[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Ancient Babylonian tablet.
Shamash, their sun god, is on the right holding his ring and staff. Check out the symbol on the altar.
[/quote]
What does this have to do with anything?
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Very similar symbol in a different, more familiar setting.
[/quote]
Doesn’t really look the same unless all cross/x combinations are supposed to be the same.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Check out the cross that adorns St. Paul’s cathedral in London.[/quote]
What about it?
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Baby Jesus, complete with pagan hand gesture and tridents coming out of his head.[/quote]
Interesting, what does this prove?
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Kai, just so you know;
If you would kindly answer the questions and requests I posed to you before, we can start conversing again, but since you know you have no leg to stand on, I know that’s not going to happen.
I will not, however, participate in dialogue in which I obligate myself to respond in every detail without reciprocation. You flat-out ignore the holes in your argument.
I don’t have time to argue with someone who is educated beyond their understanding.[/quote]
It’s kind of hard when you use the machine gun fallacy as an argument.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
I got sidetracked and forgot to respond to this, Brother Chris. I apologize.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Calling the early American Catholics ‘oppressed’ is akin to claiming the KKK is ‘oppressed’. [/quote]
Except Klansman in America are permitted and are actually voted (well, only by the Democratic Party) into office, while the Colonies were still subject to the George the Tyrant, they were not permitted office. Unless of course you forget what the 1st Amendment actually says, which isn’t at all surprising.[/quote]
What I meant was the way people view the KKK now. After all of the evil they’ve committed, a klansman wouldn’t have the slightest chance at public office (if he publicly admitted that he was a klansman).[/quote]
Really, Bob Byrd who retired from office back in 2010 was a klansman, open about it, too. Democrats still put him in the Senate.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
The author of that book was awarded the summis desiderantes affectibus papal bull in 1484, giving him full papal approval and carrying all authority of the Catholic church.[/quote]
Source?
Again, please provide a source.
So, you’re saying Jesus lied. As long as we’re on the same track.
Still applies, how do you know what the actual Gospel is if you don’t listen to the Church and you don’t have authority yourself to interpret the Gospel?
Source?
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Baby Jesus, complete with pagan hand gesture and tridents coming out of his head.[/quote]
I am pretty sure that was meant to be a crown or halo of some sort. Artistic interpretations.
The art is meant to be a form of prayer and honor and adornment. You can say that the adornments on the Arc were similar to pagan symbols if you want to. Or you can say they are phallic symbols for all I know. These artistic representations are not claimed to be of any divine origin, only pretty things to adorn places of worship. They are meant to honor God, not be things of worship but tools for worship. God, historically, liked his houses of worship to be pretty. Look how detailed he was about the Tent of Meeting.
I would consider it more of an insult to make a place of worship a dump. [/quote]
Come on now, Pat. You can’t really tell me that you believe all of this artistic interpretation just happens to be a collection of pagan symbols, can you? Do you really believe in coincidence that strongly?
If so, that’s cool, but what about this one? This is the papal crest in the Vatican Museum. Why would they choose dragons to represent the pope?
[/quote]
It was not uncommon to take pagan symbolism and make it ‘Christian’ in the olden days. There was a method to the madness, to give pagan converts some degree of familiarization with Christiananity, and for them to understand that these things they understood as pagan are actually given by God. Further, there was the fact that artists borrow from which they are familiar, and that’s what they were familiar with. And again, it’s sematics as these are not objects of worship. It’s just art and symbolism. They don’t matter in the end. [/quote]
The Council of the Pontiffs - Babylonian origin - Pontifex Maximus was their elected leader
The Mystery of the Eucharist - Babylonian origin - Baal
Worshiping the Mother of God - Babylonian - Semiramis
Worshiping Christ as a baby - Babylonian - Tammuz
Lent - Babylonian - Tammuz
Fish on Friday - - Dagon - also the origin of the Pontiffs’ mitre
Yule, Easter (Christ was not crucified on Friday), Christmas (date coincides with birth of Tammuz, not Christ), Purgatory, pine cones, tridents, sun wheels, dragons…
All of it is Babylonian Paganism! It’s not just some of the symbology, it’s ALL of the rituals, holidays, ideas and customs.
Christ did not establish any of this!
Catholicism is Paganism with a different name, just the same as ‘syncretism’ is ‘the impurities of her prostitution’ with a different name.
Go ahead and turn a blind eye, Chris. I don’t even know what to think about someone who can look at all of the evidence and see nothing… just coincidence… no biggie, nothing to see here.
I just don’t get it.
No, scratch that. I do get it.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:
There is absolutely NO WAY that Sheol in Habakkuk 2:5 could actually be Saul’s name; it literally violates the cardinal rules of Hebrew poetry.
IT IS SYNTACTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE, BASED ON THE RULES OF HEBREW POETRY, FOR THE WORD TO BE SAUL RATHER THAN SHEOL[/quote]
That little oddity was mentioned (on my part) as an interesting side-note, but here you are again harping and harping about one little detail. And you you blatantly contradict yourself in the process.
[/quote]
I think you need to read the two statements of mine that you quoted above again. They make the same point, JP; there is no contradiction between them. You’ll see that if you read them again carefully. And you didn’t mention that “oddity” as “an interesting side-note;” you’ve mentioned it several times as your evidence against Paul. You’ve even purposefully used the phrasing of the passage when you’ve described Paul. You cannot escape your mistake here by claiming that “I didn’t mean that the way it sounded.”
And the number of “little details” you have gotten wrong is continuing to increase.
Once again, you ignore the point I made about Paul healing - Zechariah 11:16 clearly says that this shepherd would NOT heal the injured/maimed, whereas that is EXACTLY what Paul did. Therefore, Paul automatically doesn’t fit the bill.
More importantly, however, you are taking 1 Cor. 5:5 out of context AGAIN. Consequently, you are ignoring several key factors…
-
The person in question is sleeping with his father’s wife and refuses to repent of that action. This is not some poor fellow who struggles with smoking or pornography; this is a guy who is not only violating two of the most sacred relationships God has ordained in this world (the relation of father and son, and the relation of husband and wife), but he is doing something that COMPLETE UNBELIEVERS CONSIDER REPREHENSIBLE (1 Cor. 5:1). By doing so, this guy makes the church as a whole look bad. His continued presence in the church community is not only damaging to the community’s witness to outsiders, but threatens to lead others in the community into sin (1 Cor. 5:6-7).
-
Paul’s command to expel the wicked man from the community’s fellowship was NOT merely meant to protect the community; rather, it was meant for the man’s own good. You completely ignored the rest of the verse - Paul commands them to "hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, SO THAT his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord." In other words, Paul sees this move as potentially leading to the man’s repentance and eventual reinclusion in the community. And that is EXACTLY what happens, as 2 Cor. 2:4-8 attests. The man repents, and Paul urges the community to “reaffirm their love for him” and welcome him back (2 Cor. 2:7-8). Hmm, Paul’s method actually seems pretty effective! So which is MORE loving - allowing a man who pridefully flouts God’s commands to continue to sin and remain in and sully the community, or to kick him out for a time until he repents so that he could realize how much he missed the church community and NOT lead anyone else astray?
-
Your very question (“you tell me where Christ condoned any such thing as described in 1 Cor. 5:5”) is erroneous, because it presupposes that everything Christ said was written down. Once again, Paul lived, ministered, and died before the first gospel was even written. He lived in a time when the words of Jesus were still circulating apart from a written form. And we KNOW for a fact that only a handful of Jesus’ sayings were incorporated into the gospels, and even then, each gospel author only included those sayings of Jesus that fit the points the author’s wanted to make. Consequently, we have no knowledge of whether or not Jesus’ sayings included the command to do such a thing as Paul did.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Go ahead and turn a blind eye, Chris.[/quote]
Lol, wat? To what am I turning a blind eye towards? All you did was post pictures. Most of them are very beautiful, but I’m not sure what relevance they have to this discussion. Maybe you can start a world religious art thread, it would be more suited to your previous postings.
Oh, so you want me to see a bunch of pictures (which I have no idea what they are, as there is no source given to show what they are) and then make an argument for/against something. That’s not exactly how you do research/argument.
Not surprised. I don’t get it either and I started this thread.
Please, enlighten me why I saw nothing when no facts, arguments, sources, &c. were put forward by you. I’m highly interested in your hypothesis.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Peter Noto wrote:
I couldn’t even get through the whole damn video, it was so stupid. Seriously, as soon as NASA can put a squat rack on the moon I’m leaving.[/quote]
Imagine the numbers you’d pull on the moon![/quote]
It’s hard to squat in a space suit.
And technically speaking, it’d be the same numbers, just require a lot more plates to get there.[/quote]
quiet you
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
I could possibly accept this, if someone could explain (and provide Scriptural proof) to me exactly what Christ meant when He said the quote in question. I cannot imagine what He could have possibly trying to tell us, if He did not mean it exactly as He said it.
[/quote]
Context is important here. Who he was speaking about was the Pharisees in the 7 woes. The notes in the ESV study bible explain it best I think:
" JesusÃ???Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã??Ã?¢?? disciples should not try to gain authority over one another as teachers or masters, since Jesus is ultimately each discipleÃ???Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã??Ã?¢??s teacher and master (you have one teacher Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã??Ã?¢?Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã??Ã?¦ one instructor), to whom the disciple is accountable. Jesus does not literally forbid use of the titles “teacher,” “doctor,” or “father” for all time in all circumstances, but he prohibits his disciples from using these terms in the way the Pharisees used them, in a spirit that wrongly exalted leaders and reinforced human pride."
[/quote]
So then, you and I agree on the meaning, we just disagree when it comes to 1)understanding that the RCC does exactly as you just described and 2)He said “call no man father” and I take that as forbidding.
[/quote]
The are not “our father” they are clergy and by definition, servants. It’s huge difference between the clergy and the Pharisees. Perhaps a little history of who and what the pharisees were at the time of Jesus would help you understand the difference. Also perhaps a little understanding of the Holy Orders would help too. [/quote]
I beg your pardon, but the Vatican itself would seem to disagree with you
[/quote]
Man, you’re reaching. That which you posted means nothing of what you imply.
I would need some reference for this. I see not prophesy where Paul is inferenced and spoken ill of.[/quote]
Check out Zechariah 11:15-17, after the reference to Judas Iscariot’s betrayal of Christ. Habbakuk 2 also does a good job of describing Paul and the woes of his church.[/quote]
I can say with 100% confidence, neither scripture your referenced has to do either with Judas or Paul.[/quote]
Well, then, could you tell me who they are about?[/quote]
The Pharisees and Babylon… Context, purpose, audience.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
pat wrote:
JayPierce wrote:
pat wrote:
JayPierce wrote:
Baby Jesus, complete with pagan hand gesture and tridents coming out of his head.
I am pretty sure that was meant to be a crown or halo of some sort. Artistic interpretations.
The art is meant to be a form of prayer and honor and adornment. You can say that the adornments on the Arc were similar to pagan symbols if you want to. Or you can say they are phallic symbols for all I know. These artistic representations are not claimed to be of any divine origin, only pretty things to adorn places of worship. They are meant to honor God, not be things of worship but tools for worship. God, historically, liked his houses of worship to be pretty. Look how detailed he was about the Tent of Meeting.
I would consider it more of an insult to make a place of worship a dump.
Come on now, Pat. You can’t really tell me that you believe all of this artistic interpretation just happens to be a collection of pagan symbols, can you? Do you really believe in coincidence that strongly?
If so, that’s cool, but what about this one? This is the papal crest in the Vatican Museum. Why would they choose dragons to represent the pope?
It was not uncommon to take pagan symbolism and make it ‘Christian’ in the olden days. There was a method to the madness, to give pagan converts some degree of familiarization with Christiananity, and for them to understand that these things they understood as pagan are actually given by God. Further, there was the fact that artists borrow from which they are familiar, and that’s what they were familiar with. And again, it’s sematics as these are not objects of worship. It’s just art and symbolism. They don’t matter in the end.
The Council of the Pontiffs - Babylonian origin - Pontifex Maximus was their elected leader
[/quote]
Apostolic origin. First official counsel was all apostles.
The Last Supper discourses in the synoptic gospels.
She is not worshiped, nice try though.
Christ is worshipped not in form. The ‘baby’ came from Christmas.
Uh, no it’s honoring Christ’s temptation in the desert when Jesus fasted. This is a time of fasting and preparation for Good Friday and Easter. Otherwise known as a Pentatential Fast.
Related to penitential fasting where the avoidance of “flesh meat” is recommended.
This is getting painful. You’re Jehovah aren’t you? Based on what you said, you have to be, nobody else believes this crap. Now it all makes sense. Why’d you hide it?
I’ll tell you this, if you have to change scripture to make it coincide with what you believe, what you believe is errant, not the scripture.
The King James translations are found to have over 800 major translation errors. The the New World Translations are so bad they could hardly be considered scripture. There’s a reason the Watch Tower kept prying eyes from their “scholarly” techniques. They were changing the scripture to fit their beliefs.
And you have the balls to criticize the Papacy? No one organization is oppressive as the watch tower.
Hate to open a can of worms but this one’s a doozy and I’m interested in responses. Amongst other things, am I correct in that prior to Vat II the Vatican laid territorial claim to Jerusalem? Am I correct in that the current position of the Vatican is that Jerusalem should become an international city under the governance of an organisation like the United Nations?
[quote]pat wrote:
This is getting painful. You’re Jehovah aren’t you? Based on what you said, you have to be, nobody else believes this crap. Now it all makes sense. Why’d you hide it?
I’ll tell you this, if you have to change scripture to make it coincide with what you believe, what you believe is errant, not the scripture.
The King James translations are found to have over 800 major translation errors. The the New World Translations are so bad they could hardly be considered scripture. There’s a reason the Watch Tower kept prying eyes from their “scholarly” techniques. They were changing the scripture to fit their beliefs.
And you have the balls to criticize the Papacy? No one organization is oppressive as the watch tower.[/quote]
Dang. Ya got me. I am indeed a witness to the god of desolation (or calamity, or destruction. Whatever specific translation you want to use) [/sarc]
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Hate to open a can of worms but this one’s a doozy and I’m interested in responses. Amongst other things, am I correct in that prior to Vat II the Vatican laid territorial claim to Jerusalem? Am I correct in that the current position of the Vatican is that Jerusalem should become an international city under the governance of an organization like the United Nations?[/quote]I’ve heard a bit here and there about this, but never really paid attention. I think it was in reference to the “holy sites” which of course I don’t believe in, though I’d like to see history preserved in general as much as possible.
Please understand that when you think of yourself what the Roman Catholic Church does? All bets are off. I mean that without any real sarcasm actually. You can pretty much declare what you want in the name of God (yes, Christopher I DO understand the theoretical limits they place on themselves for appearance sake)
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
This is getting painful. You’re Jehovah aren’t you? Based on what you said, you have to be, nobody else believes this crap. Now it all makes sense. Why’d you hide it?
I’ll tell you this, if you have to change scripture to make it coincide with what you believe, what you believe is errant, not the scripture.
The King James translations are found to have over 800 major translation errors. The the New World Translations are so bad they could hardly be considered scripture. There’s a reason the Watch Tower kept prying eyes from their “scholarly” techniques. They were changing the scripture to fit their beliefs.
And you have the balls to criticize the Papacy? No one organization is oppressive as the watch tower.[/quote]
Dang. Ya got me. I am indeed a witness to the god of desolation (or calamity, or destruction. Whatever specific translation you want to use) [/sarc][/quote]
Nevermind, I figured it out…
http://www.jesuswordsonly.com/
Seems a bit cultish to me…
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
I could possibly accept this, if someone could explain (and provide Scriptural proof) to me exactly what Christ meant when He said the quote in question. I cannot imagine what He could have possibly trying to tell us, if He did not mean it exactly as He said it.
[/quote]
Context is important here. Who he was speaking about was the Pharisees in the 7 woes. The notes in the ESV study bible explain it best I think:
" JesusÃ???Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã??Ã?¢?? disciples should not try to gain authority over one another as teachers or masters, since Jesus is ultimately each discipleÃ???Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã??Ã?¢??s teacher and master (you have one teacher ¦ one instructor), to whom the disciple is accountable. Jesus does not literally forbid use of the titles “teacher,” “doctor,” or “father” for all time in all circumstances, but he prohibits his disciples from using these terms in the way the Pharisees used them, in a spirit that wrongly exalted leaders and reinforced human pride."
[/quote]
So then, you and I agree on the meaning, we just disagree when it comes to 1)understanding that the RCC does exactly as you just described and 2)He said “call no man father” and I take that as forbidding.
[/quote]
The are not “our father” they are clergy and by definition, servants. It’s huge difference between the clergy and the Pharisees. Perhaps a little history of who and what the pharisees were at the time of Jesus would help you understand the difference. Also perhaps a little understanding of the Holy Orders would help too. [/quote]
I beg your pardon, but the Vatican itself would seem to disagree with you
[/quote]
Man, you’re reaching. That which you posted means nothing of what you imply.[/quote]
So you don’t accept the pope as The Holy Father? Or are you disputing that the Vatican regards him as such?
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
This is getting painful. You’re Jehovah aren’t you? Based on what you said, you have to be, nobody else believes this crap. Now it all makes sense. Why’d you hide it?
I’ll tell you this, if you have to change scripture to make it coincide with what you believe, what you believe is errant, not the scripture.
The King James translations are found to have over 800 major translation errors. The the New World Translations are so bad they could hardly be considered scripture. There’s a reason the Watch Tower kept prying eyes from their “scholarly” techniques. They were changing the scripture to fit their beliefs.
And you have the balls to criticize the Papacy? No one organization is oppressive as the watch tower.[/quote]
Dang. Ya got me. I am indeed a witness to the god of desolation (or calamity, or destruction. Whatever specific translation you want to use) [/sarc][/quote]
Nevermind, I figured it out…
http://www.jesuswordsonly.com/
Seems a bit cultish to me…[/quote]
Why is it so important for you to label me?
I told you, I am a Christian (not Paulinian), and I don’t feel the need to associate with any organization or accept any rules other than those laid out by Christ.
The author of that site (who has been called a ‘pseudo-scholar’ even though he is a documented Classical Language Scholar) asserts some good viewpoints and documents his sources, but I don’t agree with everything he writes.
I also haven’t seen anything on that site that imposes any requirements whatsoever of the people who do believe everything he writes, so I can’t agree with your assessment of it being cultish.