Author Topic: Dave2's questions  (Read 40363 times)

resistingrexmundi

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • Posts: 678
    • View Profile
Dave2's questions
« on: May 01, 2012, 06:32:13 AM »
This is in response to Dave2's questions on an unrelated thread.
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=3194.msg13497#msg13497

Quote from: Dave2
Speaking of New Testament, and you may want to carry this over to a different thread, how is it  that the great John the Baptist, Mary, virgin birth, Bethlehem, Nazareth, Capernaum, Pilate, Golgotha, Sermon on the Mount and other things are never hinted at even once in the epistles attributed to Paul??

Is this even a serious inquiry? Paul's letters were meant as instructive to the churches. Do you suppose he would have to cover every single detail of the Gospel narratives in his letters? Stories that are covered multiple times in the OT do not include every single detail in the repeats. Only what is important to the point being made or is absolutely core to the story.

Quote from: Dave2
How is it that in Romans 15 Paul doesn't want to move into territory where "the gospel" was already known when in Galatians he informs his readers that it is HE who has the exclusive gospel truth?

Paul was an emmisary to the gentiles. As such he went where others had not already preached so he could win new converts. And Paul didn't claim to have an exclusive monopoly on the Gospel. If you read the account in Galatians he included himself in that list of people that should be ignored if they came preaching another Gospel message. You could certainly see why it would be important for Paul to squelch false messages among young converts. Remember when Korah led the rebellion against Moses. Imagine if Moses had not intervened and stopped the spread of his usurpation. Imagine if Elijah had not confronted the false prophets of his day. Certainly you can imagine the problem it would cause if propagators of false messages were not dealt with.

Quote from: Dave2
And how is it possible when he refers to apostles who were believed to have known the man Jesus he never expresses even the slightest awe and reverence for them at all with praise for having seen and walked with the man Jesus??

His awe was reserved for the risen Lord Jesus Christ. And he called Peter, James, and John pillars of the faith. So this comment is unfounded and irelavant.
« Last Edit: May 01, 2012, 07:10:59 AM by Peter »
Doth that man love his Lord who would be willing to see Jesus wearing a crown of thorns, while for himself he craves a chaplet of laurel? Shall Jesus ascend to his throne by the cross, and do we expect to be carried there on the shoulders of applauding crowds? Charles H. Spurgeon

Peter

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • Posts: 8702
  • the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God
    • View Profile
    • False Prophet Muhammad
Re: Dave2's questions
« Reply #1 on: May 01, 2012, 07:15:10 AM »
Split off the unrelated thread, as per your suggestion, Dave.
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=3194.msg13497#msg13497

Do you suppose he would have to cover every single detail of the Gospel narratives in his letters?

Indeed. The Gospel is the very thing that he preached, persuading in synagogues, and unto gentiles as well. Paul preached Christ crucified just as we do in this forum.

1Cr 1:23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

Just as prophesied in Psalms:

Psalms 22:17 For dogs have surrounded me; a band of evildoers has encompassed me, like a lion, my hands and feet. 18. I tell about all my bones. They look and gloat over me. 19. They share my garments among themselves and cast lots for my raiment.

That was penned before crucifixion was ever even invented. What do you suppose is meant by "like a lion, my hands and feet"? Like a lion licking them? Or using tooth or claw to pierce them?

That prophecy is confirmed, in the crucifixion of our Messiah, Dave:

Mat 27:35 And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots.

Mar 15:24 And when they had crucified him, they parted his garments, casting lots upon them, what every man should take.

Luk 23:33 And when they were come to the place, which is called Calvary, there they crucified him, and the malefactors, one on the right hand, and the other on the left. 34 Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.

Jhn 19:18 Where they crucified him, and two other with him, on either side one, and Jesus in the midst. 19 And Pilate wrote a title, and put [it] on the cross. And the writing was, JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS.
Jhn 19:23 Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took his garments, and made four parts, to every soldier a part; and also [his] coat: now the coat was without seam, woven from the top throughout.


Isaiah 53:1. Who would have believed our report, and to whom was the arm of the Lord revealed? 2. And he came up like a sapling before it, and like a root from dry ground, he had neither form nor comeliness; and we saw him that he had no appearance. Now shall we desire him? 3. Despised and rejected by men, a man of pains and accustomed to illness, and as one who hides his face from us, despised and we held him of no account. 4. Indeed, he bore our illnesses, and our pains-he carried them, yet we accounted him as plagued, smitten by God and oppressed. 5. But he was pained because of our transgressions, crushed because of our iniquities; the chastisement of our welfare was upon him, and with his wound we were healed. 6. We all went astray like sheep, we have turned, each one on his way, and the Lord accepted his prayers for the iniquity of all of us. 7. He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he would not open his mouth; like a lamb to the slaughter he would be brought, and like a ewe that is mute before her shearers, and he would not open his mouth. 8. From imprisonment and from judgment he is taken, and his generation who shall tell? For he was cut off from the land of the living; because of the transgression of my people, a plague befell them. 9. And he gave his grave to the wicked, and to the wealthy with his kinds of death, because he committed no violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth. 10. And the Lord wished to crush him, He made him ill; if his soul makes itself restitution, he shall see children, he shall prolong his days, and God's purpose shall prosper in his hand. 11. From the toil of his soul he would see, he would be satisfied; with his knowledge My servant would vindicate the just for many, and their iniquities he would bear. 12. Therefore, I will allot him a portion in public, and with the strong he shall share plunder, because he poured out his soul to death, and with transgressors he was counted; and he bore the sin of many, and interceded for the transgressors.

Jhn 1:23 He said, I [am] the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias.
John 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

Psalms 22:17 For dogs have surrounded me; a band of evildoers has encompassed me, like a lion, my hands and feet. 18. I tell about all my bones. They look and gloat over me. 19. They share my garments among themselves and cast lots for my raiment.

The passover Lamb of God was crucified, and not a bone of Him was broken.
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=3080.0

Peter

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • Posts: 8702
  • the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God
    • View Profile
    • False Prophet Muhammad
Re: Dave2's questions
« Reply #2 on: May 01, 2012, 09:41:08 AM »
Please do not reply to this post before you address the prior two posts.

And how is it possible when he refers to apostles who were believed to have known the man Jesus he never expresses even the slightest awe and reverence for them at all with praise for having seen and walked with the man Jesus??

Rom 2:28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither [is that] circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: 29 But he [is] a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision [is that] of the heart, in the spirit, [and] not in the letter; whose praise [is] not of men, but of God.

Dave2

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 104
    • View Profile
Re: Dave2's questions
« Reply #3 on: May 01, 2012, 12:36:22 PM »
Unfortunately you do not even begin to address the questions I raised. I referring to the CONTEXT and CONTENT of all these letters. You can add to it the fact that in not a single epistle does the writer "Paul" express the slightest interest in visiting any of the sites walked on by his Christ in the Holy Land. Not one. In fact he makes reference to spending time in Arabia, but Bethlehem and Nazareth are totally ignored. The so-called Brother of the Lord James is not revered at all nor is there mention of the mother of Jesus Mary even a single time. Not to mention John the Baptist, who was the Elijah precursor whose story is so important in the gospels. Even reference to Jesus being the Seed of David in Romans ignores any precursor Baptist figure who as Elijah would come before the Messiah.

Then if you want to go further into Acts, you will see how different the Paul in Acts is from the Paul of the epistles. Does the Paul of Acts ever refer to Jews and gentiles obtaining justification through faith, about which the Paul of Galatians, etc. writes extensively?




Dave2

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 104
    • View Profile
Re: Dave2's questions
« Reply #4 on: May 01, 2012, 12:40:14 PM »
And if you want to talk about Paul's mission to the gentiles based on his exclusive revelation of the risen Christ, one can only wonder why he spends so much time among Jews in Acts. Indeed, the Jerusalem group expresses no amazement or interest whatsoever at the revelation of the Christ, but once they do accept it it becomes unnecessary for Paul to be the missionary to the gentiles and Peter to the Jews because not only can one person not do everything, but everybody can now do everything.  Evidence is Paul's own visits to Jews when he should be busy with gentiles. What was his exclusive mission anyway that no one else could know about? And how could it be that he would refuse to go to places where others were teaching the gospel if his was an exclusive revelation that everyone had to know about?!

Dave2

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 104
    • View Profile
Re: Dave2's questions
« Reply #5 on: May 01, 2012, 12:52:19 PM »
In case you forgot, it is not in Romans that Paul talks about meeting the Jerusalem people, it is in Galatians. And Romans and Galatians strongly look they were written by different people with different agendas.

Please do not reply to this post before you address the prior two posts.

And how is it possible when he refers to apostles who were believed to have known the man Jesus he never expresses even the slightest awe and reverence for them at all with praise for having seen and walked with the man Jesus??

Rom 2:28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither [is that] circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: 29 But he [is] a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision [is that] of the heart, in the spirit, [and] not in the letter; whose praise [is] not of men, but of God.

Peter

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • Posts: 8702
  • the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God
    • View Profile
    • False Prophet Muhammad
Re: Dave2's questions
« Reply #6 on: May 01, 2012, 04:35:08 PM »
Unfortunately you do not even begin to address the questions I raised. I referring to the CONTEXT and CONTENT of all these letters. You can add to it the fact that in not a single epistle does the writer "Paul" express the slightest interest in visiting any of the sites walked on by his Christ in the Holy Land. Not one.

Why would he? There was an abundance of witnesses of Jesus hanging around the Holy Land. Even the temple was irrelevant.

John 2:19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.  20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? 21 But he spake of the temple of his body. 22 When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.

1 Corinthians 3:16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and [that] the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? 17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which [temple] ye are.
http://www.beholdthebeast.com/temple_of_god.htm

Peter

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • Posts: 8702
  • the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God
    • View Profile
    • False Prophet Muhammad
Re: Dave2's questions
« Reply #7 on: May 01, 2012, 04:42:14 PM »
In fact he makes reference to spending time in Arabia, but Bethlehem and Nazareth are totally ignored.

Just as we are called to do. We aren't called to preach to the saved, but to the unsaved.

Mat 28:19    Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

The so-called Brother of the Lord James is not revered at all nor is there mention of the mother of Jesus Mary even a single time.

Nor was there reason to. Mary was just a vessel God chose to use. To venerate Mary is much later Roman Catholic Marion heresy, even turned Mary into an intercessor.

1Ti 2:5 For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

Old Testament or New. The Old Testament saints just didn't recognize that it was the Son of God that was their mediator, because He hadn't been revealed yet.

Oh yea, and since Muhammad got part of his drivel from a defrocked priest, and his cousin was an Ebionite occult priest, his followers venerate Mary too. Indeed Roman Catholics and Muslims even join each other in veneration of Mary at Fatima.
Perhaps you show us where the Gospel calls anyone to venerate Mary?

Not to mention John the Baptist, who was the Elijah precursor whose story is so important in the gospels. Even reference to Jesus being the Seed of David in Romans ignores any precursor Baptist figure who as Elijah would come before the Messiah.

John already had it covered as resisting pointed out in his first reply. The fact that different testimonies mention different elements, from different guys that lived different kinds of lives, is how we can rest assured it wasn't a bunch of guys sitting around a table and comparing notes, but rather independent testimony of Christ.

Dave2

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 104
    • View Profile
Re: Dave2's questions
« Reply #8 on: May 01, 2012, 04:44:00 PM »
Oh, cut it out. You know what I mean by venerating or mentioning. The name MARY or JOHN THE BAPTIST is not mentioned once for a simply reason, the religion of the epistles originally did not include them , or the virgin birth, or Bethlehem. Or Nazareth, or Capernaum, or Golgotha or Pontius Pilate...........So much sophistry on such simple straightforward issues.......

Peter

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • Posts: 8702
  • the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God
    • View Profile
    • False Prophet Muhammad
Re: Dave2's questions
« Reply #9 on: May 01, 2012, 04:45:28 PM »
Muslims demonize Paul too. Perhaps it's because he so convicts us of sin:

Rom 6:1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? 2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?

Why don't you try tackling this post. You can cut it into separate elements in reply.
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=3238.msg13537#msg13537
 

Peter

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • Posts: 8702
  • the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God
    • View Profile
    • False Prophet Muhammad
Re: Dave2's questions
« Reply #10 on: May 01, 2012, 05:20:58 PM »
Oh, cut it out. You know what I mean by venerating or mentioning.

Ah, you mean why didn't Paul start us down that slippery slope, to join the Roman church in adopting Mary as an intercessor? Because he wasn't inspired by God TO MENTION MARY. Perhaps so that Christians could can later ask WHERE IN THE GOSPEL DOES IT SUGGEST WE ARE TO WORSHIP MARY!!!!!

But Dave, my friend, you really ought to focus on the prophesies in the Old Testament of Jesus crucifixion. How about it?

The name MARY or JOHN THE BAPTIST is not mentioned once for a simply reason, ........

THE SAME ONE. So that folks wouldn't go off worshiping John the Baptist the way the cult of the Mandaeans do.
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=2805.0

...... the religion of the epistles originally did not include them , or the virgin birth, or Bethlehem. Or Nazareth, or Capernaum, or Golgotha or Pontius Pilate...........So much sophistry on such simple straightforward issues.......

Rather than wasting any more of our mutual time, the question you need to focus on is why you reject the crucifixion, death and resurrection of the Messiah. A few elements of which are detailed in this post, embellished with links:
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=3238.msg13537#msg13537

Those are a few of the verses that have helped your brethren throughout the Christian era, come to know the love of the one true God through a relationship with His Son, Yeshua, the Messiah.
http://www.youtube.com/user/jfjweb/videos

Dave2

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 104
    • View Profile
Re: Dave2's questions
« Reply #11 on: May 01, 2012, 09:00:39 PM »
I reject them because they never happened. Do you see a virgin birth story in the Gospel of Mark, John, Thomas or others? And why don't you reply to my previous questions? Add to them why Luke and Matthew have such different nativity stories. Oh well, we could go on and on. The Jesus story is a Roman creation based on the events surrounding Yeshu son of Miriam and Joseph Pandera that are recorded from Jewish tradition in the Talmud, who was hanged on a tree, exactly as it is mentioned even in your Book of Acts.  Of course they got the dates wrong. It happened around 60 BCE under the queen Shlomit Alexandra the wife of King Alexander Jannaeus.

resistingrexmundi

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • Posts: 678
    • View Profile
Re: Dave2's questions
« Reply #12 on: May 02, 2012, 04:49:42 AM »
I reject them because they never happened. Do you see a virgin birth story in the Gospel of Mark, John, Thomas or others? And why don't you reply to my previous questions? Add to them why Luke and Matthew have such different nativity stories. Oh well, we could go on and on. The Jesus story is a Roman creation based on the events surrounding Yeshu son of Miriam and Joseph Pandera that are recorded from Jewish tradition in the Talmud, who was hanged on a tree, exactly as it is mentioned even in your Book of Acts.  Of course they got the dates wrong. It happened around 60 BCE under the queen Shlomit Alexandra the wife of King Alexander Jannaeus.

Dave2 the Talmud wasn't even compiled until well after the events of the Gospel. The dating in the Talmud is what is off. Secondly, as I pointed out before Paul was writing to those who already had been given the Gospel. So his letters dealt with the growth of their faith. They had already heard the Gospel. And it is the central message of Jesus' death and resurrection that is important. Not the peripherals. And if you wish to be this critical of the NT you should also be so with the OT. There are instances in the OT that mention details of accounts that are not originally recorded there and also leave out things that originally were. You are being willfully obstinate of that fact. If you want to know about the nativity stories of Luke and Matthew ask a specific question so that it can be addressed rather than just assuming we know what you are talking about.
Doth that man love his Lord who would be willing to see Jesus wearing a crown of thorns, while for himself he craves a chaplet of laurel? Shall Jesus ascend to his throne by the cross, and do we expect to be carried there on the shoulders of applauding crowds? Charles H. Spurgeon

Dave2

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 104
    • View Profile
Re: Dave2's questions
« Reply #13 on: May 02, 2012, 08:00:12 AM »
The Talmud preserves historical information about Yeshu and many other subjects. The tradition became associated with the the gospel stories and then the divine savior idea of the epistles.

resistingrexmundi

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • Posts: 678
    • View Profile
Re: Dave2's questions
« Reply #14 on: May 02, 2012, 08:11:39 AM »
The Talmud preserves historical information about Yeshu and many other subjects. The tradition became associated with the the gospel stories and then the divine savior idea of the epistles.

So which is it Dave2. Did the Talmud help form the Gospel or did the Talmud get associated with the Gospel message later? The fact is that the Gospels as we have them have greater textual attestation than any other ancient historical document.
Doth that man love his Lord who would be willing to see Jesus wearing a crown of thorns, while for himself he craves a chaplet of laurel? Shall Jesus ascend to his throne by the cross, and do we expect to be carried there on the shoulders of applauding crowds? Charles H. Spurgeon

Dave2

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 104
    • View Profile
Re: Dave2's questions
« Reply #15 on: May 02, 2012, 11:47:37 AM »
The tradition recounted in the Talmud existed BEFORE the Talmud was redacted, like many other things. Why is this so hard to comprehend? Obviously the Talmud does not tell us EVERYTHING about what happened with Yeshu Pandera. However, there were clearly people who held fast to a belief in Yeshu for a century or two and this belief became adopted by non-Jews who merged it with their messianic beliefs. Remember, please, that Yeshu was never accused in his day of being a false messiah. This became a feature of the later stories that were anchored in the first century.

resistingrexmundi

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • Posts: 678
    • View Profile
Re: Dave2's questions
« Reply #16 on: May 02, 2012, 12:58:02 PM »
The tradition recounted in the Talmud existed BEFORE the Talmud was redacted, like many other things. Why is this so hard to comprehend? Obviously the Talmud does not tell us EVERYTHING about what happened with Yeshu Pandera. However, there were clearly people who held fast to a belief in Yeshu for a century or two and this belief became adopted by non-Jews who merged it with their messianic beliefs. Remember, please, that Yeshu was never accused in his day of being a false messiah. This became a feature of the later stories that were anchored in the first century.

Except that you can point to not a single reference to the Oral law in the entire scriptures and we have documents that have far greater historical attestation than any other ancient document. Including the Talmud. The Talmud may have existed in oral form prior to its' redaction but the point is that you have no way of proving that. And there is ample proof that the Talmud does not in fact date back to Sinai as is traditionally held. The timeline in the Talmud is messy due to the fact that it is a redaction of various sources as a response to the dispersion.
Doth that man love his Lord who would be willing to see Jesus wearing a crown of thorns, while for himself he craves a chaplet of laurel? Shall Jesus ascend to his throne by the cross, and do we expect to be carried there on the shoulders of applauding crowds? Charles H. Spurgeon

Dave2

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 104
    • View Profile
Re: Dave2's questions
« Reply #17 on: May 02, 2012, 01:07:42 PM »
The Talmud is a compendium, a book. What goes back to Sinai is the chain of transmission of the teachings of the Torah in the oral law, methodologies of adjudication and exegesis, and of course historical midrash that is not contained in the Tanakh. Other than that I don't know what you are talking about. Anyway, there are many things that cannot be proven, not the least of which is whether the Christian savior is two natures or one nature of two types or one type with two natures, etc. based on human theories. Or for that matter, who wrote the gospels and epistles. For example, there is no evidence that someone named Paul actually wrote any of the epistles. There is no evidence that any of the communities actually received any of the epistles or that they responded. In fact, there is no evidence that they were actually written to the recipients indicated.

resistingrexmundi

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • Posts: 678
    • View Profile
Re: Dave2's questions
« Reply #18 on: May 02, 2012, 01:15:12 PM »
The Talmud is a compendium, a book. What goes back to Sinai is the chain of transmission of the teachings of the Torah in the oral law, methodologies of adjudication and exegesis, and of course historical midrash that is not contained in the Tanakh. Other than that I don't know what you are talking about. Anyway, there are many things that cannot be proven, not the least of which is whether the Christian savior is two natures or one nature of two types or one type with two natures, etc. based on human theories. Or for that matter, who wrote the gospels and epistles. For example, there is no evidence that someone named Paul actually wrote any of the epistles. There is no evidence that any of the communities actually received any of the epistles or that they responded. In fact, there is no evidence that they were actually written to the recipients indicated.

We have the text themselves that date back to the times that they claim to be from. We have internal evidence that they are from the time they claim. We have outside sources that let us know that the early Christian communities worshiped Jesus as God. The council you are referring to was to work out how His two natures related to one another. Now contrast that with the fact that we DO NOT have any such outside corroboration of the existence of the Talmud from before its' redaction. We DO NOT have any reference to such an oral transmission in the Torah itself and the fact that it contradicts the Tanach on many things but most of all the fact that God's Word should carry more weight than any man's. But you have hit the point in a round about way. We both accept certain things on a measure of faith. So the only logical way to proceed then would be to evaluate what we can reasonably conclude and continue from there.
Doth that man love his Lord who would be willing to see Jesus wearing a crown of thorns, while for himself he craves a chaplet of laurel? Shall Jesus ascend to his throne by the cross, and do we expect to be carried there on the shoulders of applauding crowds? Charles H. Spurgeon

Peter

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • Posts: 8702
  • the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God
    • View Profile
    • False Prophet Muhammad
Re: Dave2's questions
« Reply #19 on: May 02, 2012, 01:24:40 PM »
The council you are referring to was to work out how His two natures related to one another.

Iindeed it was to address the heresies that had been started by Gnostics like Simon the Sorcerer, and confirm the divinity of Christ as revealed in the scriptures. And weed out other texts AS uninspired because of internal errors and such. Not to create tradition through the "courts".

"Are the Rabbis right"
http://realmessiah.askdrbrown.org/listen/are-rabbis-right

Dave2

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 104
    • View Profile
Re: Dave2's questions
« Reply #20 on: May 02, 2012, 03:35:45 PM »
You are still avoiding my points. And you are ignoring the fact that MEN were sitting down to *work out* one of the essential if not THE essential theological issues that presumably should have been worked out and known in the religion of the previous 200 or 300 years!!

Peter

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • Posts: 8702
  • the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God
    • View Profile
    • False Prophet Muhammad
Re: Dave2's questions
« Reply #21 on: May 02, 2012, 08:28:13 PM »
You are still avoiding my points. And you are ignoring the fact that MEN were sitting down to *work out* one of the essential if not THE essential theological issues that presumably should have been worked out and known in the religion of the previous 200 or 300 years!!

No you are ignoring both of our answers to your points.  The scriptures were not changed. The Council put heretics in their place, and weeded out self-evidently uninspired texts.
Jesus Christ remains the head of the church and the scriptures remain the authority, and specifically NOT men.
EXCEPT for example, in the Roman Catholic (and Orthodox) church WHERE MEN declared the TRADITION OF MEN to be EQUAL TO SCRIPTURE. That's how they made such an awful mess of their church with so much false doctrine, much of which was designed to put their flocks in bondage.
Tradition = Scripture? A two headed dog can't hunt, so MEN pick the TRADITION OF MEN every time.
JUST LIKE YOUR TRADITION OF MEN has you in such a mess that YOU RUN WITH JEW HATING SKINHEAD AND NAZI ANTI-ZIONISTS, only a half century after they killed 8 million Jews. Because Satan has his hand in your traditions of men, just like he does in the Roman church (see Roman Church section), and ALL false doctrine.

resistingrexmundi

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • Posts: 678
    • View Profile
Re: Dave2's questions
« Reply #22 on: May 03, 2012, 08:01:32 AM »
You are still avoiding my points. And you are ignoring the fact that MEN were sitting down to *work out* one of the essential if not THE essential theological issues that presumably should have been worked out and known in the religion of the previous 200 or 300 years!!

The Council was not "working out" one of the essential theological issues of Christianity. It was clarifying the doctrine in a way that it could be comprehended. For example how Christ relates to the Father, and is His nature as God and as man. There was no denial that He was God. Just how exactly that related to His humanity. Again you grant to your own beliefs a consideration that you will not extend to ours. That is that while a doctrine may be evident it needs clarification for those who study it.
Doth that man love his Lord who would be willing to see Jesus wearing a crown of thorns, while for himself he craves a chaplet of laurel? Shall Jesus ascend to his throne by the cross, and do we expect to be carried there on the shoulders of applauding crowds? Charles H. Spurgeon

Dave2

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 104
    • View Profile
Re: Dave2's questions
« Reply #23 on: May 03, 2012, 12:32:32 PM »
Are you a spokesman for the Nicene Council?? You mean to tell me these MEN had divine knowledge to know the nature of the Christ because they were not Talmudic Jewish MEN?
Spare me. Explain why it took almost 300 years according to traditional dating of Christianity to clarify this matter. Where were all the bishops before Constantine, OR did the trinity controversy and confusion only become a philosophical and theological struggle in the 4th century?!

resistingrexmundi

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • Posts: 678
    • View Profile
Re: Dave2's questions
« Reply #24 on: May 03, 2012, 01:00:21 PM »
Are you a spokesman for the Nicene Council?? You mean to tell me these MEN had divine knowledge to know the nature of the Christ because they were not Talmudic Jewish MEN?
Spare me. Explain why it took almost 300 years according to traditional dating of Christianity to clarify this matter. Where were all the bishops before Constantine, OR did the trinity controversy and confusion only become a philosophical and theological struggle in the 4th century?!

Dave2, I have tried to be as gracious with you as I can but you are being obstinately contentious. The Scriptures of the NT teach that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all God. It also shows that they work independently and and in unison with one another. The Church Fathers ie the disciples of the apostles taught clearly that Christ is God and man. The Nicene Council left records of its' discussion for posterity allowing future generations to know what they were attempting to accomplish. So it isn't a matter of being a spokesman for their Council. You who have defended the Talmud should recognize that every doctrine espoused in Scripture is not always easy to articulate even if it is easy to understand. The difference between you and I however is that when those councils began espousing doctrines that stood in direct conflict with scripture I disregarded them. The trinity is perhaps the most misunderstood doctrine of Christianity and it is for that reason it is dealt with so often and in so much detail. Yahweh is complex in His unity and has chosen to reveal Himself most fully through Jesus His Son. While that is easy for me to understand it may take a bit to articulate to others. I will ask that in future discourse you refrain from being contentious. If you have a question or a point make it and spare me your vitriol.
Doth that man love his Lord who would be willing to see Jesus wearing a crown of thorns, while for himself he craves a chaplet of laurel? Shall Jesus ascend to his throne by the cross, and do we expect to be carried there on the shoulders of applauding crowds? Charles H. Spurgeon