chinu
chinu
Then what brings you here on "RF" ? Just a question.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Word
- Thread starter rrobs
- Start date
The Anointed
Well-Known Member
I planted one seed on a desolate island in the hope that it would grow and multiply and encourage birds and critters to occupy that island, after 40 years we returned to the island only to find a forest of noxious trees, the fruit of which killed all that ate of it. But to destroy the one seed that I had planted, I was forced to destroy the entire forest that it had become.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Interaction with fun people like you, Chinu.
chinu
chinu
You mean killing time ?Interaction with fun people like you, Chinu.
rrobs
Well-Known Member
I can see that you value the belief of early Christians over the scriptures. One thing you may want to be aware of .
2 Tim 1:15,
This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me; of whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes.
If you value the scriptures at all, you must admit that everybody had turned away from Paul before he even died. There are several other verses that talk about grievous wolves who entered the church. You better be sure the early Christians whom you follow were among the few who had remained faithful to the truth.
Personally, I think it much safer to just go with scripture and nothing but scripture, but to each his own.
1) The irrational theory that one who does not commit murder is still guilty of murder
rrobs replied : "One thing you may want to be aware of . 2 Tim 1:15, This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me; of whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes.
If you value the scriptures at all, you must admit that everybody had turned away from Paul before he even died. There are several other verses that talk about grievous wolves who entered the church. You better be sure the early Christians whom you follow were among the few who had remained faithful to the truth. (post #205)
Hi rrobs;
Yet again, your response is irrelevant to my observation and does nothing to justify your claim that someone who has never murder is still guilty of murder.
I observed : your theory that a person who has never murdered is still guilty of murder is irrational and unjust.
You then replied : Ancient christians turned from Paul and schisms occurred.
The response is irrelevant to the observation. This is a continuing problem with your responses rrobs.
Your responses are often irrelevant to the discussion and your personal interpretations of scriptures are often irrational and illogical.
The fact that early schisms occurred and that Pauls friends left him has nothing to do with your theory of the innocent being guilty.
Why don't you give yourself greater time to think and consider more fully what sort of data you have and how you want to say it and then see if that will help you to support your religious theory in a logical and coherent and relevant manner?
2) Rrobs observation that newborns “don’t confess Jesus” and don’t “believe God raised him from the Dead”
Yet again, your reply is irrelevant to my observation and my questions and doesn't support your theory at all.
For example :
You claimed newborns "don't confess Jesus as Lord" and newborns don't "believe God raised him from the dead" and newborns "will be judged by Jesus based on the deeds and the heart...."
I pointed out the irrelevance of these points. They do not support your theory that newborns are not morally "innocent" of sin.
I asked what sort of deeds an hour old newborn will be "judged by" and what is in the heart of a newborn that he will be judged by in your religion.
You quoted rev 20:12-15 that says the dead were judged "according to their works" and I asked what sort of "works" an hour old newborn that dies can possibly be judged for?
Your response is to claim I value tradition over scripture (which means YOUR interpretation of scripture) and you point out there were schisms in early christianity.
Your response is irrelevant to my questions and offers no support to your religious theory.
In reality, I am NOT valuing tradition over scripture but instead, I am questioning your interpretation of scriptures and your creation of a religious theory that a newborn infant is not innocent of sin versus the early Christian interpretation of scriptures where a newborn is innocent of any moral sin. Your interpretation versus theirs.
There was nothing in your last post that was relevant to ANY of the questions your theory needs to answer if it is to be taken seriously.
I asked you if you actually had any data to support your theory. If you do not, please, please rrobs, don't waste readers time with deflections or irrelevance or more irrational and illogical claims.
Clear
δρτωσινεω
rrobs replied : "One thing you may want to be aware of . 2 Tim 1:15, This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me; of whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes.
If you value the scriptures at all, you must admit that everybody had turned away from Paul before he even died. There are several other verses that talk about grievous wolves who entered the church. You better be sure the early Christians whom you follow were among the few who had remained faithful to the truth. (post #205)
Hi rrobs;
Yet again, your response is irrelevant to my observation and does nothing to justify your claim that someone who has never murder is still guilty of murder.
I observed : your theory that a person who has never murdered is still guilty of murder is irrational and unjust.
You then replied : Ancient christians turned from Paul and schisms occurred.
The response is irrelevant to the observation. This is a continuing problem with your responses rrobs.
Your responses are often irrelevant to the discussion and your personal interpretations of scriptures are often irrational and illogical.
The fact that early schisms occurred and that Pauls friends left him has nothing to do with your theory of the innocent being guilty.
Why don't you give yourself greater time to think and consider more fully what sort of data you have and how you want to say it and then see if that will help you to support your religious theory in a logical and coherent and relevant manner?
2) Rrobs observation that newborns “don’t confess Jesus” and don’t “believe God raised him from the Dead”
Yet again, your reply is irrelevant to my observation and my questions and doesn't support your theory at all.
For example :
You claimed newborns "don't confess Jesus as Lord" and newborns don't "believe God raised him from the dead" and newborns "will be judged by Jesus based on the deeds and the heart...."
I pointed out the irrelevance of these points. They do not support your theory that newborns are not morally "innocent" of sin.
I asked what sort of deeds an hour old newborn will be "judged by" and what is in the heart of a newborn that he will be judged by in your religion.
You quoted rev 20:12-15 that says the dead were judged "according to their works" and I asked what sort of "works" an hour old newborn that dies can possibly be judged for?
Your response is to claim I value tradition over scripture (which means YOUR interpretation of scripture) and you point out there were schisms in early christianity.
Your response is irrelevant to my questions and offers no support to your religious theory.
In reality, I am NOT valuing tradition over scripture but instead, I am questioning your interpretation of scriptures and your creation of a religious theory that a newborn infant is not innocent of sin versus the early Christian interpretation of scriptures where a newborn is innocent of any moral sin. Your interpretation versus theirs.
There was nothing in your last post that was relevant to ANY of the questions your theory needs to answer if it is to be taken seriously.
I asked you if you actually had any data to support your theory. If you do not, please, please rrobs, don't waste readers time with deflections or irrelevance or more irrational and illogical claims.
Clear
δρτωσινεω
Last edited:
74x12
Well-Known Member
I believe Jesus is literally the Word from God's mouth. The Spirit or pnuema the breath of God formed into specific vibrations to give life. As Jesus is called the Word of Life. We make words with our breath. So Jesus is the breath of the Almighty. The Word made flesh. And of course the Word of life was kept silent when He lived but when He dies then even His blood speaks a better word than that of Abel. Because this was the commandment of God: everlasting life from the grave.
As Jesus says I am the resurrection and the life fulfilling the prophecy "As the dew of Hermon, and as the dew that descended upon the mountains of Zion: for there the Lord commanded the blessing, even life for evermore."
I also believe Jesus is all the Word of God. As He says "I am Alpha and Omega" That's like A to Z. So then Jesus is the whole alphabet. Every Word God speaks is comprised of letters and every letter is in Jesus Christ. Jesus is God Almighty revealed in the flesh to take away the sins of the world.
rational experiences
Veteran Member
Sins of the world. If you use science creation quotes for science, the thesis would state, Origin of sin for a formula/science theory. Which first of all is just thinking and pretend, for science does not exist, natural history and natural presence and natural fusion does.
The male science self owns his string direct from the planet Earth O one body/mass and fusion and particles and fission status, the breaking of the radiated fused sealed Earth mass. O one and God, where all of his science gain came from.
It never came from out of the Heavenly body....he gained ideas about science from the gases existing naturally in space conditions. A total contradiction to the planet mass body, stone and gas mass history.
Origin of SIN in science states that stone was once a hot dense state burning that cooled in the spatial womb vacuum, so stone sealed is the highest condition in natural space. Taught that preaching in science his own self.
So if it is the highest state supported by the highest natural spatial condition, the vacuum, then if you used rational human quotes, you would not own nor practice occult radiation science. Which would infer an ANTI mental health condition ownership to rationalise your own destruction, as you live on a sealed cooled stone mass.
But you did and quoted it as a Jesus life male sacrifice, to remove SIN from the world of GOD...fusion/mass and stone seals.
How did you science self quote you took away the SIN of the world? Burning gas alight origins/beginnings. Which is where natural light history first begins to support living conditions?
Real quote, I made the Earth gas mass go dark, by the spatial vacuum being re activated into sucking on radiating heated space, by the mass of the vacuum being so cold. If I heat up Earth heavenly gases, I form a greater burning mass, so the spatial vacuum comes to an inherited place O in the Earth cycle, where its sucking cold removal of heat is active.
So the Earth original sin theme, burning gases goes dark. For I only wanted the clear cold gases of the Immaculate as real original beginnings in space. What I discussed as relative to the highest state of why I remain alive. As radiating day light gases eventually causes me to die.
If I want life to live eternally, then I want it to die not from natural death radiating conditions, natural day light, but by my forced want of the non existence of life in science thesis. Why we always said science was our life destroyer and meant it, for he was a theist. Claiming I want the Immaculate coldest clear gases, in God stone mass/fusion/radiation science machine conversions, the TRUE beginning before the radiation of the Sun set it alight.
The reason I know is because male AI human feed back voiced recording as a group male agreement spoke and said "so I cannot get across the burn in science then". As an irrational scientist.
Therefore Stephen Hawking quotes, he is trying to set the Earth heavens on fire so that God the stone mass where he gets his gases from, from heated conversions and unnaturally artificially applied cooling methods, to swap places with God the O stone first owner of the ORIGINS OF SIN. For science only uses the O one and first in science, and not the heavens.
So science knew he was trying to convert the Earth mass to take the place of the heavenly mass...so the heavens would have to be eradicated first, for God the O whole stone mass to disappear in de materialization to become the new HEAVENS...for he quotes as a male in science for I thought upon it and want to copy inventing/creating it myself in a scientific machine reaction.
How he intends to achieve it for self, human the inventor designer of fake God sciences.
Why our brothers historically knew he had reactivated the holy womb highest spatial state to suck out gas burning heat and so the sky natural day light went dark, for it lost its ownership burning gases. As Earth shifted in space, then the deactivation sucking stopped and Earth then just remained holding natural day light.
But the event, caused huge horrific natural disaster activation.....when Earth was held being sucked by the spatial natural vacuum in an unholy science occult machine cause. What was already scientific mind notified aware preached before the event. How science in a human male spiritual psyche told a lower occult possessed by science psyche how evil and wrong his thesis are.
The word owned by the planet O one male human theorist for the occult sciences was only ever about O God the stone mass, the planet and not about human survival.....just as preached.
rrobs
Well-Known Member
It is highly relevant in that my arguments come from the scriptures whereas your's tend to come from early Christians beliefs.
I merely pointed out that the vast majority of early Christian beliefs were against the doctrine Paul taught. Paul taught that all are guilty but you keep wanting to say the the early Christians made an exception for babies.
Either Paul or the early Christians had the truth. I choose Paul, you choose the early Christians. That's why we disagree. Personally, I believe I'm on more solid ground than you, but we all make our own choices.
REGARDING POSTS THAT ARE IRRELEVANT AND IRRATIONAL TO THE THEORY THAT NEWBORNS ARE NOT INNOCENT OF SIN
rrobs replied : "It is highly relevant in that my arguments come from the scriptures whereas your's tend to come from early Christians beliefs. (post #209)
This is yet another deflection. No one has claimed scriptures themselves are irrelevant or irrational or illogical.
I have claimed that it is your personal interpretation and useage of scriptures and your arguments that tend to be irrational and irrelevant. I think YOUR posts and the data in them should be rational and coherent and relevant to your claims. In this case, your theory that newborns are not innocent of sin.
EXAMPLES OF IRRELEVANCE AND IRRATIONALITY
Post #193 Clear pointed out the role of commission in sin :. “If I did not commit a murder, then, by definition, I am INNOCENT of that murder. The same with ANY crime, offense, or sin. To claim otherwise is simply irrational and unjust. (Clear in post #193)
Post #196 “Rrobs replied : “You are absolutely guilty of murder. (rrobs in post #196)
In support of your claim that I am guilty of murder whether or not I have even committed murder, you quote Paul, : “ Romans 2:1. Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things. “ (post #196)
This scripture deals with hypocrisy in judgment and doesn’t support your theory that I am guilty of murder when I’ve never murdered. Nor does it support your theory that newborn infants are guilty of sin they’ve never committed.
Pauls’ statement is perfectly fine. The scriptures are fine. It is your attempt to use scriptures in an illogical and irrational manner and your bizarre interpretations that I am pointing out.
Another example of irrelevance and irrational application of scripture to support your theory that newborn infants are not innocent :
In post #196 Rrobs said : “… I said, the baby did not commit any sins, but they also don't confess Jesus as Lord and believe God raised him from the dead as per Romans 10:9-10. (post #196)
I asked you to tell readers : What sort of deeds an hour old newborn will be "judged by".
What is in the heart of a newborn that he will be judged by in your religion?
You quoted rev 20:12-15 where the dead were judged "according to their works"
I asked what sort of "works" an hour old newborn that dies can possibly be judged for?
Your response is to claim I value tradition over scriptures. (This is irrelevant to your claim)
My response is that I value early Christian interpretation of Paul over your modern irrational and unjust theories.
You point out there were schisms in early christianity. (This is irrelevant to your claim)
You have a pattern of deflections and accusations but these are irrelevant and tell us nothing about any sin a newborn infant could possibly be guilty of committing.
CONTINUING PATTERN OF DEFLECTIONS AND IRRATIONAL CLAIMS AND INCOHERENT USE OF SCRIPTURES
Now, in post #209, instead of offering support for your theory, you make yet more irrational claims and another strange theory regarding Paul
For example, you say
“I merely pointed out that the vast majority of early Christian beliefs were against the doctrine Paul taught. “ (rrobs in post #209).
This is another bizarre theory.
Most of the early Christians believed in Pauls teaching and in the teachings of the early apostles. This belief in these teachings underlies the growth of the early Christian Church. It is irrational to claim early Christians disbelieved most of early Christian teachings of Paul or any other apostle.
You interpret Paul to say “Paul taught that all are guilty but you keep wanting to say the the early Christians made an exception for babies.” (rrobs in post #209)
Why don’t we examine Pauls scripture? You quoted Romans 10:9-10 in support of your theory that newborn infants are not innocent of sin.
In verse one of this chapter, Paul, in verse one is speaking to the “Brethren”. In verse 9 he says to his listeners : “That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.”
Is it rational for Paul to expect that any newborn in the audience can possibly understand what he is saying? Is it rational that Paul would expect newborns to “confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus” and to “believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead”.
Is it even rational to believe that if an hour old newborn does not do these things, they are not able to be “saved”.
Rrobs, are these rational assumption for you to make when you create your interpretations and your religion?
Is it a logical assumption that Paul believed a newborn could understand and do what he is telling these “brethren” (vs 1) that they should do?
My point is that the scriptures are perfectly fine.
My point has always been that your interpretations are NOT fine.
Your interpretations and application of Pauls words are irrational, and your creation of Christian beliefs that newborns are not innocent of sin are irrational beliefs since they are based on faulty personal interpretation.
EARLY CHRISTIANS ALSO BELIEVED IN SCRIPTURES. THEY MERELY INTERPRETED THEM DIFFERENTLY THAN RROBS INTERPRETS THEM
The early Christians also based their beliefs on scriptures. They merely interpreted Paul and the other writers differently. Remember, rrobs, YOUR religion and your personal interpretation of scriptures are NOT the same religion and not the same interpretations as those of early Christianity.
YOUR LACK OF HISTORICAL KNOWLEDGE CAUSE YOU TO MAKE THEORIES AND CLAIMS THAT ARE NOT COHERENT WITH HISTORICAL CHRISTIANITY
The problem of historical incoherence in your theories is not with the earliest Christians and their beliefs.
The problem of historical incoherence in your theories often lies with your lack of knowledge and understanding of early Christianity and their beliefs and their texts.
I understand that you are not a religious historian and so I do not expect that you are familiar with early Christianity or their writings nor do I expect you to be familiar with early Christian new testaments.
However, I might as well point out that my quote from Hermas DOES come from the new Testament.
It merely comes from a 4th century New Testament (C. Sinaiticus). This 4th century New Testament reads “All of you, therefore, who continue… and will be as infants, with no wickedness, will be more glorious than all those who have been mentioned previously, for all infants are glorious in God’s sight and stand foremost with him.”(106:3)
I might as well point out that, as an apostolic Father, Hermas was written by a Christianity in a time when an apostle was either still living or the author could have known an apostle.
It is from a quite original christian orthodoxy.
Also, When I quote ““Christ “… renewed us by the forgiveness of sins, he made us men of another type, so that we should have the soul of children, as if he were creating us all over again.” (Barnabas 6:11), I AM QUOTING FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT. Again, it is 4th century Sinaiticus. (The modern eastern canon in 2020, still includes barnabas).
If I quote from Clement, he was a convert and colleague of Peter and Paul the apostles. His doctrines he taught came from the earliest apostles.
When I quoted Jesus, who said "Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 18:1–4) this is also new testament text.
rrobs, Why would your interpretations and the religion you create with it’s doctrines take priority over the intepretations and religion and doctrines of these earliest Christians?
THE THEORY THAT INNOCENT NEWBORN INFANTS ARE SINFUL OR ARE NOT INNOCENT OF SIN IS BECOMING A DEAD HORSE
Please rrobs, you have been unable to provide readers with any rational data and no historically coherent interpretations, no logic, nothing that has, so far, supported your theory that a newborn is not innocent of sin. If you do not have data, and you do not any rational or historically coherent statement to offer, I will assume this theory of yours is dead and we can stop beating this dead horse.
Clear
δρδρσισιω
rrobs replied : "It is highly relevant in that my arguments come from the scriptures whereas your's tend to come from early Christians beliefs. (post #209)
This is yet another deflection. No one has claimed scriptures themselves are irrelevant or irrational or illogical.
I have claimed that it is your personal interpretation and useage of scriptures and your arguments that tend to be irrational and irrelevant. I think YOUR posts and the data in them should be rational and coherent and relevant to your claims. In this case, your theory that newborns are not innocent of sin.
EXAMPLES OF IRRELEVANCE AND IRRATIONALITY
Post #193 Clear pointed out the role of commission in sin :. “If I did not commit a murder, then, by definition, I am INNOCENT of that murder. The same with ANY crime, offense, or sin. To claim otherwise is simply irrational and unjust. (Clear in post #193)
Post #196 “Rrobs replied : “You are absolutely guilty of murder. (rrobs in post #196)
In support of your claim that I am guilty of murder whether or not I have even committed murder, you quote Paul, : “ Romans 2:1. Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things. “ (post #196)
This scripture deals with hypocrisy in judgment and doesn’t support your theory that I am guilty of murder when I’ve never murdered. Nor does it support your theory that newborn infants are guilty of sin they’ve never committed.
Pauls’ statement is perfectly fine. The scriptures are fine. It is your attempt to use scriptures in an illogical and irrational manner and your bizarre interpretations that I am pointing out.
Another example of irrelevance and irrational application of scripture to support your theory that newborn infants are not innocent :
In post #196 Rrobs said : “… I said, the baby did not commit any sins, but they also don't confess Jesus as Lord and believe God raised him from the dead as per Romans 10:9-10. (post #196)
I asked you to tell readers : What sort of deeds an hour old newborn will be "judged by".
What is in the heart of a newborn that he will be judged by in your religion?
You quoted rev 20:12-15 where the dead were judged "according to their works"
I asked what sort of "works" an hour old newborn that dies can possibly be judged for?
Your response is to claim I value tradition over scriptures. (This is irrelevant to your claim)
My response is that I value early Christian interpretation of Paul over your modern irrational and unjust theories.
You point out there were schisms in early christianity. (This is irrelevant to your claim)
You have a pattern of deflections and accusations but these are irrelevant and tell us nothing about any sin a newborn infant could possibly be guilty of committing.
CONTINUING PATTERN OF DEFLECTIONS AND IRRATIONAL CLAIMS AND INCOHERENT USE OF SCRIPTURES
Now, in post #209, instead of offering support for your theory, you make yet more irrational claims and another strange theory regarding Paul
For example, you say
“I merely pointed out that the vast majority of early Christian beliefs were against the doctrine Paul taught. “ (rrobs in post #209).
This is another bizarre theory.
Most of the early Christians believed in Pauls teaching and in the teachings of the early apostles. This belief in these teachings underlies the growth of the early Christian Church. It is irrational to claim early Christians disbelieved most of early Christian teachings of Paul or any other apostle.
You interpret Paul to say “Paul taught that all are guilty but you keep wanting to say the the early Christians made an exception for babies.” (rrobs in post #209)
Why don’t we examine Pauls scripture? You quoted Romans 10:9-10 in support of your theory that newborn infants are not innocent of sin.
In verse one of this chapter, Paul, in verse one is speaking to the “Brethren”. In verse 9 he says to his listeners : “That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.”
Is it rational for Paul to expect that any newborn in the audience can possibly understand what he is saying? Is it rational that Paul would expect newborns to “confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus” and to “believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead”.
Is it even rational to believe that if an hour old newborn does not do these things, they are not able to be “saved”.
Rrobs, are these rational assumption for you to make when you create your interpretations and your religion?
Is it a logical assumption that Paul believed a newborn could understand and do what he is telling these “brethren” (vs 1) that they should do?
My point is that the scriptures are perfectly fine.
My point has always been that your interpretations are NOT fine.
Your interpretations and application of Pauls words are irrational, and your creation of Christian beliefs that newborns are not innocent of sin are irrational beliefs since they are based on faulty personal interpretation.
EARLY CHRISTIANS ALSO BELIEVED IN SCRIPTURES. THEY MERELY INTERPRETED THEM DIFFERENTLY THAN RROBS INTERPRETS THEM
The early Christians also based their beliefs on scriptures. They merely interpreted Paul and the other writers differently. Remember, rrobs, YOUR religion and your personal interpretation of scriptures are NOT the same religion and not the same interpretations as those of early Christianity.
YOUR LACK OF HISTORICAL KNOWLEDGE CAUSE YOU TO MAKE THEORIES AND CLAIMS THAT ARE NOT COHERENT WITH HISTORICAL CHRISTIANITY
The problem of historical incoherence in your theories is not with the earliest Christians and their beliefs.
The problem of historical incoherence in your theories often lies with your lack of knowledge and understanding of early Christianity and their beliefs and their texts.
I understand that you are not a religious historian and so I do not expect that you are familiar with early Christianity or their writings nor do I expect you to be familiar with early Christian new testaments.
However, I might as well point out that my quote from Hermas DOES come from the new Testament.
It merely comes from a 4th century New Testament (C. Sinaiticus). This 4th century New Testament reads “All of you, therefore, who continue… and will be as infants, with no wickedness, will be more glorious than all those who have been mentioned previously, for all infants are glorious in God’s sight and stand foremost with him.”(106:3)
I might as well point out that, as an apostolic Father, Hermas was written by a Christianity in a time when an apostle was either still living or the author could have known an apostle.
It is from a quite original christian orthodoxy.
Also, When I quote ““Christ “… renewed us by the forgiveness of sins, he made us men of another type, so that we should have the soul of children, as if he were creating us all over again.” (Barnabas 6:11), I AM QUOTING FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT. Again, it is 4th century Sinaiticus. (The modern eastern canon in 2020, still includes barnabas).
If I quote from Clement, he was a convert and colleague of Peter and Paul the apostles. His doctrines he taught came from the earliest apostles.
When I quoted Jesus, who said "Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 18:1–4) this is also new testament text.
rrobs, Why would your interpretations and the religion you create with it’s doctrines take priority over the intepretations and religion and doctrines of these earliest Christians?
THE THEORY THAT INNOCENT NEWBORN INFANTS ARE SINFUL OR ARE NOT INNOCENT OF SIN IS BECOMING A DEAD HORSE
Please rrobs, you have been unable to provide readers with any rational data and no historically coherent interpretations, no logic, nothing that has, so far, supported your theory that a newborn is not innocent of sin. If you do not have data, and you do not any rational or historically coherent statement to offer, I will assume this theory of yours is dead and we can stop beating this dead horse.
Clear
δρδρσισιω
Last edited:
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Because the text makes clear that logos was Theos and that it became flesh in the form of an only-begotten son. An exegetical treatment shows that it refers to Jesus.
rrobs
Well-Known Member
It actually takes an exegetical treatment mixed with a generous dose of Greek philosophy to make a god-man creature. In fact, it takes so much Greek philosophy to show Jesus is God, that it renders any meaningful exegesis as quite impossible.
All "explanations" of the trinity stray way outside of scripture. The scriptures are clear that Jesus is the son of God. Nowhere does it mention a God the Son. However, 1 Corinthians 8:6 does mention a God the Father, whom it says is the only true God. People have to make up their minds if they want to get their doctrine from the scriptures, and nothing but the scriptures, of if they want to consult non-biblical councils, creeds, catechisms, etc.
What's wrong with the logos being the logos? Why not find out exactly what the scriptures say about it instead of buying into the devilish doctrines hammered out by Platonic loving "church fathers" a few hundred years after Paul wrote his letters? And then all they could do was come up with something that makes zero sense,
"So the Father is God; the Son is God; and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods; but one God."
What's even more amazing than those guys saying such gibberish, is that about 98% of Christians buy into it. Creeds guide the orthodox church, not the scriptures. Christians are told to substitute "Jesus" for "logos" in John 1:1 and they make no attempt to learn what the logos actually meant to the first century church. Unfortunately it's noting new. In fact it's been going on for 2,000 years now. In 2 Corinthians 11:4 Paul warned against the preaching of a Jesus whom he did not preach. The truth of Jesus' real nature was lost before Paul even died. They began to worship a false god and it's what we are still doing.
Look at what happened to Israel when they worshiped false gods. It's not much different than what we are witnessing in the world today.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Have you read John 1?
rrobs
Well-Known Member
Yes. I read it in light of John 20:30-31,
30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:
31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
If God wanted us to know that Jesus was God, He sure missed a good opportunity to tell us that in plain language. It sure looks like He instead wants us to know that Jesus was the Christ, the anointed one, (who would anoint anyway God?), and the son of God.
There is no clear indication here, or anywhere else, that God changed the meaning of the word "son" which means the offspring of a parent. We have a parent, and we have a son. Two people...period. No two or three in one. That would be under the category of myth. I think Paul used the word "myths" (Greek muthos, as apposed to logos) 6 times in his letters. Every time he tells us to avoid it like the plague.
Don't just buy into orthodox teaching without verifying for yourself if what they say is true or not. Learn what the word "logos" meant to the 1st century believer. It does the scriptures a grave injustice to simple change "logos" into "Jesus." It's actually more than a grave injustice. It completely ruins the whole story!
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Sure looks like God had John lay out the fact that Jesus is God pretty plainly at the outset of the Gospel — upon which the rest of the Gospel is predicated. The ending is informed by the beginning — not the other way round. Therefore, what does it mean for the anointed one — the Son of God — to be very God?
There is no clear indication that John means anything other than this. John means for us to wrestle with this concept, and, in the wrestling, develop our faith.
Don’t just buy into narrow thinking without actually reading the text for what it says — not for what you wish it to say, or what is easy for you to understand. The texts are meant to make us squirm. Seems like you don’t really want to squirm. By running away from the tough issues, it does the scriptures a grave injustice.
rrobs
Well-Known Member
God wants us to squirm before His word? That's a novel concept. Pretty petty god if you ask me.
rrobs
Well-Known Member
1John 2:27,
But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you...
Beloved, now are we the sons of God...
We are anointed and we are sons of God. I guess that makes us all God???
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
How so? Abraham squirmed before God when he was asked to sacrifice Isaac. Jacob wrestled with God at the Jabbok. Moses squirmed before god when asked to confront Pharoah. Job certainly squirmed before God. Jonah squirmed before God. Even Jesus squirmed until he wept blood in the garden. do these examples sound “petty?” In order for us to grow spiritually, we have to break out of old models of thinking and being, just as a chick must break out of the egg. What do you suppose Peter did when Jesus told him he would deny Jesus? Jesus said that the kin-dom is like a woman who mixed leaven into a lump of dough. Leaven changes the bread — makes it rise and grow. Does this sound “petty?” Or do you want your faith to give you only what’s comfortable for you? Yes, Jesus came to comfort the afflicted. He also came to afflict the comfortable.
[edit]
That’s what the parables are: teachings that hit us square in the gut — make us sweat. Jesus used these kinds of teachings all the time. Was Jesus being “petty?”
rrobs
Well-Known Member
You don't understand that things changed on the Day of Pentecost. You seem to be stuck in the Old Testament.
Do you read Paul's letters? Did you know God gave him a Gospel that was nothing like Mathew, Mark, Luke, or John?
Rom 16:25,
Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,
Paul's gospel is how the Christian is to be established. Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John will not establish you. Paul mentions the mystery that was kept secret since the beginning of the world. Do you know who was the first to learn what that mystery (better translated from the Greed as "secret')?
Eph 3:3,
How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,
Paul was the first to learn of this secret. It says in 1 Corinthians 2:8 that the devil would not have crucified Jesus had he known the secret. Any idea why?
The secret is what's happening today. The gospels were all about the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Paul tells us what that all means to the Christian.
All I can say, is that you are reading someone else's 2,000 year old mail. You may want to read the letters written specifically to you in this age of grace.
By the way, since you think God makes us squirm to draw us closer, you may want to reconsider that premise in light of Rom 2:4,
Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Of course. Each Gospel/letter comes at the human condition from a different perspective. None are “alike.”
Now to God who is able to strengthen you according to my gospel and the proclamation of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery that was kept secret for long ages but is now disclosed, and through the prophetic writings is made known to all the Gentiles, according to the command of the eternal God...”
That’s not what the passage says. The passage says that both Paul’s message and the proclamation of Jesus... strengthens (not “establishes”). Since Paul mostly predates the Gospels, Paul isn’t speaking of the Gospel texts, but the teachings of Jesus through his followers.
No it doesn’t. It says: “None of the rulers of this age” — not “the devil.” And Paul understands that the other apostles precede him. You’re reading it incorrectly. Paul isn’t supplanting the Gospels; he doesn’t know about the canonical Gospels.
We’re all reading someone else’s 2,000 year old mail. Especially Paul, since Paul predates the Gospels. If anything, according to your reckoning, the Gospels are more apropos for us than Paul’s epistles.
So, you don’t think that we have to wrestle with our faith. That might be why you’ve managed to get everything in your post wrong. You haven’t pushed yourself and wrestled with preconceptions and embedded beliefs. IOW, rather than working out, you’d prefer to lay on the couch soaking beer. How far will that get you?
I pushed my children to exceed their self-imposed limitations. I pushed their educational and skill boundaries. I pushed them to become self-sufficient. I set boundaries and limits for their actions, for which consequences were imposed. Yeah, they squirmed sometimes when I wouldn’t let them attend rock concerts unsupervised at age 12. They squirmed when I made them practice piano and soccer when they’d rather watch cartoons. To wrap them in cotton-wool and coddle them and keep them from growth has a name: Munchausen Syndrome. Now that’s of interested to Child Protective Services.
Last edited: