Jump to content


Photo

Defining Kinds


  • Please log in to reply
36 replies to this topic

#21 Sleepy House

Sleepy House

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 68 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Idaho
  • Age: 31
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • United States

Posted 06 April 2018 - 10:33 AM

 

(Note: not true. Jesus Christ, lay as a dead seed in the grave for three days and nights, but He 'sprouted', that is, came to life by the resurrection from the dead that we might live with God in heaven some day. You have missed the entire point of his words) 

 

 

Okay, but Jesus didn't turn into a seed after they killed him, he turned into a corpse. When he came back to life, that would be in the realm of the divine and not the physical world as we know it. A seed is very much alive—a simple test of heat generation or recording carbon dioxide production would confirm this. He was speaking in a parable, he wasn't giving a lecture on botany. I haven't missed the point of his words. By diverting them away from a lesson on how seeds work, I at least point to a different meaning.

 

 

 

The embryo does not activate ('come alive'; as I've already said it) until the conditions are right as far as soil, water, and timing are concerned. However, that germination will be different for different kinds of seeds.

 

It doesn't need to come alive, it already is alive. Otherwise it could not sprout in the first place. You can interpret as much as you like from the symbolism, and in fact that's exactly what a parable is for, but you can't say a seed dies before it germinates.

 

 

 

Should we believe you instead of the apostle Paul who met with Jesus on the road to Damascus? Say it plainly please.  Did he lie or did he tell the truth?  Furthermore, did Luke lie about Paul's life and ministry for the Lord Jesus Christ as he revealed it in the book of Acts? All of the Bible is God's Word from Genesis to Revelation. 

 

Don't believe either of us, just read the Bible. Everyone comes to their own conclusions about it, otherwise there wouldn't be 40,000 denominations. Jesus applauded the rejection of a false apostle to the Ephesians, and as far as I know there is only one apostle to the Ephesians, and that is Paul. 12 sons of Jacob that formed the 12 tribes of Israel, 12 disciples, 12 legions of angels, Jesus was 12 when he went to the festival, there are 12 gates guarded by 12 angels , 144,000 servants of god (12,000 x 12) and Paul makes....13 apostles.

 

Of the 22 times Paul is referred to as an apostle, it was himself that said it 20 of those times. The other two were by his companion Luke. In the ninth book of Acts, the disciples (the ones who actually spent three and a half years in the company of Jesus) not only didn't believe Paul, they were afraid of him.

 

In the second book of revelation, Jesus expressly condemns the eating of meat sacrificed to idols, where Paul says it's totally okay so long as you don't do it in front of someone who cares.

 

For I consider that I am not at all inferior to the most eminent apostles". ...."As the truth of Christ is in me, no one shall stop me from this boasting in the regions of Achaia."   2 Corinthians 11:5,10

 

He isn't inferior to the original 12, and no one will stop him from boasting (what did Jesus say of boasting?)

 

And then he says,

 

For I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me was not in vain; but I labored more abundantly than they all...". 1Corinthians 15:9,10 

 

So now he isn't inferior, but he is the least of them, though he has labored more abundantly than them. Okay.

 

Paul completely dissed Peter in a letter to Galatians, calling him a hypocrite and that he "withstood him to his face." A cheap-shot, because Peter wasn't there to defend himself. 

 

Jesus said anyone that calls his brother a fool is in danger of hell-fire. And here we go back to verse that started this.

 

1 Cor 15:36 You fool! That which you sow does not come to life unless it dies

 

And he wasn't speaking to non-believers either, since Paul established the church of Corinth himself.

 

So no, I do not accept the words of Paul as the word of God. Paul said you disgrace your head if you pray with a hat on, and if a woman prays without a cover or a shorn head, she disgraces her head. How does that matter at all? He said women need to be completely silent in church. 

 

And let's not ignore this:

 

Jesus: Matt 22 37-39 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

 

Paul: Rom 13:9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

 

If he got direct instructions from Jesus, he didn't do a very good job remembering them.


  • piasan likes this

#22 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,477 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 06 April 2018 - 01:12 PM

 

 

(Note: not true. Jesus Christ, lay as a dead seed in the grave for three days and nights, but He 'sprouted', that is, came to life by the resurrection from the dead that we might live with God in heaven some day. You have missed the entire point of his words) 

 

 

Okay, but Jesus didn't turn into a seed after they killed him, he turned into a corpse. When he came back to life, that would be in the realm of the divine and not the physical world as we know it. A seed is very much alive—a simple test of heat generation or recording carbon dioxide production would confirm this. He was speaking in a parable, he wasn't giving a lecture on botany. I haven't missed the point of his words. By diverting them away from a lesson on how seeds work, I at least point to a different meaning.

 

You took the words right out of my mouth, er, keyboard. It was just an analogy. However, if you don't know Jesus Christ personally as your Savior from you sins, the One who died on the cross for all you have ever done wrong then you have indeed missed the point. The 'dormant' condition of the seed is equal to death by that analogy. The seed will not 'awaken from the dead' until the soil, water, and sunlight combine at a certain key moment to bring forth life.  By analogy, this must happen to every person, that is every sinner who wishes to be given the grace of God. If such a decision is made and one dies to self...then the sinner is given the newness of life by Jesus Christ, God's son.

 

 

 

The embryo does not activate ('come alive'; as I've already said it) until the conditions are right as far as soil, water, and timing are concerned. However, that germination will be different for different kinds of seeds.

 

It doesn't need to come alive, it already is alive. Otherwise it could not sprout in the first place. You can interpret as much as you like from the symbolism, and in fact that's exactly what a parable is for, but you can't say a seed dies before it germinates.

 

If you get the analogy then we needn't debate the issue any longer. 

 

Should we believe you instead of the apostle Paul who met with Jesus on the road to Damascus? Say it plainly please.  Did he lie or did he tell the truth?  Furthermore, did Luke lie about Paul's life and ministry for the Lord Jesus Christ as he revealed it in the book of Acts? All of the Bible is God's Word from Genesis to Revelation. 

Don't believe either of us, just read the Bible. Everyone comes to their own conclusions about it, otherwise there wouldn't be 40,000 denominations. Jesus applauded the rejection of a false apostle to the Ephesians, and as far as I know there is only one apostle to the Ephesians, and that is Paul. 12 sons of Jacob that formed the 12 tribes of Israel, 12 disciples, 12 legions of angels, Jesus was 12 when he went to the festival, there are 12 gates guarded by 12 angels , 144,000 servants of god (12,000 x 12) and Paul makes....13 apostles.

 

You forget perhaps, that Judas Iscariot died. Paul replaced him and he was the 12th.

 

None of that keeps the Holy Spirit from making the truth plain to those who have a heart to believe and be saved. 

 

Of the 22 times Paul is referred to as an apostle, it was himself that said it 20 of those times. The other two were by his companion Luke. In the ninth book of Acts, the disciples (the ones who actually spent three and a half years in the company of Jesus) not only didn't believe Paul, they were afraid of him.

 

Not true. He was accepted by the brethren in a short time as evidenced by what Luke said about the matter in Acts and what he wrote about him. You need to read Acts all the way through.

 

In the second book of revelation, Jesus expressly condemns the eating of meat sacrificed to idols, where Paul says it's totally okay so long as you don't do it in front of someone who cares.

 

There is no 'second book of Revelation.' 

 

For I consider that I am not at all inferior to the most eminent apostles". ...."As the truth of Christ is in me, no one shall stop me from this boasting in the regions of Achaia."   2 Corinthians 11:5,10

 

He isn't inferior to the original 12, and no one will stop him from boasting (what did Jesus say of boasting?)

 

Boasting has more than one definition and it's meaning depends on the connotation of the passages involved.

 

Mirriam Webster Dictionary:

 

Proof: 1. To praise oneself

           2. To mention or assert with excessive pride.

           3. To prize as a possession.

 

It is point 3 to which Paul was speaking. There isn't a thing wrong with what he said in that connotation.

 

And then he says,

 

For I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me was not in vain; but I labored more abundantly than they all...". 1Corinthians 15:9,10 

 

So now he isn't inferior, but he is the least of them, though he has labored more abundantly than them. Okay.

 

Paul completely dissed Peter in a letter to Galatians, calling him a hypocrite and that he "withstood him to his face." A cheap-shot, because Peter wasn't there to defend himself. 

 

So? They were inspired to write scripture by the Holy Spirit, but they were not perfect. Peter took the rebuke with humility and moved on for the Lord.

 

Jesus said anyone that calls his brother a fool is in danger of hell-fire. And here we go back to verse that started this.

 

1 Cor 15:36 You fool! That which you sow does not come to life unless it dies.

 

Again, connotation is the key. One who speaks the word 'fool' in bitterness and hateful feelings is one thing. One who merely declares that his brother is being 'foolish' (unwise) and is not hateful and is merely giving a helpful admonition..

 

Example: 'Wow, you are really beautiful' (upward inflection)

                 'Wow, you are really beautiful; (downward inflection)

 

They are exactly the same words but they do not say the same thing. One is given as a compliment and the other is sarcastic. 

 

Did you not learn these things in English class? That's an honest question and not an insult.

 

And he wasn't speaking to non-believers either, since Paul established the church of Corinth himself.

 

You need to stop criticizing the scriptures and those who wrote the scriptures. They weren't perfect but what they wrote is perfect.  The Word of God is perfect because it was inspired by Him who is perfect and with perfect knowledge. You and I make mistakes. The Lord Jesus and His Holy Spirit do not.

 

So no, I do not accept the words of Paul as the word of God.

 

Then you cannot be saved. To deny the words that were written by Paul is to deny Jesus Christ who called him on the Damascus road to write most of the New Testament and start local churches throughout the empire is a heresy. Luke in particular was called by God to write Acts in part, to verify and validate the ministry of Paul and that he, like the other apostles write the divine Word of God.  You need to believe the Word and not what others have said about the Word.

 

And let's not ignore this:

 

Jesus: Matt 22 37-39 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

 

Paul: Rom 13:9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

 

If he got direct instructions from Jesus, he didn't do a very good job remembering them.

 

You do not know what you're talking about, friend. The verses you quoted above from both the Lord Jesus and the apostle Paul are the same teaching using different words. However, Paul pointed out the truth that if a believer has love in his heart for others, the law is being obeyed as God would have it.  It was the apostle Paul that God called to write most of the New Testament. Not you. I believe him and what he said is in perfect accord with the rest of scripture. 

 

I might give you one more answer before I invoke Titus 3:10 & let you go your way.


  • mike the wiz and KillurBluff like this

#23 Sleepy House

Sleepy House

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 68 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Idaho
  • Age: 31
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • United States

Posted 06 April 2018 - 02:33 PM

 

 

You forget perhaps, that Judas Iscariot died. Paul replaced him and he was the 12th.

 

Wrong. Matthias replaced him. Read Acts 1

 

 

 

There is no 'second book of Revelation.' 

 

Oops, I meant chapter.

 

 

 

You need to stop criticizing the scriptures and those who wrote the scriptures. They weren't perfect but what they wrote is perfect.  The Word of God is perfect because it was inspired by Him who is perfect and with perfect knowledge. You and I make mistakes. The Lord Jesus and His Holy Spirit do not.

 

Paul isn't the Lord Jesus. Paul is Paul.

 

 

 

Then you cannot be saved. To deny the words that were written by Paul is to deny Jesus Christ who called him on the Damascus road to write most of the New Testament and start local churches throughout the empire is a heresy.

 

Who are you to say who is saved? There is an awful lot of that in the Bible, but nowhere does it say you need to believe in Paul's epistles unless Paul decreed that (I think he did). You're confusing him with God again. Remember, Paul was rejected by the Ephesians, and all of the 7 churches in Asia, you know the ones that Jesus told John to send messages to in Revelation? I suppose they aren't saved either? As a matter of fact if it wasn't for Paul, there would be no doctrine of election, and therefore no Calvinists, or any of the gajillion denominations out there that each find different meanings from what Paul says rather than what is in the actual synoptic gospels. Foreordination, faith alone, faith and works (James), and so on.

 

 

 

You do not know what you're talking about, friend. The verses you quoted above from both the Lord Jesus and the apostle Paul are the same teaching using different words

 

Yes, very very very different words. For instance, Jesus said not to eat meat sacrificed to idols. Paul said it was okay. Jesus said don't call anyone your father on earth. Paul said he became your father. Jesus said that not one jot or tittle of the Law will pass until heaven and earth pass away. Paul contends that through Christ it has been abolished. Paul says not to eat with sinners, Jesus ate with sinners. Jesus said that there is one pastor and one teacher (Himself) but Paul asserts that there are many, and there isn't a different meaning to the word because in Koine Greek it is the same.

 

And that is the tricky bit of Christianity.

 

I believe in God

 

Christian: Not good enough. You need to believe in THE God.

 

I do! I believe in the God of Abraham.

 

Christian: Not good enough. Jews, Samaritans, and Muslims believe in the God of Abraham.

 

Okay, I believe in the God that sent Jesus to die for our sins.

 

Christian: Not good enough. You must also believe that Jesus is the same as God.

 

Yes, I believe that now. But I do disagree with Paul. I believe his teachings don't reflect that of my Lord and Savior. I reject some of the popular doctrines. I choose to follow the the gospels only.

 

Christian: HERETIC!! You are not saved!!


  • piasan likes this

#24 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,477 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 06 April 2018 - 03:46 PM

 

 

 

You forget perhaps, that Judas Iscariot died. Paul replaced him and he was the 12th.

 

Wrong. Matthias replaced him. Read Acts 1

 

I won't argue that point.  The early church chose Matthias, but God chose Paul to write Most of the New Testament and he was accepted by the brethren:

Proof:  Then pleased it the apostles and elders with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas and Silas, chief men among the brethren: Acts 15:22. This was many years after his conversion.

 

 

 

There is no 'second book of Revelation.' 

 

Oops, I meant chapter.

 

I'll accept your 'Ooops'. 

 

 

 

You need to stop criticizing the scriptures and those who wrote the scriptures. They weren't perfect but what they wrote is perfect.  The Word of God is perfect because it was inspired by Him who is perfect and with perfect knowledge. You and I make mistakes. The Lord Jesus and His Holy Spirit do not.

 

Paul isn't the Lord Jesus. Paul is Paul.

 

Right, but Jesus chose him to write most of the New Testament so why are you criticizing him? You are condemning the man that the Lord chose to bring forth most of the New Testament doctrine of Christ.

 

Proof from Luke in Acts. Acts 9:15

But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:
 
 
 

 

 

 

Then you cannot be saved. To deny the words that were written by Paul is to deny Jesus Christ who called him on the Damascus road to write most of the New Testament and start local churches throughout the empire is a heresy.

 

Who are you to say who is saved?

 

God's Word says, that's what. If you do not believe that all of the Bible is indeed God's Word you cannot have eternal life. If you therefore reject Paul you reject Luke...which means you reject the book of Acts which clearly establishes the beginning of the church and it's leaders PAUL INCLUDED. 

 

There is an awful lot of that in the Bible, but nowhere does it say you need to believe in Paul's epistles unless Paul decreed that (I think he did). You're confusing him with God again. Remember, Paul was rejected by the Ephesians, and all of the 7 churches in Asia, you know the ones that Jesus told John to send messages to in Revelation?

 

Should I believe YOU or should I believe Luke(???)...who quoted Jesus about Paul's conversion and calling? 

 

Acts 9:4-6

 

And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?

And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.

From there Paul was to learn of his calling to bring forth God's Word by preaching and teaching the gospel of Jesus Christ.

 

 

I suppose they aren't saved either? As a matter of fact if it wasn't for Paul, there would be no doctrine of election, and therefore no Calvinists, or any of the gajillion denominations out there that each find different meanings from what Paul says rather than what is in the actual synoptic gospels. Foreordination, faith alone, faith and works (James), and so on.

 

What mixed up thinking . Who taught you this nonsense, young fella?

 

 

 

You do not know what you're talking about, friend. The verses you quoted above from both the Lord Jesus and the apostle Paul are the same teaching using different words

 

Yes, very very very different words.

 

No, merely the same teaching with different wording. You are a very confused person on these issues.

 

For instance, Jesus said not to eat meat sacrificed to idols.

 

Quote Jesus on that. You will find He did not say that anywhere in the gospels. Peter spoke on it first. Are you going to reject Peter like you have rejected Paul?

 

 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well. Acts 15:29.

 

 

Paul said it was okay. Jesus said don't call anyone your father on earth. Paul said he became your father. Jesus said that not one jot or tittle of the Law will pass until heaven and earth pass away. Paul contends that through Christ it has been abolished. Paul says not to eat with sinners, Jesus ate with sinners. Jesus said that there is one pastor and one teacher (Himself) but Paul asserts that there are many, and there isn't a different meaning to the word because in Koine Greek it is the same.

 

Confusion, confusion, confusion. Jesus was referring to a religious calling (like calling the Pope 'our father', not a familial one. When a priest or a cardinal or a guru claims a religious position in worship with the designation 'father' then we are NOT to refer to him as 'father'. It does not refer to our earthly, biological father. Are you trying to tell me that you refuse to call your dad your 'father'? Really? Furthermore, concerning pastors: 

 

Jeremiah 3:15

And I will give you pastors according to mine heart, which shall feed you with knowledge and understanding.
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

And that is the tricky bit of Christianity.

 

Nothing tricky about it. But whoever taught you these thing was a trickster.

 

I believe in God

 

Christian: Not good enough. You need to believe in THE God.

 

I have 40 yrs on you in that regard. But I won't believe your denials of God's holy Word.

 

I do! I believe in the God of Abraham.

 

Christian: Not good enough. Jews, Samaritans, and Muslims believe in the God of Abraham.

 

Okay, I believe in the God that sent Jesus to die for our sins.

 

But you don't believe everything he says for in rejecting Paul you have rejected about 1/3 of the New Testament. 

 

Christian: Not good enough. You must also believe that Jesus is the same as God.

 

I'll let you worry about that, 

 

Yes, I believe that now. But I do disagree with Paul. I believe his teachings don't reflect that of my Lord and Savior.

 

You aren't telling the truth, young man.

 

I reject some of the popular doctrines. I choose to follow the the gospels only.

 

That's not the will of our Lord.He wants you to believe the entire Bible...and not just what you prefer to believe.

 

Christian: HERETIC!! You are not saved!!

 

I have no respect for such a claim. Whoever taught you these awful things is double responsible for the heresies.

 

The solution for your problem: read the ENTIRE book of Acts and see what Peter & Luke in particular said about Paul; the exact opposite to your attitude.

 

 

 

 

 

Done here.



#25 Sleepy House

Sleepy House

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 68 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Idaho
  • Age: 31
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • United States

Posted 06 April 2018 - 05:39 PM

 

 

Then pleased it the apostles and elders with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas and Silas, chief men among the brethren: Acts 15:22. This was many years after his conversion.

 

 

Nobody called him an apostle except himself or Luke. Jesus certainly didn't. He told Paul that he would be a witness, not an apostle.

 

 

 

Quote Jesus on that. You will find He did not say that anywhere in the gospels. Peter spoke on it first. Are you going to reject Peter like you have rejected Paul?

 

 

17 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.
 
18 And unto the angel of the church in Thyatira write; These things saith the Son of God, who hath his eyes like unto a flame of fire, and his feet are like fine brass;
 
19 I know thy works, and charity, and service, and faith, and thy patience, and thy works; and the last to be more than the first.
 
20 Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols.
 
There you go.
 
And I will give you pastors according to mine heart, which shall feed you with knowledge and understanding.

 

 

Jeremiah said that, not Jesus. Jesus said there be one (himself.) Paul says there will be many.

 

I suppose they aren't saved either? As a matter of fact if it wasn't for Paul, there would be no doctrine of election, and therefore no Calvinists, or any of the gajillion denominations out there that each find different meanings from what Paul says rather than what is in the actual synoptic gospels. Foreordination, faith alone, faith and works (James), and so on.

 

What mixed up thinking . Who taught you this nonsense, young fella?

 

 

You just did. You said that to not accept the entire NT is to not be saved. Well, the 7 churches in Asia rejected the messages that would become a part of that NT. Therefore, they aren't saved according to you.

 

Christian: HERETIC!! You are not saved!!
 
I have no respect for such a claim. Whoever taught you these awful things is double responsible for the heresies.
 

 

 

Say what? That has been the attitude of the church for so long. Christians have been killing Christians over heresies since it began. The Lollards, Cathars, Knight's Templar, witches, the Inquisition. All those that died by fire or some other torturous means believed in Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior and likely the whole NT as they knew it. People are divided by doctrine, doctrines that were set forth by Paul in many cases. You could be burned alive for something like criticizing a cleric or eating meat on Friday.


#26 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,477 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 06 April 2018 - 06:28 PM

 

 

 

Then pleased it the apostles and elders with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas and Silas, chief men among the brethren: Acts 15:22. This was many years after his conversion.

 

 

Nobody called him an apostle except himself or Luke. Jesus certainly didn't. He told Paul that he would be a witness, not an apostle.

 

 

 

Quote Jesus on that. You will find He did not say that anywhere in the gospels. Peter spoke on it first. Are you going to reject Peter like you have rejected Paul?

 

 

17 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.
 
18 And unto the angel of the church in Thyatira write; These things saith the Son of God, who hath his eyes like unto a flame of fire, and his feet are like fine brass;
 
19 I know thy works, and charity, and service, and faith, and thy patience, and thy works; and the last to be more than the first.
 
20 Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols.
 
There you go.
 
And I will give you pastors according to mine heart, which shall feed you with knowledge and understanding.

 

 

Jeremiah said that, not Jesus. Jesus said there be one (himself.) Paul says there will be many.

 

I suppose they aren't saved either? As a matter of fact if it wasn't for Paul, there would be no doctrine of election, and therefore no Calvinists, or any of the gajillion denominations out there that each find different meanings from what Paul says rather than what is in the actual synoptic gospels. Foreordination, faith alone, faith and works (James), and so on.

 

What mixed up thinking . Who taught you this nonsense, young fella?

 

 

You just did. You said that to not accept the entire NT is to not be saved. Well, the 7 churches in Asia rejected the messages that would become a part of that NT. Therefore, they aren't saved according to you.

 

Christian: HERETIC!! You are not saved!!
 
I have no respect for such a claim. Whoever taught you these awful things is double responsible for the heresies.
 

 

 

Say what? That has been the attitude of the church for so long. Christians have been killing Christians over heresies since it began. The Lollards, Cathars, Knight's Templar, witches, the Inquisition. All those that died by fire or some other torturous means believed in Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior and likely the whole NT as they knew it. People are divided by doctrine, doctrines that were set forth by Paul in many cases. You could be burned alive for something like criticizing a cleric or eating meat on Friday.

 

 

No one is calling for your death....or persecution you confused fellow.

 

O.K. one last time: you said... 

 

20 Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols.

 

I asked you to quote it in the gospels. I did't say the teaching was wrong. The teaching is correct. But Paul and Jesus taught exactly the same thing. 

 

Jeremiah said that, not Jesus. Jesus said there be one (himself.) Paul says there will be many.

 

 
It was the Spirit of the Lord that inspired Jeremiah to teach pastorship in the first place, the  same as did the Spirit of the Lord (Jesus!) taught the same thing in the New Testament. Your great fault is denying so much of the New Testament.  The Lord Jesus and all his apostles, including Paul were on the same page. You, young fellow, are not.
 
What in the world do you think was a 'pastor' to begin with in the first place? He is a sheperd (Greek: poimen) called by God to feed the sheep. THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT GOD TOLD HIS DISCIPLES TO DO. John 21:16-17 Matthew 28:20.
 
Pastor/elder/bishop are three different names for the same office. They are preachers who pastor the sheep, care for the sheep, and lead the sheep. For proof just compare all the passages in the N.T. that mention 'pastors, elders, and bishops'.
 

Nobody called him an apostle except himself or Luke. Jesus certainly didn't. He told Paul that he would be a witness, not an apostle.

 

Luke should be enough but you don't believe him either, even though Luke spent years of his life with the apostle Paul. He knew Paul to be a faithful man but you deliberately tear him down because you have been taught by some heretic that Paul was not teaching the truth. Your opinions are so shallow and poorly thought out.

 

So you admit that He was called of God by Jesus Christ to be a witness and to write most of the books of the New Testament KNOWING that he would be a liar, and that Paul would teach heresies (as you see it) and also falsely call himself an apostle........... SO THAT IS YOUR OPINION of the Lord Jesus Christ? Good grief, that is such poor reasoning.

 

Lastly, Romans 1:1   Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God

 

Your claim against Paul makes him a liar....but I think you are the one doing the lying.

 

But since you are not heeding what you've been shown then before things get out of hand I will put you on ignore for at least a few weeks. 

You can reply but I won't be reading it any time soon.

 

 



#27 Sleepy House

Sleepy House

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 68 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Idaho
  • Age: 31
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • United States

Posted 07 April 2018 - 11:41 AM

 

20 Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols.

 

I asked you to quote it in the gospels. I did't say the teaching was wrong. The teaching is correct. But Paul and Jesus taught exactly the same thing.

 

No, they did not. Jesus had it against these people that they ate things sacrificed to idols.

 

And this is from 1 Cor 8, a book indisputably written by Paul.

 

Therefore concerning the eating of things sacrificed to idols...
 
But food will not commend us to God; we are neither the worse if we do not eat, nor the better if we do eat. 9 But take care that this liberty of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. For if someone sees you, who have knowledge, dining in an idol’s temple, will not his conscience, if he is weak, be strengthened to eat things sacrificed to idols? 
 
Not only is it fine, others with a weak conscience may be "strengthened to eat" idol meat.
 
Paul also said, "Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake." 1 Corinthians 10:25 This aligns with the above verse, because "Food will commend us to God." So who cares? Not Paul. But OT Law is VERY strict on diet, and Jesus was not pleased at those doing it, either.
 

 

So you admit that He was called of God by Jesus Christ to be a witness and to write most of the books of the New Testament KNOWING that he would be a liar, and that Paul would teach heresies (as you see it) and also falsely call himself an apostle........... SO THAT IS YOUR OPINION of the Lord Jesus Christ? Good grief, that is such poor reasoning.

 

LastlyRomans 1:1   Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God

 

Again, Paul wrote Romans. He is calling himself an apostle. Besides twice from Luke, his claim stands alone. Nobody else called him one. Even Barnabas didn't claim to be an apostle—Luke called him one. In case you didn't know this, Luke, just like Paul, never actually met Jesus in the flesh. Luke became a follower after Jesus was crucified.

 

 

 

No one is calling for your death....or persecution you confused fellow.

 

Well, obviously. I wasn't implying that. I'm saying that heresy (and therefore unsaved even though you believe in Jesus) has been a large compartment of the church since it began. Epiphaneus (4th century) alone listed 80 heresies, and that was one guy. No one is calling for my death because I happened to live in a society where the church doesn't have the freedom to roast someone alive if they do or say something even slightly contrary to an accepted doctrine. Like...believing the gospels but not the letters Paul wrote to a church. That's a new one on me. I haven't heard of that one, but it is the easiest thing in the world to read the Bible and decide on a heresy.

 

 

 

Luke should be enough but you don't believe him either, even though Luke spent years of his life with the apostle Paul. He knew Paul to be a faithful man but you deliberately tear him down because you have been taught by some heretic that Paul was not teaching the truth. Your opinions are so shallow and poorly thought out.

   Shallow and poorly thought out? Like believing everything Paul says simply because Paul says it's true? Nothing circular there. Paul loved to say "I am telling the truth, I am not lying." Why would he say that so often? Could it be because people didn't believe him? Like the 7 churches in Asia, those same churches that didn't have any problems with the message John sent them?

 

But since you are not heeding what you've been shown then before things get out of hand I will put you on ignore for at least a few weeks. 

You can reply but I won't be reading it any time soon.

 

 

You haven't shown me anything to heed. It's fine if you ignore me, but it won't get out of hand. There are moderators for that, and I'm not going to lose my temper or resort to name calling or petty jibes. But of course you've ignored me sooooo.....



#28 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,604 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 07 April 2018 - 04:01 PM

 

 

Sleepy House:  Shallow and poorly thought out? Like believing everything Paul says simply because Paul says it's true? Nothing circular there. Paul loved to say "I am telling the truth, I am not lying." Why would he say that so often? Could it be because people didn't believe him? Like the 7 churches in Asia, those same churches that didn't have any problems with the message John sent them?

 

Can you see any relation between the thing you say highlighted in blue and the thing you say highlighted in red?

 

EXAMPLE: "I believe the ghost of a dead girl is haunting this place and that is why the phenomena occurs, look I will ask for the ghost of the dead girl to knock once if it is here." *knock*. "see, I am right, it is the ghost of the dead girl".

 

EXAMPLE2: "I have a theory Paul wasn't genuine, and hey look, he says he is telling the truth a lot as if he is a liar, just as I would predict, therefore my theory is true."

 

Advice: Your theories about the bible so far in this thread seem to be based on circularity, since you don't realise you keep completing the circle, you start out with anti-inerrant bible argument P, provide some highly equivocal, quote-mines, then effectively declare victory. This is weak stuff, Sleepy House. If you are a Muslim or have some strange belief, why not declare what you believe so as to reveal your motives? Could it be you are hiding behind the term, "creationist"? But the problem with that tactic is we are not stupid, if you have a belief different to ours, we can detect that fairly easily.

 

I think you overlook one important point Calypsis made - your biblical theology seems to be poor, because you quote things from people that had a different context while they were alive, for example Jesus and everything He said, must be understood according to the theology revealed, that from His perspective he was talking and dealing with the pharisees, and this was BEFORE the resurrection. In Paul's case it is totally different and therefore what Paul says, is coming from a different angle, contextually speaking. You seem to be unaware of these things, because you are only quote-mining very equivocal statements. For example you don't seem to understand that for those who are still under the law, at that time, and didn't accept Christ, the law would continue for them, and this was explained in the NT letters, that for those who accept Christ the law is abolished. This is pretty basic, A,B,C level Christianity you are overlooking.

 

The problem with equivocal statements which people against the bible being the inspired word, argue, is that all such arguments use verses which COULD support what you are saying but here is the real problem you have with the verses you quote; they could just as easily NOT mean what you are saying.

 

Many make idiotic claims about the bible, but have a weak case, and this is because they can only find ambiguous scriptures to support their position. Vague scriptures that can accommodate anything they twist them to mean. That's why we get strange views like universalism, us all being gods, racism, even Islam argued from bible verses, and many other notions which are being IMPLANTED. 

 

I am guessing you are either Mormon or JH or Muslim. Or some combination, hey these days it wouldn't surprise me, just believe any crap but not the obviously true gospel, right? 

 

It seems to me the logic is clear, you, "believe" in Jesus in some way, yet claim you believe in the God of Abraham, which means you can't be Jewish as they don't therefore you can only be Muslim to my mind, though I may have overlooked the many other foolish and false religions, such as Mormonism because I haven't studied the intricacies of their nonsense-content. I have observed you seem to avoid openly stating your own position of belief, just what are you? Why can't you answer?

 

 

 

Sleepy House: Well, obviously. I wasn't implying that. I'm saying that heresy (and therefore unsaved even though you believe in Jesus) has been a large compartment of the church since it began. Epiphaneus (4th century) alone listed 80 heresies, and that was one guy. No one is calling for my death because I happened to live in a society where the church doesn't have the freedom to roast someone alive if they do or say something even slightly contrary to an accepted doctrine

 

This is LOGICALLY IRRELEVANT. (guilt-by-association fallacy)

 

The fact is, the predicate, "cruelty, murder, burning people, judging them", etc....CONTRADICTS the definition of Christian, because of what the gospels and New Testament say and because of Christian theology. Christ said, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

 

This is why Calypsis seems right in that you lack experience, because don't you even know those important NT verses that reveal that those who are truly in Christ are known by their love. That we have the love of God, because we have for example, the fruit of the spirit, spoken of in Galatians 5. So I am afraid the only truly believing Christians here were the victims of the burners.

 

So even though these things were done in the name of Christianity, they were anti-Christian acts. So your attempt to associate us as Christians with those acts, is BUSTED. We are genuine Christians, not witch-burner-generals, and you cannot associate those acts with us without committing a fallacy of association (guilty by association).

 

Nice try there trying to pin that one on us, but no cigar. If you read Calypsis's words with your eyes open this time you will note that he said that the warning against heresy advises him to walk away from you and not waste his time any more. Or did you think the witch-burner-general invented the term? So pointing to those who used the term, "heresy" and associating them with Calypsis's use of the word, is a logical error, it would be like saying, if I were to say as a German, that I didn't want immigrants coming into the country, "neither did Hitler". Well, that would just be a stupid comment, and use of guilt-by-association.

 

 

Sleepy House

Well, obviously. I wasn't implying that. I'm saying that heresy (and therefore unsaved even though you believe in Jesus) has been a large compartment of the church since it began.

 

Which has precisely ZERO percent to do with us as Christians because the church spoken of in the NT isn't the churchian establishment of men, such as the catholic church or other worldly institutions = JACK SQUAT to do with us as Christians. 

 

You equivocate by using the term, "church", what do you mean by that term? That all of those people are of the "church" mentioned in the New Testament? That is 100% incorrect, the bible itself defines the church as the body-of-Christ, those true believers who are, "in Christ", the ones who truly are Christian, which doesn't involve witch-finder generals. You seem to have close to zero knowledge of Christian theology, did you think reading the syntax would be sufficient? :rolleyes:

 

It's a logical contradiction to say that a predicate which is contrary to P, can be part of the definition of P. So the, "church" you refer to, from our perspective, is just man-made religion. For example the catholic church is man-made religion. All of the acts of people like Constantine, and wars raged and witches burnt, was all part of the man-made church, with man-centred goals, at it's heart.

 

But the church, the body of those in Christ, according to the bible, has nothing to do with that, "church". So the term, "church" is way too ambiguous, but you do seem to enjoy making your claims as ambiguous as you can. 

 

EXAMPLE; If someone claims to be a PHD level scientist but they don't have any PHDs in science, then it is a contradiction if their actions are only to teach below par sophistry they call science, and you still call them PHD scientists. 

 

If someone claims to be a Christian, and is in fact a witch-finder general who burns witches, then you can't still argue he was a Christian, because what he actually was, was a witch-finder general, who called himself a Christian by pretending he was doing God's work. If he was doing Christian work, please point to the passages of the Christian bible which supports his claims. For example when Christ gave the great commission to spread the good news of the gospel, and grow the church of followers, can you point me to the verse of scripture where this kind of action was mentioned by Christ? Can you tell us the verse where Christ says the goal of the commission to spread the gospel was to kill anyone who isn't truly Christian or practices things outside of Christianity, please? Then can you show us the gifts of the spirit were tools of war, rather than what the bible actually says which is various gifts such as healing, prophecy.

 

In other words, Christ gave a peaceful message to preach, and on the day of Pentecost the Holy Spirit was given, and the gifts for the commission and the spreading of the peaceful gospel message, were only gifts conducive to mercy and peace. If Christianity had anything to do with people who done these crimes in it's name, don't you think the NT would have had ample opportunity to tell us how the apostles were given spiritual gifts for war and destruction? Then we have to consider what Christ Himself said when his apostles asked Him to reign fire on the towns that wouldn't accept Christ. Jesus said, "I have not come to destroy men's lives but to save them."

 

Sorry friend, you still have a long way to go before you understand the true Christian message, and what the true Christian church is all about. Go and get a "Samaritan's purse" magazine and read what the true Christian church is all about. 


  • Blitzking likes this

#29 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,477 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 07 April 2018 - 04:38 PM

 

 

 

Sleepy House:  Shallow and poorly thought out? Like believing everything Paul says simply because Paul says it's true? Nothing circular there. Paul loved to say "I am telling the truth, I am not lying." Why would he say that so often? Could it be because people didn't believe him? Like the 7 churches in Asia, those same churches that didn't have any problems with the message John sent them?

 

Can you see any relation between the thing you say highlighted in blue and the thing you say highlighted in red?

 

EXAMPLE: "I believe the ghost of a dead girl is haunting this place and that is why the phenomena occurs, look I will ask for the ghost of the dead girl to knock once if it is here." *knock*. "see, I am right, it is the ghost of the dead girl".

 

EXAMPLE2: "I have a theory Paul wasn't genuine, and hey look, he says he is telling the truth a lot as if he is a liar, just as I would predict, therefore my theory is true."

 

Advice: Your theories about the bible so far in this thread seem to be based on circularity, since you don't realise you keep completing the circle, you start out with anti-inerrant bible argument P, provide some highly equivocal, quote-mines, then effectively declare victory. This is weak stuff, Sleepy House. If you are a Muslim or have some strange belief, why not declare what you believe so as to reveal your motives? Could it be you are hiding behind the term, "creationist"? But the problem with that tactic is we are not stupid, if you have a belief different to ours, we can detect that fairly easily.

 

I think you overlook one important point Calypsis made - your biblical theology seems to be poor, because you quote things from people that had a different context while they were alive, for example Jesus and everything He said, must be understood according to the theology revealed, that from His perspective he was talking and dealing with the pharisees, and this was BEFORE the resurrection. In Paul's case it is totally different and therefore what Paul says, is coming from a different angle, contextually speaking. You seem to be unaware of these things, because you are only quote-mining very equivocal statements. For example you don't seem to understand that for those who are still under the law, at that time, and didn't accept Christ, the law would continue for them, and this was explained in the NT letters, that for those who accept Christ the law is abolished. This is pretty basic, A,B,C level Christianity you are overlooking.

 

The problem with equivocal statements which people against the bible being the inspired word, argue, is that all such arguments use verses which COULD support what you are saying but here is the real problem you have with the verses you quote; they could just as easily NOT mean what you are saying.

 

Many make idiotic claims about the bible, but have a weak case, and this is because they can only find ambiguous scriptures to support their position. Vague scriptures that can accommodate anything they twist them to mean. That's why we get strange views like universalism, us all being gods, racism, even Islam argued from bible verses, and many other notions which are being IMPLANTED. 

 

I am guessing you are either Mormon or JH or Muslim. Or some combination, hey these days it wouldn't surprise me, just believe any crap but not the obviously true gospel, right? 

 

It seems to me the logic is clear, you, "believe" in Jesus in some way, yet claim you believe in the God of Abraham, which means you can't be Jewish as they don't therefore you can only be Muslim to my mind, though I may have overlooked the many other foolish and false religions, such as Mormonism because I haven't studied the intricacies of their nonsense-content. I have observed you seem to avoid openly stating your own position of belief, just what are you? Why can't you answer?

 

 

 

Sleepy House: Well, obviously. I wasn't implying that. I'm saying that heresy (and therefore unsaved even though you believe in Jesus) has been a large compartment of the church since it began. Epiphaneus (4th century) alone listed 80 heresies, and that was one guy. No one is calling for my death because I happened to live in a society where the church doesn't have the freedom to roast someone alive if they do or say something even slightly contrary to an accepted doctrine

 

This is LOGICALLY IRRELEVANT. (guilt-by-association fallacy)

 

The fact is, the predicate, "cruelty, murder, burning people, judging them", etc....CONTRADICTS the definition of Christian, because of what the gospels and New Testament say and because of Christian theology. Christ said, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

 

This is why Calypsis seems right in that you lack experience, because don't you even know those important NT verses that reveal that those who are truly in Christ are known by their love. That we have the love of God, because we have for example, the fruit of the spirit, spoken of in Galatians 5. So I am afraid the only truly believing Christians here were the victims of the burners.

 

So even though these things were done in the name of Christianity, they were anti-Christian acts. So your attempt to associate us as Christians with those acts, is BUSTED. We are genuine Christians, not witch-burner-generals, and you cannot associate those acts with us without committing a fallacy of association (guilty by association).

 

Nice try there trying to pin that one on us, but no cigar. If you read Calypsis's words with your eyes open this time you will note that he said that the warning against heresy advises him to walk away from you and not waste his time any more. Or did you think the witch-burner-general invented the term? So pointing to those who used the term, "heresy" and associating them with Calypsis's use of the word, is a logical error, it would be like saying, if I were to say as a German, that I didn't want immigrants coming into the country, "neither did Hitler". Well, that would just be a stupid comment, and use of guilt-by-association.

 

 

Sleepy House

Well, obviously. I wasn't implying that. I'm saying that heresy (and therefore unsaved even though you believe in Jesus) has been a large compartment of the church since it began.

 

Which has precisely ZERO percent to do with us as Christians because the church spoken of in the NT isn't the churchian establishment of men, such as the catholic church or other worldly institutions = JACK SQUAT to do with us as Christians. 

 

You equivocate by using the term, "church", what do you mean by that term? That all of those people are of the "church" mentioned in the New Testament? That is 100% incorrect, the bible itself defines the church as the body-of-Christ, those true believers who are, "in Christ", the ones who truly are Christian, which doesn't involve witch-finder generals. You seem to have close to zero knowledge of Christian theology, did you think reading the syntax would be sufficient? :rolleyes:

 

It's a logical contradiction to say that a predicate which is contrary to P, can be part of the definition of P. So the, "church" you refer to, from our perspective, is just man-made religion. For example the catholic church is man-made religion. All of the acts of people like Constantine, and wars raged and witches burnt, was all part of the man-made church, with man-centred goals, at it's heart.

 

But the church, the body of those in Christ, according to the bible, has nothing to do with that, "church". So the term, "church" is way too ambiguous, but you do seem to enjoy making your claims as ambiguous as you can. 

 

EXAMPLE; If someone claims to be a PHD level scientist but they don't have any PHDs in science, then it is a contradiction if their actions are only to teach below par sophistry they call science, and you still call them PHD scientists. 

 

If someone claims to be a Christian, and is in fact a witch-finder general who burns witches, then you can't still argue he was a Christian, because what he actually was, was a witch-finder general, who called himself a Christian by pretending he was doing God's work. If he was doing Christian work, please point to the passages of the Christian bible which supports his claims. For example when Christ gave the great commission to spread the good news of the gospel, and grow the church of followers, can you point me to the verse of scripture where this kind of action was mentioned by Christ? Can you tell us the verse where Christ says the goal of the commission to spread the gospel was to kill anyone who isn't truly Christian or practices things outside of Christianity, please? Then can you show us the gifts of the spirit were tools of war, rather than what the bible actually says which is various gifts such as healing, prophecy.

 

In other words, Christ gave a peaceful message to preach, and on the day of Pentecost the Holy Spirit was given, and the gifts for the commission and the spreading of the peaceful gospel message, were only gifts conducive to mercy and peace. If Christianity had anything to do with people who done these crimes in it's name, don't you think the NT would have had ample opportunity to tell us how the apostles were given spiritual gifts for war and destruction? Then we have to consider what Christ Himself said when his apostles asked Him to reign fire on the towns that wouldn't accept Christ. Jesus said, "I have not come to destroy men's lives but to save them."

 

Sorry friend, you still have a long way to go before you understand the true Christian message, and what the true Christian church is all about. Go and get a "Samaritan's purse" magazine and read what the true Christian church is all about. 

 

 

That's good, Mike. 

 

quote, "If you read Calypsis's words with your eyes open this time you will note that he said that the warning against heresy advises him to walk away from you and not waste his time any more. Or did you think the witch-burner-general invented the term? "

 

A Holy Spirit led believer whose mind and heart is headed in the right direction theologically would understand this right away. But unless his/her teacher is a loving, Christ exalting person of faith instead of a true heretic with ulterior motives & an unholy agenda then confusion will result as far as conclusions are concerned. But once a lie is accepted into the room of reason it is very difficult to remove it.

 

quote, "If someone claims to be a Christian, and is in fact a witch-finder general who burns witches, then you can't still argue he was a Christian, because what he actually was, was a witch-finder general, who called himself a Christian by pretending he was doing God's work."

 

Exactly. The truth is that the anabaptist forefathers were burned at the stake, drowned, pulled apart by horses, and imprisoned for long periods by the same witch-burner-generals you speak of just as were the witches, atheists, and Jews. But the anabaptists themselves persecuted no one. That is the historical fact. 


  • mike the wiz likes this

#30 Sleepy House

Sleepy House

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 68 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Idaho
  • Age: 31
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • United States

Posted 07 April 2018 - 06:05 PM

Can you see any relation between the thing you say highlighted in blue and the thing you say highlighted in red?

 

EXAMPLE: "I believe the ghost of a dead girl is haunting this place and that is why the phenomena occurs, look I will ask for the ghost of the dead girl to knock once if it is here." *knock*. "see, I am right, it is the ghost of the dead girl".

 

EXAMPLE2: "I have a theory Paul wasn't genuine, and hey look, he says he is telling the truth a lot as if he is a liar, just as I would predict, therefore my theory is true."

 

Advice: Your theories about the bible so far in this thread seem to be based on circularity, since you don't realise you keep completing the circle, you start out with anti-inerrant bible argument P, provide some highly equivocal, quote-mines, then effectively declare victory. This is weak stuff, Sleepy House. If you are a Muslim or have some strange belief, why not declare what you believe so as to reveal your motives? Could it be you are hiding behind the term, "creationist"? But the problem with that tactic is we are not stupid, if you have a belief different to ours, we can detect that fairly easily.

 

 

I wasn't inferring anything concrete about Paul's constant declarations of truth. Who knows why he did it? I left off with a question, not a statement. I am not a Muslim, and in fact have never read more than a few verses of the Koran and that was by happenstance. My knowledge of it is this: It is an Abrahamic religion, they worship one god, and their prophet is Muhammad. 

 

I think you overlook one important point Calypsis made - your biblical theology seems to be poor, because you quote things from people that had a different context while they were alive, for example Jesus and everything He said, must be understood according to the theology revealed, that from His perspective he was talking and dealing with the pharisees, and this was BEFORE the resurrection. In Paul's case it is totally different and therefore what Paul says, is coming from a different angle, contextually speaking. You seem to be unaware of these things, because you are only quote-mining very equivocal statements. For example you don't seem to understand that for those who are still under the law, at that time, and didn't accept Christ, the law would continue for them, and this was explained in the NT letters, that for those who accept Christ the law is abolished. This is pretty basic, A,B,C level Christianity you are overlooking.

 

The problem with equivocal statements which people against the bible being the inspired word, argue, is that all such arguments use verses which COULD support what you are saying but here is the real problem you have with the verses you quote; they could just as easily NOT mean what you are saying.

 

 

You can call it quote-mining if you want to. Literally every denomination does it. 40,000 denominations at least. The church is corrupt, and I agree with you that doctrine doesn't have much to do with being a Christian on an individual level. More on that later. I demonstrated that Paul is okay with idol meat, and that Jesus wasn't. I demonstrated that the seven churches of Asia rejected Paul, and no one besides himself and his friend Luke named him as an apostle. So you're rebuttal is that it's okay, and that it poses no problem. That's fine—you really don't have any other explanation.  

 

This is why Calypsis seems right in that you lack experience, because don't you even know those important NT verses that reveal that those who are truly in Christ are known by their love. That we have the love of God, because we have for example, the fruit of the spirit, spoken of in Galatians 5. So I am afraid the only truly believing Christians here were the victims of the burners.

 

So even though these things were done in the name of Christianity, they were anti-Christian acts. So your attempt to associate us as Christians with those acts, is BUSTED. We are genuine Christians, not witch-burner-generals, and you cannot associate those acts with us without committing a fallacy of association (guilty by association).

 

 

Every single religion has committed acts of atrocity in the name of their religion. I'm not singling out Christianity. So the weird fallacy that you're accusing me of doesn't really apply. It is always the individual or the collective insanity of a group of people that causes them to carry out atrocities. I'm sure if St. Olaf wasn't doing forced Christian conversions by shoving snakes down people's throats and putting coals on their belly until they burst, he would find some other reason to do it. Those people are grievances looking for a cause, and the cause they found just so happened to be Christianity.

 

 

 

If someone claims to be a Christian, and is in fact a witch-finder general who burns witches, then you can't still argue he was a Christian, because what he actually was, was a witch-finder general, who called himself a Christian by pretending he was doing God's work. If he was doing Christian work, please point to the passages of the Christian bible which supports his claims. For example when Christ gave the great commission to spread the good news of the gospel, and grow the church of followers, can you point me to the verse of scripture where this kind of action was mentioned by Christ? Can you tell us the verse where Christ says the goal of the commission to spread the gospel was to kill anyone who isn't truly Christian or practices things outside of Christianity, please? Then can you show us the gifts of the spirit were tools of war, rather than what the bible actually says which is various gifts such as healing, prophecy.

 

Actually, this is an interesting topic. Because I have heard from so many people, and so many websites, that it does not matter what you do. You are saved by faith and not works, though hat is in contrast to what's in the book of James (faith and works). So, the white man that came to the US, and commited theft, rape, and murder of women and children of peaceful tribes go to Heaven, while the natives go to eternal hellfire. Oh but they had a chance, right? You see it makes no sense. No, an ACTUAL Christian would never do such a thing, because an actual Christian believe in the teaching of Jesus. And no, I cannot give any single instance where Jesus said to go to war. If you're in the mood for a bloodbath you can turn to 2 Samuel or something, but as for Jesus, no.

 

So in summation: Jesus did not at any point order or command violent conversion. I agree that it is an anti-Christian act. However the people that did it are still Christians. But is the person who forcefuly converted a Christian? After all, they were given an option of either converting or having a gruesome, violent death for them and maybe their loved ones.

 

 

It's a logical contradiction to say that a predicate which is contrary to P, can be part of the definition of P. So the, "church" you refer to, from our perspective, is just man-made religion. For example the catholic church is man-made religion. All of the acts of people like Constantine, and wars raged and witches burnt, was all part of the man-made church, with man-centred goals, at it's heart.

 

But the church, the body of those in Christ, according to the bible, has nothing to do with that, "church". So the term, "church" is way too ambiguous, but you do seem to enjoy making your claims as ambiguous as you can. 

Then let me clarify for you. The church is corrupt. Maybe the church you are speaking of isn't. You must be speaking of the fellowship you have with other Christians where you unite to feed the poor, get together in happiness, and forget all about weird doctrines. Then no, that is not corrupt, because there is no divisiveness.

 

 

Many make idiotic claims about the bible, but have a weak case, and this is because they can only find ambiguous scriptures to support their position. Vague scriptures that can accommodate anything they twist them to mean. That's why we get strange views like universalism, us all being gods, racism, even Islam argued from bible verses, and many other notions which are being IMPLANTED. 

 

I am guessing you are either Mormon or JH or Muslim. Or some combination, hey these days it wouldn't surprise me, just believe any crap but not the obviously true gospel, right? 

 

It seems to me the logic is clear, you, "believe" in Jesus in some way, yet claim you believe in the God of Abraham, which means you can't be Jewish as they don't therefore you can only be Muslim to my mind, though I may have overlooked the many other foolish and false religions, such as Mormonism because I haven't studied the intricacies of their nonsense-content. I have observed you seem to avoid openly stating your own position of belief, just what are you? Why can't you answer?

 

 

 

Everyone makes claims about the Bible, and they are only ever considered idiotic by people who think they know the right answers. We all think so fantastically of ourselves, don't we? We are right, they are wrong. 

 

You are way off the mark. I am nowhere near a Mormon, a JW, or a Muslim. You see, you're asking me who I align with as you sit there and call everything you don't agree with foolish and nonsense. As soon as you form an idea of what someone is religiously, you immediately come to pre-concieved notions of who they are and how they think. Everyone is wrong except those that align with you. That is your belief. Rather, that is your certainty. But there is no power in certainty. That is weakness disguised as strength. Power is in faith.

 

And let's face it. You're calling my theology weak, though that is what you would call anyone's theology that does not agree with yours. You can try to cut down arguments with your logic and deduction, and against evolution you do a great job of it, but those are matters of science. Your sword is weak and rusty when it comes to other matters.

 

Many make idiotic claims about the bible, but have a weak case, and this is because they can only find ambiguous scriptures to support their position. Vague scriptures that can accommodate anything they twist them to mean. That's why we get strange views like universalism, us all being gods, racism, even Islam argued from bible verses, and many other notions which are being IMPLANTED. 

 

 

 

And there you are again, trying to destroy a different theology simply because you don't agree with it. Universalism was the order of the day for 500 years. Origen, one of the greatest theologians of all time, who completely started, popularized, and supported the Trinity was a universalist. Augustine of Hippo, considered to be the most important theologian of Western Christianity, described the Universalists as “indeed very many” (immo quam plurimi), what he meant is that they were a “vast majority." 500 years after the crucifixion. 5 out of the 6 theological schools were Universalist, and it wasn't declared a heresy even by "The Hammer of the Heretics."

 

You have a rebuttal of weak theology for the fathers of theology. You have a rebuttal of weak theology for everyone, basically, except for those who are aligned with you.

 

When I found out that the gospel of Thomas had been discovered at Nag Hammhadi (sp) I thought everyone would be stoked. The early church went around killing anyone with these gospels, and burning the manuscripts. And somebody thought they were so important that they preserved them as best they could, hid them, and went to their graves hoping that someday someone would discover them after Christianity went through its version of Fahrenheit 451. But no!! It's an apostasy, because it didn't get included in the canon. Because it wasn't accepted at the Council of Nicea, where the early catholic church was beginning to form because there were "too many" kinds of Christians, and they all needed to be organized, and dissidents needed to be taken care of.

 

Yes indeed.

 

Trying to get anyone stuck in their theology to look at it from a different perspective is about as easy as getting a dog to meow. What can you say to someone who already knows everything? Nothing.



#31 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,282 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 07 April 2018 - 07:51 PM

Can you see any relation between the thing you say highlighted in blue and the thing you say highlighted in red?
 
EXAMPLE: "I believe the ghost of a dead girl is haunting this place and that is why the phenomena occurs, look I will ask for the ghost of the dead girl to knock once if it is here." *knock*. "see, I am right, it is the ghost of the dead girl".
 
EXAMPLE2: "I have a theory Paul wasn't genuine, and hey look, he says he is telling the truth a lot as if he is a liar, just as I would predict, therefore my theory is true."
 
Advice: Your theories about the bible so far in this thread seem to be based on circularity, since you don't realise you keep completing the circle, you start out with anti-inerrant bible argument P, provide some highly equivocal, quote-mines, then effectively declare victory. This is weak stuff, Sleepy House. If you are a Muslim or have some strange belief, why not declare what you believe so as to reveal your motives? Could it be you are hiding behind the term, "creationist"? But the problem with that tactic is we are not stupid, if you have a belief different to ours, we can detect that fairly easily.

 
I wasn't inferring anything concrete about Paul's constant declarations of truth. Who knows why he did it? I left off with a question, not a statement. I am not a Muslim, and in fact have never read more than a few verses of the Koran and that was by happenstance. My knowledge of it is this: It is an Abrahamic religion, they worship one god, and their prophet is Muhammad. 

 
I think you overlook one important point Calypsis made - your biblical theology seems to be poor, because you quote things from people that had a different context while they were alive, for example Jesus and everything He said, must be understood according to the theology revealed, that from His perspective he was talking and dealing with the pharisees, and this was BEFORE the resurrection. In Paul's case it is totally different and therefore what Paul says, is coming from a different angle, contextually speaking. You seem to be unaware of these things, because you are only quote-mining very equivocal statements. For example you don't seem to understand that for those who are still under the law, at that time, and didn't accept Christ, the law would continue for them, and this was explained in the NT letters, that for those who accept Christ the law is abolished. This is pretty basic, A,B,C level Christianity you are overlooking.
 
The problem with equivocal statements which people against the bible being the inspired word, argue, is that all such arguments use verses which COULD support what you are saying but here is the real problem you have with the verses you quote; they could just as easily NOT mean what you are saying.

 
You can call it quote-mining if you want to. Literally every denomination does it. 40,000 denominations at least. The church is corrupt, and I agree with you that doctrine doesn't have much to do with being a Christian on an individual level. More on that later. I demonstrated that Paul is okay with idol meat, and that Jesus wasn't. I demonstrated that the seven churches of Asia rejected Paul, and no one besides himself and his friend Luke named him as an apostle. So you're rebuttal is that it's okay, and that it poses no problem. That's fine—you really don't have any other explanation.  
 

This is why Calypsis seems right in that you lack experience, because don't you even know those important NT verses that reveal that those who are truly in Christ are known by their love. That we have the love of God, because we have for example, the fruit of the spirit, spoken of in Galatians 5. So I am afraid the only truly believing Christians here were the victims of the burners.
 
So even though these things were done in the name of Christianity, they were anti-Christian acts. So your attempt to associate us as Christians with those acts, is BUSTED. We are genuine Christians, not witch-burner-generals, and you cannot associate those acts with us without committing a fallacy of association (guilty by association).

 
Every single religion has committed acts of atrocity in the name of their religion. I'm not singling out Christianity. So the weird fallacy that you're accusing me of doesn't really apply. It is always the individual or the collective insanity of a group of people that causes them to carry out atrocities. I'm sure if St. Olaf wasn't doing forced Christian conversions by shoving snakes down people's throats and putting coals on their belly until they burst, he would find some other reason to do it. Those people are grievances looking for a cause, and the cause they found just so happened to be Christianity.
 

 
 
If someone claims to be a Christian, and is in fact a witch-finder general who burns witches, then you can't still argue he was a Christian, because what he actually was, was a witch-finder general, who called himself a Christian by pretending he was doing God's work. If he was doing Christian work, please point to the passages of the Christian bible which supports his claims. For example when Christ gave the great commission to spread the good news of the gospel, and grow the church of followers, can you point me to the verse of scripture where this kind of action was mentioned by Christ? Can you tell us the verse where Christ says the goal of the commission to spread the gospel was to kill anyone who isn't truly Christian or practices things outside of Christianity, please? Then can you show us the gifts of the spirit were tools of war, rather than what the bible actually says which is various gifts such as healing, prophecy.

 
Actually, this is an interesting topic. Because I have heard from so many people, and so many websites, that it does not matter what you do. You are saved by faith and not works, though hat is in contrast to what's in the book of James (faith and works). So, the white man that came to the US, and commited theft, rape, and murder of women and children of peaceful tribes go to Heaven, while the natives go to eternal hellfire. Oh but they had a chance, right? You see it makes no sense. No, an ACTUAL Christian would never do such a thing, because an actual Christian believe in the teaching of Jesus. And no, I cannot give any single instance where Jesus said to go to war. If you're in the mood for a bloodbath you can turn to 2 Samuel or something, but as for Jesus, no.
 
So in summation: Jesus did not at any point order or command violent conversion. I agree that it is an anti-Christian act. However the people that did it are still Christians. But is the person who forcefuly converted a Christian? After all, they were given an option of either converting or having a gruesome, violent death for them and maybe their loved ones.
 

 
It's a logical contradiction to say that a predicate which is contrary to P, can be part of the definition of P. So the, "church" you refer to, from our perspective, is just man-made religion. For example the catholic church is man-made religion. All of the acts of people like Constantine, and wars raged and witches burnt, was all part of the man-made church, with man-centred goals, at it's heart.
 
But the church, the body of those in Christ, according to the bible, has nothing to do with that, "church". So the term, "church" is way too ambiguous, but you do seem to enjoy making your claims as ambiguous as you can. 

Then let me clarify for you. The church is corrupt. Maybe the church you are speaking of isn't. You must be speaking of the fellowship you have with other Christians where you unite to feed the poor, get together in happiness, and forget all about weird doctrines. Then no, that is not corrupt, because there is no divisiveness.
 
 

Many make idiotic claims about the bible, but have a weak case, and this is because they can only find ambiguous scriptures to support their position. Vague scriptures that can accommodate anything they twist them to mean. That's why we get strange views like universalism, us all being gods, racism, even Islam argued from bible verses, and many other notions which are being IMPLANTED. 
 
I am guessing you are either Mormon or JH or Muslim. Or some combination, hey these days it wouldn't surprise me, just believe any crap but not the obviously true gospel, right? 
 
It seems to me the logic is clear, you, "believe" in Jesus in some way, yet claim you believe in the God of Abraham, which means you can't be Jewish as they don't therefore you can only be Muslim to my mind, though I may have overlooked the many other foolish and false religions, such as Mormonism because I haven't studied the intricacies of their nonsense-content. I have observed you seem to avoid openly stating your own position of belief, just what are you? Why can't you answer?

 
 
Everyone makes claims about the Bible, and they are only ever considered idiotic by people who think they know the right answers. We all think so fantastically of ourselves, don't we? We are right, they are wrong. 
 
You are way off the mark. I am nowhere near a Mormon, a JW, or a Muslim. You see, you're asking me who I align with as you sit there and call everything you don't agree with foolish and nonsense. As soon as you form an idea of what someone is religiously, you immediately come to pre-concieved notions of who they are and how they think. Everyone is wrong except those that align with you. That is your belief. Rather, that is your certainty. But there is no power in certainty. That is weakness disguised as strength. Power is in faith.
 
And let's face it. You're calling my theology weak, though that is what you would call anyone's theology that does not agree with yours. You can try to cut down arguments with your logic and deduction, and against evolution you do a great job of it, but those are matters of science. Your sword is weak and rusty when it comes to other matters.

 

Many make idiotic claims about the bible, but have a weak case, and this is because they can only find ambiguous scriptures to support their position. Vague scriptures that can accommodate anything they twist them to mean. That's why we get strange views like universalism, us all being gods, racism, even Islam argued from bible verses, and many other notions which are being IMPLANTED. 

And there you are again, trying to destroy a different theology simply because you don't agree with it. Universalism was the order of the day for 500 years. Origen, one of the greatest theologians of all time, who completely started, popularized, and supported the Trinity was a universalist. Augustine of Hippo, considered to be the most important theologian of Western Christianity, described the Universalists as “indeed very many” (immo quam plurimi), what he meant is that they were a “vast majority." 500 years after the crucifixion. 5 out of the 6 theological schools were Universalist, and it wasn't declared a heresy even by "The Hammer of the Heretics."
 
You have a rebuttal of weak theology for the fathers of theology. You have a rebuttal of weak theology for everyone, basically, except for those who are aligned with you.
 
When I found out that the gospel of Thomas had been discovered at Nag Hammhadi (sp) I thought everyone would be stoked. The early church went around killing anyone with these gospels, and burning the manuscripts. And somebody thought they were so important that they preserved them as best they could, hid them, and went to their graves hoping that someday someone would discover them after Christianity went through its version of Fahrenheit 451. But no!! It's an apostasy, because it didn't get included in the canon. Because it wasn't accepted at the Council of Nicea, where the early catholic church was beginning to form because there were "too many" kinds of Christians, and they all needed to be organized, and dissidents needed to be taken care of.
 
Yes indeed.
 
Trying to get anyone stuck in their theology to look at it from a different perspective is about as easy as getting a dog to meow. What can you say to someone who already knows everything? Nothing.



" My knowledge of it is this: It is an Abrahamic religion, they worship one god, and their prophet is Muhammad. "


You were taught wrong.. There is ONLY ONE "Abrahamic Religion" And that is the one based on the Judeo Christian Bible.. Islam is a Cult based on the Pagan Mood God with some plagiarism from parts of the Bible thrown in to give credence to the totalitarian ideology invented by a demonic posessed pedofile pirate, murderer, and slave trader in order to get people to do his bidding like raiding caravans and plundering cities, spreading his demonic filth by the sword. DONT BE FOOLED..

www.the religionofpeace.com
  • Calypsis4, mike the wiz and KillurBluff like this

#32 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,282 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 07 April 2018 - 10:04 PM

 
 
Sleepy House:  Shallow and poorly thought out? Like believing everything Paul says simply because Paul says it's true? Nothing circular there. Paul loved to say "I am telling the truth, I am not lying." Why would he say that so often? Could it be because people didn't believe him? Like the 7 churches in Asia, those same churches that didn't have any problems with the message John sent them?

 
Can you see any relation between the thing you say highlighted in blue and the thing you say highlighted in red?
 
EXAMPLE: "I believe the ghost of a dead girl is haunting this place and that is why the phenomena occurs, look I will ask for the ghost of the dead girl to knock once if it is here." *knock*. "see, I am right, it is the ghost of the dead girl".
 
EXAMPLE2: "I have a theory Paul wasn't genuine, and hey look, he says he is telling the truth a lot as if he is a liar, just as I would predict, therefore my theory is true."
 
Advice: Your theories about the bible so far in this thread seem to be based on circularity, since you don't realise you keep completing the circle, you start out with anti-inerrant bible argument P, provide some highly equivocal, quote-mines, then effectively declare victory. This is weak stuff, Sleepy House. If you are a Muslim or have some strange belief, why not declare what you believe so as to reveal your motives? Could it be you are hiding behind the term, "creationist"? But the problem with that tactic is we are not stupid, if you have a belief different to ours, we can detect that fairly easily.
 
I think you overlook one important point Calypsis made - your biblical theology seems to be poor, because you quote things from people that had a different context while they were alive, for example Jesus and everything He said, must be understood according to the theology revealed, that from His perspective he was talking and dealing with the pharisees, and this was BEFORE the resurrection. In Paul's case it is totally different and therefore what Paul says, is coming from a different angle, contextually speaking. You seem to be unaware of these things, because you are only quote-mining very equivocal statements. For example you don't seem to understand that for those who are still under the law, at that time, and didn't accept Christ, the law would continue for them, and this was explained in the NT letters, that for those who accept Christ the law is abolished. This is pretty basic, A,B,C level Christianity you are overlooking.
 
The problem with equivocal statements which people against the bible being the inspired word, argue, is that all such arguments use verses which COULD support what you are saying but here is the real problem you have with the verses you quote; they could just as easily NOT mean what you are saying.
 
Many make idiotic claims about the bible, but have a weak case, and this is because they can only find ambiguous scriptures to support their position. Vague scriptures that can accommodate anything they twist them to mean. That's why we get strange views like universalism, us all being gods, racism, even Islam argued from bible verses, and many other notions which are being IMPLANTED. 
 
I am guessing you are either Mormon or JH or Muslim. Or some combination, hey these days it wouldn't surprise me, just believe any crap but not the obviously true gospel, right? 
 
It seems to me the logic is clear, you, "believe" in Jesus in some way, yet claim you believe in the God of Abraham, which means you can't be Jewish as they don't therefore you can only be Muslim to my mind, though I may have overlooked the many other foolish and false religions, such as Mormonism because I haven't studied the intricacies of their nonsense-content. I have observed you seem to avoid openly stating your own position of belief, just what are you? Why can't you answer?
 

 
 
Sleepy House: Well, obviously. I wasn't implying that. I'm saying that heresy (and therefore unsaved even though you believe in Jesus) has been a large compartment of the church since it began. Epiphaneus (4th century) alone listed 80 heresies, and that was one guy. No one is calling for my death because I happened to live in a society where the church doesn't have the freedom to roast someone alive if they do or say something even slightly contrary to an accepted doctrine

 
This is LOGICALLY IRRELEVANT. (guilt-by-association fallacy)
 
The fact is, the predicate, "cruelty, murder, burning people, judging them", etc....CONTRADICTS the definition of Christian, because of what the gospels and New Testament say and because of Christian theology. Christ said, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
 
This is why Calypsis seems right in that you lack experience, because don't you even know those important NT verses that reveal that those who are truly in Christ are known by their love. That we have the love of God, because we have for example, the fruit of the spirit, spoken of in Galatians 5. So I am afraid the only truly believing Christians here were the victims of the burners.
 
So even though these things were done in the name of Christianity, they were anti-Christian acts. So your attempt to associate us as Christians with those acts, is BUSTED. We are genuine Christians, not witch-burner-generals, and you cannot associate those acts with us without committing a fallacy of association (guilty by association).
 
Nice try there trying to pin that one on us, but no cigar. If you read Calypsis's words with your eyes open this time you will note that he said that the warning against heresy advises him to walk away from you and not waste his time any more. Or did you think the witch-burner-general invented the term? So pointing to those who used the term, "heresy" and associating them with Calypsis's use of the word, is a logical error, it would be like saying, if I were to say as a German, that I didn't want immigrants coming into the country, "neither did Hitler". Well, that would just be a stupid comment, and use of guilt-by-association.
 

 
Sleepy House
Well, obviously. I wasn't implying that. I'm saying that heresy (and therefore unsaved even though you believe in Jesus) has been a large compartment of the church since it began.

 
Which has precisely ZERO percent to do with us as Christians because the church spoken of in the NT isn't the churchian establishment of men, such as the catholic church or other worldly institutions = JACK SQUAT to do with us as Christians. 
 
You equivocate by using the term, "church", what do you mean by that term? That all of those people are of the "church" mentioned in the New Testament? That is 100% incorrect, the bible itself defines the church as the body-of-Christ, those true believers who are, "in Christ", the ones who truly are Christian, which doesn't involve witch-finder generals. You seem to have close to zero knowledge of Christian theology, did you think reading the syntax would be sufficient? :rolleyes:
 
It's a logical contradiction to say that a predicate which is contrary to P, can be part of the definition of P. So the, "church" you refer to, from our perspective, is just man-made religion. For example the catholic church is man-made religion. All of the acts of people like Constantine, and wars raged and witches burnt, was all part of the man-made church, with man-centred goals, at it's heart.
 
But the church, the body of those in Christ, according to the bible, has nothing to do with that, "church". So the term, "church" is way too ambiguous, but you do seem to enjoy making your claims as ambiguous as you can. 
 
EXAMPLE; If someone claims to be a PHD level scientist but they don't have any PHDs in science, then it is a contradiction if their actions are only to teach below par sophistry they call science, and you still call them PHD scientists. 
 
If someone claims to be a Christian, and is in fact a witch-finder general who burns witches, then you can't still argue he was a Christian, because what he actually was, was a witch-finder general, who called himself a Christian by pretending he was doing God's work. If he was doing Christian work, please point to the passages of the Christian bible which supports his claims. For example when Christ gave the great commission to spread the good news of the gospel, and grow the church of followers, can you point me to the verse of scripture where this kind of action was mentioned by Christ? Can you tell us the verse where Christ says the goal of the commission to spread the gospel was to kill anyone who isn't truly Christian or practices things outside of Christianity, please? Then can you show us the gifts of the spirit were tools of war, rather than what the bible actually says which is various gifts such as healing, prophecy.
 
In other words, Christ gave a peaceful message to preach, and on the day of Pentecost the Holy Spirit was given, and the gifts for the commission and the spreading of the peaceful gospel message, were only gifts conducive to mercy and peace. If Christianity had anything to do with people who done these crimes in it's name, don't you think the NT would have had ample opportunity to tell us how the apostles were given spiritual gifts for war and destruction? Then we have to consider what Christ Himself said when his apostles asked Him to reign fire on the towns that wouldn't accept Christ. Jesus said, "I have not come to destroy men's lives but to save them."
 
Sorry friend, you still have a long way to go before you understand the true Christian message, and what the true Christian church is all about. Go and get a "Samaritan's purse" magazine and read what the true Christian church is all about. 
 
That's good, Mike. 
 
quote, "If you read Calypsis's words with your eyes open this time you will note that he said that the warning against heresy advises him to walk away from you and not waste his time any more. Or did you think the witch-burner-general invented the term? "
 
A Holy Spirit led believer whose mind and heart is headed in the right direction theologically would understand this right away. But unless his/her teacher is a loving, Christ exalting person of faith instead of a true heretic with ulterior motives & an unholy agenda then confusion will result as far as conclusions are concerned. But once a lie is accepted into the room of reason it is very difficult to remove it.
 
quote, "If someone claims to be a Christian, and is in fact a witch-finder general who burns witches, then you can't still argue he was a Christian, because what he actually was, was a witch-finder general, who called himself a Christian by pretending he was doing God's work."
 
Exactly. The truth is that the anabaptist forefathers were burned at the stake, drowned, pulled apart by horses, and imprisoned for long periods by the same witch-burner-generals you speak of just as were the witches, atheists, and Jews. But the anabaptists themselves persecuted no one. That is the historical fact. 


After reading AntiChristian assertions of Sleepy and Piasan, small wonder why many refer to the Mary worshipping cult as the ""No name calling" of Babylon"..

http://www.jesus-is-...ism_exposed.htm

#33 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,604 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 08 April 2018 - 02:40 AM

 

 

Sleepy House: You have a rebuttal of weak theology for the fathers of theology. You have a rebuttal of weak theology for everyone, basically, except for those who are aligned with you.

 

No, calling people "Fathers of theology" is the use of question-begging-epithets. They were not that, they came way after the bible. The bible itself contains the fathers of theology.

 

And this is a misrepresentation of my position. All you did here was take a number and appeal to it, and appealed to people who existed long ago. You combined those two things, that they were earliest on the scene and that they were big in number.

 

The ability God has given me is to see the holes in arguments, and that ability doesn't become a, "rusty sword" when it is aimed at topics other than evolution.

 

In fact weak theology like universalism isn't weak because it isn't, "aligned with me", because the veracity of sound biblical theology has nothing to do with me, so you also commit a strawman fallacy

 

No, I would say that all heretical theologies are predicated on the same thing which I can actually DEMONSTRATE easily. Do you know what the difference always is between a true theology and a fake one? The fake ones like universalism, cannot be quoted by quoting an UNEQUIVOCAL text.

 

Do you know the difference between an unequivocal text and an equivocal text?

 

All of the true theologies in the bible, and the true concepts, can mostly be quoted from unequivocal, unambiguous texts. This means that the verse we can quote, can only mean one possible thing. For example, only being saved through genuine belief in Christ, can be backed by one unequivocal text, which can only mean one possible thing. (you can't equivocate with it's meaning); "I am the way the truth and the life, nobody comes to God except through me."

 

It's the same with hell, and any other genuine Christian doctrines, I can quote things Jesus said about hell, statements where you can't pretend He meant something else.

 

The difference with false doctrines is that none of them can ever provide so much as one unequivocal text. For example, could you show a scripture like I can show a scripture for hell, for universalism, where in no uncertain terms the bible says all will end up in heaven? Such a scripture would look like this; "and in the end, at the end of all life, everyone will be saved and be in God's kingdom, when they are purged, even those who never believed in Christ."

 

Can you quote such an unequivocal text, which can only mean one thing?

 

Thought not. 

 

So please don't use the ad-hominem personal attack of, "you dismiss everyone who isn't aligned with you", for that was not my argument.

 

 

 

Sleepy House: Everyone makes claims about the Bible, and they are only ever considered idiotic by people who think they know the right answers. We all think so fantastically of ourselves, don't we? We are right, they are wrong. 

 

This is absurd. The bible has to mean something, and it is obvious what it means to those with the Holy Spirit, whereas it is men's confused ideas when they butcher it by relying on tenuous qoute-mines. I don't care if the Pope and the Queen both disagree, and I don't care if a pope and queen sandwich with Darwin sauce is on my plate, you can appeal to as many big shots as you want, if they don't believe in Christ and follow His true way they're rat bait. ;)

 

 

 

Sleepy House: And there you are again, trying to destroy a different theology simply because you don't agree with it

 

No, I am rejecting it because it is all CODSWALLOP, and Christ gave us all of the correct theology Himself, are you seriously calling people who say the bible backs Islam, people I should accept, and are you seriously suggesting you are so utterly BLIND to what the gospel message is that I should possibly for one moment consider that Islam is possibly true because of quote-mined bible verses? Wow - just what is it you believe, friend? You've told us what you don't believe but I sure as heck can't figure out what you do believe. If you believe Jesus truly is the son of God, the saviour, yet you can also believe any concept which contradicts this, then it seems to me you perhaps don't know what you believe yourself. But born again Christians aren't confused like this, friend.

 

 

 

Sleepy House: So in summation: Jesus did not at any point order or command violent conversion. I agree that it is an anti-Christian act. However the people that did it are still Christians

 

This is a logical contradiction. See; Law of non-contradiction. (one of the three basic laws of logic).

 

It is like saying this; "Darwin did not ever command us to believe in special creation, I agree such belief is anti-evolution, however people that belief special creation 6,000 years ago are still evolutionists."

 

Your problem is you are accepting someone is immediately what they claim to be. If I wanted I could go around with a gun claiming to be allah incarnate, would that mean I am?

 

It's a shame you made that error with the contradiction because what you previously said was a lot closer to correct - the real reason they burnt witches and went on crusades, etc, is because of their sinful motives. You are correct that they used Christianity as their authority but you are also correct, if Christianity was not in existence they would have used something else as their authority, like nowadays, when extremist Muslims try and justify their murders by saying the Koran justifies it. Right then you were on the right track. This may help you - if Ted Bundy comes into a court and says, "innocent", because he CLAIMS innocence, does that mean we must refer to him forever as an, "innocent"? So then if we genuinely live out our Christian lives, can you see what a bitter taste it is in our mouths when you compare and associate us to those who done anti-Christian acts? Why would you do this if you have belief in Christ? Yet you don't call yourself Christian.

 

Again, please can you tell us what your position is. Why hide? Is deception a part of your theology/belief?


  • Calypsis4, Blitzking and KillurBluff like this

#34 Sleepy House

Sleepy House

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 68 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Idaho
  • Age: 31
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • United States

Posted 08 April 2018 - 12:54 PM

 

 

" My knowledge of it is this: It is an Abrahamic religion, they worship one god, and their prophet is Muhammad. "


You were taught wrong.. There is ONLY ONE "Abrahamic Religion" And that is the one based on the Judeo Christian Bible.. Islam is a Cult based on the Pagan Mood God with some plagiarism from parts of the Bible thrown in to give credence to the totalitarian ideology invented by a demonic posessed pedofile pirate, murderer, and slave trader in order to get people to do his bidding like raiding caravans and plundering cities, spreading his demonic filth by the sword. DONT BE FOOLED..

 

I'm not going to debate this with you because I do not know anything about Islam except they consider Abraham as the fundamental prophet. Wikipedia states it as "An Abrahamic religion is a religion whose followers believe in prophet Abraham and his descendants to hold an important role in human spiritual development. The best known Abrahamic religions are Judaism, Christianity and Islam." I don't agree with Wikipedia on a lot of things, but I will say again: I don't have any interest or the desire to acquire knowledge when it comes to promoting or debunking Islam.

 

No, calling people "Fathers of theology" is the use of question-begging-epithets. They were not that, they came way after the bible. The bible itself contains the fathers of theology.

 

And this is a misrepresentation of my position. All you did here was take a number and appeal to it, and appealed to people who existed long ago. You combined those two things, that they were earliest on the scene and that they were big in number.

 

The ability God has given me is to see the holes in arguments, and that ability doesn't become a, "rusty sword" when it is aimed at topics other than evolution.

 

You called Universalism, what the vast majority of early Christians believed in, including Origen, (A huge supporter of the Trinity AND Pauline doctrines that you believe today) a bunch of nonsense. Yes, I am appealing to the first on the scene because they were the ones getting martyred and and forming the same apologetics used today. That doesn't change the fact that you are calling them wrong, and therefore yourself correct. Undoubtedly you will come up with some logical fallacy or contradiction for this. 

 

 

he difference with false doctrines is that none of them can ever provide so much as one unequivocal text. For example, could you show a scripture like I can show a scripture for hell, for universalism, where in no uncertain terms the bible says all will end up in heaven? Such a scripture would look like this; "and in the end, at the end of all life, everyone will be saved and be in God's kingdom, when they are purged, even those who never believed in Christ."

 

Can you quote such an unequivocal text, which can only mean one thing?

 

Thought not. 

 

So please don't use the ad-hominem personal attack of, "you dismiss everyone who isn't aligned with you", for that was not my argument.

  All Christians quote-mine the Bible to support their beliefs. Pro-death penalty, anti-death penalty. Pro slavery, anti slavery. Pro woman's rights, anti-woman's rights. Pro dancing, against dancing, pro-life, pro-choice. It goes on forever. To accuse me of quote mining is to include yourself and every other Christian that has formed different opinions of what scripture means. And yes, you dismiss everyone who isn't aligned with you.

 

In fact weak theology like universalism isn't weak because it isn't, "aligned with me", because the veracity of sound biblical theology has nothing to do with me, so you also commit a strawman fallacy

 

No, I would say that all heretical theologies are predicated on the same thing which I can actually DEMONSTRATE easily. Do you know what the difference always is between a true theology and a fake one? The fake ones like universalism, cannot be quoted by quoting an UNEQUIVOCAL text.

 

Then I strongly suggest you don't build your man out of straw.

 

“For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe.” (1 Tim 4:10).

 

Please explain—because I've researched the Greek, and "all" absolutely means "all" and "especially" certainly means "especially." Go ahead and take a stab at it, hombre. I've read several ECT exegetics on this one, but none really stand up that well. 

 

 

 

This is a logical contradiction. See; Law of non-contradiction. (one of the three basic laws of logic).

Well can you please explain what you mean, then? Christians who commit anti-Christian atrocities are either Christians or they aren't. Which is it? Are they saved, or aren't they? Can you just answer directly rather than tying a point of contention to some logical contradiction?

 

 

 

No, I am rejecting it because it is all CODSWALLOP, and Christ gave us all of the correct theology Himself, are you seriously calling people who say the bible backs Islam, people I should accept, and are you seriously suggesting you are so utterly BLIND to what the gospel message is that I should possibly for one moment consider that Islam is possibly true because of quote-mined bible verses? Wow - just what is it you believe, friend? You've told us what you don't believe but I sure as heck can't figure out what you do believe. If you believe Jesus truly is the son of God, the saviour, yet you can also believe any concept which contradicts this, then it seems to me you perhaps don't know what you believe yourself. But born again Christians aren't confused like this, friend.

 

What are you going on about? No, I do not suggest that you should follow Islam and I am not saying that the Bible backs Islam, nor even it someone quote-mined the Bible to try and back Islam would I admit that it's even close to plausible. I wouldn't ever suggest such a thing to anyone. That's absurd.  I don't even know anything about it. 

 

Why are you so curious as to what I believe? You only know what something is by what something is not. You see that I don't believe in evolution, I don't believe in the Big Bang, I have never once contended the existence of Jesus or his divinity, though I have argued against Paul which according to modern theology is basically the same thing, as BK will gladly attest to, as he has accused me of Anti-Christian assertions. There is at least one vote for heretic (Calypsis) and one vote for Anti-Christian (BK).

 

 

 

This may help you - if Ted Bundy comes into a court and says, "innocent", because he CLAIMS innocence, does that mean we must refer to him forever as an, "innocent"? So then if we genuinely live out our Christian lives, can you see what a bitter taste it is in our mouths when you compare and associate us to those who done anti-Christian acts? Why would you do this if you have belief in Christ? Yet you don't call yourself Christian.

 

Do I seem like some anti-Christian atheist crusader who associates Christians with people that did (and do) terrible things in the name of it? No. I would never associate you or any other Christian with a previous Christian who gave a bad name to their religion by following their own insanity rather than a genuine Christian act. I may as well go around Germany and start calling toddlers "Evil Nazi Germans" because of what their great-great-grandfathers did.

 

 

 

Is deception a part of your theology/belief?

 

I don't even know what that means. How can deception be a part of a theology or belief? I am not trying to deceive anyone, if that is what you mean.


  • piasan likes this

#35 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,477 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 08 April 2018 - 01:03 PM

Sleepy House: Everyone makes claims about the Bible, and they are only ever considered idiotic by people who think they know the right answers. We all think so fantastically of ourselves, don't we? We are right, they are wrong. 

 

No, God's word is right and Sleepy House is wrong. Dead wrong. We have already pointed out that it was the Lord Jesus Christ himself that called, appointed, and set forth the apostle Paul to write 12 (& maybe 13) books of the New Testament but Sleepy wants us to believe him rather than Luke in the scriptures.

 

The Bible firmly establishes that Paul was an apostle by Luke in Acts 14: 14 -15  Which when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of, they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out, 15 And saying, Sirs, why do ye these things?  Sleepy knows of this verse and admitted as much but he doesn't care. 

 

Mike, I think this fellow is yet another time waster on our board.  He will not be corrected no matter how solid and truthful our words are. But I commend you for trying.



#36 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,282 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 08 April 2018 - 02:09 PM



" My knowledge of it is this: It is an Abrahamic religion, they worship one god, and their prophet is Muhammad. "You were taught wrong.. There is ONLY ONE "Abrahamic Religion" And that is the one based on the Judeo Christian Bible.. Islam is a Cult based on the Pagan Mood God with some plagiarism from parts of the Bible thrown in to give credence to the totalitarian ideology invented by a demonic posessed pedofile pirate, murderer, and slave trader in order to get people to do his bidding like raiding caravans and plundering cities, spreading his demonic filth by the sword. DONT BE FOOLED..


I'm not going to debate this with you because I do not know anything about Islam except they consider Abraham as the fundamental prophet. Wikipedia states it as "An Abrahamic religion is a religion whose followers believe in prophet Abraham and his descendants to hold an important role in human spiritual development. The best known Abrahamic religions are Judaism, Christianity and Islam." I don't agree with Wikipedia on a lot of things, but I will say again: I don't have any interest or the desire to acquire knowledge when it comes to promoting or debunking Islam.

No, calling people "Fathers of theology" is the use of question-begging-epithets. They were not that, they came way after the bible. The bible itself contains the fathers of theology.

And this is a misrepresentation of my position. All you did here was take a number and appeal to it, and appealed to people who existed long ago. You combined those two things, that they were earliest on the scene and that they were big in number.

The ability God has given me is to see the holes in arguments, and that ability doesn't become a, "rusty sword" when it is aimed at topics other than evolution.

You called Universalism, what the vast majority of early Christians believed in, including Origen, (A huge supporter of the Trinity AND Pauline doctrines that you believe today) a bunch of nonsense. Yes, I am appealing to the first on the scene because they were the ones getting martyred and and forming the same apologetics used today. That doesn't change the fact that you are calling them wrong, and therefore yourself correct. Undoubtedly you will come up with some logical fallacy or contradiction for this.

he difference with false doctrines is that none of them can ever provide so much as one unequivocal text. For example, could you show a scripture like I can show a scripture for hell, for universalism, where in no uncertain terms the bible says all will end up in heaven? Such a scripture would look like this; "and in the end, at the end of all life, everyone will be saved and be in God's kingdom, when they are purged, even those who never believed in Christ."

Can you quote such an unequivocal text, which can only mean one thing?

Thought not.

So please don't use the ad-hominem personal attack of, "you dismiss everyone who isn't aligned with you", for that was not my argument.

All Christians quote-mine the Bible to support their beliefs. Pro-death penalty, anti-death penalty. Pro slavery, anti slavery. Pro woman's rights, anti-woman's rights. Pro dancing, against dancing, pro-life, pro-choice. It goes on forever. To accuse me of quote mining is to include yourself and every other Christian that has formed different opinions of what scripture means. And yes, you dismiss everyone who isn't aligned with you.

In fact weak theology like universalism isn't weak because it isn't, "aligned with me", because the veracity of sound biblical theology has nothing to do with me, so you also commit a strawman fallacy.

No, I would say that all heretical theologies are predicated on the same thing which I can actually DEMONSTRATE easily. Do you know what the difference always is between a true theology and a fake one? The fake ones like universalism, cannot be quoted by quoting an UNEQUIVOCAL text.

Then I strongly suggest you don't build your man out of straw.

“For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe.” (1 Tim 4:10).

Please explain—because I've researched the Greek, and "all" absolutely means "all" and "especially" certainly means "especially." Go ahead and take a stab at it, hombre. I've read several ECT exegetics on this one, but none really stand up that well.

This is a logical contradiction. See; Law of non-contradiction. (one of the three basic laws of logic).

Well can you please explain what you mean, then? Christians who commit anti-Christian atrocities are either Christians or they aren't. Which is it? Are they saved, or aren't they? Can you just answer directly rather than tying a point of contention to some logical contradiction?

No, I am rejecting it because it is all CODSWALLOP, and Christ gave us all of the correct theology Himself, are you seriously calling people who say the bible backs Islam, people I should accept, and are you seriously suggesting you are so utterly BLIND to what the gospel message is that I should possibly for one moment consider that Islam is possibly true because of quote-mined bible verses? Wow - just what is it you believe, friend? You've told us what you don't believe but I sure as heck can't figure out what you do believe. If you believe Jesus truly is the son of God, the saviour, yet you can also believe any concept which contradicts this, then it seems to me you perhaps don't know what you believe yourself. But born again Christians aren't confused like this, friend.


What are you going on about? No, I do not suggest that you should follow Islam and I am not saying that the Bible backs Islam, nor even it someone quote-mined the Bible to try and back Islam would I admit that it's even close to plausible. I wouldn't ever suggest such a thing to anyone. That's absurd. I don't even know anything about it.

Why are you so curious as to what I believe? You only know what something is by what something is not. You see that I don't believe in evolution, I don't believe in the Big Bang, I have never once contended the existence of Jesus or his divinity, though I have argued against Paul which according to modern theology is basically the same thing, as BK will gladly attest to, as he has accused me of Anti-Christian assertions. There is at least one vote for heretic (Calypsis) and one vote for Anti-Christian (BK).

This may help you - if Ted Bundy comes into a court and says, "innocent", because he CLAIMS innocence, does that mean we must refer to him forever as an, "innocent"? So then if we genuinely live out our Christian lives, can you see what a bitter taste it is in our mouths when you compare and associate us to those who done anti-Christian acts? Why would you do this if you have belief in Christ? Yet you don't call yourself Christian.


Do I seem like some anti-Christian atheist crusader who associates Christians with people that did (and do) terrible things in the name of it? No. I would never associate you or any other Christian with a previous Christian who gave a bad name to their religion by following their own insanity rather than a genuine Christian act. I may as well go around Germany and start calling toddlers "Evil Nazi Germans" because of what their great-great-grandfathers did.

Is deception a part of your theology/belief?


I don't even know what that means. How can deception be a part of a theology or belief? I am not trying to deceive anyone, if that is what you mean.

"I'm not going to debate this with you because I do not know anything about Islam except they consider Abraham as the fundamental prophet"

I would encourage you to read up on it.. It is important that Christians be informed about the scourge of Islam.. You will not get the truth about it from Wicked Pedia.. Here is a very good website that gives a comprehensive explanation about it..

www.thereligionofpeace.com
  • KillurBluff likes this

#37 KillurBluff

KillurBluff

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 160 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:S.W. Indiana
  • Interests:Theology, Acoustics, Planting Fruit Trees on my Property.
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • In.

Posted 08 April 2018 - 02:22 PM

Essentially, what Pirenne was saying was that Islam caused the Dark Age in Europe. This was, even in the 1920s, when the thesis was first published, an extremely controversial idea, and went quite against the grain of contemporary opinion: for the tendency over the previous century had increasingly been to see Islam as the harbinger of medieval Europe’s civilization; as the great preserver of classical knowledge and learning; as an enlightened and tolerant influence which reached Europe in the seventh century and which commenced then to raise the continent out of the darkness into which it had sunk. This had been the default mode of thought amongst perhaps the majority of academics for almost half a century before the appearance of Pirenne’s thesis, a view of history deeply rooted in contemporary European thinking. And then along came Pirenne to claim the precise opposite!
 
As might be imagined, such a remarkable counter-thesis generated heated debate; a debate that endures to this day. And to this day, the two camps are divided rather precisely as they were in the time of Pirenne, who died in 1935. There are those who, with varying degrees of passion, maintain that Islam essentially saved the remnants of classical culture and learning, which they transmitted to a benighted Europe; and there are those (a much smaller group) who, with Pirenne, maintain that Islam was the destroyer of that very culture and learning; and that if Europe was benighted after the seventh century, it was benighted precisely because of the actions of the Muslims. How strange is this situation! How is it that one topic can give rise to such radically differing perspectives? We are, we might say, once more in what was known during the Middle Ages as “the world’s debate.” In those days, during the Crusades, the “debate” was waged by force of arms. The academic and in some respects ideological battle being fought today is waged in newspapers, books, journals, television, radio and the internet; though another “theatre” of the debate is arguably being waged precisely as it was in the time of the Crusades: by force of arms.
 
Why then is this debate still with us; and why does it elicit such radically opposing responses? What is it about Islam and its history that gives rise to such intense controversy? The answer to these questions shall, I hope, be presented in the pages to follow. And if it is not an answer that everyone can accept, then at least the evidence shall be presented in a way that is accessible to all and that may enable the reader to make up his/her own mind.
 
* * *
 
As this is the history of a debate, it is appropriate to begin with a look at how it developed over the centuries; for the story does not begin with Pirenne.
 
Until the eighteenth century scholars had generally assumed that classical civilization came to an end with the dissolution of the Western Roman Empire in 476. However, as the eighteenth century progressed and the study of history became a proper scholarly discipline rather than a simple chronicling of events, educated Europeans became aware of the fact that the “barbarian” tribes who conquered the Western Empire in the fifth century never intended to destroy Roman society or culture; and as our knowledge of late antiquity improved, the obvious question became progressively more urgent: What then brought classical civilization to an end? If it was not, after all, the “barbarians,” who were responsible, who or what was, and when?
 
Concomitant with research into Roman history, Enlightenment scholars began a detailed examination of early medieval Europe. As they did so, they began to notice how great was the debt owed by medieval Europe to the Islamic world. They read letters, official documents and chronicles, which seemed to point to Islamic Spain and the Islamic Middle East as the source of all real knowledge and learning at the time. They read accounts of how European scholars slipped across the borders of the Islamic world, often in disguise, to learn their secrets. They noticed how European thinkers of the time, from Abelard to Roger Bacon, couched their debates in the language of Islamic scholars such as Averroes and Avicenna. They noticed that very many of the scientific and scholarly terminologies found in the languages of Europe, were of Arab origin. We used the “Arabic” numeral system, which gave us the concept of zero – a direct borrowing from the Arabic zirr, whilst our word “algebra” was directly taken from the Arabic al-jabr. They found indeed that numerous technical and scientific terms, such as alcohol, alkali, etc, and many others, were of Arab origin.
 
Thus by the early nineteenth century scholarly opinion about Islam began to change dramatically. True, even then Muslim pirates were a problem in the Mediterranean, and Muslim societies – most notably the Ottoman Empire – were rather impoverished and often brutal. But these negatives were increasingly viewed as an accident of history, not as something logically deriving from Islam. After all, if slavery was then a problem in the Muslim world, had it not been a problem too in the Christian world? And if the Muslims killed apostates and heretics, did not the Christians do the same until the seventeenth century?
 
The trend towards a negative view of European civilization accompanied by a positive view of Islamic civilization continued throughout the nineteenth century. Indeed the “talking up” of Islam went rather precisely in tandem with the “talking down” of Christianity. This was particularly the case amongst a certain class of politicized intellectuals, who, as the nineteenth century progressed, adopted an increasingly hostile approach to all things European; and the trend only accelerated with the First World War. Following the cataclysmic events of those years, fewer and fewer of Europe’s and America’s intellectual class subscribed to the view that European civilization was in any way superior to others. On the contrary, an age of disillusionment dawned. As this view gathered strength, so the criticism of medieval Europe, and medieval Christendom, became more virulent. More and more the medieval world was seen as a “dark age,” and any learning that we now possess surely did not originate in it.
 
Christian writers at the time – there still were many – tried of course to counter this movement; but they were outnumbered and in a sense outgunned. The tide of thought was flowing decidedly against them.
 
Even as this occurred, the study of late antiquity and the early medieval world in Europe moved on. Archaeology, as well as the discovery and translation into modern languages of more and more texts of the fifth to tenth centuries began to transform our understanding of the period. As we saw, it had been known, since the time of Gibbon at least, that the “Barbarians” had not intended to destroy Roman civilization. The archaeological evidence proved that they did not. On the contrary, it became increasingly clear that classical, or Graeco-Roman, civilization had survived the Barbarian Invasions of the fifth century, and that there had even been, in the sixth century at least, something of a revival of that civilization, at least in places like Gaul and Spain. Yet the world of Rome and her civilization did indeed come to an end, and that event, it was increasingly clear, occurred sometime in the seventh century. After that time, the western world was distinctly medieval in all respects. But why, it was asked, should this have occurred? If the barbarian rulers of the West could manage and cultivate prosperous and largely urban societies for two centuries, especially in places like North Africa and Spain, why did they finally “lose the plot” in the seventh century?
 
By the early years of the twentieth century this had become a pressing problem, and it was addressed by two outstanding historians of the time: Alfons Dopsch and Henri Pirenne. Both Dopsch and Pirenne devoted considerable effort to an examination of Italian and Gaulish societies during the fifth and sixth centuries, and both became prominent in their rejection of the notion of a barbarian-created Dark Age during that period. Yet Dopsch came to believe that he could detect a general “decline” of Roman culture in the years between 400 and 600, and he eventually threw his weight behind the idea that the Germanic peoples who ruled the West proved in the long run incapable of administering an efficient urban civilization. With time, thought Dopsch, the “barbarian” and uncivilized nature of these peoples prevailed, and, notwithstanding their initial efforts to save Roman culture and institutions, in the end they presided over the collapse of these very things.
 
Henri Pirenne studied the same epoch and used more or less the same materials as Dopsch. The conclusions he came to, however, were very different. Like Dopsch, he saw that there was no “Dark Age” in the first two centuries after the sack of Rome by Alaric (410), and that Roman culture and institutions survived. He saw too that the demise of this culture could be dated to the first half of the seventh century. Unlike Dopsch, however, he could find no evidence of a gradual decline. For Pirenne, the end of the late classical civilization seemed to come suddenly. What, he thought, could have caused it?
 
Early in the 1920s, he came to a novel and controversial conclusion: Roman society and the culture we associate with it had been destroyed the Arab conquests. Saracen pirates and raiders¸ he claimed, had blockaded the Mediterranean from the 640s onwards, terminating all trade between the Levant and western Europe. The cities of Italy, Gaul and Spain, which depended upon this trade for their prosperity, began to die; and the Germanic kings who controlled these regions, deprived of the taxable wealth generated by the same trade, lost much of their authority and power. Local strongmen asserted control of the provinces. These were the medieval barons. The Middle Ages had begun.
 
What Pirenne was now saying went completely against the grain of contemporary academic thought about Islam, which had come to see the Arabian faith as a civilizing, rather than a destructive, force. The debate which he ignited then has never really died or been resolved and, on the contrary, has only taken on a new and urgent resonance in the modern world. As we shall see, Pirenne’s thesis was accorded, for a while, somewhat grudging acceptance in some areas of academia, though even then he was viewed as the person to argue against. By the 1980s, however, a general consensus had arisen, at least in the English-speaking world, that Pirenne had been effectively debunked; and from that time on more and more books and academic studies of the period failed to mention him or his theory.
 
The anti-Pirenne consensus was largely, as we shall see, galvanized by archaeological work carried out in Italy during the 1960s and 1970s. There it was found that, whilst classical culture survived during the fifth and sixth centuries, there had nevertheless been a marked decline in all aspects of civilized life from the fifth century onwards. The Italian excavations were to form the basis of the argument presented by the most influential of Pirenne’s critics, Richard Hodges and David Whitehouse, who in 1982 published what was advertised as a definitive refutation of Pirenne. The book, Mohammed, Charlemagne and the Origins of Europe, proved to mark a watershed in the debate. Using mainly the Italian material, but also some data from North Africa, Hodges and Whitehouse argued the Graeco-Roman civilization was in terminal decline in the years prior to 600. So decrepit were the economies of Italy, Spain, and North Africa after the 550s, they declared, that classical culture did not need to be killed off by the Arabs: it was already effectively
dead by the time they arrived.
 
But there were serious flaws in Hodges’ and Whitehouse’s thinking, as we shall see. For one thing, the data they presented was extremely limited in its scope, and essentially failed to look beyond central Italy. Claims that the economy and civic life of North Africa had also collapsed before 600 can be shown to be without foundation. In Chapters 6, 7, 8, and 9 we do what Hodges and Whitehouse failed to do and look beyond Italy to Gaul, central Europe, Britain and Spain, where we find apparently thriving and vital late classical cultures during the fifth and (more especially) sixth and early seventh centuries. This in spite of the fact that none of these societies – with the possible exception of Spain – can be described as major centers of classical culture, either in late antiquity or earlier. Indeed, the archaeology of western Europe in general, with the exception of Italy, shows a pronounced expansion of population, culture, and trade during the latter half of the sixth century and the first half of the seventh – precisely those years during which Hodges and Whitehouse claimed Europe and classical civilization was dying a slow and tortuous death. Everywhere we find evidence of expansion of cultivation, of population increase, of the growth of towns and the revival of building in stone, of the adoption and development of new technologies, and of new regions, such as Ireland, northern Britain (Scotland) and eastern and northern Germany, being brought within the orbit of Latin civilization for the first time.
 
So much for Europe. Yet, in order to get to the bottom of this question, we need to look further afield. For Pirenne, as for most of his critics, the debate about the “Dark Ages” was entirely a debate about what happened in Europe, particularly western Europe, and most especially in Gaul and Italy. But the West, with the exception of Italy herself and perhaps Spain, had never been much more than a backwater even at the height of the Roman Empire. The reality of the situation is described succinctly by Patrick J. Geary:
“During the more than five centuries of Roman presence in the West, the regions of Britain, Gaul, and Germany were marginal to Roman interests. The Empire was essentially Mediterranean and remained so throughout its existence; thus Italy, Spain, and North Africa were the Western areas most vital to it. However, the Empire’s cultural, economic, and population centers were the great cities of the East: Alexandria, Antioch, Ephesus, and later Constantinople. The West boasted only one true city … Rome. In the first centuries of the Empire, Rome could afford the luxury of maintaining the Romanitas [Roman territories] of the West. Still, these regions, which supplying the legions of thelimes, or borders, with men and arms and supporting the local senators with the otium, or leisured existence, necessary to lead a civilized life of letters, contributed little to either the cultural or economic life of the Empire.” (Patrick J. Geary, Before France and Germany, pp. 8-9)
From this, it is clear that if we wish to chart the decline and fall of classical civilization we must not confine our gaze to the West, but must pay close attention to what happened in the East: It was here, and not in the West, that was located the core area of that civilization. Pirenne failed to notice this, perhaps because of the habitually Eurocentric mindset of academic culture in his time. Yet examine the East we must, and this is the task we set ourselves from Chapter 10 onwards.
 
As we shall see, whatever might be said about the disappearance of classical civilization in the West, in the East there is no question at all that it was terminated in the mid-seventh century, and that it was terminated by the Arabs. On this point Hodges and Whitehouse were strangely ambiguous: on the one hand, they recognized that the Arabs wrought immense destruction in the Levant, and they even admitted to the appearance in North Africa of a “Dark Age” following the Arab conquests; yet on the other hand they strove to suggest that classical civilization in the East was wrecked more by the Persians than by the Arabs, and that, in Asia Minor at least, classical civilization was already terminally damaged by the time the Arabs arrived.
 
Our own survey of the evidence leads us to a somewhat different conclusion: namely that classical civilization was indeed weakened by Byzantium’s destructive war with Persia, which commenced in 612; but that it was still sufficiently powerful and vibrant to recover from that conflict, had not the Arabs arrived immediately afterwards to devastate the region permanently. These are the facts as uncovered by archaeology, yet, as we shall see, they prompt another urgent question: What then was it about the Arabs, or, more accurately, about Islam, that could bring about such universal and complete destruction?
 
At this point we must pause to take note of the remarkable fact that very few of the historians who have commented upon Pirenne’s thesis have paid much attention to the nature of Islam or its beliefs. They have, virtually without exception, assumed that Islam is or was a faith no different from any other. Indeed, almost all of modern academia treat the religious systems of mankind as an amorphous whole, and see no difference between them. If they do pick out one for special criticism it is invariably Christianity that they target. There are, or have been, interesting exceptions to the rule, such as Joseph Campbell, who spoke of “the sleep of Islam” which overtook the Middle East in the seventh century; but in general twentieth century scholarship has been remarkably positive about the Arabian faith. Yet even a cursory examination of the tenets of Islam is enough to convince us that it is not a faith like any other; and that it is, on the contrary, a religio-political ideology whose fundamental principle is aggressive expansionism. In Chapter 13 we find that, through the doctrine of perpetual “holy war,” or jihad, plus the notion of entitlement central to sharia law, Islam had a thoroughly and unprecedentedly destabilizing influence upon the Mediterranean world. It was the perpetual raiding of Muslim pirates and slave-traders that brought about the abandonment throughout southern Europe of the scattered settlements of classical times and the retreat to defended hilltop fortifications – the first medieval castles. The same raiding led to the abandonment of the old agricultural systems, with their irrigation dikes and ditches, and caused the formation throughout the Mediterranean coastlands of a layer of silt just about the last of the late classical settlements.
We find then that Islam did indeed cause the end of classical civilization, in its heartland at least, the Middle East. Yet that statement does not exhaust the complexity of this question. For the three centuries which saw the rise of Islam and the Dark Ages in Europe, the seventh to the tenth – the three least known of our entire history – have other mysteries to unravel. And these are mysteries that archaeology has done little to resolve. Indeed, it may even have further deepened them.
 
Whoever studies early medieval history cannot fail to note the fact that, apart from the economic impact which Pirenne claimed to detect in the seventh century, the real cultural and ideological impact of Islam upon Europe only begins in the late tenth and early eleventh centuries. Documents from that period onwards leave us in no doubt that the world of “the Saracens” was regarded by Europeans as one of fabulous wealth; a region to which they cast envious eyes not only on account of its riches but because of its learning and knowledge. From the late-tenth century onwards educated Europeans made continuous efforts to tap into the learning of the Arabs. And here of course we arrive at the very nexus of the radical disagreement over Islam which has bedeviled the study of early medieval history for two centuries. Here precisely is the reason why, on the one hand, some academics may describe Islam as tolerant and learned, whilst others, with equal conviction, can describe it as violent and intolerant. Whatever damage Islam may have caused Europe in the seventh century, argue the Islamophiles, it was more than compensated for by the knowledge and wisdom bequeathed to Europe in the tenth century by the same faith. For whilst Europe may have lingered for three centuries in a Dark Age limbo of poverty and ignorance, Islam enjoyed three centuries of unparalleled splendor and prosperity, a veritable Golden Age.
 
That, at least, has been the narrative until now. Yet over the past half century the discoveries of archaeology have undermined this picture, and have revealed facts which may well eventually compel a radical rethink.
 
Whilst some historians of medieval Europe, relying on the traditional written sources, have consistently argued for the removal of the term “Dark Age” from our historical nomenclature, the archaeological evidence has served only to demonstrate how thoroughly appropriate the term is. For try as they might, excavators have signally failed to discover any civilization worthy of the name in Europe between the late seventh and early tenth centuries. Indeed, the progress of research has repeatedly demonstrated that even the pitifully few monuments and artifacts hitherto assigned the “dark” centuries have, on further investigation, usually been shown not to belong to that epoch at all; but invariably either to the period immediately following the Dark Age, or to the period immediately preceding it.
 
Surely, archaeologists have said, ample proof that Europe was indeed a dark and barbarous – and largely unpopulated – land during those long years.
 
But the mystery has deepened further: for we now know that Europe is not the only region devoid of archaeology between the seventh and tenth centuries. The same gap is observed throughout the Islamic world. Here then is a real shock to the collective system! Whilst depopulation and non-culture might just have been expected in Europe, it was certainly not expected in North Africa, Egypt, Syria, and Mesopotamia. These regions, after all, formed the very heart of the Caliphate, the very core of population, commerce, and cultured life during the three centuries of what has been called Islam’s Golden Age. At this time excavators had expected to find luxurious mosques, palaces, baths, etc, standing in the midst of truly enormous metropolises. The fabulous Harun al-Rashid in the ninth century, after all, is supposed to have reigned over a city of Baghdad that was home to in excess of a million people. Cordoba, capital of the Spanish Emirate at the same time, is said to have housed half a million souls. Yet of this splendid civilization hardly a brick or inscription has been found! It is true that from the very beginning of the Islamic epoch there is occasionally (although infrequently) found some archaeology. This usually dates to the mid-seventh century. Then, after this, there are three full centuries with virtually nothing. About the middle of the tenth century archaeology resumes, and there is talk of a “revival” of cities in the Muslim world, just as in Europe at the same time. Indeed, the mid-tenth century reveals a flowering and in many ways splendid Islamic civilization, clearly more wealthy and at a higher stage of development than anything in contemporary Europe. Yet this civilization seems to spring out of nowhere: It is without any archaeological antecedents.
 
These discoveries have served to underline the dichotomy at the heart of all discussion on Islam, and have in fact added another strand to it: On the one hand, as we saw, in the mid-seventh century, there is proof of massive destruction carried out by the Arabs throughout the Near East. So great was the destruction that many of the cities and towns which were thriving under the Byzantines and remained prosperous until the first quarter of the seventh century were then abandoned and deserted, never to be reoccupied. Their gaunt ruins lie everywhere throughout the Middle East and North Africa. Yet on the other hand, immediately after this destruction, the Islamic regions were always believed to have enjoyed a “Golden Age” which lasted into the tenth and eleventh centuries. That, at least, was the narrative and the argument until recently.
 
We should note that the archaeological appearance of the first rich Islamic culture in the tenth and eleventh centuries coincides with written history which always indicated that the cultural impact of Islam only reached Europe in the tenth and eleventh centuries.
What can all this mean? Is this a conundrum that can be solved, or is it utterly beyond the ingenuity of men to get to the bottom of?
 
As we shall see in the final chapter of the present study, so great has this problem become that it has prompted some very radical, even outlandish, solutions. One of these, favored by not a few historians and climatologists, is that some form of natural disaster struck Europe and perhaps the entire earth during the seventh century. Several writers, referring mainly to medieval chronicles, speak of a mini-Ice Age or perhaps a period of global warming. Others look to the skies and see cometary or asteroid causes. These writers agree that there was a Dark Age, but that it was caused by nature, rather than man. Another school of thought, most influential in Europe, denies the existence of a Dark Age at all and claims that the three hundred years between the early seventh and early tenth centuries never existed, and were merely a fictional creation of scribes working for the Emperor Otto III at the end of the tenth century. The most important proponents of this theory are German writers Heribert Illig and Gunnar Heinsohn. It would be impossible to do justice to either of these theories or to examine all their implications in a volume, never mind a chapter. We shall look briefly at some towards the end of the present study. Suffice to say that whilst Illig’s thesis may be seen as solving several hitherto intractable conundrums (eg why does “Romanesque” art of the tenth and eleventh centuries look so much like Merovingian art of the seventh), it has been almost universally rejected by mainstream academia, and remains a decidedly “fringe” idea.
Leaving such questions aside, the present study concludes by noting that scholarship has now arrived at a several conclusions which are really beyond dispute, and which tend to offer definitive support for Pirenne.
 
First and foremost, the evidence suggests that classical or Graeco-Roman civilization was alive and well into the late sixth and early seventh centuries. This was particularly the case in the Middle East and North Africa, which were the ancient heartlands of Mediterranean culture, and in which were located by far the greatest centers of population, wealth, and industry. Evidence shows that until the first quarter of the seventh century these regions were flourishing as never before. But classical civilization was also alive and well in Europe, a region which (aside from central and southern Italy), had always been peripheral to Graeco-Roman civilization. And outside of central Italy we find none of the signs of decay that Pirenne’s critics claimed to have detected. On the contrary, Gaul and in particular Spain supported a thriving and vigorous late classical culture; and this was a culture that was growing, rather than declining. Indeed, by the latter years of the sixth century classical civilization had begun to spread into regions never reached by the Roman Legions, and Latin, as well as Greek, was now studied along the banks of the Elbe in eastern Germany, and in the Hebrides, off northern Scotland.
 
Secondly, the evidence shows that this culture went into rapid and terminal decline in the 620s and 630s. The great cities of Asia Minor and Syria everywhere at this time show signs of violent destruction; after which they were never rebuilt. Whatever archaeology appears on top of them is invariably impoverished and small-scale; usually little more than a diminutive fortress. Contemporary with the destruction of the classical cities, we find a universal decay in the countryside: Top-soil is washed away and a layer of subsoil, known as the Younger Fill, covers settlements in river-valleys and blocks harbors. This stratum appears throughout the Mediterranean world, from Syria to Spain, and is the geographical signature of the end of Graeco-Roman civilization. With the appearance of this layer, classical patterns of settlement and land-management are abandoned. This is the pattern too in southern Europe, where we now find a retreat of settlement to defended hill-top sites – the first medieval castles. Both these developments can be explained by the appearance of Muslim raiders and pirates throughout the Mediterranean coastlands from the 630s onwards; and if that is not the accepted solution, then no answer is forthcoming.
 
Thirdly, from the mid-seventh century onwards there is an almost total disappearance of archaeology in Europe and throughout the Middle East and North Africa for a period of three centuries. This disappearance, it seems, has nothing to do with what has always been called the “Dark Age” of Europe, because it appears also in the Islamic lands. By the mid- to late-tenth century cities and towns revive both in the Islamic and Christian lands, and (though the great cities of classical times are gone forever), the material culture of the new settlements looks strikingly reminiscent in many ways of the material culture of the seventh century.
 
That, in brief, is what the archaeology says. At the end of the present volume we take a brief look at events subsequent to the rise and spread of Islam. There we find that not only did the Arabs terminate classical civilization in the Levant and North Africa, and therefore cut Europe off from the humanizing and civilizing impulses which had previously emanated from those regions, but they now began, in the tenth century, to exert their own influence upon the West. And that influence was anything but benevolent. It is of course widely accepted that Islam had a profound cultural impact upon early medieval Europe. Indeed, the all-pervasiveness of that impact has been traditionally seen as underlining the cultural superiority of Islam at that time. Yet, as we shall see, in addition to some commentaries upon Aristotle, and a few scientific and technological concepts (which were not “Arab” inventions at all) Islam was to communicate to Europe a whole host of ideas and attitudes that were far from being enlightened. Most obviously, the concept of “holy war”, which Europe adopted (admittedly somewhat reluctantly) in the eleventh century, was entirely an Islamic innovation; as was the tendency towards theocracy (enshrined in the all-powerful medieval Papacy) and the suppression, by force, of heterodox ideas.
 
* * *
 
It goes without saying that a work such as this cannot claim to be exhaustive, or the last word. Many of the topics covered could profitably have been examined in greater depth; yet so diverse is the range of evidence and so wide the territories and epochs it covers, that a detailed examination of everything is a complete impossibility. I have been compelled to look at written and archaeological evidence for the fifth to tenth centuries from the western extremities of Europe to the borders of Persia. And, as might be expected, the literature dealing with these diverse eras and areas is immense, and growing more so by the day. So much has been written on the economic and political histories of the Byzantine, Frankish, Visigothic and Early Islamic states in the English language over the past twenty years that a complete bibliography might fill an entire volume of its own. But a bulging bibliography does not necessarily indicate a convincing argument or even a coherent line of thought. As such, I have endeavored simply to select some of the most representative material, and to examine the arguments and evidence found therein in detail. And since this is an examination of the Pirenne thesis I have concentrated, on the whole, on those authors who have dealt with his work, or whose own work has a direct impact upon his.
 
So the scope of the present work is limited. On the whole, I have tended to concentrate upon the evidence of archaeology. If we have learned anything about this epoch, it is that written sources cannot be taken at face value. They must be supported by archaeology. And the archaeology of late antiquity and the early Middle Ages has, so far, produced far more puzzles than answers.
 
So, much work remains to be done. Having said that however, I am convinced that the evidence now accumulated points decisively to a vindication of Pirenne, if not in exactly the manner he imagined. Islam did indeed terminate classical civilization in its main centers, in the Middle East and North Africa. Its impact upon Europe however was more nuanced, and did not perhaps amount to the economic catastrophe Pirenne believed. Temperate Europe was already economically self-sufficient before the arrival of the Arabs; and their presence in the Mediterranean did little more than block the importation to the West of certain eastern luxuries which were enjoyed by the elites of Gaul, Spain and Italy. Much more serious however was the termination of the papyrus supply, an event which led, inter alia, to the loss of the great bulk of the heritage of classical literature and to the general loss of literacy amongst the population of Europe. This led, very quickly indeed, to the “medieval” mentality with which we are all too familiar.
 
Emmet Scott is a historian specializing in the ancient history of the Near East. Over the past ten years he has turned his attention to Late Antiquity and the declining phase of classical civilization, which he sees as one of the most crucial episodes in the history of western civilization.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users