3Y
7C
creed
crucifixion
James
Basil, Gregory and Chrysostum
Pentechost
http://images.t-nation.com/forum_images/./1/.1117393650510.95571.JPG
[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
pookie, that’s a low-blow.[/quote]
How so? You criticize someone’s avatar because he’s got crosses on it; but it’s unfair to point out that yours is a bull headed monster with nipple piercings?
I missed a good part of the early discussions on this thread.
Yeah, I’m such a pisser. I’d like to point out that there are other choices between saints or minotaurs.
Doesn’t matter very much what kind of guy you think I am. I was simply amused that you’d pick on someone’s avatar and point out all the crosses on it. I hadn’t seen the explanation for yours (I’m sure it’s quite good…) but you simply seemed to be asking for it.
That’s very cute. Is that from your religious zealot porn stash? You seem to have a whole bunch of those.
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
Pentechost[/quote]
Mertdawg, you should stick to posting your coloring book pictures. You come off as less of an angry idiot that way.
[quote]Fishlips wrote:
Now this statement intrigues me the most. What was God lying about in your opinion?[/quote]
God told Adam he’d die if he ate the fruits from the Tree of Knowledge. Eve and Adam ate the fruits and lived. God lied. QED.
[quote]You disappoint me. You spend so much time arguing back and forth with the religious right but don’t want to think this one out for a minute? I have a feeling if you don’t figure it out completely you’ll at least be closer than the ‘mystical’ posters.
Interesting how one who doesn’t put faith in the bible can more clearly see it’s actual teachings in many instances than those professing belief.[/quote]
“Religious right” is a nice oxymoron.
It’s exactly because I’ve got no faith in the Bible that I also have no interest in researching the question. It’s all fables and stories; I don’t care about what relations can be made between Adam and Jesus.
Also, those discussions often become wars of “interpretations” on a few words. For example, I’m sure someone will say that God never lied when he told Adam that he’d die; but that God meant that Adam would lose eternal life and die at some later time from old age. If that’s what He meant, He simply had to say so…
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
Fishlips, just one question: do your eyes literally burn if you so much as look at a prayer from an Orthodox service because you have never responded-in at least 7-8 different opportunities, to any of these writings. I don’t know, I just get the feeling that you refuse or are somehow unable to read them?[/quote]
Mert I start to read them, then start skimming because they all basically say the same thing. I’m not interested in them. They contradict scripture in too many places.
[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
mertdawg wrote:
Fishlips, just one question: do your eyes literally burn if you so much as look at a prayer from an Orthodox service because you have never responded-in at least 7-8 different opportunities, to any of these writings. I don’t know, I just get the feeling that you refuse or are somehow unable to read them?
Fishlips isn’t here to honestly debate. His purpose was to spew insults and lies. He’s claimed everything under the sun such as:
b[/b] that the genealogical records of Apostolic lineage were destroyed c. 70 AD (which we placed the burden of proof on him to substantiate which he failed to do),[/quote]
Answered already. The archives in the temple were destroyed in 70. This is why no Jews today make any claims to lineage of any kind to that era, because they can’t. The records were only useful for the Jewish religious system to ascertain tribal designations and ultimately the Messiah. To the Christians, they were of the mindset even before 70 of 1 Tim 1:4 where Paul instructed “nor to pay attention to false stories and to genealogies, which end up in nothing, but which furnish questions for research rather than a dispensing of anything by God in connection with faith.” Sounds like how your church wastes time Stella - researching geneological lines of succession which end up in nothing.
[quote]
b[/b] that the Church never practiced Apostolic succession (which we proved was a lie),[/quote]
See above.
[quote]
b[/b] that the Eucharist was never understood by the early Church to be the actual Body and Blood of Jesus Christ (which we proved was a lie),[/quote]
Also dealt with ages ago.
[quote]
b[/b] that the early Church never taught the dogma of the Holy Trinity (which we proved was a lie),[/quote]
Many of the early apostate church(after the death of the apostles) did but none of the writers of the bible, it didn’t even enter their minds.
[quote]
and
b[/b] that the early Church fell away (contrary to the Bible which promises that It would never fall away).[/quote]
Really? Paul instructed the Thessalonians: "Let no one seduce YOU in any manner, because it(the Lord’s day) will not come unless the apostasy comes first and the man of lawlessness gets revealed, the son of destruction. He is set in opposition and lifts himself up over everyone who is called “god” or an object of reverence, so that he sits down in the temple of The God, publicly showing himself to be a god.
Do YOU not remember that, while I was yet with YOU, I used to tell YOU these things? ?And so now YOU know the thing that acts as a restraint, with a view to his being revealed in his own due time. True, the mystery of this lawlessness is already at work; but only till he who is right now acting as a restraint gets to be out of the way. Then, indeed, the lawless one will be revealed."
The apostles were that restraint to the development of the apostasy but they saw it coming as evidenced in John’s words: “Young children, it is the last hour, and, just as YOU have heard that antichrist is coming, even now there have come to be many antichrists; from which fact we gain the knowledge that it is the last hour.” John was to die approx. 2 years later.
It was the ‘last hour’ of the apostolic period and antichrists were flourishing. From this the early church developed along with all it’s adoption of pagan ideas.
[quote]
Then he wants to say that we lack reason because we convey the same interpretation of the Bible as it’s author (the Orthodox Christian Church). So much for his reliance on personal reason and common sense; see where it leads him? In addition, he forms his own private interpretation of scripture (which the Bible [i]condemns[/i]).
He also fails to abide within both the oral and written traditions of the Church (which the Bible [i]commands[/i]) and last but not least, irreverently says God is “schizophrenic” when he can’t explain particular scriptures in the Bible that are in complete disaccord with his belief system. [/quote]
I’m not irreverent. The God you talk about must be schizophrenic as he apparently talks to himself all the time and has multiple personalities within him. But that God doesn’t exist.[quote]
Then he skips most of our strongpoints and goes off on tangents. I congratulated him on being a master of the strawman tactic long ago, but perhaps he mistook this as a compliment? Anyways, the reason he fails to respond to the early Church prayers & manuscripts we’ve provided him with is that there’s nothing left for him to say but, “My apologies Lord, I was wrong all this time!” Oh well, so much for his empty promises to address our posts when he “returns from out of town”.
I don’t think going out of town is any impediment to his internet access as he clearly takes the opportunity to steer the discussion away from questions he refuses to concede to.[/quote]
I dealt with anything that was worth dealing with. Then you come back with completely made up fantasies about scriptures being removed, then added back in, then removed again, and I saw you haven’t replied intelligently to any of my posts and basically gave up on you.
You see it really doesn’t matter when I decide our communication is useless and leave, you’ll just jump up and down with your hands in the air screaming ‘I win, I win’ no matter what the current item of debate is.
Oh yeah, you haven’t had any ‘strong’ points.[quote]
The harvest is great but the laborers are few. Let us follow the example of Saint Maximus the Confessor and leave stubborn heretics to wallow in their confusion and disbelief.
Peace be with you, brother in the Faith![/quote]
You just keep running in your little circle of mysteries.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Fishlips wrote:
Now this statement intrigues me the most. What was God lying about in your opinion?
God told Adam he’d die if he ate the fruits from the Tree of Knowledge. Eve and Adam ate the fruits and lived. God lied. QED.
You disappoint me. You spend so much time arguing back and forth with the religious right but don’t want to think this one out for a minute? I have a feeling if you don’t figure it out completely you’ll at least be closer than the ‘mystical’ posters.
Interesting how one who doesn’t put faith in the bible can more clearly see it’s actual teachings in many instances than those professing belief.
“Religious right” is a nice oxymoron.
It’s exactly because I’ve got no faith in the Bible that I also have no interest in researching the question. It’s all fables and stories; I don’t care about what relations can be made between Adam and Jesus.
Also, those discussions often become wars of “interpretations” on a few words. For example, I’m sure someone will say that God never lied when he told Adam that he’d die; but that God meant that Adam would lose eternal life and die at some later time from old age. If that’s what He meant, He simply had to say so…[/quote]
Now you can’t be making strong assertions about things being ‘fables and stories’ and in the same breathe admit you haven’t done the research. It doesn’t have to be a discussion of religion for that to be important.
You ought to read the entire scripture. It says ‘in the day you eat’. The bible makes clear how God views a day. Ps. 90:4: “For a thousand years are in your eyes but as yesterday when it is past” and 2 Pet. 3:8: “However, let this one fact not be escaping YOUR notice, beloved ones, that one day is with Jehovah as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day.” Adam and Eve died within a thousand years of eating.
And even further, ever heard the statement ‘you’re dead to me’? That’s how God viewed those two from that point on. After that it was just a matter of time before they died like pulling the plug of an spinning fan out of the wall.
A hard-core cynic won’t see anything he doesn’t want to. You have to ask yourself if your intentions are honest or are you just looking for things to take issue with?
Fish reminds me of that old joke.
[b]Man says to God: God, what is a thousand years to you?
God: A second.
Man: What is a million dollars to you?
God: A penny.
Man asks God: Hey God, can you give me a penny?
God: Sure, in a second.[/b]
God’s a very generous guy. Or girl, I mean. 
Fishlips is handing the Orthodox guys’ their asses. They won’t admit it. They’ll insist he respond to some Orthodox prayer he’s already shown to be worthless, but deep down they’ll know they don’t make any sense.
[quote]doogie wrote:
Fishlips is handing the Orthodox guys’ their asses. They won’t admit it. They’ll insist he respond to some Orthodox prayer he’s already shown to be worthless, but deep down they’ll know they don’t make any sense.[/quote]
I agree. First of all, FL whipped out the Monty Python, and now he’s just bennding these guys over his knee. This picture is Fishlips in action.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Fishlips wrote:
Now this statement intrigues me the most. What was God lying about in your opinion?
God told Adam he’d die if he ate the fruits from the Tree of Knowledge. Eve and Adam ate the fruits and lived. God lied. QED.
You disappoint me. You spend so much time arguing back and forth with the religious right but don’t want to think this one out for a minute? I have a feeling if you don’t figure it out completely you’ll at least be closer than the ‘mystical’ posters.
Interesting how one who doesn’t put faith in the bible can more clearly see it’s actual teachings in many instances than those professing belief.
“Religious right” is a nice oxymoron.
It’s exactly because I’ve got no faith in the Bible that I also have no interest in researching the question. It’s all fables and stories; I don’t care about what relations can be made between Adam and Jesus.
Also, those discussions often become wars of “interpretations” on a few words. For example, I’m sure someone will say that God never lied when he told Adam that he’d die; but that God meant that Adam would lose eternal life and die at some later time from old age. If that’s what He meant, He simply had to say so…[/quote]
Pookie:
No, he didn’t “have to say so.” You forgot a very important fact here: HE’S GOD!
If Adam and Eve had not eaten from the tree of knowledge they would not have died. God said they would die and they did. Hence God is not a liar and your attack is pointless. You assumed that God meant that as soon as they took a bite of the fruit they would drop dead. But, God didn’t say that did he?
The second point I want to make is that you seem to rant against “Bible thumpers” and others who promote Christianity. This thread bothers you huh?
You are just as obsessed with tellling people that their is no God as those devout Christians who claim that there is a God. I’m not sure but I don’t think there are many “religious threads” that you have not felt compelled to attack. While it’s your right, I’m not sure that it’s good form (at least not as much as you do it).
I wonder do you get dressed up in a suit and tie and go door to door handing out anti-Christian pamphlets, or is it just on this message board that you feel compelled to jump into (almost) every religious thread and tell us there is no God?
[quote]Fishlips wrote:
stellar_horizon wrote:
mertdawg wrote:
Fishlips, just one question: do your eyes literally burn if you so much as look at a prayer from an Orthodox service because you have never responded-in at least 7-8 different opportunities, to any of these writings. I don’t know, I just get the feeling that you refuse or are somehow unable to read them?
Fishlips isn’t here to honestly debate. His purpose was to spew insults and lies. He’s claimed everything under the sun such as:
b[/b] that the genealogical records of Apostolic lineage were destroyed c. 70 AD (which we placed the burden of proof on him to substantiate which he failed to do),
Answered already. The archives in the temple were destroyed in 70. This is why no Jews today make any claims to lineage of any kind to that era, because they can’t. The records were only useful for the Jewish religious system to ascertain tribal designations and ultimately the Messiah. To the Christians, they were of the mindset even before 70 of 1 Tim 1:4 where Paul instructed “nor to pay attention to false stories and to genealogies, which end up in nothing, but which furnish questions for research rather than a dispensing of anything by God in connection with faith.” Sounds like how your church wastes time Stella - researching geneological lines of succession which end up in nothing.
[/quote]
Sorry, no offense, but this is either complete B.S. or ignorange on your part. You are right about the geneological records, but Apostolic succession has nothing to do with geneology and by 70 A.D. the Christians had disassociated themselves from the Jews in Jerusalem. There are clear writings of Ignatious from the late first century where he makes reference to the Apostle John who ordained him, and similar writings from Polycarp from mid second century stating that Ignatious whom John the Apostle had ordained, ordained him. From Polycarp, there are clear HISTORICAL records, bishop for bishop to the Orthodox bishops of today.
This is similarly true from James in Jerusalem. Historians don’t typically even debate these lines any more. I mean, I have read non-orthodox history books that state that the line of Apostolic succession in Jerusalem is unquestioned although they doubt for example whether Mark founded the Orthodox church in Alexandria or whether Phillip, or possibly Andrew went to Byzantium (city), Paul went to Spain or England, Thomas went to India or Andrew to the Romanian frontier. There is a distinct difference between geneological succession and Apostolic succession and I think you are smart enough to know the difference. That’s why I say its probably B.S. on your part.
See above.
Again, would you find a scholarly source which disputes the authenticity of the early church services from the time of the Apostles. I am SURE you can find one because someone out there, surely would at least propose them as forgeries but they clearly embrace the Trinity and Orthodox concept of the Eucharist.
Sounds like the Pope of Rome to me, who’s CHOSEN title translated into Greek is anti-christos=he stands in the place of Christ. Or the Roman Emperor. Did you know that latin texts of Revelation from the first century use the number 636 rather than 666 because the numerological name of Nero in the Latin alphabet is 636, and that it’s been determined that that is the only numerological name that comes out to be 666 in Greek and 636 in Latin?
[quote]
Do YOU not remember that, while I was yet with YOU, I used to tell YOU these things? ?And so now YOU know the thing that acts as a restraint, with a view to his being revealed in his own due time. True, the mystery of this lawlessness is already at work; but only till he who is right now acting as a restraint gets to be out of the way. Then, indeed, the lawless one will be revealed."
The apostles were that restraint to the development of the apostasy but they saw it coming as evidenced in John’s words: “Young children, it is the last hour, and, just as YOU have heard that antichrist is coming, even now there have come to be many antichrists; from which fact we gain the knowledge that it is the last hour.” John was to die approx. 2 years later.
It was the ‘last hour’ of the apostolic period and antichrists were flourishing. From this the early church developed along with all it’s adoption of pagan ideas.
Then he wants to say that we lack reason because we convey the same interpretation of the Bible as it’s author (the Orthodox Christian Church). So much for his reliance on personal reason and common sense; see where it leads him? In addition, he forms his own private interpretation of scripture (which the Bible [i]condemns[/i]).
He also fails to abide within both the oral and written traditions of the Church (which the Bible [i]commands[/i]) and last but not least, irreverently says God is “schizophrenic” when he can’t explain particular scriptures in the Bible that are in complete disaccord with his belief system.
I’m not irreverent. The God you talk about must be schizophrenic as he apparently talks to himself all the time and has multiple personalities within him. But that God doesn’t exist.
Then he skips most of our strongpoints and goes off on tangents. I congratulated him on being a master of the strawman tactic long ago, but perhaps he mistook this as a compliment? Anyways, the reason he fails to respond to the early Church prayers & manuscripts we’ve provided him with is that there’s nothing left for him to say but, “My apologies Lord, I was wrong all this time!” Oh well, so much for his empty promises to address our posts when he “returns from out of town”.
I don’t think going out of town is any impediment to his internet access as he clearly takes the opportunity to steer the discussion away from questions he refuses to concede to.
I dealt with anything that was worth dealing with. Then you come back with completely made up fantasies about scriptures being removed, then added back in, then removed again, and I saw you haven’t replied intelligently to any of my posts and basically gave up on you.
You see it really doesn’t matter when I decide our communication is useless and leave, you’ll just jump up and down with your hands in the air screaming ‘I win, I win’ no matter what the current item of debate is.
Oh yeah, you haven’t had any ‘strong’ points.
The harvest is great but the laborers are few. Let us follow the example of Saint Maximus the Confessor and leave stubborn heretics to wallow in their confusion and disbelief.
Peace be with you, brother in the Faith!
You just keep running in your little circle of mysteries. [/quote]
I would like to thank you Fishlips, sincerely and to apologize if I offended you with anything but the truth at any time. I have learned a lot from you.
Basically correct me if I’m wrong, but your basic theory is that around the time that John was coming to the end of his life, what you would call a trinitarian heresy took hold of most of the Church and within a century the Trinitarians were in control of what we now know as the Orthodox Church?
It’s interesting, although as an outsider, wouldn’t you agree that that second century church is consistent with the Orthodox Church today-I mean only, historically and theologically as someone who as studied the issue “objectively” or at least from an outside vantage point, which Church seems to bear more consistency in FORM and STRUCURE to this as you believe heretical trinitarian church-the Orthodox or Romans? Or another group perhaps. Please choose freely here, I am just curious about your true opinion.
Also, you and I agree on the existence of the Father, Son and Spirit, but disagree on their “definition” and relationship to each other, what we mean by person, and what we mean by the word “divine”
I admit that the Orthodox Church fine tuned and edited the bible for 2 hundred years of so and YES to the purpose that the Church wanted, in some cases to reinforce the doctrine of the trinity-because the new testament was the scriptural instruction for converts to learn the dogmas of the church.
I will ask one last question. If a small group who had lived their life as Pagans on a deserted island found a bible(with your text and translation) and read it, could they just start up
their own valid legitimate church that very day and have the fullness of the faith?
Finally, we call Jesus the second Adam because he took destroyed the curse of Adams sin which is death. He was the first human born from the dead, as Adam had been the first human born into creation. That’s why he had to become human.
[quote]doogie wrote:
Fishlips is handing the Orthodox guys’ their asses. They won’t admit it. They’ll insist he respond to some Orthodox prayer he’s already shown to be worthless, but deep down they’ll know they don’t make any sense.[/quote]
You have no clue what’s going on here do you. The Orthodox prayer recently submitted wasn’t even to PROVE a point! What point do you think it was submitted to prove?
And please explain his argument to prove that the first century writings of James who grew up as Jesus’ brother are worthless. What was the argument? His argument was: It just has to be a forgery because it goes against everything I’ve been saying.
I predict you will have no answer. I am not arguing who’s wrong or right on this, just that you obviously have a hard time following the flow of the debate here.
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
You have no clue what’s going on here do you.
[/quote]
I do. Fishlips is at least trying to be rational. You and Stella base your whole life on a glorified 2000 year long game of “telephone”.
Every arguement you make boils down to, “I know the truth because he said that he said that he said that he said that he said that he said that he said that he said that he said that he said that he said that he said that he said that he said that Jesus told him.” Wow.