Christian Conservatives

[Bisonfanatical]

I certainly am not. But I have a good understanding of the ecumenical councils without having to Google.


I also can be unclear so that's my "cross to bear".

Maybe we crossed wires, but Bisonfanatical -- look, a guy who worships bison making fun of us who worship God (I kid, I kid) -- stated that the belief in Christ's divinity was not established until the 4th century. That is completely and demonstrably wrong -- and I thought you were siding with him, so I included your posts in my reply.

As I said, the orthodox acceptance of Christ's divinity was, as to those who attended the Council of Nicea, a fait accompli, and had been since before the turn of the first century. Anyone can say they were wrong in that belief -- but you can't say that belief was not widely accepted until the 4th century.

Just to set the record straight, I don't believe i made any claim about the "divinity" of your Catholic inspired "Christ" being established 400 years ago, it was more about the Title being reinvented by a man-inspired council. below is some samplings of my first posts in this thread;


There was a Messiah who lived and died as recorded 2000 years ago, however, 400 years later his "God" given title was changed to Christ by a paganized Roman Church and the message of the bible was changed from being about Israelites to pagans, and then 1100 years after that his God given name was changed from Yeshua to Jesus (with out the consent of the Creator one might add)


I also stated this;


But all the changes "we" believe in are not from the first books of the first 100 years, but are from "man made" doctrines of the Church of the Roman Empire which twist the message of those books, and this took place much later in history. <br /> My intent was to make the point that both parties attend churches which are solidly based in deception and have no understanding of what "truth" is, yet they want to stand on "truth" to slam each other. <br /><br /> P.S. the small town preacher from the letter above was definately a political hack more than a self proclaimed promoter of some "God’s love".

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[Ibanez]

I think a better term might be rational theism. I don't know...that's a bit more philosophical.

And religious folks are irrational (of course some are, some of every group are)?

We are all irrational. Is there an irrational theism? What would atheism be?

[JoltinJoe]

Maybe we crossed wires, but Bisonfanatical -- look, a guy who worships bison making fun of us who worship God (I kid, I kid) -- stated that the belief in Christ's divinity was not established until the 4th century. That is completely and demonstrably wrong -- and I thought you were siding with him, so I included your posts in my reply.

As I said, the orthodox acceptance of Christ's divinity was, as to those who attended the Council of Nicea, a fait accompli, and had been since before the turn of the first century. Anyone can say they were wrong in that belief -- but you can't say that belief was not widely accepted until the 4th century.

Just to set the record straight, I don't believe i made any claim about the "divinity" of your Catholic inspired "Christ" being established 400 years ago, it was more about the Title being reinvented by a man-inspired council. below is some samplings of my first posts in this thread;


There was a Messiah who lived and died as recorded 2000 years ago, however, 400 years later his "God" given title was changed to Christ by a paganized Roman Church and the message of the bible was changed from being about Israelites to pagans, and then 1100 years after that his God given name was changed from Yeshua to Jesus (with out the consent of the Creator one might add)


I also stated this;


But all the changes "we" believe in are not from the first books of the first 100 years, but are from "man made" doctrines of the Church of the Roman Empire which twist the message of those books, and this took place much later in history. <br /> My intent was to make the point that both parties attend churches which are solidly based in deception and have no understanding of what "truth" is, yet they want to stand on "truth" to slam each other. <br /><br /> P.S. the small town preacher from the letter above was definately a political hack more than a self proclaimed promoter of some "God’s love".

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

I think I understood you properly and completely, and addressed your points already.

[Bisonfanatical]

Just to set the record straight, I don't believe i made any claim about the "divinity" of your Catholic inspired "Christ" being established 400 years ago, it was more about the Title being reinvented by a man-inspired council. below is some samplings of my first posts in this thread;


There was a Messiah who lived and died as recorded 2000 years ago, however, 400 years later his "God" given title was changed to Christ by a paganized Roman Church and the message of the bible was changed from being about Israelites to pagans, and then 1100 years after that his God given name was changed from Yeshua to Jesus (with out the consent of the Creator one might add)


I also stated this;


But all the changes "we" believe in are not from the first books of the first 100 years, but are from "man made" doctrines of the Church of the Roman Empire which twist the message of those books, and this took place much later in history. <br /> My intent was to make the point that both parties attend churches which are solidly based in deception and have no understanding of what "truth" is, yet they want to stand on "truth" to slam each other. <br /><br /> P.S. the small town preacher from the letter above was definately a political hack more than a self proclaimed promoter of some "God’s love".

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

I think I understood you properly and completely, and addressed your points already.

Just wanted to clarify the words you tried to put in my mouth?
As for your last statement ...
Yes,
You addressed my points as best as you can from a Roman Church standpoint ... it comes down to the fact that we have 2 different belief systems, and we worship 2 different God's.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[Ibanez]

I think I understood you properly and completely, and addressed your points already.

Just wanted to clarify the words you tried to put in my mouth?
As for your last statement ...
Yes,
You addressed my points as best as you can from a Roman Church standpoint ... it comes down to the fact that we have 2 different belief systems, and we worship 2 different God's.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

Which god do you worship?

[JoltinJoe]

I don't have a problem with how you choose to describe yourself, but the terms "Christian Deist" is an oxymoron to Christians. Deism is the belief in an impersonal God. Christianity is the belief in a personal God.

I suppose what you are saying is that you accept Christian values, but believe in an impersonal God. From my perspective, if God is impersonal, then there's no point either to believing or not believing in him. By definition, he doesn't care.

Now this ^ interests me Joe...
Actually its a fascinating phenomenon in Christianity almost exclusively

I know a whole bunch of people who "identify" as Christians
and simultaneously do not believe in the coming rapture
nor do they necessarily believe ANY of the miracles particularly

And Yet,
They absolutely believe in God and they absolutely feel like they are Christians
They consistently respond positively to "being Christian"

It's pretty cool actually

Well, first of all, the idea of a "coming rapture" is a fundamentalist Christian interpretation of Revelation. Catholics do not understand Revelation to foretell of a coming rapture. Catholics have always understood Revelation, at the time it was written, to be part historical and part prophetic. However, to the extent that Revelation is prophetic, it has already been largely fulfilled. Revelation is an allegorical telling of the persecution of Christians by the Roman Empire (that being historical at the time it was written) and prophetic in the foretelling that Catholicism would prevail in this struggle with the empire, and ultimately convert the empire. Thus, you know all this modern talk about who corresponds to the number of the Beast (666)? In the Hebrew gematria, the name "Neron" -- the Greek name for Nero -- corresponds to 666. Revelation is an allegorical tale, using pervasive Old Testament imagery and symbolism, to encourage Christians in the face of Roman persecution, in their faith and in the belief that the Church will prevail over the empire. To those who don't understand the Old Testament imagery and symbolism (like the leaders of the empire or most of us today), the book's actual meaning and intent is obscure.

As for your second observation, there may be many "doubting" Christians who still feel comfortable with identifying and socializing as "within" the Church. That's fine for this moment in their search. But the blessings and peace that come with complete faith, I hope, will come to them someday. It's a remarkable place to be.

[Chizzang]

Now this ^ interests me Joe...
Actually its a fascinating phenomenon in Christianity almost exclusively

I know a whole bunch of people who "identify" as Christians
and simultaneously do not believe in the coming rapture
nor do they necessarily believe ANY of the miracles particularly

And Yet,
They absolutely believe in God and they absolutely feel like they are Christians
They consistently respond positively to "being Christian"

It's pretty cool actually

Well, first of all, the idea of a "coming rapture" is a fundamentalist Christian interpretation of Revelation. Catholics do not understand Revelation to foretell of a coming rapture. Catholics have always understood Revelation, at the time it was written, to be part historical and part prophetic. However, to the extent that Revelation is prophetic, it has already been largely fulfilled. Revelation is an allegorical telling of the persecution of Christians by the Roman Empire (that being historical at the time it was written) and prophetic in the foretelling that Catholicism would prevail in this struggle with the empire, and ultimately convert the empire. Thus, you know all this modern talk about who corresponds to the number of the Beast (666)? In the Hebrew gematria, the name "Neron" -- the Greek name for Nero -- corresponds to 666. Revelation is an allegorical tale, using pervasive Old Testament imagery and symbolism, to encourage Christians in the face of Roman persecution, in their faith and in the belief that the Church will prevail over the empire. To those who don't understand the Old Testament imagery and symbolism (like the leaders of the empire or most of us today), the book's actual meaning and intent is obscure.

As for your second observation, there may be many "doubting" Christians who still feel comfortable with identifying and socializing as "within" the Church. That's fine for this moment in their search. But the blessings and peace that come with complete faith, I hope, will come to them someday. It's a remarkable place to be.

My point is Joe
They are different than you
They feel like THEY are in the remarkable place right now
and say that people like YOU will come around to their way of thinking...

[JoltinJoe]

And religious folks are irrational (of course some are, some of every group are)?

We are all irrational. Is there an irrational theism? What would atheism be?

Atheism is irrational.

Faith can be a rational response to uncertainty and the recognition that there are an infinite number of truths and facts we, as humans, do not know yet or will never know.

But absolute certainty in the belief there is no God is entirely foolish, given the enormity of facts and truth beyond our present understanding.

[JoltinJoe]

Well, first of all, the idea of a "coming rapture" is a fundamentalist Christian interpretation of Revelation. Catholics do not understand Revelation to foretell of a coming rapture. Catholics have always understood Revelation, at the time it was written, to be part historical and part prophetic. However, to the extent that Revelation is prophetic, it has already been largely fulfilled. Revelation is an allegorical telling of the persecution of Christians by the Roman Empire (that being historical at the time it was written) and prophetic in the foretelling that Catholicism would prevail in this struggle with the empire, and ultimately convert the empire. Thus, you know all this modern talk about who corresponds to the number of the Beast (666)? In the Hebrew gematria, the name "Neron" -- the Greek name for Nero -- corresponds to 666. Revelation is an allegorical tale, using pervasive Old Testament imagery and symbolism, to encourage Christians in the face of Roman persecution, in their faith and in the belief that the Church will prevail over the empire. To those who don't understand the Old Testament imagery and symbolism (like the leaders of the empire or most of us today), the book's actual meaning and intent is obscure.

As for your second observation, there may be many "doubting" Christians who still feel comfortable with identifying and socializing as "within" the Church. That's fine for this moment in their search. But the blessings and peace that come with complete faith, I hope, will come to them someday. It's a remarkable place to be.

My point is Joe
They are different than you
They feel like THEY are in the remarkable place right now
and say that people like YOU will come around to their way of thinking...

Much like Plato's cave dwellers were happy with the shadows they saw on the wall.

But they were not truly free or knowledgeable until they were freed from their chains, and able to experience the truth of the forms, not merely their shadows on the wall.

[Chizzang]

My point is Joe
They are different than you
They feel like THEY are in the remarkable place right now
and say that people like YOU will come around to their way of thinking...

Much like Plato's cave dwellers were happy with the shadows they saw on the wall.

But they were not truly free or knowledgeable until they were freed from their chains, and able to experience the truth of the forms, not merely their shadows on the wall.

Exactly Joe thank you...
Come on out of the cave buddy, they love you

[Jjoey52]

But there is no reason to believe that John the Apostle was illiterate. Most historians agree that he is, at the least, the actual author of the epistle 1 John. And they also believe Peter wrote the epistles attributed to him. So there is no reason to say that all the apostles were illiterate.

I think common sense would suggest that poor fisherman probably couldn't read or write. Paul might have been since he was a tax collector.

Matthew was the tax collector, Luke was a physician and Paul was a tent maker and a Roman citizen.

If there is no God, why do people feel guilt?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Bisonfanatical]

Just wanted to clarify the words you tried to put in my mouth?
As for your last statement ...
Yes,
You addressed my points as best as you can from a Roman Church standpoint ... it comes down to the fact that we have 2 different belief systems, and we worship 2 different God's.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

Which god do you worship?

The one who made a covenant with the Israelites, who punished them repeatedly, divided their kingdom, divorced and banished the 10 northern tribes, Punished the southern kingdom ... etc
All because they kept integrating Pagan imagery and rituals into their worship.
The God who declared that he never changes ... the God who established eternal dates for worship festivals ... Who said he will redeem his people with one of their own (human) from the tribe of Y'hudah .. the one who said besides me there is no other god ... the one who declared his name almost 7000 times in the Tanakh (OT) as Yehovah (not I am).

That will do for a start?

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[JoltinJoe]

I think I understood you properly and completely, and addressed your points already.

Just wanted to clarify the words you tried to put in my mouth?
As for your last statement ...
Yes,
You addressed my points as best as you can from a Roman Church standpoint ... it comes down to the fact that we have 2 different belief systems, and we worship 2 different God's.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

It's just that your postings don't make much sense.

If you are asserting that the Messiah lived and died 2,000 years ago, but that his nature and title were subsequently altered by man -- fine, I get your point. But that "alteration" happened within the lifetime of, and at the behest of, actual apostles and disciples who had traveled with him and heard him teach. It didn't happen in the 4th Century.

As for your assertion that the Messiah's name was changed to Jesus from Yeshua, you do realize that these are the same names, just different phonetic spellings in different language? Since Jesus spoke Aramaic, his name was pronounced "Eashoa" during his lifetime.

[JoltinJoe]

Which god do you worship?

The one who made a covenant with the Israelites, who punished them repeatedly, divided their kingdom, divorced and banished the 10 northern tribes, Punished the southern kingdom ... etc
All because they kept integrating Pagan imagery and rituals into their worship.
The God who declared that he never changes ... the God who established eternal dates for worship festivals ... Who said he will redeem his people with one of their own (human) from the tribe of Y'hudah .. the one who said besides me there is no other god ... the one who declared his name almost 7000 times in the Tanakh (OT) as Yehovah (not I am).

That will do for a start?

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

You've been oblique up to this point, but you're a Jehovah's Witness, aren't you?

You are aware there is no such word as "Jehovah" in Hebrew?

[Grizalltheway]

I think common sense would suggest that poor fisherman probably couldn't read or write. Paul might have been since he was a tax collector.

Matthew was the tax collector, Luke was a physician and Paul was a tent maker and a Roman citizen.

If there is no God, why do people feel guilt?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Because our brains have evolved to the point where we're capable of it?

[CAA Flagship]

Matthew was the tax collector, Luke was a physician and Paul was a tent maker and a Roman citizen.

If there is no God, why do people feel guilt?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Because our brains have evolved to the point where we're capable of it?

*your

[Grizalltheway]

Because our brains have evolved to the point where we're capable of it?

*your

Don't you have some vacuuming to do?

[JoltinJoe]

Matthew was the tax collector, Luke was a physician and Paul was a tent maker and a Roman citizen.

If there is no God, why do people feel guilt?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Because our brains have evolved to the point where we're capable of it?

If there is no God, wouldn't we evolve toward not feeling guilt?

[Ivytalk]

Because our brains have evolved to the point where we're capable of it?

If there is no God, wouldn't we evolve toward not feeling guilt?

Reading JJ's posts in this thread is like taking an online course in metaphysics. Of course, I'm retired, so I have time to read them.

[CID1990]

Jesus H. Christ this thread is long


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Chizzang]

Jesus H. Christ this thread is long

Thanks for your deep insights
Are you submitting your request for the rank of Lt. Col. Obvious...

[CID1990]

Jesus H. Christ this thread is long

Thanks for your deep insights
Are you submitting your request for the rank of Lt. Col. Obvious...

I just wanted to show that even I can invoke the name of The Savior and Prince of Princes


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AshevilleApp]

Never mind.

[Grizalltheway]

Because our brains have evolved to the point where we're capable of it?

If there is no God, wouldn't we evolve toward not feeling guilt?

Possibly. I'm just saying it's a pretty shaky premise to say that "humans feel guilt, therefore God must exist".

[Skjellyfetti]

Possibly. I'm just saying it's a pretty shaky premise to say that "humans feel guilt, therefore God must exist".

It's pretty much Catholicism in a nutshell, except: "God exists, therefore humans should feel guilt."