church doesn't teach, lol).

But do not marvel in regard to what is said about Elijah, if, just as something strange happened to him different from all the saints who are recorded, in respect of his having been caught up by a whirlwind into heaven, so his spirit had something of choice excellence, so that not only did it rest on Elisha, but also descended along with John at his birth; and that John, separately, “was filled with the Holy Ghost even from his mother’s womb,” and separately, “came before Christ in the spirit and power of Elijah.” For it is possible for several spirits not only worse, but also better, to be in the same man. David accordingly asks to be established by a free spirit, and that a right spirit be renewed in his inward parts.
www.sacred-texts.com...

Oh Okay, rather than trust what Jesus said, lets find the most convoluted, most outrageous and most eisegesis possible way out of our conundrum, and say that John the Baptist was possesssed by Elijah and the Holy Ghost in a spiritual triage. How very trinitarian of the person who put forth this bogus translation of a brilliant man's work. But, hey, Origen's works were being burned, edited and inerpolated since the 5th century, so why should we surprised when the church puts this garbage out and an apologetic argument against the concept of reincarnation which they didn't ban as hereasy until the middle of the 5th century.

Sorry, no cigar for you.

As I told Nut earlier, unless Origen did a 180 and changed his mind, the above document directly contradicts what he wrote here:

Or is it not more in conformity with reason, that every soul, for certain mysterious reasons (I speak now according to the opinion of Pythagoras, and Plato, and Empedocles, whom Celsus frequently names), is introduced into a body, and introduced according to its deserts and former actions? www.earlychristianwritings.com...

and here:

It can be shown that an incorporeal and reasonable being has life in itself independently of the body... then it is beyond a doubt bodies are only of secondary importance and arise from time to time to meet the varying conditions of reasonable creatures. Those who require bodies are clothed with them, and contrariwise, when fallen souls have lifted themselves up to better things their bodies are once more annihilated. They are ever vanishing and ever reappearing. —Origen

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

I have no idea what you're talking about. Genesis 6 says God sent the flood to kill the Nephillim.

I am sorry that you haven'y been able to free yourself from the delusion that the demons of your cult has you trapped in.

Now you denigrate to personal attacks.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by windword

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by windword

 

I'm not behaving difficultly, the link is already on the last page.


And yes, Origen is discussing reincarnation. Criticizing Clesus's position affirming the doctrine.

edit on 30-6-2013 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)

You'd have to have some fairly convoluted logic to deduce that from those quotes..

Read the title itself, "Contra Clesus", and the opening paragraph.

Have you even read it? I have and I come away the opinion of a man exploring and delving deeper into the argument for reincarnation in a logical and reasonable approach to the aspects of reincarnation and the nature of the pre-existent and immortal soul.

reply to post by windword

As I told Nut earlier, unless Origen did a 180 and changed his mind, the above document directly contradicts what he wrote here:

What part of "he wrote what you are quoting out of context in a document that was refuting Celsus and his heresy" do you not understand? You've been told that at least three times.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Isaiah 53 is in the Bible. You should know this.

If you were a normal Christian rather than a cultist, you would know that there is an old testament which was written by a now defunct religion.
The New Testament is what Christians go by, not the old one.
If it is not quoted in the NT, then it has no prophetic authority.

Jesus affirmed Isaiah. And the apostles taught Christianity from the OT. The NT wasn't even written yet when they began the church.

Originally posted by windword

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by windword

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by windword

 

I'm not behaving difficultly, the link is already on the last page.


And yes, Origen is discussing reincarnation. Criticizing Clesus's position affirming the doctrine.

edit on 30-6-2013 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)

You'd have to have some fairly convoluted logic to deduce that from those quotes..

Read the title itself, "Contra Clesus", and the opening paragraph.

Have you even read it? I have and I come away the opinion of a man exploring and delving deeper into the argument for reincarnation in a logical and reasonable approach to the aspects of reincarnation and the nature of the pre-existent and immortal soul.

Do you know what contra means? Origen was refuting Clesus.

From the first paragraph:

"And I know not, my pious Ambrosius, why you wished me to write a reply to the false charges brought by Celsus against the Christians, and to his accusations directed against the faith of the Churches in his treatise; as if the facts themselves did not furnish a manifest refutation, and the doctrine a better answer than any writing, seeing it both disposes of the false statements, and does not leave to the accusations any credibility or validity. "

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by adjensen

 

The quote I provided from Origen points toward him believing in some type of reincarnation. He says that bodies arise from time to time, clearly pointing to reincarnation.

He even says this:

By some inclination toward evil, certain spirit souls come into bodies, first of men; then, due to their association with the irrational passions after the allotted span of human life, they are changed into beasts, from which they sink to the level of plants. From this condition they rise again through the same stages and are restored to their heavenly place.

Source

If that's not reincarnation then I don't know what is.

That text does not appear in the actual writings of Origen. Google "beasts, from which they sink to the level of plants" and you'll see that it appears on a bunch of reincarnation promotion pages and Hare Krishna crap, but not the works of Origen. That tells me that it was either an outright fabrication, or an intentional mistranslation, because the actual writings of Origen are against reincarnation.

But, again, you won't care, because your incorrect opinion is more important to you than the facts.

Do you have a copy of the B. W. Butterworth translation of Origen's "First Principles, where that quote is cited to have come from?

reply to post by adjensen


Have you read the entire document? I have. I assure you those quotes are NOT taken out of context! If you think that they are, show us!

Geez! You've been told that more than 3 times!

reply to post by NOTurTypical


You need to read a little further. There is a lot that is discussed in the tome of that document. You can't refute what Origen opined.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Isaiah 53 is in the Bible. You should know this.

If you were a normal Christian rather than a cultist, you would know that there is an old testament which was written by a now defunct religion.
The New Testament is what Christians go by, not the old one.
If it is not quoted in the NT, then it has no prophetic authority.

The Torah and Tenach are as much a part of Christianity as it is Judaism. We use those scriptures to affirm Christ, as well as important lessons to be learned such as not to do the things they did, but the prophets wrote those scriptures, men who followed the Lord. We may not be under the Law but there is a wealth of information both spiritual and literal. All of it is about our God both then and now. It's a strange thing to call someone a cultist who reads the bible.

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

You need to read a little further. There is a lot that is discussed in the tome of that document. You can't refute what Origen opined.

Origen believed what you stated previously. That all souls were created during creation week. He rejected reincarnation where souls were reborn in numerous persons over numerous lifetimes.

Do you know what contra means in the title "Contra Clesus"?

reply to post by undo

just curious, do you ignore the creation accounts, flood accounts, and so forth?

I don't exactly ignore then, since there is references to those stories in The Christian Bible, and why the old testament was tacked on as an appendix.

and if so, any particular reason why?

Just so much self serving propaganda from the petty ruling class of a second rate client state.

did you know the book of daniel helps to elucidate the book of revelation?

I understand why people think that, but it probably causes more problems than it solves.

reply to post by jmdewey60

I don't exactly ignore then, since there is references to those stories in The Christian Bible, and why the old testament was tacked on as an appendix.

The Old Testament was not tacked on as an "appendix". Once you realize this, you'll know what it means to be a Christian and not a partial Christian.

reply to post by AfterInfinity
No, I read a couple of pages from the site I linked to. I just now found a webpage that seems to have it:
The Law of One

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

You need to read a little further. There is a lot that is discussed in the tome of that document. You can't refute what Origen opined.

Origen believed what you stated previously. That all souls were created during creation week. He rejected reincarnation where souls were reborn in numerous persons over numerous lifetimes.

No, he didn't. Not in that document, Contra Clesus, anyway.

reply to post by BlackGetsuga

The Torah and Tenach are as much a part of Christianity as it is Judaism.

"Judaism" is a modern invention. What existed at the time of Christ was the temple cult, that served a god that was supposed to live in a temple and demanded constant sacrifices. What passes as a religion for the Jews is veneration of ancient rabbis and their decisions about the law, as spelled out in the Talmud.

We use those scriptures to affirm Christ, as well as important lessons to be learned such as not to do the things they did, but the prophets wrote those scriptures, men who followed the Lord.

A lot of the people who became Christians were gentiles who couldn't care less what the Jewish scripture said. We don't need them to validate Jesus or even to understand the Jewish concept of a Messiah.
The Jews had a first shot at entering the kingdom that was being proclaimed by him, out of differance to the ancient Patriarchs.

We may not be under the Law but there is a wealth of information both spiritual and literal. All of it is about our God both then and now.

Like I said, the god that the Old Testament was written in honor of was a hill tribe deity who made everyone go to a particular stone building to give sacrifices to, not the God that the New Testament is in honor of.
The morality of the characters do not fit with anything considered normal today. We have plenty of examples of bad behavior without glorifying some horrible murderers who are held as saints and heroes.

It's a strange thing to call someone a cultist who reads the bible.

He may read a word here or there that are from the Bible but only those allowed by his cult.

reply to post by Deetermined

The Old Testament was not tacked on as an "appendix". Once you realize this, you'll know what it means to be a Christian and not a partial Christian.

If you were to read Paul, who happens to be the writer of the original New Testament, you would know that it is not required to be a Jew before becoming a Christian. The Old testament has no relevance other than to see what the New Testament writers were referring to. Whatever is of use from it is conveniently copied into the NT.

reply to post by jmdewey60


Until you understand who God was in the Old Testament, you won't understand who God is in the New Testament. You just try to conveniently ignore that.