|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Michael Servetus was burnt at the stake in Calvin's Geneva in 1553 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18338 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
OK, LNA, I owe you at least one good post. I'm going to be honest with you, however...so if it causes an argument between us, I cant come at you with my big Admin Stick if I am participating as member: Phat. Your reply to me (and others, in this thread)will determine if I end up accepting you as an honest member of EvC or a troll and how I will deal with you in the future. Deal?
The overall theme in this topic sheds some light on your beliefs, and while I don't have you figured out just yet, I am working on it. (I could, of course, be way off the mark, however) You know how we members of the dominant culture unknowingly put ourselves above other sociological cultures and beliefs! I mention it as an unfortunate facet of my personality---I admit to being biased in favor of the W.A.S.P. version of Christianity that I was raised with. Putting all of that aside as much as I can, allow me to answer your questions. So I just read the article, Remembering Servetus: The One God Movement Among Evangelical Christians. ( Keep in mind that my answers are formed based on all that I have read (and chosen to read) over the past 24 years.)In reading this article, I noted the following: Christian Origins writes: Curious, I followed the links in that article and came upon Kermit Zarleys website. After reading that a bit, I proceeded to follow some of the links that he mentioned there. I was a bit prejudiced in favor of Trinitarianism as an unthreatening concept, however...and have never been persuaded by either islamic friends or Jehovahs Witness friends that Trinitarianism was necessarily wrong.
Servetus rejected the doctrine of the Trinity, and although he maintained belief in the virgin birth, he denied that Jesus was God. He was fluent in Greek, Hebrew, and Latin, and in his primary work, De trinitatis erroribus (On the Errors of the Trinity), he ably argued that the Bible itself, in neither Old Testament nor New Testament, supported the subsequent Trinitarian notion of Jesus as God. LNA writes:
So my first question is why was I brainwashed simply by being exposed to mainstream cultural beliefs? How is a Trinitarian concept/definition of GOD any less monotheistic than ...for example...Islam? Or JW's Jehovah and their (in my opinion) erroneous conclusion that Jesus was the first created being, as an angel?
The simple fact of the matter is that nearly every Trinitarian you know is just a follower of the popular culture imposed from the higher powers.They would NOT have the Trinitarian views if we had freedom of religion in ages past. LNA, responding to NoNukes writes: So your beef with NoNukes is that he likely has been brainwashed, or indoctrinated by the majority culture (as I have) and won't admit it....right? You certainly got a bit arrogant and uppity when replying to him. You are starting to act like a Trump supporter, although my guess is that you yourself likely have an ethnic cultural background...which few Trump supporters have. I encourage you to be nice. I DO respect that you read a lot, and although your copy-pasta annoys me, I can tell that you are a serious student of discovery.
I was asking WHEN it was that somebody FIRST noticed that they jumped the gun in uncritically believing the entire New Testament spoke of Jesus as "God" when, in fact, the first several Gospels called him the "Son of God". LNA writes: OK, I think I see your point. Perhaps you do have an irrefutable point in this regard. I would use the word indoctrinated by the majority culture rather than brainwashed...but others may disagree.
The fact of the matter is that the Bible isn't where people get their ideas from.LNA, to NoNukes writes: I don't know about him, but I will admit that I don't have a desire to learn too much if it causes me to seek what I already thought I had the answer for....
You hate learning. Tangle, to LNA writes: I never read them before, but I forced myself to follow LNA's links here. They are not as jumbled as I thought they would be....lets see how this topic turns out.
A better measure of whether your posts here are being read would be whether people reply to them. Mostly it seems to me that they don't.NoNukes,responding to LNA writes: I wouldn't call him a buffoon. We need to respect LNA enough to engage in (or attempt to engage in) an honest dialogue with him. How he responds will determine his standing, as is true with all of us here at EvC. Your suppositions do not make me angry. They let me know how much of a buffoon you are. I love pointing that stuff out. I also enjoy pointing out where you are lying. I never got around to attacking most of the details of your conspiracy theories. I did attack a couple of the wilder accusations as being without basis. You never responded to my points, you just went off on various tangents. Now, LNA, to answer your questions:
When did you start to question the idea that all (or most) of the Biblical author's had views which were inline with "Trinitarian" type Christology. To be honest, I never questioned my beliefs that much until I met jar and a few others here at EvC. I knew that Jehovahs Witness and Arianism dismissed the Trinity, but I dismissed them as a cult. I still do. As for Zoroastrianism, I never studied it much. I understand that it is part of your religious background. Comments?
Really, when did it un-Trinitarian interpretations even dawn on you as a possible interpretation? LNA writes: jar first brought it to my attention by explaining that Saul/Paul was Jewish and likely didn't see Jesus as God. He claims that John was redacted and that there was a rift in the early Christians between reformed Judaism and the marketing of a new Christianity. So that is the first I had heard of it. When did you first become aware of the possibility that every Biblical author did not think of Jesus to be God?Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9510 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8
|
Lamark writes:
Yup
That was Manicheans and reincarnation keywords. But. Put "Did Jesus teach reincarnation" into google and my thread is at number 28 out of 400,000 Number 8 of page 3 Yup and still no-one will have seen it, let alone read it. It's just the way google works and people read. If you're not on the first page, it's highly unlikely to be read simply because the searcher will have found what he's looking for there. It's also a 'long tail' search - a string of specific words unlikely to be entered by a human. Most searchers would use simpler terms to start, probably just Jesus and reincarnation only getting more complicated if the first doesn't succeed.
I noticed a good while back that Elkesaites reincarnation or Elkesai reincarnation was on page 1 The more obscure the topic and the more complex the search term the more likely it is to figure high in a google result. That shouldn't be surprising. It doesn't mean anyone is reading it. Google's spiders will pick anything written on any website that's been around a little while and that changes daily within a few minutes of it being written.
I suspect that people interested in Early Christian origins would be more interested than you (and the posters here) in reading my posts (for the book quotes?), but I admit that I am not 100% sure. But you're on a discussion board here; the point is to debate things here, not to get ranking on google. Also if people find your posts on google why aren't they coming here to comment on them? A more rational answer is likely to be what we're saying isn't it? Reams of cut and post of obscure stuff isn't getting read here either. If you focused a bit more on the discussion it might help.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Both of you better knock it off or I will shut this thread and suspend you. I have no idea what you expect of me Phat. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I was thinking as long as I have my hands up they’re not going to shoot me. This is what I’m thinking they’re not going to shoot me. Wow, was I wrong. -- Charles Kinsey We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World. Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
So your beef with NoNukes is that he likely has been brainwashed, or indoctrinated by the majority culture (as I have) and won't admit it....right? That seems to be correct, and given that I am not a Trinitarian, his conclusion would seem to be well off base. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I was thinking as long as I have my hands up they’re not going to shoot me. This is what I’m thinking they’re not going to shoot me. Wow, was I wrong. -- Charles Kinsey We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World. Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2422 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
Phat, I will give a fuller reply later (I am working right now, though I am currently on a multi hour "lunch"ish break)
I do need to clarify a major mistake you made. I don't know where to begin. You quoted me saying:
quote: This was an earlier post. Post 13 was the one. I had just been accused of being a liar in post 12. Often NoNukes sidesteps my posts, and calls me all sorts of dishonest names like "lying sack of shit" and I ignore him. I cponstantly choose to ignore his endless substance-free insults (I find him to be a substance free poster and a disrupter). That is just 1 recent thread. In another recent thread, I joked that he said something (I said "You said it" jestingly) he didn't when he caught me addressing his name instead of another poster I was responding to. He still kept on attacking me and disrupting the topic to death (his specialty). I try to not get caught up in personal attacks, as they clutter the discussion. But back to this topic. H called me a liar in post 12 and you quoted my (substantive and clarifying) response to him in post 13. You then responded to my post 13 quote
quote: I had no idea what his views were (at the time of post 13). I DIDN'T SAY A WORD ABOUT HIM! Look at what he said. Here was his post 3 (with his attacks)
quote: I then went to find out if he commented on the Trinitarian issue(s) of Biblical authors. I made the point that he said that he assumed Paul thought Jesus was God LISTEN UP PHAT! I presently think Paul believes Jesus was God and did in that reincarnation thread, though the issue is complicated. (will show you why later tonight, if time allows) And do note that NoNukes is still claiming (in post 34 above) that I wasn't talking about the views of the Biblical authors. He is saying that I was talking about his own views (whatever).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2422 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
I will get around to responding to your post 31 Phat, but let me get this out of the way.
I will look at Romans 9 and Philippians 2. But will quote from a scholar who does not think Paul ever felt Jesus to be God. (I think Steve Mason's work I will quote RIGHT NOW is perhaps my favorite book ever) First, the NRSV scripture, then Mason's comments (in the verse annotations in the lower half of the same page the relevant Biblical text is on)
quote: Now the evangelical commentaries have a translation that say the Messiah is God in verse 5. It can indeed be translated that way and it wouldn't really be any worse of a translation grammatically. Here is Steve Mason's Early Christian Reader. (most italics are replaced with caps)
quote: But see James Tabor's article, Praying to Jesus: From Jewish Messiah to Incarnate God (Biblical Expositions / January 20, 2016)
quote: Now the next scripture is this.
quote: I will repeat my own words (from the reincarnation thread, plus additional comments) , but first, Steve Mason. He began by explaining that this scripture is what came to be called "Kenosis" (self emptying) in the later Christian creedal statements. He goes on to present the Orthodox argument( just before he responds to it)
quote: The exaltation Christology could, indeed, chronologically predate Paul's letters (though Epistle is the earliest textual evidence extant), but Paul does seem to be saying that Jesus was equal to God BEFORE he was born to Mary. And the 2nd Adam/Last Adam theme could(contrary to my Reincarnation thread comments I am about to quote) be seen as evidence of preexistence. The First Adam issue sure did become an Avatar (reincarnation of a deity that became a totally separate eternal entity) of the Logos spirit by the end of the first century. Here are my words (from two threads in the reincarnation thread) First, Jaywill was quoted saying:
quote: (I was planning on eventually addressing the "last Adam" issue as a possible reincarnation teaching by Paul, but never did. I wasn't sure I could demonstrate a mid-1st century use of the First Adam concept as being about a preexistent Christ who was reincarnated anyway.) Here was my (flawed) expedient response. I was more interested in responding to the claim that Romans 8:3 said God and Jesus were the same thing (Jaywill was trying to say Paul was teaching complete Trinitarian-ish views all along)
quote: Then I added a bit later (in my last post until I posted 1 more time about 18 months later)
quote: (jaywill wasn't the one attacking me fyi. I appreciated his spirited efforts) Now, I make all sides angry when I tell the truth. Uncritical posters (fundamentalists and non-believers) will not like my honesty. I am not sure that Avatar like views indicate a virgin birth (the later 1st century Jewish Christians seemed to reject a virgin birth while accepting the Logos/First Adam/Power preexistence and incarnation). And they also felt that the preexistant Christ was separate from God (BUT not God!). But Paul accepted Jesus as the same thing as God (albeit late and only after a - visible - evolutionary fashion). Paul's evolution is perceptible IMO. I don't know if Jesus actually called himself a preexisting Power. I doubt he called himself God (ditto with his Jewish Christian brethren). I only know what later first century teachings seem to show us. (EDIT----- Paul only began to consider Jesus & Jehovah to be two split personalities of God only after 99% of what he said indicated that Jesus wasn't a God. It might have evolved due to his loose application of Old Testament verses, specifically verses indicating that Jesus' fulfilling of God's will would eventually morph his Christology, in a evolutionary process , which resulted OVER TIME in Paul seeing Jesus as ACTUALLY God. Jesus eventually was indeed the person God in those prophecies, and not simply an instrument of God in fulfilling his promises. Paul turned his views towards seeing the two "Lords" as actually the same exact thing. I imagine that he originally never intended to apply Old Testament prophecies and verses, describing Jehovah, to be a literal description of Jesus. But they became so - eventually. Perhaps this was the case even in Romans when he first penned the Epistle. But by the time of Philippians , Jesus was a fully split personality of God with a totally separate eternal spiritual body. I don't know if Paul ever saw Jesus as being as "old" as Jehovah himself, certainly 1 Corinthians doesn't seem to indicate that Jesus was as old as God, because Adam was created, and Paul didn't indicate that Jesus was eternal in both directions - PAST and future. Not that Jehovah was necessarily eternal anyway.) Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given. Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given. Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given. Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given. Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given. Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
But will quote from a scholar who does not think Paul ever felt Jesus to be God. I am not sure what you mean by this statement, but for me, the question is not whether Paul worships Jesus as a god, but whether he thinks Jesus is Yahweh either in a Trinitarian fashion or any other fashion. In my opinion, some of the best arguments that Paul did not have this view come from a review of the Bible quotes that folks use to prove that Jesus is actually Yahweh. Invariably the arguments involve a stretching of text in ways it is hard to attribute to Paul and of course, there are plenty of counter-examples that are hard to explain except by departing from the entire exercise. When all is said and done, the Trinity doctrine seems like an attempt to address accusations that Christianity is not monotheistic. I don't see any reason to bother with the doctrine if you don't have that concern. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I was thinking as long as I have my hands up they’re not going to shoot me. This is what I’m thinking they’re not going to shoot me. Wow, was I wrong. -- Charles Kinsey We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World. Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2422 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
I said
quote: quote: I will study the issue. There was a carm site, that you read (jaywill linked it), which had Pauline references to Old Testament verses about Jehovah (and they were either certainly or possibly describing Jesus). I can see what Mason says about these verses so I can get a better view of his views.
quote: There were multiple Christological views. And Paul was an evolving mishmash.
quote: There are lots of important historical questions though. I am interested in when the virgin birth was first around. Clement of Rome can help to date Matthew (which will also help to date Mark). But good for a reference to the Virgin Birth. The views of the Jewish Christians are important. The chronology of the preexistent Christ is important. Virgin birth origin date important. All Christological views are important. But the chronology is tricky. Bart Ehrman said this
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
And Paul was an evolving mishmash. I don't believe this to be correct, but you are welcome to try to show that. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I was thinking as long as I have my hands up they’re not going to shoot me. This is what I’m thinking they’re not going to shoot me. Wow, was I wrong. -- Charles Kinsey We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World. Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18338 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
I don't know if Jesus actually called himself a preexisting Power. I don't believe that He intended to be GOD in human flesh. Metaphorically i have heard the Trinity concept expressed analogous to the Sun, the Light (Natural daylight) and the Heat...which is the source for nearly all the warmth which allows life to exist on this planet. So am I a Trinitarian? What does it imply or promise apart from understanding the concept of a communion between a man and GOD? I'm tired though---its nearly midnite and i work again tomorrow. so we can talk later. Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18338 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
What Ehrman says about Paul in his Blog was an eye-opener. Specifically
Ehrman writes: You quoted it earlier and it caught my attention. The JW's always believed that "angel crap" (you can see my bias showing) and yet I never imagined that Paul would see it the same way. I am still skeptical of some of this writing...though not as insistently literal as Faith, I do share her belief that there is a spiritual battle of sorts regarding the truth and regarding what actually is true vs what authors, historians, and researchers manage to dig up and propose. I will admit that what I want and hope to be true may not actually be what is true...but how would we know? ...The Synoptics simply accept a different Christological view from Paul’s. They hold to exaltation Christologies and Paul holds to an incarnation Christology. And that, in no small measure, is because Paul understood Christ to be an angel who became a human.Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2422 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
quote: The JW are WASP Protestants that accept the Roman Catholic Bible (with the Gospel of John). They aren't the same thing as 1st century (or 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th) Jewish Christians, who rejected the Gospel of John (as soon as they got the chance to know of it). There was a very different Bible back then (with a lot more consistency of belief that aligns with "The Bible" used, unlike the JW who want to ignore and twist parts they don't want to agree with).
quote: Jerome, in the late 4th century, went to live in Palestine and he interacted with the Nararenes, (which Acts of the Apostles seems to indicate was the actual name of the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem), who had the original Hebrew Gospel of Matthew. They rejected John. The Nazarenes had an incarnation Christology, with the Virgin Birth. Other Jewish Christians, like the Ebionites, had the same Gospel of Matthew, according to Jerome. But the Panarion, by Epiphanius of Salamis (written at the same time as Jerome wrote his works on the Jewish Christians), seemed to indicate a different Gospel, with the first few chapters missing. Like earlier commentaries on the Jewish Christians (Hippolytus 200 years earlier), there was clearly reincarnation (or possession) type beliefs among the Jewish Christians. Jesus was born a man (with no virgin birth), and the Spirit came into him just after the baptism of John the Baptist. An Adoptionist Christology. (Which is a "higher" Christology than the Exaltation view, which seems to have raised Jesus' status only after his death?)
quote: The Ebionites had the same Gospel of Matthew, but without the first few chapters. Scholars don't SEEM TO see Adoptionism Christology (as they read in Mark) as a Transmigration of the Soul issue. The adoptionism Christology, of many Jewish Christians (Ebionits and Elkesaites) had Jesus born a man, but with a wandering Spirit (Logos or the Holy Spirit or the Hidden Power) possessed him at the Baptism of John. Others had straight reincarnation. The Nazoreans were, according to Epiphanius (and Eusebius), the Jerusalem Christian followers of James the Just.
quote: The Panarion of Ephiphanius of Salamis: Book I (sects 1-46) - Saint Epiphanius (Bishop of Constantia in Cyprus) - Google Books Paul was specifically described as Nasaraean in Acts of The Apostles. Nazarenes. Jerome said they had the original Gospel of Matthew and he translated it into Greek. It was called the Gospel of the Hebrews. They were followers of James the Just
quote: They had different scriptures. Back to the issue of different scriptures. Is there Biblical evidence that James, brother of Jesus, changed the scriptures? Remember the Apostolic Council of Acts 15? It saw James quote Amos 9:11-12 Here is the NIV text of those Old Testament verses.
quote: Here is the Septuagint text of Amos 9:11-12
quote: The words of James NIV TRANSLATIONActs 15:17 quote: James used the Septuagint in an anti nationalist way Here is an older Southern Baptist commentary
quote: James did seem to change the Hebrew scriptures.
quote: You earlier raised the issue of the Trinity. The trinity was a chronologically later development than the Apostolic period. There was a lot of Christological controversy back then at the time of the Gospel of John. The LOGOS incarnated (or permanently possessed) a human Jesus at the Baptism as the early Baptists believed? Not according to John. The Gospel of John seemed to be a response to the early Jewish Christians and their Baptist beliefs. Just like the Acts of the Apostles. Remember when the author of Luke-Acts attempted to portray Alexandrian or Jewish Christian "Power of God" or "Hidden Power" views as foreign to the Apostles in Jerusalem (like James specifically)? The invention of the Simon story. Have you ever read the Gideon Bible translation? It is like the ESV Acts 8
quote: It was a polemical story that attempted to portray the Jewish Christians as receiving their views NOT FROM JOHN THE BAPTIST AND JAMES BROTHER OR JESUS but from a man called Simon.
quote: The Gospel of John was specifically meant to counter the LOGOS word (which was also a term along with Great Power or Hidden Power that incarnated Jesus, the True Prophet) version of the Adoptionist Christology. The Gospel of John was polemical (against the Jewish Christian views) like the Simon story in Acts 8. EDIT τῶν δυνάμεων τοῦ Θεοῦ (Philo) is Power of God LATER EDIT ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο is (I think) The Logos became flesh (I just saw this one, and I can only know the definition the first 3 words "the word (logos) flesh (sars)" but I can go check on google). (I know very little Greek) Also, the Nazarenes were said to believe in the virgin birth at the time of Jerome and Epipanius (their Gospel was first mentioned by Hegesippius around 180 AD, and he was a Jewish Christian vegetarian who said James and Matthew were also) Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given. Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18338 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Like earlier commentaries on the Jewish Christians (Hippolytus 200 years earlier), there was clearly reincarnation (or possession) type beliefs among the Jewish Christians. Jesus was born a man (with no virgin birth), and the Spirit came into him just after the baptism of John the Baptist. These beliefs dont seem right to me. Why do you like them?Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
These beliefs dont seem right to me. Why do you like them? Excellent question. It seems to me that we might ask at least three questions about early beliefs. 1) Are they Biblical? This question, of course, is not relevant for pre-Bible folks.2) Were they held by pre-Bible Christians, and if so what was their origin. 3) Are they newer than either the Bible or those held by early Christians, and if so, why should any Christian accept them now? In at least some cases, the settling out of beliefs occurred well after the Gospel is written and way too late for us to take for granted that those beliefs are correct. For at least those beliefs, question 3 raises serious issues in my opinion. I don't care how smart the 'experts' are. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I was thinking as long as I have my hands up they’re not going to shoot me. This is what I’m thinking they’re not going to shoot me. Wow, was I wrong. -- Charles Kinsey We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World. Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
This discussion of Adoptionism is relevant to one of LNAs points (probably the least controversial - LNA is hardly a reliable interpreter of his sources)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024