Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 120 (8781 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-20-2017 3:54 AM
349 online now:
DrJones*, Meddle, PaulK, Tangle (4 members, 345 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: evilsorcerer1
Post Volume:
Total: 816,511 Year: 21,117/21,208 Month: 1,550/2,326 Week: 5/881 Day: 5/119 Hour: 1/1

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
6364
65
666768Next
Author Topic:   Gay Marriage as an attack on Christianity
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 871
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 961 of 1017 (803906)
04-05-2017 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 930 by Faith
04-04-2017 4:13 PM


Re: Your Roman Empire Council "church" Faith?
quote:

Your stuff is so confusing I often miss the obvious: There is no such thing as a "Roman Empire Council" let alone a "church" based on it. The early Councils were strictly a CHURCH MATTER, called to resolve problems within the Church, absolutely nothing whatever to do with the Roman Empire.
The Jerusalem council was called to resolve the problems that kept coming up between the strict Law-abiding Jewish Christians and the Gentile Christians who were not under the Law because Christ had fulfilled it all. (The Jews weren't either of course but a lifetime of obedience to the Law couldn't be broken overnight, which is why the conflicts kept coming up).

Nicaea was called to deal with the heresy of Arius and it dealt with it and its decisions have come down to us as the Church's official resolution of the heresy for all to follow.

None of this has anything to do with the Roman Empire as such, it's all in-house decision-making. If you think Constantine's role in calling the council of Nicea and participating in it makes it a Roman Empire thing, it doesn't. He didn't influence the decision of the Council, the Christian leaders did all of that.


First the Jerusalem Council.

You say that the issue was to "resolve" the problems the Jews had with gentiles. That problem was circumcision - first and foremost. Read chapter 15 without your blinders on. Get the circumcision part in your head. They Jews were the ones that had to compromise. It didn't really hold up because James and Peter still were circumcising gentiles (see Galatians 2).

Read Acts 16.

quote:

Acts 16King James Version (KJV)

16 Then came he to Derbe and Lystra: and, behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timotheus, the son of a certain woman, which was a Jewess, and believed; but his father was a Greek:

2 Which was well reported of by the brethren that were at Lystra and Iconium.

3 Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek.

4 And as they went through the cities, they delivered them the decrees for to keep, that were ordained of the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem.

5 And so were the churches established in the faith, and increased in number daily.


South Galatian setting. Paul circumcised the gentile Timothy just to avoid inflaming the Jewish Christians.

James sent emissaries to make sure gentiles were circumcised in Galatia. See Galatians.

You desperately want to avoid the implications that the kosher foods rules were a fundamental eternal law, so you have to keep inventing this issue that it was "just a rule to avoid offending Jews". Circumcision was that issue. (see Acts 21!)

And what does fornication have to do with any sort of Jewish Christian verses Gentile Christian dichotomy that you and Roman empire Christians dreamed up anyway?

NEXT ISSUE

As for the Arian issue, know that most bishops (even though Goths were excluded from participating in addition to Manicheans and Marcionites plus scores of others) in the 4th century were Arians.

I am short for time, but the Councils were pro-Arius after Nicea

quote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Sirmium
The Council of Sirmium generally refers to the third of the four episcopal councils held in Sirmium between 357 AD and 359 AD. Specifically one was held in 357, one in 358 and one in 359. The third council marked a temporary compromise between Arianism and the Western bishops of the Christian church. At least two of the other councils also dealt primarily with the Arian controversy. All of these councils were held under the rule of Constantius II, who was sympathetic to the Arians.

It was only after 380 that the Orthodox Trinity view was decided on and it was a power play by a biased Emperor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/.../First_Council_of_Constantinople

quote:

The First Council of Constantinople (Greek: đ˝■˘š ˇřÝ´ń´˛ ˘š˛ ╩¨Ýˇ˘ßݢÚÝ´§­ŘŰň¨˛ commonly known as Greek: ┬┤ ¤Úŕ´§ýňÝÚŕŮ, "Second Ecumenical"; Latin: Concilium Constantinopolitanum Primum or Latin: Concilium Constantinopolitanum A) was a council of Christian bishops convened in Constantinople in AD 381 by the Roman Emperor Theodosius I.[1][2] This second ecumenical council, an effort to attain consensus in the church through an assembly representing all of Christendom,[3] confirmed the Nicene Creed, expanding the doctrine thereof to produce the NicenoľConstantinopolitan Creed, and dealt with sundry other matters. It met from May to July 381 in the Church of Hagia Irene and was affirmed as ecumenical in 451 at the Council of Chalcedon.

Background[edit]

When Theodosius ascended to the imperial throne in 380, he began on a campaign to bring the Eastern Church back to Nicene Christianity. Theodosius wanted to further unify the entire empire behind the orthodox position and decided to convene a church council to resolve matters of faith and discipline.[4]:45 Gregory Nazianzus was of similar mind, wishing to unify Christianity. In the spring of 381 they convened the Second Ecumenical Council in Constantinople.

Theological context[edit]

The Council of Nicaea in 325 had not ended the Arian controversy which it had been called to clarify. Arius and his sympathizers, e.g. Eusebius of Nicomedia were admitted back into the church after ostensibly accepting the Nicene creed. Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, the most vocal opponent of Arianism, was ultimately exiled through the machinations of Eusebius of Nicomedia. After the death of Constantine I in 337 and the accession of his Arian-leaning son Constantius II, open discussion of replacing Nicene creed itself began. Up until about 360, theological debates mainly dealt with the divinity of the Son, the second person of the Trinity. However, because the Council of Nicaea had not clarified the divinity of the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity, it became a topic of debate. The Macedonians denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit. This was also known as Pneumatomachianism.

Nicene Christianity also had its defenders: apart from Athanasius, the Cappadocian Fathers' Trinitarian discourse was influential in the council at Constantinople. Apollinaris of Laodicea, another pro-Nicene theologian, proved controversial. Possibly in an over-reaction to Arianism and its teaching that Christ was not God, he taught that Christ consisted of a human body and a divine mind, rejecting Christ having a human mind.[5] He was charged with confounding the persons of the Godhead, and with giving into the heretical ways of Sabellius. Basil of Caesarea accused him of abandoning the literal sense of the scripture, and taking up wholly with the allegorical sense. His views were condemned in a Synod at Alexandria, under Athanasius of Alexandria, in 362, and later subdivided into several different heresies, the main ones of which were the Polemians and the Antidicomarianites.

Geopolitical context[edit]

Theodosius' strong commitment to Nicene Christianity involved a calculated risk because Constantinople, the imperial capital of the Eastern Empire, was solidly Arian. To complicate matters, the two leading factions of Nicene Christianity in the East, the Alexandrians and the supporters of Meletius in Antioch, were "bitterly divided ... almost to the point of complete animosity".[6]

The bishops of Alexandria and Rome had worked over a number of years to keep the see of Constantinople from stabilizing. Thus, when Gregory was selected as a candidate for the bishopric of Constantinople, both Alexandria and Rome opposed him because of his Antiochene background.

See of Constantinople[edit]

The incumbent bishop of Constantinople was Demophilus, a Homoian Arian. On his accession to the imperial throne, Theodosius offered to confirm Demophilus as bishop of the imperial city on the condition of accepting the Nicene Creed; however, Demophilus refused to abandon his Arian beliefs, and was immediately ordered to give up his churches and leave Constantinople.[7][8] After forty years under the control of Arian bishops, the churches of Constantinople were now restored to those who subscribed to the Nicene Creed; Arians were also ejected from the churches of other cities in the Eastern Roman Empire thus re-establishing Christian orthodoxy in the East.[9]

There ensued a contest to control the newly recovered see. A group led by Maximus the Cynic gained the support of Patriarch Peter of Alexandria by playing on his jealousy of the newly created see of Constantinople. They conceived a plan to install a cleric subservient to Peter as bishop of Constantinople so that Alexandria would retain the leadership of the Eastern Churches.[10] Many commentators characterize Maximus as having been proud, arrogant and ambitious. However, it is not clear the extent to which Maximus sought this position due to his own ambition or if he was merely a pawn in the power struggle.[citation needed] In any event, the plot was set into motion when, on a night when Gregory was confined by illness, the conspirators burst into the cathedral and commenced the consecration of Maximus as bishop of Constantinople. They had seated Maximus on the archiepiscopal throne and had just begun shearing away his long curls when the day dawned. The news of what was transpiring quickly spread and everybody rushed to the church. The magistrates appeared with their officers; Maximus and his consecrators were driven from the cathedral, and ultimately completed the tonsure in the tenement of a flute-player.[11]

The news of the brazen attempt to usurp the episcopal throne aroused the anger of the local populace among whom Gregory was popular. Maximus withdrew to Thessalonica to lay his cause before the emperor but met with a cold reception there. Theodosius committed the matter to Ascholius, the much respected bishop of Thessalonica, charging him to seek the counsel of Pope Damasus I.[12]

Damasus' response repudiated Maximus summarily and advised Theodosius to summon a Council of Bishops for the purpose of settling various Church issues such as the schism in Antioch and the consecration of a proper bishop for the see of Constantinople.[13] Damasus condemned the translation of bishops from one see to another and urged Theodosius to "take care that a bishop who is above reproach is chosen for that see."[14]



This message is a reply to:
 Message 930 by Faith, posted 04-04-2017 4:13 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 962 by Faith, posted 04-05-2017 8:45 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 25851
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 962 of 1017 (803938)
04-05-2017 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 961 by LamarkNewAge
04-05-2017 3:22 PM


Re: Your Roman Empire Council "church" Faith?
Please stop the rudeness.

This is too much to deal with, I can only skim it.

Circumcision was the inciting cause. When the Jewish Council in Jerusalem understood that God was doing mighty acts among the Gentiles they realized they shouldn't put unnecessary burdens on the Gentiles, but nevertheless chose some observances to ask them to follow for the sake of fellowship. Yes they gave up circumcision. They COULD have given up all of it because none of it was required of believers in Christ, so the only reason they made it necessary was for the sake of fellowship. They are under grace, there is no more requirement to obey the Law, so the only reason they asked even a few things was to avoid offending the Jews. You can stop arguing and berating me about this. We disagree, leave it at that.

Yes Paul circumcised Timothy for the sake of not offending the Jews, but remember, Timothy had a Jewish mother so circumcision would have been appropriate in his case.

I suspect you are misreading Galatians 2 where you claim Peter and James were circumcising Gentiles because no such thing is going on. They are sent as apostles to "the circumcision," which means to the Jews, while Paul was sent to "the uncircumcision" which means to the Gentiles. I suspect you are misreading this.

The Jewish food laws were clearly shown to Peter in a vision in Acts 10 to no longer be in force, after which he was sent to take the gospel to the Gentile centurion Cornelius. I don't personally have any desire in the matter one way or another, all that matters is what the Bible says and God clearly lifted the dietary laws when the gospel went out to the Gentiles.

I'm simply not up to reading all the stuff you wrote after that. Please cease your bullying.

Thank you.

ALSO THERE IS NO RELATION BETWEEN THIS TOPIC AND GAY MARRIAGE THAT I CAN SEE.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 961 by LamarkNewAge, posted 04-05-2017 3:22 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 973 by LamarkNewAge, posted 04-06-2017 4:23 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 974 by LamarkNewAge, posted 04-06-2017 4:34 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 575
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 963 of 1017 (803964)
04-06-2017 5:35 AM
Reply to: Message 914 by Faith
04-04-2017 7:44 AM


When I said I haven't read the Bible, I was attempting to quote another poster, but it came out the wrong way. Anyway, sorry for the confusion and let me set the record straight by saying I've done my share of Bible reading.
-----------------------
My thoughts about equality certainly aren't de rigueur foráCatholics - it seems to me most Catholics are too spiritually apathetic or corrupt to notice such things. áMainstream Catholicism (as opposed to true Catholicism) has become dominated by cultural Marxism since the 1960's, so it tends to worship equality and not be suspicious of it, like me. á

Christianity used to the official religion of Western civilisation. áBut along came the devil and his so-called Enlightenment, and now, Equality has usurped Christianity as the official religion of Western civilisation. áThe Antichrist, when he comes, will ride in on the back of this religion of Equality, imo.

As pointed out in Romans 1, sexual and intellectual corruption are symptoms of spiritual corruption. áThe Catholic Church has become seriously spiritual corrupt and the sexual corruption that results from this is well known. áThe accompanying intellectual corruption comes in the forms of Marxism, Darwinism and inter-faith dialogue (all products of the Enlightenment, surprise, surprise). áA relatively new form of corruption can be added to this list - environmentalism.

Same-sex marriage is a perfect example of how Satan can deceive the gullible masses by using a nice word like equality. á(If you want to trick someone into swallowing poison, you disguise it by coating it with chocolate.)
-------------------------------------
I am aware of certain accusations made by Protestants down through the ages, many of which still exist. áIf you ask me, four of the last five Popes (Ratzinger wasn't too bad) have been taken theáChurch down the wrong road.
I am not at all keen on the current Pope (Francis). áSome of the things he's said and done are extremely suspect and I don't trust him. á And the fact that the Loony Left liberals in the Church and the mainstream media are enamoured of him is certainly a bad omen.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 914 by Faith, posted 04-04-2017 7:44 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 575
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 964 of 1017 (803966)
04-06-2017 5:51 AM
Reply to: Message 916 by jar
04-04-2017 8:13 AM


You say "charity and empathy is (are) the essence of communism". áTell that to the literally hundreds of millions of people who lost their lives at the hands of Communists in the twentieth century, not to mention the untold millions of dissenters who were tortured, imprisoned and impoverished.á

-----------------------------------------

The book of Acts indicates that the core of the early Christians in Jerusalem formed a communal society. áBut I don't think there's any evidence that suggests this style of living is compulsory for followers of Christ. á

Communal societies might work for small groups of intimately close friends, but they don't seem to work too well for large groups of human beings. áAs the early Church grew in size, it probably became apparent that communal living wasn't going to work as a general rule, so it was largely abandoned ... but not entirely - notice that for millennia, Catholic monasteries and convents and the like, which involve small groups of devoted Christians, have adopted the communal system similar to that which existed in the very early Church.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 916 by jar, posted 04-04-2017 8:13 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 967 by jar, posted 04-06-2017 7:18 AM Dredge has not yet responded

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 575
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 965 of 1017 (803967)
04-06-2017 6:00 AM
Reply to: Message 943 by NoNukes
04-04-2017 11:04 PM


Re: ICANTs concept of establishing a religion
I think it can be argued that abortion is murder without resorting to religion: If your mother aborted you while you were in the womb, would you be alive today? áNo, you wouldn't, so abortion is clearly the termination of a human life. áTherefore, to terminate a foetus is to terminate a human life. áThe premeditated and cold-blooded termination of an (innocent) human life is murder, isn't it?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 943 by NoNukes, posted 04-04-2017 11:04 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 966 by Pressie, posted 04-06-2017 6:34 AM Dredge has not yet responded
 Message 968 by NoNukes, posted 04-06-2017 8:49 AM Dredge has not yet responded
 Message 969 by ringo, posted 04-06-2017 12:19 PM Dredge has not yet responded
 Message 970 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-06-2017 1:20 PM Dredge has responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1714
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 3.2


(1)
Message 966 of 1017 (803969)
04-06-2017 6:34 AM
Reply to: Message 965 by Dredge
04-06-2017 6:00 AM


Re: ICANTs concept of establishing a religion
Nope. Murder is the killing human beings. Termination of pregnacy is not murder. No religion involved.

And, gay marriages do not have anyting to do with abortion. Try to stay on the subject.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 965 by Dredge, posted 04-06-2017 6:00 AM Dredge has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 29183
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 967 of 1017 (803974)
04-06-2017 7:18 AM
Reply to: Message 964 by Dredge
04-06-2017 5:51 AM


Again, you are simply showing your ignorance. Yes, dictators and tyrants and even democratically elected Presidents can commit genocide and no group has ever been as efficient at genocide as Christianity; but that is not communism.

But you and Faith still need to show any evidence that Gay Marriage as an attack on Christianity.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios á á My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 964 by Dredge, posted 04-06-2017 5:51 AM Dredge has not yet responded

NoNukes
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 968 of 1017 (803985)
04-06-2017 8:49 AM
Reply to: Message 965 by Dredge
04-06-2017 6:00 AM


Re: ICANTs concept of establishing a religion
I think it can be argued that abortion is murder without resorting to religion: If your mother aborted you while you were in the womb, would you be alive today?

I think it can argued that a miscarriage is involuntary manslaughter. I think it can be argued that using condoms is a conspiracy to commit murder.

Yeah, you can argue all of those things. But your arguments should not be taken seriously.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson

Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith

Some of us are worried about just how much damage he will do in his last couple of weeks as president, to make it easier for the NY Times and Washington post to try to destroy Trump's presidency. -- marc9000


This message is a reply to:
 Message 965 by Dredge, posted 04-06-2017 6:00 AM Dredge has not yet responded

ringo
Member
Posts: 13450
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 969 of 1017 (804008)
04-06-2017 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 965 by Dredge
04-06-2017 6:00 AM


Re: ICANTs concept of establishing a religion
Dredge writes:

... abortion is clearly the termination of a human life. Therefore, to terminate a foetus is to terminate a human life. The premeditated and cold-blooded termination of an (innocent) human life is murder, isn't it?


So, if abortion is murder, do you advocate capital punishment for women who have abortions? Or just imprisonment?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 965 by Dredge, posted 04-06-2017 6:00 AM Dredge has not yet responded

Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 970 of 1017 (804016)
04-06-2017 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 965 by Dredge
04-06-2017 6:00 AM


Re: ICANTs concept of establishing a religion
Dredge writes

I think it can be argued that abortion is murder without resorting to religion: If your mother aborted you while you were in the womb, would you be alive today? áNo, you wouldn't, so abortion is clearly the termination of a human life. áTherefore, to terminate a foetus is to terminate a human life. áThe premeditated and cold-blooded termination of an (innocent) human life is murder, isn't it.

Remember Dredge, these fellas and gals make up morality as they go along. What is wrong today might be right tomorrow. As a matter of fact, thier doctrine of survival of the fittest and natural selection demands that it could not be otherwise. Logically and rationally they have no other recourse

It seems they are not even smart enough to recognize, that while they actually acknowledge that actual RIGHT and WRONG cannot and does not actually exist, in thier naturalistic enviornment, they are still willing to speak of subjective morality. This alone should shock even the simplest of minds, as irrational and absurd. Yet they proceed onward as if this presents no problem logically and rationally

Ignorance is bliss, so to speak

So hoping as you are and trying to get them to see that abortion is actually murder, would be like trying to convince someone that the holocaust actually happened, when they firmly believe it did not

They deal in simplicity of the mind and wilful ignorance. It keeps them happy and let's them do whatever they imagine. You will never convince these fellas and gals they are wrong but you can show the people that are reading along, they are actually wrong, if you keep things basic and completely logical. This is where they fall apart, nearly ever time

Dawn Bertot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 965 by Dredge, posted 04-06-2017 6:00 AM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 976 by Dredge, posted 04-07-2017 6:16 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 871
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 971 of 1017 (804047)
04-06-2017 3:47 PM


Exodus 22:21-25 is the only scripture relevant to abortion.
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=exodus+abortion+30+s...

Women are treated as a man's property.

He gets the "choice" to consider the fetus for whatever it is.


  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11665
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 972 of 1017 (804051)
04-06-2017 4:04 PM


Go Pope
Pope welcomes world's only gay leader and his husband to the Vatican

"The Vatican welcomed Xavier Bettel and his husband like any other married couple"

Did the Pope just welcome an attack on Christianity?

Or does this not count because Catholics aren't Christians?


Replies to this message:
 Message 977 by Dredge, posted 04-07-2017 6:19 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 871
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 973 of 1017 (804053)
04-06-2017 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 962 by Faith
04-05-2017 8:45 PM


Re: Your Roman Empire Council "church" Faith?
quote:

Circumcision was the inciting cause. When the Jewish Council in Jerusalem understood that God was doing mighty acts among the Gentiles they realized they shouldn't put unnecessary burdens on the Gentiles, but nevertheless chose some observances to ask them to follow for the sake of fellowship. Yes they gave up circumcision. They COULD have given up all of it because none of it was required of believers in Christ, so the only reason they made it necessary was for the sake of fellowship. They are under grace, there is no more requirement to obey the Law, so the only reason they asked even a few things was to avoid offending the Jews. You can stop arguing and berating me about this. We disagree, leave it at that.

The earliest Acts manuscripts have "blood" as representing murder of humans and these 200 A.D. texts are seen as "moral" by all scholars (it removed "strangulation" or "what is strangled" all together to take food out of it, then added in a negative version of the Golden Rule "do not do to others what you wouldn't want done to you").

You keep ignoring "fornication".

Your argument would work (perhaps?) if circumcision was included part of the commands for gentiles and if it was clearly stated to be about not offending people instead of being presented as Post-Easter commands to follow.

And you still have the fornication problem.

quote:

Yes Paul circumcised Timothy for the sake of not offending the Jews, but remember, Timothy had a Jewish mother so circumcision would have been appropriate in his case.

He was an uncircumcised gentile who was never in any way Jewish.

Scripture said that his Gentile father was the issue, and Jewish Christians would have asked to see his penis to make sure he was really part of The Way.

quote:

I suspect you are misreading Galatians 2 where you claim Peter and James were circumcising Gentiles because no such thing is going on. They are sent as apostles to "the circumcision," which means to the Jews, while Paul was sent to "the uncircumcision" which means to the Gentiles. I suspect you are misreading this.

See what it says. Pay attention to 2:12,2:14, and all of 3.

quote:

Galatians 2

King James Version (KJV)

....

3 But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:
....

9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

10 Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.

11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.

13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.

14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?
....
21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

Chapter 3

O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?
....
6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.

7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.

8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.
....
12 And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.

13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
....
And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.
....
24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
....
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.


See Genesis 15 for the covenant promise (Palestine and Syrian land) and the 400 year prediction. Genesis 17 is the circumcision "covenant". Exodus 12 says a stranger (Gentile!) must be circumcised to partake of the Passover meal.

quote:

The Jewish food laws were clearly shown to Peter in a vision in Acts 10 to no longer be in force, after which he was sent to take the gospel to the Gentile centurion Cornelius. I don't personally have any desire in the matter one way or another, all that matters is what the Bible says and God clearly lifted the dietary laws when the gospel went out to the Gentiles.


Nope.

Acts 10:28 said it was about uncircumcised gentiles NOT FOOD!

Your claim of "clearly lifting the dietary laws" is absurd since Peter was confused about the vision from the get go until he met the Italian. Then it was about calling uncircumcised gentiles common or profane. Ceremonially unclean for the feasts.

You yourself said the feasts were ceremonies that are no longer required.

The Acts 15 decision stated that the covenant applied to all mankind (see 15:15-19) and not just Israel and it had NOTHING to do with the land of Palestine and circumcision.

The Lords Supper is a parallel to the Passover though.

Romans 12

quote:

12 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.

2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

3 For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith.

4 For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office:

5 So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.


See 1 Corinthians 10:16 and 11:23-26.

You yourself said ceremonial clean ness was no longer an issue.

Gentiles are no longer "dogs" or "pigs".

they are not profane or ceremonially unclean.

They are sacred and worthy of ritual slaughter.

Peter!

Slaughter and eat!

Acts 10:28 says it is about gentiles.

quote:

I'm simply not up to reading all the stuff you wrote after that. Please cease your bullying.


Because "all the stuff ...after that" showed that the "Church" that brought us the Councils, the decisions of which you hold to be the very fabric of (your) "Christianity", were made up of nothing more(or less) than Bishops appointed by the Roman Emperor.

We (now!)know what you mean by a STRICTLY CHURCH MATTER end quote.

The Roman Empire Christianity that you hold dear is strictly between you and the Roman Empire.

That is where you get your views that demand a government to outlaw same-sex marriage.

Your (churchish) Empire did it in 342.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 962 by Faith, posted 04-05-2017 8:45 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 871
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 974 of 1017 (804054)
04-06-2017 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 962 by Faith
04-05-2017 8:45 PM


Re: Your Roman Empire Council "church" Faith?
quote:

The Jewish food laws were clearly shown to Peter in a vision in Acts 10 to no longer be in force, after which he was sent to take the gospel to the Gentile centurion Cornelius. I don't personally have any desire in the matter one way or another, all that matters is what the Bible says and God clearly lifted the dietary laws when the gospel went out to the Gentiles.

Here is the word definition for Soma or body.

The NAS New Testament Greek Lexicon

Strong's Number: 4983 Browse Lexicon

Original Word Word Origin
soma from (4982)
Transliterated Word TDNT Entry
Soma

Definition
1. the body both of men or animals a. a dead body or corpse
b. the living body 1. of animals

2. the bodies of planets and of stars (heavenly bodies)
3. is used of a (large or small) number of men closely united into one society, or family as it were; a social, ethical, mystical body a. so in the NT of the church

4. that which casts a shadow as distinguished from the shadow itself

http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/nas/soma.html

Romans 12:1 again

quote:

12 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.

1 Corinthians 10:16, 11:23-26, and Colossians cover this issue.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 962 by Faith, posted 04-05-2017 8:45 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 975 of 1017 (804143)
04-07-2017 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 705 by New Cat's Eye
03-27-2017 2:51 PM


Re: The Main Points

Okay, I'll consider you an automaton just following the Supreme Court's protocols.

Sure. And I'll consider you to be a person who makes up bad definitions on the fly.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson

Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith

Some of us are worried about just how much damage he will do in his last couple of weeks as president, to make it easier for the NY Times and Washington post to try to destroy Trump's presidency. -- marc9000


This message is a reply to:
 Message 705 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-27-2017 2:51 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

RewPrev1
...
6364
65
666768Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017