Nevermind. I was trying to fix the tagging for KK, but there’s a part of a quote missing that throws them out of order. Was only trying to help.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Yes, I mistakenly wrote ‘horns’ when I meant ‘heads’.
Actually, what you just wrote disqualifies Rome from being the woman and signifies it as the beast. The woman rides on the beast
[/quote]
I’ll try this again. Please pay attention.
Since the woman is atop the beast, and the beast’s heads represent the seven hills, and the woman is a CITY (Rev. 17:5 and 17:18), the only logical referent is THE CITY OF ROME. The woman atop the beast is the CITY OF ROME. The beast’s heads represent the seven hills UPON WHICH THE CITY OF ROME WAS BUILT.
[quote] JayPierce wrote:
Again. The woman is on the beast, not part of it.
[/quote]
Precisely. Since the Vatican is not one of the seven hills UPON which the city of Rome was built, the Vatican CANNOT be the harlot/city on top of the seven hills. The only option is the city known for being built UPON the seven hills, which is the city of Rome.
[quote] JayPierce wrote:
The founder of the universal church was a Babylonian magician, not Peter. There are plenty of Babylonian and other traditions mixed in with the church (prostitutions), as well as dates of Christian festivals being changed (Christmas itself).
[/quote]
Again, your claims made in the utter absence of historical knowledge literally boggle my mind. Do you know how many and varied the myths are about the origins of Simon Magus? Do you also know that the best evidence all suggests he was a Samaritan? Read Jarl Fossum’s monograph “The Name of God and the Angel of the Lord.” He argues convincingly that Simon Magus the Samaritan was the progenitor of Gnosticism, the heresy REJECTED by the Catholic church. He was NOT the founder of the universal church. Where do you get this stuff?
[quote] JayPierce wrote:
[quote]Revelation is an apocalypse, NOT an Old Testament-style prophecy. It’s intended function was to comfort and encourage believers experiencing persecution at a particular time in history, NOT to provide a series of Nostradamus-like riddles detailing the precise end of the world hundreds of years in the future. Teaching about the end of the world or events several hundred or even several thousand years later would have been useless to the seven churches to whom the apocalypse was addressed; they needed something to make sense of their suffering THEN, not an account about the future that they could not POSSIBLY have understood.
If you understood genre categories and their significance, you would understand why it matters that Revelation is an apocalypse, NOT an Old Testament-style prophecy.[/quote]
So, let me get this straight:
God shows a vision to John, and you think He only meant it in the context of the literary genre category of the time period?
[/quote]
Not precisely. I disagree with your fundamental assumption, Jay, which is that God authored parts of Scripture and not others. If God is responsible for Revelation, then God is responsible for all of it. But the divine message was communicated in a specific form - an apocalypse - and that genre impacts our exegesis. Just as, if God wrote the Gospel of Luke in the genre of a mystery, that would impact the way we read it and the message we take from it. Same with Revelation - the form determines the function. This is as true in the literary realm as it is in the physiological.
God didn’t inspire snippets; He inspired entire texts, which means that even the genre is chosen for a reason, and since genre impacts textual meaning, the divinely intended meaning is delineated in part through the genre chosen.
[quote] JayPierce wrote:
Your arguments are very intricate and complicated, and you are obviously very educated on history, but you do not strike me as a man who seeks the heart of the Father. I wish I could change that, but Christ said a few words about that as well.[/quote]
Incorrect. Because I seek the heart of the Father, the God of Israel, I can’t afford to buy into your unfounded, poorly researched, and potentially spiritually dangerous assumptions.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:<<< See, you have this snide way of insulting people while claiming not to insult.
It doesn’t bother me. I just want you to know that I see right through you. You’re the type who thinks he’s so clever that other people can’t figure out what he’s really saying, and that denial is just a tool at his disposal.[/quote]Ya know what? I’ll at least partially give ya a bit of this. I DO do that sometimes. Not exactly as you’re saying, but ok. Can I ask you to describe for me what your relationship with God is like? As personal as you care to get. Tell me how you came to know Him. Would you do that? How does your life in Christ differ now from before you knew him and from others who don’t?
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:<<< Your arguments are very intricate and complicated, and you are obviously very educated on history, but you do not strike me as a man who seeks the heart of the Father. I wish I could change that, but Christ said a few words about that as well.[/quote]For the record boys n girls? THIS is the kind of judgement Jesus warns about int he 7th of Matthew. Entirely subjective on one hand and assumed from a series of horrendous misrepresentations of the scriptures on the other. Jesus is saying that YOU don’t get to judge, which is not the same as declaring the clear judgement of God. JP, I implore you to consider where you are veering off to now. You are claiming to know this man’s relationship with God based on YOUR private interpretations of the scripture, plagiarized though they are. Interpretations testified uniformly against in all of history by the whole vast body of those who have properly worn the name of Jesus. You own that as a badge of honor, but it is a sure indication of cultic heresy. Repent, I pray thee. Forsake these idols and beg forgiveness of the true and living Christ. Lest thou be found clinging to a phantom savior and a gospel of air at the judgement seat. We will be the ones praying for you. I mean that.
[/quote]
Have you not passed a worse judgement on me?
I was stating my perception of his arguments, not interpreting scripture. His argument was that God couldn’t have possibly intended Revelation as a Prophesy because of its literary style.
I worship no idols. I’m not one who believes that a crucifix could possibly represent Christ or the Father. I beg forgiveness every day. I’m the one who’s been arguing in favor of Christ’s words, and rejecting the blasphemous teachings of Paul, the false apostle.
Your statement here is the very height of hypocrisy, and you full well know it.
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:
Indeed I do, though I would love to hear YOUR definition of it. Considering the sheer number of inaccurate statements I’ve called you on the last few days, it’s only fair that I give you another shot, especially since you’ll need to make up for your embarrassing misunderstanding of “pastor” below…[/quote]
I got myself on the ‘pastor’ thing. I thought pastor was the same as father. My mistake.
A heretic is simply someone who doesn’t believe the viewpoint of the orthodoxy. So, because you don’t believe the same things as Catholics, that makes you a heretic, too.
[quote][quote]
If you understood the simplicity of The Word, you would understand that the church doesn’t need a building. Or a preacher. And most church-goers would be better off staying at home reading the Bible, instead of having someone else tell them what to believe.
[/quote]
Having someone else tell you what to believe could save your soul, dude. Once you start distinguishing between the God of Israel in the Old Testament and “the Father” of Jesus, and identifying the God of Israel with Satan, you are on DANGEROUS ground. [/quote]
Having a man or group of men tell you what to believe is the surest way to make sure you get it wrong. You tell me ‘history proves this’ and ‘history proves that’, but history will absolutely be my witness on this one. I will read and ask for guidance and understanding from the Father a million times before I let a man tell me what to believe.
If you think I’m wrong for that, so be it.
[quote][quote]
You didn’t know that ‘pastor’ means father?
[/quote]
This is embarrassing. Can you not do ANY research before you speak, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT COMES TO THE MEANING OF WORDS? For goodness’ sake, dude, I’ve studied Greek and Hebrew for the last seven years, and I majored in English literature as a undergraduate! You don’t think I’m going to be able to spot your linguistic gymnastics EVERY time?
No, pastor doesn’t mean “father.” Pastor derives from the Latin word for “shepherd,” NOT the Greek for “father.” [/quote]
I’m not embarrassed at getting something wrong. I was wrong for a very long time about a great many things. Those are the very things I ask forgiveness for.
[quote][quote] JayPierce wrote:
Aaaaah… Now this explains everything.
On the payroll!
[/quote]
You have the inferential capabilities of a stone. Yes (says KingKai sarcastically), I take money from my tiny little church to assist the pastor with work he doesn’t take a dime for.
I am a volunteer, not an employee. I get paid nothing.
[/quote]
So, you are a minister. You claim that tithes are there to support the ministers. And then you claim that you don’t accept that support.
If you are being honest, then my hat’s off to you. I have never seen this practiced in real life, though I have heard it claimed quite a few times.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:<<< Have you not passed a worse judgement on me? >>>[/quote]But nobody has passed judgement on you JP. I have no idea what your final destination will be. That is for God alone. I AM judging the overtly heretical and unbiblical views you have been propounding in our midst for the past over a week now. I am doing that as commanded in the scriptures that you do not accept. You give biblical reasons for questioning your stand with God which is what I most recently asked you about. Like I told you before I am NOT against you. I have quipped and joked with you a bit which maybe I shouldn’t have done, but I’m not trying to be hurtful and I most assuredly will not be passing judgement on ANYbody. [quote]JayPierce wrote:<<< Your statement here is the very height of hypocrisy, and you full well know it.[/quote]No it isn’t and no I don’t. I wish you could slow down and pursue one line of thought to conclusion for a minute and see that while no one church has ALL the truth as it is in Christ Jesus exclusively, there IS a church that you simply refuse to either submit to or commune with.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:<<< Having a man or group of men tell you what to believe is the surest way to make sure you get it wrong. >>>[/quote]This is not what orthodoxy means. [quote]JayPierce wrote:<<< You claim that tithes are there to support the ministers. And then you claim that you don’t accept that support. I have never seen this practiced in real life, >>>[/quote]The apostle Paul did it.
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:
Again, your claims made in the utter absence of historical knowledge literally boggle my mind. Do you know how many and varied the myths are about the origins of Simon Magus? Do you also know that the best evidence all suggests he was a Samaritan? Read Jarl Fossum’s monograph “The Name of God and the Angel of the Lord.” He argues convincingly that Simon Magus the Samaritan was the progenitor of Gnosticism, the heresy REJECTED by the Catholic church. He was NOT the founder of the universal church. Where do you get this stuff?[/quote]
From the same place you get yours. Church scholars and historians:
Dictionary of the Apostolic Church, Vol. 2:
[quote][quote][quote]Revelation is an apocalypse, NOT an Old Testament-style prophecy. It’s intended function was to comfort and encourage believers experiencing persecution at a particular time in history, NOT to provide a series of Nostradamus-like riddles detailing the precise end of the world hundreds of years in the future. Teaching about the end of the world or events several hundred or even several thousand years later would have been useless to the seven churches to whom the apocalypse was addressed; they needed something to make sense of their suffering THEN, not an account about the future that they could not POSSIBLY have understood.
If you understood genre categories and their significance, you would understand why it matters that Revelation is an apocalypse, NOT an Old Testament-style prophecy.[/quote]
So, let me get this straight:
God shows a vision to John, and you think He only meant it in the context of the literary genre category of the time period?
[/quote]
Not precisely. I disagree with your fundamental assumption, Jay, which is that God authored parts of Scripture and not others. If God is responsible for Revelation, then God is responsible for all of it. But the divine message was communicated in a specific form - an apocalypse - and that genre impacts our exegesis. Just as, if God wrote the Gospel of Luke in the genre of a mystery, that would impact the way we read it and the message we take from it. Same with Revelation - the form determines the function. This is as true in the literary realm as it is in the physiological.[/quote]
In all fairness, I was the one arguing that God authored the whole Bible. There was an attempt to get me to say otherwise, it failed, and then a false victory was claimed.
I can see your logic, and it makes sense that way, but it describes the end of days, which hasn’t happened yet.
Doesn’t that alone disqualify it as just the story of how Nero persecuted Christians?
[quote][quote] JayPierce wrote:
Your arguments are very intricate and complicated, and you are obviously very educated on history, but you do not strike me as a man who seeks the heart of the Father. I wish I could change that, but Christ said a few words about that as well.[/quote]
Incorrect. Because I seek the heart of the Father, the God of Israel, I can’t afford to buy into your unfounded, poorly researched, and potentially spiritually dangerous assumptions.[/quote]
Just look at the things he had them do, and compare that with Christ’s teachings. I’m not telling you what to believe, but he had them do things that were directly against the Commandments. You can’t tell me that was God. You can’t convince me that God had them murder children. You can’t tell me that God told them not to practice divination, and then gave them tools for divination.
If an angel showed up in your living room and told you that God wanted you to murder your neighbor, would you do it? How about if he showed up in the church?
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
From the same place you get yours. Church scholars and historians:
Dictionary of the Apostolic Church, Vol. 2:
Two points here. First of all, I am not quite sure if your previous statements about Simon were gleaned from this text, but if they were, I think you are misreading the text. The point of the passages above is that Simon formed his own religion, which was a mixture of Christian and pagan ideas. That is a true statement, but it would be false to say that the religion Simon founded was Catholicism. That’s simply untrue. And yes, some of Simon’s views reflect Babylonian beliefs, but that is not the same thing as saying that Simon was a Babylonian. Babylonian ideas had already spread throughout the world thanks to the connections formed through trade, travel, etc.
All the best evidence suggests that Simon was a Samaritan (note that he is located in Samaria in Acts), and that he was one of the primary founders of Gnosticism. THAT is the religion that is a mixture of heathenism and Christian ideas. See Jarl Fossum, “The Name of God and the Angel of the Lord.”
Secondly, you are relying on a very old source. That is always dangerous. I believe that text (Dictionary of the Apostolic Church) was written near the beginning of the twentieth century. There are a number of more up-to-date sources that would be more trustworthy.
[quote]
In all fairness, I was the one arguing that God authored the whole Bible. There was an attempt to get me to say otherwise, it failed, and then a false victory was claimed.[/quote]
This is EXACTLY what we have been debating - whether or not you believed that God authored the whole bible, or only parts of it. As I have noted several times, you said that God wrote the whole Bible, then you said that God ALLOWED certain portions to be written and CAUSED other portions to be written. You have done a lot of flip-flopping here.
You have refused to give a straight answer. My argument was very simple - either you recognize that, if God WROTE the whole Bible, including the deceptive parts, then God is deceptive, or you take back your previous statement that God wrote the whole Bible (a statement for which I supplied time and date of utterance).
See, I can deal with this problem because I believe that God wrote the whole Bible AND that NO part of it is deceptive. Instead of just assuming that seeming contradictions are genuine contradictions, I go through and examine them more carefully, and the VAST majority of the time, the kinds of “problems” you bring up disappear when the texts are read IN CONTEXT.
That’s an extremely fair and legitimate question. THe answer one again lies in genre. The primary function of ancient apocalypses (and there are several earlier than and just like Revelation) was to provide persecuted or struggling communities with a divine perspective on current events, as well as to promise hope for the future. The writer would offer a glimpse into the unseen workings of the world to give his audience a better sense of perspective, to make them realize that though the pagan world seemed to be winning, God was still in control and would bring everything to a good end.
In Revelation, the imagery of old prophecies (including the beast, his ten horns, and a little horn in Daniel 7, which originally referred to the Seleucid persecutor Antiochus Epiphanes) is reused to refer to new figures; in this case, Nero. But when I say that it refers to Nero, I don’t simply mean that it is ONLY talking about Nero. I am saying that Nero has replaced Antiochus Epiphanes as the primary embodiment of evil. But Nero TOO is a cipher, a symbol; he represents any and every evil ruler who will ever oppose God’s people.
This is a subtle point, but it’s important. The point I am making is that apocalyptic texts are HIGHlY specific in the imagery used, but that imagery is paradigmatic. It is not predictive of a SPECIFIC figure; it is generally predictive of MANY such figures. It is not a single antichrist that is represented by the beast; it is ALL antichrists (and though you were right to note that antichrist doesn’t appear in Revelation, it is essentially the same figure).
THe key distinction is that there is no one-to-one correspondence between the symbols in Revelation and some sort of FUTURE referent. The purpose of these images, with their specifics derived from Scripture and the past, is to provide a PARADIGM or EXAMPLE for the future, NOT to prophecy about SPECIFIC events or figures. That being said, EVERY apocalypse ends with discussions of the VERY END OF DAYS, and that is EXACTLY what you have in Revelation 18-22.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Just look at the things he had them do, and compare that with Christ’s teachings. I’m not telling you what to believe, but he had them do things that were directly against the Commandments. You can’t tell me that was God. You can’t convince me that God had them murder children. You can’t tell me that God told them not to practice divination, and then gave them tools for divination.
If an angel showed up in your living room and told you that God wanted you to murder your neighbor, would you do it? How about if he showed up in the church?[/quote]
Jay, I am not going to say for one second that some of the things that God told Israel to do aren’t bothersome. They are bothersome and difficult to understand. But just because they are difficult to understand, that doesn’t mean that God didn’t still command people to do those things. The fact is, the same God who said “don’t murder” (not “do not kill”) also told the Israelites to utterly destroy the people living in Canaan. But here’s the problem - Jesus said he didn’t come to abolish the Law; he recognized the Law as Scripture and as containing the commandments of God, and there is NO clear delineation between sections of the Law that say “don’t murder” and those that say, “exterminate the Canaanites.” Any distinction we make is arbitrary; Jesus validated the whole Law, not just parts of it.
Now, I can point out that there is a difference between murder and killing. They are not the same thing. Remember also that, according to Revelation, JESUS is going to kill a whole lot of people when he returns (Rev. 19:11-21). I can also say that the passages forbidding divination are addressed to the people in general, not to the high priests, whose major responsibility, aside from worship and sacrifice, was adjudicating between parties in serious disputes. The Urim and Thummim were reserved only for the high priests, who would seek the council of Yahweh; these tools were NOT to be used by the people in general.
And we are also in a different era. We, as Christians, are a people in exile; we await the time when we will finally reach our home. Like the Jews of the Second Temple period, we live in the time between beginning and end, and we have different responsibilities than Israel did when she first entered the land. What was permissible for Israel when she entered the promised land is no longer permissible for us. In this era, if an angel appeared claiming to be from God and told me to kill someone, I would know that the angel is lying, because IN THIS ERA, I am not permitted to do so. I am not an Israelite cleansing the promised land; my promised land is a future kingdom in which Jesus will do all the fighting necessary.
I know Simon Magus was born in Samaria. But the fact that he started a church that was primarily a mix between Babylonian mythology, Judaism, and Christianity; combined with the fact that that is exactly what the Catholic church is to this day is a correlation that can’t be ignored.
In a sense I guess you could logically say that since all things originate with the Father, then He was being deceptive by allowing Satan to deceive us. I can follow that. But He was allowing us to be tested. He allowed Satan to sit in the temple and proclaim himself God, to see if we would believe him. It says it right there in the scripture (it doesn’t give His ultimate reason directly, but it’s there)
Do you think maybe John’s Revelation served more than one purpose? I can see your point about comforting the persecuted Christians. But I can clearly see that Revelation is not just ‘what was revealed to John’ but more importantly ‘what is going to be revealed to the world’. So it’s not ‘John’s Revelation’ but the story of The Revelation that will happen at the appointed time. See what I’m saying?
Of course. That is absolutely the only correct answer that can be given. You would know that he was trying to deceive you! But you have to remember that we operate under the same Commandments that they operated under. So in THAT era it was forbidden also. They didn’t understand God’s Word the way we do, and so they were fooled much more easily than we could be. Again, the Scripture says it very plainly: the abomination of desolation will sit in the temple and claim that he is God. That happened.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
You own that as a badge of honor, but it is a sure indication of cultic heresy. Repent, I pray thee. Forsake these idols and beg forgiveness of the true and living Christ. Lest thou be found clinging to a phantom savior and a gospel of air at the judgement seat. We will be the ones praying for you. I mean that.
[/quote]
You don’t see this as passing judgement?
If you don’t, then you have been working so hard to disguise your true thoughts from others that you are now fooling yourself.
I told you before; your long words and explanations are transparent to me.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I wasn’t necessarily referring to the orthodox church.
[quote][quote]JayPierce wrote:<<< You claim that tithes are there to support the ministers. And then you claim that you don’t accept that support. I have never seen this practiced in real life, >>>[/quote]The apostle Paul did it.
[/quote]
I said ‘in real life’. Neither one of us has ever met Paul, so neither of us can prove that he did or didn’t. I have my doubts, since he instituted the ‘donation to the saints’ or whatever he called it.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:<<< You don’t see this as passing judgement? >>>[/quote]No. Judging is not the same as passing judgement and no that is not just a semantic slight of hand. [quote]JayPierce wrote:<<< I wasn’t necessarily referring to the orthodox church. >>>[/quote]I definitely wasn’t referring to the orthodox church. [quote]JayPierce wrote:<<< Neither one of us has ever met Paul ‘in real life’, >>>[/quote]Have you ever met Jesus ‘in real life’?
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Explain it to me, please. Other than you stopping just shy of telling me I’ll burn in hell, and the fact that you have no authority whatsoever, I fail to see how your post doesn’t fit the bill of passing judgment.
I’m not following you. I posted about not believing what others tell me to believe, you posted that that wasn’t what orthodoxy means, I said I wasn’t referring to orthodoxy, and you said you weren’t either?
Need some sleep? Or do you think you’re ‘orthodox’ but not part of the ‘orthodox church’?
[quote][quote]JayPierce wrote:<<< Neither one of us has ever met Paul ‘in real life’, >>>[/quote]Have you ever met Jesus ‘in real life’?
[/quote]
No, I haven’t. What difference does that make?
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Explain it to me, please. Other than you stopping just shy of telling me I’ll burn in hell, and the fact that you have no authority whatsoever, I fail to see how your post doesn’t fit the bill of passing judgment.[/quote]I would rather not at the moment. Suffice it to say… again, that I am not declaring your final destiny. I AM declaring your beliefs to be the very definition of “private interpretation” and therefore heterodox and heretical.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I’m not following you. I posted about not believing what others tell me to believe, you posted that that wasn’t what orthodoxy means, I said I wasn’t referring to orthodoxy, and you said you weren’t either? Need some sleep? Or do you think you’re ‘orthodox’ but not part of the ‘orthodox church’?[/quote]“Orthodoxy” in this usage, refers to that core doctrinal boundary inside of which one can be said to hold the saving gospel and outside of which which one cannot. Denominations or ecclesiastical bodies, while many times indicative due to their established and known theological traditions, are not in themselves a guarantee of orthodoxy. Nor do “orthodox” communions necessarily have to agree with me in non fatal areas of doctrine to be orthodox. The Assemblies of God is an Arminian Pentecostal denomination that I disagree with on a very long list of doctrinal matters, but whose members I generally embrace as brethren in Christ. For instance.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
No, I haven’t. What difference does that make?[/quote]You seem to find the fact of your not having met Paul ‘in real life’ a significant hindrance to your ability to ascertain the truth about what he may or may not have said and done. (except when it fits your argument) So I’m wondering why, seeing that the same general process and people brought you the words of Jesus, that you have no problem instantly taking those words as both authentic and authoritative. I mean you just said you haven’t met him either right?
You simply must understand something here. We are not trying to beat you up in a debate. We want you to see the falsity of what you’re being told so that you might embrace the truth that you are rejecting.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Explain it to me, please. Other than you stopping just shy of telling me I’ll burn in hell, and the fact that you have no authority whatsoever, I fail to see how your post doesn’t fit the bill of passing judgment.[/quote]I would rather not at the moment. Suffice it to say… again, that I am not declaring your final destiny. I AM declaring your beliefs to be the very definition of “private interpretation” and therefore heterodox and heretical. [/quote]
Your argument is scatological. You ironically ‘passed judgment’ on me for ‘judging’.
[quote][quote]JayPierce wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I’m not following you. I posted about not believing what others tell me to believe, you posted that that wasn’t what orthodoxy means, I said I wasn’t referring to orthodoxy, and you said you weren’t either? Need some sleep? Or do you think you’re ‘orthodox’ but not part of the ‘orthodox church’?[/quote]“Orthodoxy” in this usage, refers to that core doctrinal boundary inside of which one can be said to hold the saving gospel and outside of which which one cannot. Denominations or ecclesiastical bodies, while many times indicative due to their established and known theological traditions, are not in themselves a guarantee of orthodoxy. Nor do “orthodox” communions necessarily have to agree with me in non fatal areas of doctrine to be orthodox. The Assemblies of God is an Arminian Pentecostal denomination that I disagree with on a very long list of doctrinal matters, but whose members I generally embrace as brethren in Christ. For instance.[/quote]
You are living under a false pretense. You are a heretic by definition. I don’t care what your usage of orthodoxy is, you are not it. Orthodoxy is not a ‘core doctrinal boundary’, it is exactly what Chris posted. You either believe every detail exactly as it is written by the Catholic church, or you’re a heretic.
So throwing that word around like it only pertains to everyone else is a bit hypocritical, don’t you think?
[quote][quote]JayPierce wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
No, I haven’t. What difference does that make?[/quote]You seem to find the fact of your not having met Paul ‘in real life’ a significant hindrance to your ability to ascertain the truth about what he may or may not have said and done. (except when it fits your argument) So I’m wondering why, seeing that the same general process and people brought you the words of Jesus, that you have no problem instantly taking those words as both authentic and authoritative. I mean you just said you haven’t met him either right?
You simply must understand something here. We are not trying to beat you up in a debate. We want you to see the falsity of what you’re being told so that you might embrace the truth that you are rejecting.
[/quote]
lol. There you go using denial as a tool in your arsenal again…
The context of your argument is off center. I said “I have not seen in real life”, and you brought up Paul. The fact that Paul lived 2000 years ago disqualifies him from my statement.
In any case, there are statements in Paul’s writings that lead one to believe he is fending off an accusation that he was a burden on the church. Plus, he outright admits that he robbed other churches, deceived, and lied. But of course, that was all in service to the Father, right? I mean, Paul wrote that it was OK, so it must be OK, right?
If someone else wants to try feel free. It’s not just you KK.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
I know Simon Magus was born in Samaria. But the fact that he started a church that was primarily a mix between Babylonian mythology, Judaism, and Christianity; combined with the fact that that is exactly what the Catholic church is to this day is a correlation that can’t be ignored.
[/quote]
But that’s just it - Simon Magus didn’t start a church; he formed a movement that existed parallel to the Christian movement in time, stealing ideas from Christianity while contributing none. The movement was Gnosticism, and Gnosticism (at least in incipient form) arose before there was a sharp division between Christianity and Judaism. And yes, the influence of Babylonian mythology can be seen in Gnosticism, but not because Simon actively cherry picked from several religions and simply formed a conglomerate; rather, in the spirit of Roman conquest, Babylonian mythology had long before crossed geographic lines and mingled with existing Greco-Roman streams of thought, and it is from this well of syncretistic thought that Simon, along with the rest of the Gnostics, drank.
The point is that Simon’s movement existed parallel and in distinction to the growing Christian movement. This is why knowledge of the primary sources (i.e., the early Church Fathers like Irenaeus) is so essential - Gnosticism STOLE from Christianity; Christianity did NOT borrow from or ever merge with Gnosticism. That simply didn’t occur. Roman Catholicism is not a mixture of Babylonian mythology, Judaism, and Christianity; Roman Catholicism is the form Christianity took when the church’s leadership shifted from predominantly Jewish to almost exclusively Gentile (Greco-Roman) figures. Roman Catholicism arose from the interaction of multiple streams of Greek thought, especially various forms of Platonism, with the basic structure of CHristianity descended from the apostles.
To reiterate, Simon Magus was NOT the progenitor of Roman Catholicism; he founded a movement that stole ideas from Christianity and that eventually died off without EVER being a source FOR Christianity. The movement he founded was Gnosticism, and the church fathers despised it.
Here I think is another example of why reading in context is so important. “The abomination of desolation” or “desolating sacrilege” is referenced in Daniel 9:27, 11:31, and 12:11. This passage is a prophecy about Israel’s future, NOT a description of Israel’s past. The abomination as mentioned in Daniel is a reference to the statue of Zeus which the wicked Antiochus Epiphanes placed in the Second temple (an event recorded in 1 Maccabees). It is NOT a reference to the presence of God in the temple. Jesus picks up this phrase (and speaks of a further fulfillment of the prophecy - this is where the idea of paradigms from my last post comes in) - indeed, when Jerusalem was captured in 70 A.D. and the temple desecrated, the Roman leader Titus (not to be confused with the Titus mentioned in Paul’s letters) also erected an idol in the Second temple.
Both of these events were in the future at the time when they were prophesied, so there is NO basis for reading the abomination of desolation as a reference to Satan pretending to be God in the First Temple (hundreds of years before Daniel was written). That would merely be special pleading.
I see what you’re saying, but I don’t think you understand what the word apocalupsis (where we get the word apocalypse) means in Revelation 1:1. It IS John’s revelation because it was given by Jesus through angelic mediation to John, so that it could be told to God’s slaves, the common term for Christians. This is not “the story of the revelation that will happen at the appointed time;” it is rather a revelation about what “is now” (at the time of the revelation - i.e., the current state of affairs), and “what will take place after” (Rev. 1:19). And this revelation of the now and the things after is not meant for the whole world, but is rather specifically composed for believers (Rev. 1:1).
This book IS a revelation given to John for the benefit of believers - THAT’S WHAT THE TEXT SAYS, so any other additions are merely special pleading. This book is not the “story of the revelation” that is “going to be revealed to the world.”
[quote]But you have to remember that we operate under the same Commandments that they operated under. So in THAT era it was forbidden also.
[/quote]
There’s a massive difference, JP, between saying that we are held AT LEAST to the same standards as Israelites in the pre-Christ period, and saying that Israelites in the pre-Christ period were held to the same standard as we are. Those are NOT the same thing. We live in an era of greater revelation of God’s will, and we live in a different epoch in history; the standard for us is HIGHER.
I know that seems weird to you, but if you are willing to buy into the argument that God can allow people to sin, knowing full well that they will sin and be able to prevent it, and yet God still remains inculpable for that sin, then I don’t see why you would be resistant to the fact that GOD sets the standards of right and wrong. Morality is not some universal existing independently of God; he is the one who defines right and wrong, and if he says it was right for Israel to kill at a particular point in time and a particular place , then that was right. Now, however, he has declared through Jesus that we are to turn the other cheek (though the question is still up in the air whether Jesus advocated total pacifism or would have allowed for the defense of one’s family, police and military forces, etc.).
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
I know Simon Magus was born in Samaria. But the fact that he started a church that was primarily a mix between Babylonian mythology, Judaism, and Christianity; combined with the fact that that is exactly what the Catholic church is to this day is a correlation that can’t be ignored.
[/quote]
But that’s just it - Simon Magus didn’t start a church; he formed a movement that existed parallel to the Christian movement in time, stealing ideas from Christianity while contributing none. The movement was Gnosticism, and Gnosticism (at least in incipient form) arose before there was a sharp division between Christianity and Judaism. And yes, the influence of Babylonian mythology can be seen in Gnosticism, but not because Simon actively cherry picked from several religions and simply formed a conglomerate; rather, in the spirit of Roman conquest, Babylonian mythology had long before crossed geographic lines and mingled with existing Greco-Roman streams of thought, and it is from this well of syncretistic thought that Simon, along with the rest of the Gnostics, drank.
The point is that Simon’s movement existed parallel and in distinction to the growing Christian movement. This is why knowledge of the primary sources (i.e., the early Church Fathers like Irenaeus) is so essential - Gnosticism STOLE from Christianity; Christianity did NOT borrow from or ever merge with Gnosticism. That simply didn’t occur. Roman Catholicism is not a mixture of Babylonian mythology, Judaism, and Christianity; Roman Catholicism is the form Christianity took when the church’s leadership shifted from predominantly Jewish to almost exclusively Gentile (Greco-Roman) figures. Roman Catholicism arose from the interaction of multiple streams of Greek thought, especially various forms of Platonism, with the basic structure of CHristianity descended from the apostles.
To reiterate, Simon Magus was NOT the progenitor of Roman Catholicism; he founded a movement that stole ideas from Christianity and that eventually died off without EVER being a source FOR Christianity. The movement he founded was Gnosticism, and the church fathers despised it.[/quote]
Then explain to me why Christmas is celebrated coincidental to Yule, a pagan holiday, rather than on Christ’s actual birthday.
Explain to me why the Catholic church espouses idol worship and saint worship.
Why do they espouse worship of the instrument of Christ’s execution?
And before you go into the particulars of worship; If you place faith in any object (St. Christopher medal, crucifix, Mary candles, etc…), then you are worshiping that item. You are placing your faith in that item rather than in the Father.
Do you remember what the prophets told us about these very things?
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
I know Simon Magus was born in Samaria. But the fact that he started a church that was primarily a mix between Babylonian mythology, Judaism, and Christianity; combined with the fact that that is exactly what the Catholic church is to this day is a correlation that can’t be ignored.
[/quote]
But that’s just it - Simon Magus didn’t start a church; he formed a movement that existed parallel to the Christian movement in time, stealing ideas from Christianity while contributing none. The movement was Gnosticism, and Gnosticism (at least in incipient form) arose before there was a sharp division between Christianity and Judaism. And yes, the influence of Babylonian mythology can be seen in Gnosticism, but not because Simon actively cherry picked from several religions and simply formed a conglomerate; rather, in the spirit of Roman conquest, Babylonian mythology had long before crossed geographic lines and mingled with existing Greco-Roman streams of thought, and it is from this well of syncretistic thought that Simon, along with the rest of the Gnostics, drank.
The point is that Simon’s movement existed parallel and in distinction to the growing Christian movement. This is why knowledge of the primary sources (i.e., the early Church Fathers like Irenaeus) is so essential - Gnosticism STOLE from Christianity; Christianity did NOT borrow from or ever merge with Gnosticism. That simply didn’t occur. Roman Catholicism is not a mixture of Babylonian mythology, Judaism, and Christianity; Roman Catholicism is the form Christianity took when the church’s leadership shifted from predominantly Jewish to almost exclusively Gentile (Greco-Roman) figures. Roman Catholicism arose from the interaction of multiple streams of Greek thought, especially various forms of Platonism, with the basic structure of CHristianity descended from the apostles.
To reiterate, Simon Magus was NOT the progenitor of Roman Catholicism; he founded a movement that stole ideas from Christianity and that eventually died off without EVER being a source FOR Christianity. The movement he founded was Gnosticism, and the church fathers despised it.[/quote]
Then explain to me why Christmas is celebrated coincidental to Yule, a pagan holiday, rather than on Christ’s actual birthday.
Explain to me why the Catholic church espouses idol worship and saint worship.
Why do they espouse worship of the instrument of Christ’s execution?
And before you go into the particulars of worship; If you place faith in any object (St. Christopher medal, crucifix, Mary candles, etc…), then you are worshiping that item. You are placing your faith in that item rather than in the Father.
Do you remember what the prophets told us about these very things?[/quote]
I do indeed remember the prophets’ sharp denunciations of all idolatry. I am not questioning that at all.
However, to be fair to my Catholic brethren, they have NEVER claimed to “worship” saints or objects, nor do they “place faith in” these objects. The saints are considered further mediators between God and humanity, and the ritual objects, in their view, serve as contemplative tools to draw the mind deeper into focused worship of God. Though I do not agree with such practices, I don’t think YOU or I have the right to say, “I don’t care what YOU think you are doing; I say you are worshipping those things.”
More importantly, I can explain the rise of these practices as a natural development of the interaction between Christianity and it’s Greco-Roman milieu. We do NOT have to posit some sort of conspiracy or takeover by a figure like Simon Magus (a takeover for which, as I have pointed out, we have NO evidence) to understand how such practices could become a part of Christian worship within the first few centuries. There are much more reasonable and simple explanations.
As for the particulars, NO one knows Christ’s actual birthday. Furthermore, long before Yule (which I believe was a Norse or Germanic holiday) became subsumed under the Christmas holiday, the Roman celebration of Saturnalia was already in existence, and Christians in the early centuries of church history replaced this Greco-Roman holiday of Saturnalia with Christmas. The last and central day of Saturnalia was December 25; the church, hoping to bring in more pagans, offered Christmas on December 25 as a replacement of Saturnalia. The subsumption of Yule into Christmas came long after Saturnalia, the Greco-Roman holiday, was replaced by Christmas. The same thing happened to Yule that happened to Saturnalia.
As for the use of different objects of veneration, that was also an existing Greco-Roman practice, and the veneration of saints (my Catholic friends will of course disagree), in my opinion, can be explained as a carryover to Christianity by Gentiles of the view that the divine was so far removed from humanity that only dead ancestors could reach it. The Greco-Roman practice of ancestor petitioning became the catholic practice of the veneration of saints - just as Greeks and Romans used to ask their ancestors to talk to the gods for them, so when they individuals became Christians did they ask saints to talk to God for them.
No conspiracy theory needed.
In any case, all these things can be