Was Jesus taught by the Jews [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Was Jesus taught by the Jews


achysklic
05-06-2011, 07:42
Alot of confusion seems to center around the fact that since Jesus was born a Jew he partook of and was taught by the Jews.

How many believe this?
If so why supporting facts?

Vic Hays
05-06-2011, 08:49
John 17:8 For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have recieved them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.

Surely Jesus mother and father were Jews, but he did not receive formal education from the Jews. Letters refers to training usually received by formal schooling.

John 7:15 And the Jews marveled, saying, How knoweth this man letters, having never learned?

achysklic
05-06-2011, 08:54
So who taught Him?

muscogee
05-06-2011, 15:38
So who taught Him?

The Essenes.

Brasso
05-06-2011, 15:41
It was fairly common for all Jews to have about memorized the Torah by the time they were adults. Besides, He was a Jew. He partook of the usual Feast Days, Sabbath, and obeyed the commandments. And, He was the son of YHWH after all. He was the Living Torah.

achysklic
05-06-2011, 16:31
The Essenes.

The Essenes could not have taught him, since Jesus throughout the gospels strongly denounced the jews.JOHN 7:15 shows the jews asked how Jesus knew the books but was never schooled.

ISaIAH prophesied of Jesus being taught by God the Father.

HOW could the jews not know this?

Guss
05-06-2011, 20:10
Jesus had spent time in Egypt. We have no record of many of his years or where he spent them. He could well have learned things elsewhere. For instance, that "turn the other cheek" stuff that didn't fit in with the local traditions might have been derived from spending time in a Buddhist area.

AlexHassin
05-06-2011, 20:14
The Essenes could not have taught him, since Jesus throughout the gospels strongly denounced the jews.JOHN 7:15 shows the jews asked how Jesus knew the books but was never schooled.

ISaIAH prophesied of Jesus being taught by God the Father.

HOW could the jews not know this?
Just because you learned from someone does not mean you like them. I attended a catholic school for a while. Does not mean I agree with them in any sense at all. oww catholic school girls, those where the days

bandmasterjf
05-06-2011, 20:53
Alot of confusion seems to center around the fact that since Jesus was born a Jew he partook of and was taught by the Jews.

How many believe this?
If so why supporting facts?


John 1 <SUP id=en-NIV-26046 class=versenum>1</SUP> In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

It seems pretty presumptuous that anyone could teach The Word of God about the Word of God.:dunno:
<TABLE class=grid border=0 summary="This table summarizes your payment" width="100%"><TBODY><TR class=gridvalue><TD noWrap><TABLE class=grid border=0 summary="This table summarizes your payment" width="100%"><TBODY><TR class=gridvalue><TD noWrap>
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Shinesintx
05-06-2011, 21:01
John 1 <sup id="en-NIV-26046" class="versenum">1</sup> In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

It seems pretty presumptuous that anyone could teach The Word of God about the Word of God.:dunno:<table class="grid" summary="This table summarizes your payment" border="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr class="gridvalue"><td nowrap="nowrap"><table class="grid" summary="This table summarizes your payment" border="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr class="gridvalue"><td nowrap="nowrap">
</td></tr></tbody></table>

</td></tr></tbody></table>

Pretty much sums it up. Good, scratch that, GREAT post.

muscogee
05-07-2011, 02:17
The Essenes could not have taught him, since Jesus throughout the gospels strongly denounced the jews.JOHN 7:15 shows the jews asked how Jesus knew the books but was never schooled.

ISaIAH prophesied of Jesus being taught by God the Father.

HOW could the jews not know this?

Only John denounced the Jews. the other three Gospels do not. This makes more sense since all of the original Christians were Jews.

The Essene practiced daily baptism and felt their mission was to "make straight the way of the Lord" (i.e., prepare for the coming of the Messiah). they practiced poverty and absence from worldly pleasures, including marriage. Every day they prayed for the Lord to give them their daily bread.

How do you explain the following verses?

19:30 saying to them, "Go into the village facing you. On entering it you will find an ass's foal tied up which no one has ever yet ridden: untie it, and bring it here.
19:31 And if any one asks you, `Why are you untying the colt?' simply say, `The Master needs it.'"

Luke 22:10 "You will no sooner have entered the city," He replied, "than you will meet a man carrying a pitcher of water. Follow him into the house to which he goes,

FifthFreedom
05-08-2011, 22:32
Assuming he existed, he would have been taught more than likely by his parents since it is one of the 613 commandments. We are to teach the words of Torah to our children. Since his parents would have been Jewish, they had that obligation. Had they not, they would have been in transgression.

Toorop
05-11-2011, 02:00
He was also punished by them because he blasphemed their religion. So they nailed him to a 2x4 and had themselves a crucifixion.

Reminds me of the ol' West when people had themselves a lynchin'.

FifthFreedom
05-11-2011, 06:55
He was also punished by them because he blasphemed their religion. So they nailed him to a 2x4 and had themselves a crucifixion.

Reminds me of the ol' West when people had themselves a lynchin'.


who is "them"?
The romans? Those are the ones who killed him. "Blaspheming Judaism is not a capitol offense under Jewish Law in any case..try getting your facts straight.

Vic Hays
05-11-2011, 09:38
Assuming he existed, he would have been taught more than likely by his parents since it is one of the 613 commandments. We are to teach the words of Torah to our children. Since his parents would have been Jewish, they had that obligation. Had they not, they would have been in transgression.


Yes, His parents had that obligation as do all parents have an obligation to teach their children. Yet, all things are hardly dependent upon what men can or may do.

The Father had the obligation also to teach His Son through the Holy Spirit.

Matthew 3:17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, this is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

hannielonline
05-11-2011, 09:56
Alot of confusion seems to center around the fact that since Jesus was born a Jew he partook of and was taught by the Jews.

How many believe this?
If so why supporting facts?


Let me gain some understanding, His earthly mother and father were both Hebrews. He was born a Jew by birth. His upbringing was Jewish culture surrounded by Romans who allowed conquered culture to retain their identity. I would say He was taught and kept the Torah.

ArtificialGrape
05-11-2011, 11:17
Let me gain some understanding, His earthly mother and father were both Hebrews. He was born a Jew by birth. His upbringing was Jewish culture surrounded by Romans who allowed conquered culture to retain their identity. I would say He was taught and kept the Torah.
Not to mention that being the Logos would bestow certain advantages.

achysklic
05-11-2011, 13:52
In john 8 Jesus plainly tells us that The Father was the one whom taught him. The Rabbis knew he wasn't taught by the Jews or scholars of the day.

John 8:<sup class="versenum" id="en-KJV-26408">26</sup>I have many things to say and to judge of you: but he that sent me is true; and I speak to the world those things which I have heard of him. <sup class="versenum" id="en-KJV-26409">27</sup>They understood not that he spake to them of the Father.
<sup class="versenum" id="en-KJV-26410">28</sup>Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.

FifthFreedom
05-12-2011, 08:32
In john 8 Jesus plainly tells us that The Father was the one whom taught him. The Rabbis knew he wasn't taught by the Jews or scholars of the day.

John 8:<sup class="versenum" id="en-KJV-26408">26</sup>I have many things to say and to judge of you: but he that sent me is true; and I speak to the world those things which I have heard of him. <sup class="versenum" id="en-KJV-26409">27</sup>They understood not that he spake to them of the Father.
<sup class="versenum" id="en-KJV-26410">28</sup>Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.


Well here is is referring to himself as "BenAdam"

never claimed he was literally the The son of G-d. Lest he would not refer to himself in such a manner.

achysklic
05-13-2011, 05:33
Well here is is referring to himself as "BenAdam"

never claimed he was literally the The son of G-d. Lest he would not refer to himself in such a manner.

Jesus always referred to Himself as BenAdam or son of Adam. But did you also read on in that verse where he states His Father (God) taught him?

I have a quick question, who is the" US " in the book of Gen. referring to?

Toorop
05-13-2011, 13:02
who is "them"?
The romans? Those are the ones who killed him. "Blaspheming Judaism is not a capitol offense under Jewish Law in any case..try getting your facts straight.

Them is the Jews. They had him executed for his crimes. Its in the Bible.

ArtificialGrape
05-13-2011, 13:11
Them is the Jews. They had him executed for his crimes. Its in the Bible.
sedition vs. blasphemy

jms123
05-13-2011, 13:26
John 1 <sup id="en-NIV-26046" class="versenum">1</sup> In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

It seems pretty presumptuous that anyone could teach The Word of God about the Word of God.:dunno:
<table class="grid" summary="This table summarizes your payment" border="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr class="gridvalue"><td nowrap="nowrap"><table class="grid" summary="This table summarizes your payment" border="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr class="gridvalue"><td nowrap="nowrap">
</td></tr></tbody></table>

</td></tr></tbody></table>
Nicely said!
its happens to be my favorite bible passage.

Shinesintx
05-13-2011, 13:32
Let me gain some understanding, His earthly mother and father were both Hebrews. He was born a Jew by birth. His upbringing was Jewish culture surrounded by Romans who allowed conquered culture to retain their identity. I would say He was taught and kept the Torah.

Your post confuses me. Please read the scripture below...

John 1 <sup id="en-NIV-26046" class="versenum">1</sup> In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Does that help?

<table class="grid" summary="This table summarizes your payment" border="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr class="gridvalue"><td nowrap="nowrap"><table class="grid" summary="This table summarizes your payment" border="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr class="gridvalue"><td nowrap="nowrap">
</td></tr></tbody></table>

</td></tr></tbody></table>

muscogee
05-13-2011, 13:51
Your post confuses me. Please read the scripture below...

John 1 <sup id="en-NIV-26046" class="versenum">1</sup> In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Does that help?

<table class="grid" summary="This table summarizes your payment" border="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr class="gridvalue"><td nowrap="nowrap"><table class="grid" summary="This table summarizes your payment" border="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr class="gridvalue"><td nowrap="nowrap">
</td></tr></tbody></table>

</td></tr></tbody></table>

John reads like something the Oracle at Delphi would say. You can read anything you want into it. Especially after the fact.

Toorop
05-16-2011, 12:17
sedition vs. blasphemy
I would argue blasphemy more then sedition but it depends more if you are a Jew or a Roman.

Either way I will state this proudly...

if I was one of the Roman guards who nailed him to the cross, I would have been proud to do my job and would nail him to the cross today if it was legal and I was given the honor.

You break the laws, well you get whats coming to you. I have seen it said over in Coptalk... "Play stupid games, win stupid prizes."

Blast
05-16-2011, 13:02
I would argue blasphemy more then sedition but it depends more if you are a Jew or a Roman.

Either way I will state this proudly...

if I was one of the Roman guards who nailed him to the cross, I would have been proud to do my job and would nail him to the cross today if it was legal and I was given the honor.

You break the laws, well you get whats coming to you. I have seen it said over in Coptalk... "Play stupid games, win stupid prizes."

Coming from an expert of stupid games.:rofl:

muscogee
05-16-2011, 15:01
I would argue blasphemy more then sedition but it depends more if you are a Jew or a Roman.

Either way I will state this proudly...

if I was one of the Roman guards who nailed him to the cross, I would have been proud to do my job and would nail him to the cross today if it was legal and I was given the honor.

You break the laws, well you get whats coming to you. I have seen it said over in Coptalk... "Play stupid games, win stupid prizes."

Rome crucified messiahs on a regular basis. Jesus was not unique.

hannielonline
05-16-2011, 18:04
Your post confuses me. Please read the scripture below...

John 1 <sup id="en-NIV-26046" class="versenum">1</sup> In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Does that help?

<table class="grid" summary="This table summarizes your payment" width="100%" border="0"><tbody><tr class="gridvalue"><td nowrap="nowrap"><table class="grid" summary="This table summarizes your payment" width="100%" border="0"><tbody><tr class="gridvalue"><td nowrap="nowrap">
</td></tr></tbody></table>

</td></tr></tbody></table>

I wasn't confused. I know who Jesus is. The question from the OP is what I was responding too. Jesus was and is a Jew so I thought the question was a bit weird. If His Earthly parents were Jews and He was born a Jew then of course He was taught by Jews. He kept the Torah because He was a Jew, HE didn't break it. His divinity is not in question.

achysklic
05-16-2011, 18:40
I wasn't confused. I know who Jesus is. The question from the OP is what I was responding too. Jesus was and is a Jew so I thought the question was a bit weird. If His Earthly parents were Jews and He was born a Jew then of course He was taught by Jews. He kept the Torah because He was a Jew, HE didn't break it. His divinity is not in question.

But Jesus wasn't taught by the jews, that's my whole point. The father taught him all things. The jews even made the statement that he wasn't taught as a jew.

rgregoryb
05-16-2011, 19:32
I would argue blasphemy more then sedition but it depends more if you are a Jew or a Roman.

Either way I will state this proudly...

if I was one of the Roman guards who nailed him to the cross, I would have been proud to do my job and would nail him to the cross today if it was legal and I was given the honor.

You break the laws, well you get whats coming to you. I have seen it said over in Coptalk... "Play stupid games, win stupid prizes."

I would see you more as cabin boy on a Roman ship named the "Raging Queen"

rgregoryb
05-16-2011, 19:33
He probably went to a Catholic school

bandmasterjf
05-16-2011, 22:08
He probably went to a Catholic school

Dispite what some might say, there was no Catholic Church 'till well over 300 years later.

rgregoryb
05-17-2011, 06:59
Dispite what some might say, there was no Catholic Church 'till well over 300 years later.

sarcasm, just sarcasm

Toorop
05-17-2011, 12:43
I would see you more as cabin boy on a Roman ship named the "Raging Queen"

I don't swing that way. I am not a priest.

Schabesbert
05-17-2011, 12:57
Dispite what some might say, there was no Catholic Church 'till well over 300 years later.
Not true.
At all.
But, par for the course with this poster.

herose
05-17-2011, 13:54
Toorop: I would argue blasphemy more then sedition but it depends more if you are a Jew or a Roman.

Either way I will state this proudly...

if I was one of the Roman guards who nailed him to the cross, I would have been proud to do my job and would nail him to the cross today if it was legal and I was given the honor.

You break the laws, well you get whats coming to you. I have seen it said over in Coptalk... "Play stupid games, win stupid prizes."

Try again. The charges leveled against him were false. That's why they tried him illegally. They didn't follow their own rules of procedure because they knew they were setting him up and didn't have a leg to stand on.

Brasso
05-17-2011, 14:26
Try again. The charges leveled against him were false. That's why they tried him illegally. They didn't follow their own rules of procedure because they knew they were setting him up and didn't have a leg to stand on.


I believe it was more of an attempt to quell the Jewish leadership. Rome found He had committed no crime and Pilate wanted to let Him go. It was the Jewish leadership that was so against Him and riled up the crowd. Remember, there were a lot of Jews who believed in Him too. It was because He hadn't committed a crime, either by Roman or Jewish Law that they gave Him to the Romans and even the Romans didn't kill Him without a lot of pushing.

His crime was being King of Jews and it was nailed to His stake. The same verbage Paul uses when he tells us that He nailed our crimes to His stake also. Col 2:14

herose
05-17-2011, 16:19
:thumbsup: Exactly Brasso

rgregoryb
05-17-2011, 18:54
I don't swing that way. I am not a priest.

good one! :supergrin:

hannielonline
05-19-2011, 08:00
But Jesus wasn't taught by the jews, that's my whole point. The father taught him all things. The jews even made the statement that he wasn't taught as a jew.

Show where it says that in the Bible.

ChiefWPD
05-19-2011, 13:30
I find many of the discussions on Religious Issues enlightening but have never posted on this forum before. From my perspective, that of a Jewish sixty-five year old guy, this discussion is a uniquely interesting one.

Let me preface my remarks by stating that I take Jefferson’s position on a person’s religious beliefs; “It (speaking of religious beliefs) neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." So, I will take pains not to offend anyone with my thoughts on this matter. Religion is, ultimately, a matter of faith. And faith is not debatable.

Jesus lived in a household where his father, mother and siblings were all Jews. Growing up, his parents had to teach him all the things they taught their other children; how to dress, personal hygiene, how to perform chores. I think it highly unlikely he’d say to his father that, as a deity, he was above such things. I don’t think his siblings would be terribly sympathetic to such a plea.

As Jesus was an observant Jew (for example, he partook in the Passover Seder, the last supper), he had to be taught all the rules of his religion; both by his father and by a Rabbi (a teacher); how to read and write the language of the bible and holy books, how to comport himself during religious services among other adherents to his belief structure.

I have no doubt that as he grew he formed his religious views, which obviously rang true to one segment of the society and which caused much angst in others. In order to formulate his thoughts on such matters he would have had to engage in vigorous debate with other Jews on points of religious law (trust me on this one, in an argument between two Jews you’ll have three opinions. Don’t ask me how I know…).

My understanding of the historical record regarding Jesus is that his youth and formative years were not recorded by anyone (or, at least they were not included in any existing written records we have of him.) Which is a shame, as there would be many things of interest contained in such material.

At any rate, I cannot see how it would have even been possible for Jesus not have been taught by Jews, nor how this might detract from how others view him or his position within the various Christian denominations.

Go in peace.


:wavey:

Schabesbert
05-19-2011, 14:47
I find many of the discussions on Religious Issues enlightening but have never posted on this forum before. From my perspective, that of a Jewish sixty-five year old guy, this discussion is a uniquely interesting one.
Welcome. :wavey:

And faith is not debatable.
Well, that's debatable. :whistling:
Seriously, though, my faith needs to be a reasonable faith. "The heart cannot rejoice in that which the mind rejects."

Jesus lived in a household where his father, mother and siblings were all Jews.
Jesus most likely didn't have siblings. If He did, they were children of St. Joseph and a previous wife (some documents say that he was a widower), and they would have been considerably older than Jesus.

I have no doubt that as he grew he formed his religious views, which obviously rang true to one segment of the society and which caused much angst in others. In order to formulate his thoughts on such matters he would have had to engage in vigorous debate with other Jews on points of religious law (trust me on this one, in an argument between two Jews you’ll have three opinions. Don’t ask me how I know…).

My understanding of the historical record regarding Jesus is that his youth and formative years were not recorded by anyone (or, at least they were not included in any existing written records we have of him.) Which is a shame, as there would be many things of interest contained in such material.
Actually, we do have one such discussion referred to in scripture, when Jesus was about 12. See Luke 2:41-47 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%202:41-47&version=NIV)
At any rate, I cannot see how it would have even been possible for Jesus not have been taught by Jews, nor how this might detract from how others view him or his position within the various Christian denominations.
True, but I think some emphasize His divinity to the detraction of His humanity. He is fully God, and yet fully man.

Edited to add:
I remember the howls of indignation a while back when I referenced the Blessed Virgin Mary as "the woman who taught God to pray."

Think about it.

achysklic
05-19-2011, 18:24
Welcome. :wavey:


Well, that's debatable. :whistling:
Seriously, though, my faith needs to be a reasonable faith. "The heart cannot rejoice in that which the mind rejects."


Jesus most likely didn't have siblings. If He did, they were children of St. Joseph and a previous wife (some documents say that he was a widower), and they would have been considerably older than Jesus.


Actually, we do have one such discussion referred to in scripture, when Jesus was about 12. See Luke 2:41-47 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%202:41-47&version=NIV)

True, but I think some emphasize His divinity to the detraction of His humanity. He is fully God, and yet fully man.

Edited to add:
I remember the howls of indignation a while back when I referenced the Blessed Virgin Mary as "the woman who taught God to pray."

Think about it.


You say Jesus most likely didn't have siblings. The bible says differently and you know it does.

As for Mary teaching God to pray? Nope.

Jesus himeself said: The Father (God) taught Him ALL things. Note Mary is not included, if she had taught Him something as personal as prayer He would have included it.

Why must you catholics always continue to ADD to the scripture?

Do you not seriously care what the punishment for it is?

Peace all

bandmasterjf
05-19-2011, 22:48
John 1 <SUP id=en-NIV-26046 class=versenum>1</SUP> In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

It seems pretty presumptuous that anyone could teach The Word of God about the Word of God.:dunno:

<TABLE class=grid border=0 summary="This table summarizes your payment" width="100%"><TBODY><TR class=gridvalue><TD noWrap><TABLE class=grid border=0 summary="This table summarizes your payment" width="100%"><TBODY><TR class=gridvalue><TD noWrap>


</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>



</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>


I don't see how anyone can get around this unless you do not accept devinity of Christ. Those Jewish guys on here, I can understand that you don't and accept your beliefs for what they are. I'm not even going to attempt to change your mind. But for those who claim to know Christ, there is no way to argue the quote.

bandmasterjf
05-19-2011, 23:01
Not true.
At all.
But, par for the course with this poster.


Councel of Nicea 325 was the begining of the CC. Even then it wasnt remotely what you call the RCC.

Schabesbert
05-20-2011, 08:52
I don't see how anyone can get around this unless you do not accept devinity of Christ.
Like I said, some (even from the beginning), emphesized His divinity to the exclusion of His humanity.

Jesus humbled Himself to take on human form.

Or, do you think that as a baby, He didn't need to be changed? He could walk, and talk, and feed Himself?


Php 2:5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,
6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
7 but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.
8 And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross.

Schabesbert
05-20-2011, 09:00
Councel of Nicea 325 was the begining of the CC. Even then it wasnt remotely what you call the RCC.
Great. An actual date.

First, you won't find any such thing, historically. But second, and most importantly, you are left with the problem of the ante-Nicene Church, which by all accounts held beliefs that you firmly reject, and which the Catholic Church still, to this day, holds in her doctrines.

bandmasterjf
05-20-2011, 11:22
Great. An actual date.

First, you won't find any such thing, historically. But second, and most importantly, you are left with the problem of the ante-Nicene Church, which by all accounts held beliefs that you firmly reject, and which the Catholic Church still, to this day, holds in her doctrines.

Won't find it? Did you take Western Civ in College? Of course you could also bring up Theadosis who just after the councel of Nicea 370-390's decided to slaughter all of the other Christianities that didn't agree with his version. That was real Christ like. :cool: Then you have those dark ages of the RCC where the popes were marrying thier sisters plugging little boys and killing folks for power. I guess they are still doing some of that. :tongueout: Of course at that time the only real Catholics were coming out of Ireland where they could still read and write.

Brasso
05-20-2011, 11:51
Originally Posted by bandmasterjf
John 1 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

It seems pretty presumptuous that anyone could teach The Word of God about the Word of God.


Kind of throws a monkey wrench into traditional Christian theology doesn't it? He is the same yesterday, today, and forever. The Word (Torah) made flesh.

ChiefWPD
05-20-2011, 12:16
If I might be permitted to interject once more in this ecumenical conversation. This will be my last posting on the matter, promise. I simply don’t have sufficient knowledge of the New Testament to understand, or evaluate, the conflicts I’m seeing discussed among those involved in this discussion.

Back to the question first proposed by the OP –“Was Jesus taught by the Jews?”– I think I understand the position taken by some posters that Jesus was a deity, and his father, God, had given him all the knowledge he was required to know (I hope I’m getting this right). My confusion comes from my trying to envision a child (my understanding is that he was a human child), raised and nurtured by his family (whoever they were, there seems to be some dispute among the posters about that as well), who came to adulthood already fully “downloaded” with all knowledge in him. This would mean that his mother and father (the people in his household) did not train him on how to deal with basic life needs and issues; how to comport himself among others around him according to the standards and mores of their culture, how to read and write and partake in the rituals expected of all Jews of that period.

If that were the case then why wouldn’t he have gone out and preached to the people once he reached the age of thirteen or so? Why wait until he was thirty years of age? And why then had it been necessary for him to learn the trade of carpenter? Was he apprenticed to that or was that skill given to him by God as well?

I’ll leave this discussion to others, but trust you can see that from someone whose belief paradigm never included accepting many of the underlying material that makes up the references alluded to in his post, it is a confusing story to understand.


:wavey:

bandmasterjf
05-20-2011, 13:37
Kind of throws a monkey wrench into traditional Christian theology doesn't it? He is the same yesterday, today, and forever. The Word (Torah) made flesh.


I guess that depends on your perspective. Doesn't throw any monkey wrenches for me. Now for those who believe that they must go to someone else to be able to understand it that's probably different. The Word speeks directly to those who have a relationship with The Word.

bandmasterjf
05-20-2011, 13:46
If I might be permitted to interject once more in this ecumenical conversation. This will be my last posting on the matter, promise. I simply don’t have sufficient knowledge of the New Testament to understand, or evaluate, the conflicts I’m seeing discussed among those involved in this discussion.

Back to the question first proposed by the OP –“Was Jesus taught by the Jews?”– I think I understand the position taken by some posters that Jesus was a deity, and his father, God, had given him all the knowledge he was required to know (I hope I’m getting this right). My confusion comes from my trying to envision a child (my understanding is that he was a human child), raised and nurtured by his family (whoever they were, there seems to be some dispute among the posters about that as well), who came to adulthood already fully “downloaded” with all knowledge in him. This would mean that his mother and father (the people in his household) did not train him on how to deal with basic life needs and issues; how to comport himself among others around him according to the standards and mores of their culture, how to read and write and partake in the rituals expected of all Jews of that period.

If that were the case then why wouldn’t he have gone out and preached to the people once he reached the age of thirteen or so? Why wait until he was thirty years of age? And why then had it been necessary for him to learn the trade of carpenter? Was he apprenticed to that or was that skill given to him by God as well?

I’ll leave this discussion to others, but trust you can see that from someone whose belief paradigm never included accepting many of the underlying material that makes up the references alluded to in his post, it is a confusing story to understand.


:wavey:

Let me ask you this. How did Adam learn to walk, talk. How did he name the animals being void of language? If the same God who created Adam put Himself into the flesh of the child I would say he wouldn't need the help. I do believe He allowed Himself to grow up as a relatively normal child and into manhood among His peers. Living a perfect blameless life as a man was necessary for Him to be the final necessary blood sacrifice that covered all of man's sins from that point on.

From my perspective there is no conflict, but I can certainly understand where there would be from a Jewish background.

Schabesbert
05-20-2011, 17:43
Originally Posted by Schabesbert
Great. An actual date.

First, you won't find any such thing, historically. But second, and most importantly, you are left with the problem of the ante-Nicene Church, which by all accounts held beliefs that you firmly reject, and which the Catholic Church still, to this day, holds in her doctrines.
Won't find it? Did you take Western Civ in College?
If YOU did, you should demand a refund.

Of course you could also bring up Theadosis who just after the councel of Nicea 370-390's decided to slaughter all of the other Christianities that didn't agree with his version. That was real Christ like. :cool: Then you have those dark ages of the RCC where the popes were marrying thier sisters plugging little boys and killing folks for power. I guess they are still doing some of that. :tongueout: Of course at that time the only real Catholics were coming out of Ireland where they could still read and write.
Oh, is this where you start coming out with malicious non-sequitors to cover up the vapidity of your beliefs? You're a bit early this time. You usually wait a little longer to do that. Not much, just a little.

I had been talking about ante-Nicene Catholic beliefs. You might need to look up the prefix ante since you seem to be confused.

Must not've taught you that in "College." You really do deserve a refund.

bandmasterjf
05-20-2011, 22:22
If YOU did, you should demand a refund.


Oh, is this where you start coming out with malicious non-sequitors to cover up the vapidity of your beliefs? You're a bit early this time. You usually wait a little longer to do that. Not much, just a little.

I had been talking about ante-Nicene Catholic beliefs. You might need to look up the prefix ante since you seem to be confused.

Must not've taught you that in "College." You really do deserve a refund.

The fact is Bert that there was no real coherent church until hundreds of years later. Have you ever read any history that wasn't written by a Cathoic. You would be suprised what's out there. Did you know the word is round, and dead flesh doesn't create maggots.
There was fighting between the different Christian factions and a lot of fighting within the Catholic church. Of course that was hundreds of years later when the RCC actually existed. Did you go to Catholic college where they only teach the Popes version of history? Even well into the 10th century the idolatry that you guys so enjoy now was still outlawed. Only after all of those dead saint's heads and fingers started raking in cash for the church did they allow them to be encased in gold, jewels and displayed for all to see. At a price of course. That's the RCC for you out for the all-mighty dollar, theology be darned.

Schabesbert
05-23-2011, 10:40
The fact is Bert that there was no real coherent church until hundreds of years later.
That's not true, either from a historical or from a scriptural basis.

In fact, the established ecumenical model in Matthew's Gospel is one reason that many "Jesus-Seminar" types argue that it had to have been written later, with these beliefs written back in. They're wrong, but they do at least know more on the subject than you do.

Have you ever read any history that wasn't written by a Cathoic.
I'm presuming that this is a question (in English, we use a question mark to punctuate an interrogative).

Yes, I have. And that history which isn't a polemic far more often agrees with what I've written, and not your beliefs. At least when written by credentialed, credible historians.

Even IF you could point to a history book supporting your claims, I'd be very interested to hear your arguments suggesting that everything printed in textbooks is 100% accurate.

You would be suprised what's out there. Did you know the word is round, and dead flesh doesn't create maggots.



There was fighting between the different Christian factions and a lot of fighting within the Catholic church.
Of course there was. THAT, my friend, is precisely why Christ instituted His Church: to determine the Truth among competing versions.

Of course that was hundreds of years later when the RCC actually existed. Did you go to Catholic college where they only teach the Popes version of history?
Sorry, no. But I was actually educating myself on these issues while you were enjoying your drunken stupors.

Even well into the 10th century the idolatry that you guys so enjoy now was still outlawed. Only after all of those dead saint's heads and fingers started raking in cash for the church did they allow them to be encased in gold, jewels and displayed for all to see. At a price of course. That's the RCC for you out for the all-mighty dollar, theology be darned.
This isn't true, of course, but you're free to tell all kinds of lies in this country, with the only result being the loss of your credibility (not much of a loss in this case, since there isn't much credibility left for this poster except among those who are themselves lacking in any love of Truth.)

But, how does rambling on about the 10th century lend any pertinent information to the discussion of the first few centuries? That, of course, is a rhetorical question since we all know the answer: it doesn't, and isn't meant to. This guy can't keep to the subject since he doesn't have a factual leg to stand on.

Schabesbert
05-23-2011, 10:49
There was fighting between the different Christian factions and a lot of fighting within the Catholic church.

I had forgotten to ask:
Do you, or do you not, believe that the Church "got it right" in regard to the early heresies?

Where do you think the Church got it wrong?

Do you believe that the Church erred in their decision on the Judaisers in Acts 15?

Do you believe that the Gnostics were right?

Do you hold to Sabellianism? Arianism? Docetism?

Do you believe in Monophysitism? Montanism? Manicheanism?

Do you side with Marcion?

Please, O educated one, tell us what you mean by the statement quoted above. :rofl:

I'm willing to bet anyone that I won't get any coherent answer that actually addresses this question. If I get any reply at all, it will be a series of snide non-sequitors.

ArtificialGrape
05-23-2011, 11:30
I had forgotten to ask:
Do you, or do you not, believe that the Church "got it right" in regard to the early heresies?

Where do you think the Church got it wrong?

Do you believe that the Church erred in their decision on the Judaisers in Acts 15?

Do you believe that the Gnostics were right?

Do you hold to Sabellianism? Arianism? Docetism?

Do you believe in Monophysitism? Montanism? Manicheanism?

Do you side with Marcion?

Please, O educated one, tell us what you mean by the statement quoted above. :rofl:
:popcorn:

I'm willing to bet anyone that I won't get any coherent answer that actually addresses this question. If I get any reply at all, it will be a series of snide non-sequitors.
I'm thinking that soon you will get to use, "and the prophecy came to pass."

Brasso
05-23-2011, 12:10
It's not so much that I think they erred in their decisions, but that their decisions were based on falsehoods to begin with, so it really doesn't matter. If you argue about garbage, you still have garbage.

Akin to arguing about whether apples are blue or green, and finally deciding that they're yellow.

Don't expect me to argue what these men wrote or thought. I only care what the Word says.

Norske
05-23-2011, 13:58
Alot of confusion seems to center around the fact that since Jesus was born a Jew he partook of and was taught by the Jews.

How many believe this?
If so why supporting facts?

When Jesus was young and hung around the Temple in Jerusalem, Joseph and Mary started back home in a group for safety on the road.

They did not miss him for an entire day. And then it took them another entire day to get back there and pry him out of the Temple!

Son O' God or NO Son O' God. If I had been Joseph, I would have scorched his Holy little butt, but good! I'd have grounded him for so long he would have never ascended into Heaven!

:steamed:

Schabesbert
05-23-2011, 14:18
It's not so much that I think they erred in their decisions, but that their decisions were based on falsehoods to begin with, so it really doesn't matter. If you argue about garbage, you still have garbage.

Akin to arguing about whether apples are blue or green, and finally deciding that they're yellow.
So, how would YOU have addressed the questions posed by these belief systems, all of which, BTW, claimed to be scripturally inspired. And for many of them, with more rationale than your beliefs.

Don't expect me to argue what these men wrote or thought.
Nope, at least not with any evidence I don't expect it.

I only care what the Word says.
Funny, that was one of the things they argued about:
What the Word consisted of.
You, on the other hand, have no reason to believe that the NT consists of the 27 books that the Church canonized.

Brasso
05-23-2011, 14:51
You, on the other hand, have no reason to believe that the NT consists of the 27 books that the Church canonized.


I happen to believe that they got that right if it means anything to you. I certainly don't agree with their interpretation of them.


Take your position on Acts 15. I agree with the decision they reached, as I should. The problem is that what you believe that decision was and what it actually was, aren't the same thing. Like I said, arguing over whether apple are blue or green.

muscogee
05-23-2011, 15:08
I had forgotten to ask:
Do you, or do you not, believe that the Church "got it right" in regard to the early heresies?

Where do you think the Church got it wrong?

Do you believe that the Church erred in their decision on the Judaisers in Acts 15?

Do you believe that the Gnostics were right?

Do you hold to Sabellianism? Arianism? Docetism?

Do you believe in Monophysitism? Montanism? Manicheanism?

Do you side with Marcion?

Please, O educated one, tell us what you mean by the statement quoted above. :rofl:

I'm willing to bet anyone that I won't get any coherent answer that actually addresses this question. If I get any reply at all, it will be a series of snide non-sequitors.

The Roman Church formed the basis for modern Christianity. Since the Church rejected the early heresies, they seem strange to us today. If the Church hadn't rejected them they wouldn't seem strange. The problem with being raised in a religious system is that you can't see how strange your own beliefs are unless you become able to step outside your indoctrination and look at your beliefs from an unbiased point of view.

You can't imagine how strange the mass feels to someone raised in the Baptist faith. The first mass I attended felt demonic. The first time my Catholic wife attended my uncle's Freewill Baptist church she was terrified when the men all walked down to the front of the church and started praying individual prayers out loud. Some of them got quite loud and demonstrative. Her eyes got huge and she asked in panic, "What are they doing?" I was tempted to tell her they were fixing to get out the snakes, but she would have believed me and ran for the door. I told her they were just praying out loud and the would stop in a little while. She remained in flight mode until they quit.

My point is that one person's heresy is another person's orthodoxy.

Schabesbert
05-23-2011, 15:17
I happen to believe that they got that right if it means anything to you. I certainly don't agree with their interpretation of them.


Take your position on Acts 15. I agree with the decision they reached, as I should. The problem is that what you believe that decision was and what it actually was, aren't the same thing. Like I said, arguing over whether apple are blue or green.
Right. You believe in something of your own imagining; I believe that which Scripture supports and as the Early Church believed. you know, those guys who were trained by the very Apostles who were present at the Jerusalem council of Acts 15. Oh, and some of the Early Church Fathers may have been present as well.

creaky
05-23-2011, 15:44
Oh, and some of the Early Church Fathers may have been present as well.

They couldn't have been, Bert. Scripture doesn't record it. Therefore, it didn't happen.

Oh, and if it did, it would mean absolutely nothing, as whatever happened between the Apostles and somewhere in the 1860's (or was it the 1960's) can be ignored and chalked up to "man's philosophy". No one was able to get a handle on this stuff until the "Messy-antics" came along.

Come on, Bert. ;)

Schabesbert
05-23-2011, 16:24
The Roman Church formed the basis for modern Christianity. Since the Church rejected the early heresies, they seem strange to us today. If the Church hadn't rejected them they wouldn't seem strange. The problem with being raised in a religious system is that you can't see how strange your own beliefs are unless you become able to step outside your indoctrination and look at your beliefs from an unbiased point of view.

You can't imagine how strange the mass feels to someone raised in the Baptist faith. The first mass I attended felt demonic. The first time my Catholic wife attended my uncle's Freewill Baptist church she was terrified when the men all walked down to the front of the church and started praying individual prayers out loud. Some of them got quite loud and demonstrative. Her eyes got huge and she asked in panic, "What are they doing?" I was tempted to tell her they were fixing to get out the snakes, but she would have believed me and ran for the door. I told her they were just praying out loud and the would stop in a little while. She remained in flight mode until they quit.
That's partly true, but it's also true that the Church had good reason for each decision they made, starting with the belief in the Incarnation. Since this was revealed Truth, no other conclusion can contradict that Truth.

Most of the decisions come from following the heretical beliefs to their logical conclusion, and showing that, in some way, each false teaching would deny a revealed Truth.

My point is that one person's heresy is another person's orthodoxy.
The outward appearances, which you seem to be addressing, are not of major import; the teachings are what is important.

But there is much that is deeply spiritual about the Mass. If you read Revelation, you'll see the Mass depicted throughout.

The Lamb's Supper: The Mass as Heaven on Earth (http://www.amazon.com/Lambs-Supper-Mass-Heaven-Earth/dp/0385496591)
Scott Hahn - The Lamb's Supper (EWTN) (http://catholicaudio.blogspot.com/2007/08/scott-hahn-lambs-supper-ewtn.html) (talks on the above subject)

And there's a very important distinction: we didn't "make up" the liturgy. It's essence is the same as was handed down to us from the teaching of the Apostles (the paradosis of the Apostles).

bandmasterjf
05-25-2011, 19:48
That's not true, either from a historical or from a scriptural basis.

In fact, the established ecumenical model in Matthew's Gospel is one reason that many "Jesus-Seminar" types argue that it had to have been written later, with these beliefs written back in. They're wrong, but they do at least know more on the subject than you do.


I'm presuming that this is a question (in English, we use a question mark to punctuate an interrogative).

Yes, I have. And that history which isn't a polemic far more often agrees with what I've written, and not your beliefs. At least when written by credentialed, credible historians.

Even IF you could point to a history book supporting your claims, I'd be very interested to hear your arguments suggesting that everything printed in textbooks is 100% accurate.






Of course there was. THAT, my friend, is precisely why Christ instituted His Church: to determine the Truth among competing versions.


Sorry, no. But I was actually educating myself on these issues while you were enjoying your drunken stupors.


This isn't true, of course, but you're free to tell all kinds of lies in this country, with the only result being the loss of your credibility (not much of a loss in this case, since there isn't much credibility left for this poster except among those who are themselves lacking in any love of Truth.)

But, how does rambling on about the 10th century lend any pertinent information to the discussion of the first few centuries? That, of course, is a rhetorical question since we all know the answer: it doesn't, and isn't meant to. This guy can't keep to the subject since he doesn't have a factual leg to stand on.


Well Bert, short story; you're wrong. Oh and are we not past type-o's. Come on man, lets grow up a little on that. As far as the gospels, I don't argue their accuracy or relevance. I don't think God would have a tough time controlling what was written.

Long story:

Do you even have a clue what the council was for Bert? Before edict of Milan Christians were being persecuted because they were seen as polytheist and would not sacrifice to the other gods in Rome. The Romans were offended because the Christians worshiped their three gods (The Hebrew God, the holy spirit, and the son of God). Because they worshiped the Hebrew God they were seen as a polytheistic Jewish sect. After the edict of Milan it was illegal to persecute established religions, but since the Christian were still a group of Jewish sects Constantine brought the leaders of those sects together and forced them to decide what their universal beliefs were. Thus the Nicaean Creed. Much of it was believed by most sects, none of them believed all of it. In order to be their own religion separate from Judaism they had to have their own god. This is where the idea of the trinity came from. Don't get me wrong, I don't have a problem with the trinity, b. But this is where it became doctrine. With this new doctrine the Christians had their own God through Christ and was given the rights of an autonomous religion which was now protected from persecution.

Constantine wasn't even a Christian until later in his live, much later than edict of Milan and the council of Nicea. He only even acknowledge the Christian God after his battle at the Milvian bridge. Are you familiar with that? There was no belief in the trinity across different sects, in fact some of them didn't believe in the deity of Christ at all. What do you think the Council was for? It was to unite the splintered sects and for them all to come up with a central doctrine.

Christ did start His church. You just aren't a member.

You might want to get someone else to educate you. You are failing. As far as the drinking, I thought that's what Catholics did all the time. Never been to a Catholic wedding that I didn't check out early from to avoid the drunks. I'm not much of a drinker, never was.

I just finished a graduate level art history course. I did a study and term paper on 9th century Christian reliquary and have studied more Catholic history both sacred and secular in the last 18 weeks than you probably have in your life. As for why it's significant: 700 years into the church they still couldn't reconcile believes, practices and biblical principal. Like the Jews and the Muslims, early Christian healed to the 2nd commandment of not worshiping any graven images. It was only later that they figured out that they could make some money off of the ignorant that they decided to start allowing paintings and then finally sculptures of the human form. The Catholic church as it stands today doesn't even closely resemble Nicean Christianity. Despite your insistence the RCC is not Christ Church, other than presenting the Nicean Creed as it's belief it is a pale shadow of what the church became after Nicea.

After Nicea if the Catholic chruch was completely united, why did Theadosius kill off every Christian who didn't believe in the Nicean Creed? Of course if he killed all of the Christians that didn't believe what he believed then I guess all of the ones left did. Sounds a lot like Shea/Suni thing to me.

bandmasterjf
05-25-2011, 20:27
I had forgotten to ask:
Do you, or do you not, believe that the Church "got it right" in regard to the early heresies? Well we have to establish what the church is. If you're talking about the unified church following the council of Nicea, then yes.

Where do you think the Church got it wrong? When they became united with the Roman empire and began changing into what is now the RCC

Do you believe that the Church erred in their decision on the Judaisers in Acts 15? I assume you mean the RCC. I'm familiar with the the scripture but not the RCC's stand on it. I would need more information to answer that one.

Do you believe that the Gnostics were right? About what?:dunno: Short answer: I see Gnostics the same as any other cult with a later day or secret gospel.

Do you hold to Sabellianism? Arianism? Docetism? I believe in the begining the Word was with God and the Word was God. I don't claim to understand it. Anyone who did claim such would be fooling themselves. I don't think we have the capacity to understand the nature of our creator.

Do you believe in Monophysitism? Montanism? Manicheanism? no, no and no


Do you side with Marcion? I believe that God's word is God's word. There is only one God and the bible doesn't contridict itself.


Please, O educated one, tell us what you mean by the statement quoted above. :rofl:
See Theodosius, Spanish Inquistion ect. You sited Marcion hericey, gnositcs and the others. They never fought? If not, where are they now? The winners of war can write thier own history.


I'm willing to bet anyone that I won't get any coherent answer that actually addresses this question. If I get any reply at all, it will be a series of snide non-sequitors.

I'm willing to bet when the real rapture happens I'll be gone and you'll be confused why you're not.

bandmasterjf
05-25-2011, 20:50
Right. You believe in something of your own imagining; I believe that which Scripture supports and as the Early Church believed. you know, those guys who were trained by the very Apostles who were present at the Jerusalem council of Acts 15. Oh, and some of the Early Church Fathers may have been present as well.


Who are these guys that you speek of? There was no RCC untill well after Nicea which was 325. I'm guessing there weren't any Appostles alive 350+ years later.

Schabesbert
05-27-2011, 13:02
Who are these guys that you speek of? There was no RCC untill well after Nicea which was 325. I'm guessing there weren't any Appostles alive 350+ years later.
You can deny the Truth, but it's still there.

There was a Church begun by Christ. It was called "the Way" and then, in acceptance of a nickname meant to be derogatory it became known as "Christianity" in Antioch. Shortly after, to distinguish the local churches from the over-arching Church to which each "parish" belonged, it was called (first mentioned in extant writing again in Antioch, coincidentally, although the useage seems to imply that the name wasn't novel, but was being used commonly) "Catholic."

So, there you have it.

Now, I can point to beliefs that the Church held from the very earliest writings that oppose your beliefs, but are thoroughly in concert with the beliefs of the Catholic Church today. Some of these writings pre-date even the last of the NT books; IOW, they were beliefs held by the Church even during the lifetime of the Apostles.

For instance, the Didache (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-roberts.html) tells us that, while full imersion is the preferred form of baptism, pouring is perfectly acceptable:
Chapter 7. Concerning Baptism. And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit.

... and that the Eucharist is a sacrifice:
Chapter 14. Christian Assembly on the Lord's Day. But every Lord's day gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one who is at odds with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned. For this is that which was spoken by the Lord: "In every place and time offer to me a pure sacrifice; for I am a great King, says the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the nations."

Many also talked about infant baptism. There are earlier quotes, but this is about as clear as you can get, and is certainly ante-Nicea:
"The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit" (Origen - Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).


Actually the first recorded controversy about infant baptism was whether you HAD to wait until the baby was 8 days old, like Jewish circumcision, or whether you could baptise earlier than that:
"As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born" (Cyprian of Carthage
Letters 64:2 [A.D. 253]).
Note that this date, too, is well before the Council of Nicea.

There are even more, earlier, and more stark writings on the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, such as:

"I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible" (Ignatius of Antioch
Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" (Ignatius of Antioch
Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).


My point, again, is that there was a Church that Jesus commissioned, and this Church believed the same things that the Catholic Church believes today. Well before 325.

And, this Church held to a line of succession that has an unbroken continuity with the Catholic Church of today.

How in the world, other than pure obstinance in the face of contravening facts, can you claim that the Catholic Church didn't start until 325?

Schabesbert
05-27-2011, 13:07
After Nicea if the Catholic chruch was completely united, why did Theadosius kill off every Christian who didn't believe in the Nicean Creed? Of course if he killed all of the Christians that didn't believe what he believed then I guess all of the ones left did. Sounds a lot like Shea/Suni thing to me.
Why do you keep talking about "After Nicea"???
Do you think "ante-Nicea" somehow means "After Nicea"???:dunno:

Even IF "Theadosius kill[ed] off every Christian who didn't believe in the Nicean Creed," despite the fact that most historians don't agree with your characterization (where do you get your propaganda?), so what? He was a secular leader, not a Church leader.

bandmasterjf
05-27-2011, 13:52
Why do you keep talking about "After Nicea"???
Do you think "ante-Nicea" somehow means "After Nicea"???:dunno:

Even IF "Theadosius kill[ed] off every Christian who didn't believe in the Nicean Creed," despite the fact that most historians don't agree with your characterization (where do you get your propaganda?), so what? He was a secular leader, not a Church leader.


No, I say after Nicea because we know it was in 325. The things that happened after Nicea were after Nicea. Are you really that dense? I know, dumb question. I've got a life and a real job this is all the time I've got to devote to your delusion today.

Schabesbert
05-27-2011, 14:07
No, I say after Nicea because we know it was in 325. The things that happened after Nicea were after Nicea. Are you really that dense?
The reason I was asking is you're either:
a) confused about the meaning of ante- or
b) deceitful, in that you're trying to use sleight-of-hand changes to obfuscate the discussion in order to avoid giving answers that will show your beliefs to be wrong

Now that we've ruled out choice a), I think we can see what the situation is.


Just for reference, I brought this up wayyyy back in post 48 (http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=17373301#post17373301), so those who are NOT trying to obfuscate can see that the "bandmaster" is either confused or dishonest, and he seems to have eliminated the confused option (although I'm still not convinced).

Great. An actual date.

First, you won't find any such thing, historically. But second, and most importantly, you are left with the problem of the ante-Nicene Church, which by all accounts held beliefs that you firmly reject, and which the Catholic Church still, to this day, holds in her doctrines.

bandmasterjf
05-27-2011, 20:38
The reason I was asking is you're either:
a) confused about the meaning of ante- or
b) deceitful, in that you're trying to use sleight-of-hand changes to obfuscate the discussion in order to avoid giving answers that will show your beliefs to be wrong

Now that we've ruled out choice a), I think we can see what the situation is.


Just for reference, I brought this up wayyyy back in post 48 (http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=17373301#post17373301), so those who are NOT trying to obfuscate can see that the "bandmaster" is either confused or dishonest, and he seems to have eliminated the confused option (although I'm still not convinced).


Ok Bert. That response is just stupid man. How is pointing out a date deceitful. You are really reaching here. I'm not going back to post 48 or anything else. Put your big boy panties on and read some history that's not written or endorsed by the Vatican. You base your beliefs off of what you have been told by your church and don't seem to have the capacity to see simple truths beyond your little RCC.

Facts are facts. There was no RCC until well into the 4th century. Christ's church are it's people, not it's government. You are so delusional it's really just sad.

Schabesbert
05-28-2011, 13:32
Ok Bert. That response is just stupid man.
I'm sorry that you consider logic stupid.

How is pointing out a date deceitful. You are really reaching here.
I didn't say that pointing out a date was deceitful. What IS deceitful is constantly talking about things AFTER 325, when I'm talking about ANTE-Nicene Church beliefs.

I'm not going back to post 48 or anything else.
I've noticed this about you. You won't read or do anything that proves that you're wrong, out of fear that you'll need to address it.
http://www.newsrealblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/ostrich-head-in-sand.jpg

Next comes your infantile ad hominems indicating that you've got nothing resembling a logical argument:
Put your big boy panties on and read some history that's not written or endorsed by the Vatican. You base your beliefs off of what you have been told by your church and don't seem to have the capacity to see simple truths beyond your little RCC.

And, following your usual pattern, you conclude with unsupported and false assertions:
Facts are facts. There was no RCC until well into the 4th century. Christ's church are it's people, not it's government. You are so delusional it's really just sad.

Oh, I forgot to mention the last gratituous insult.

I just wanted to point these things out so that everyone can see the "strength" of your argument, and of your character.

Schabesbert
05-28-2011, 13:35
Sorry, everyone, but I just wanted to re-post this since bandmaster is apparently pretending that this wasn't posted. He's unable, apparently, to address things that factually prove his falsehoods to be just that.

I can understand his embarassment; I'd be embarassed if I were him. He's caught trying to defend something that isn't true. What I can't understand is why he'd persist in false beliefs.

Who are these guys that you speek of? There was no RCC untill well after Nicea which was 325. I'm guessing there weren't any Appostles alive 350+ years later.
You can deny the Truth, but it's still there.

There was a Church begun by Christ. It was called "the Way" and then, in acceptance of a nickname meant to be derogatory it became known as "Christianity" in Antioch. Shortly after, to distinguish the local churches from the over-arching Church to which each "parish" belonged, it was called (first mentioned in extant writing again in Antioch, coincidentally, although the useage seems to imply that the name wasn't novel, but was being used commonly) "Catholic."

So, there you have it.

Now, I can point to beliefs that the Church held from the very earliest writings that oppose your beliefs, but are thoroughly in concert with the beliefs of the Catholic Church today. Some of these writings pre-date even the last of the NT books; IOW, they were beliefs held by the Church even during the lifetime of the Apostles.

For instance, the Didache (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-roberts.html) tells us that, while full imersion is the preferred form of baptism, pouring is perfectly acceptable:
Chapter 7. Concerning Baptism. And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit.

... and that the Eucharist is a sacrifice:
Chapter 14. Christian Assembly on the Lord's Day. But every Lord's day gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one who is at odds with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned. For this is that which was spoken by the Lord: "In every place and time offer to me a pure sacrifice; for I am a great King, says the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the nations."

Many also talked about infant baptism. There are earlier quotes, but this is about as clear as you can get, and is certainly ante-Nicea:
"The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit" (Origen - Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).


Actually the first recorded controversy about infant baptism was whether you HAD to wait until the baby was 8 days old, like Jewish circumcision, or whether you could baptise earlier than that:
"As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born" (Cyprian of Carthage
Letters 64:2 [A.D. 253]).
Note that this date, too, is well before the Council of Nicea.

There are even more, earlier, and more stark writings on the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, such as:

"I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible" (Ignatius of Antioch
Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" (Ignatius of Antioch
Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).


My point, again, is that there was a Church that Jesus commissioned, and this Church believed the same things that the Catholic Church believes today. Well before 325.

And, this Church held to a line of succession that has an unbroken continuity with the Catholic Church of today.

How in the world, other than pure obstinance in the face of contravening facts, can you claim that the Catholic Church didn't start until 325?

bandmasterjf
05-28-2011, 20:22
The reason I was asking is you're either:
a) confused about the meaning of ante- or
b) deceitful, in that you're trying to use sleight-of-hand changes to obfuscate the discussion in order to avoid giving answers that will show your beliefs to be wrong

Now that we've ruled out choice a), I think we can see what the situation is.


Just for reference, I brought this up wayyyy back in post 48 (http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=17373301#post17373301), so those who are NOT trying to obfuscate can see that the "bandmaster" is either confused or dishonest, and he seems to have eliminated the confused option (although I'm still not convinced).

I've never addressed anything about Ante Nicean anything. I've never clamed to. It's not slight of hand to put down a date and state what happened before or after that date. As for the head in the sand, I suggest you pull your head out of something too. Good Lord are you that dense. There's no slight of hand here, it's pretty much straight forward history. You just don't like what you're reading.

bandmasterjf
05-28-2011, 20:24
Sorry, everyone, but I just wanted to re-post this since bandmaster is apparently pretending that this wasn't posted. He's unable, apparently, to address things that factually prove his falsehoods to be just that.

I can understand his embarassment; I'd be embarassed if I were him. He's caught trying to defend something that isn't true. What I can't understand is why he'd persist in false beliefs.


You can deny the Truth, but it's still there.

There was a Church begun by Christ. It was called "the Way" and then, in acceptance of a nickname meant to be derogatory it became known as "Christianity" in Antioch. Shortly after, to distinguish the local churches from the over-arching Church to which each "parish" belonged, it was called (first mentioned in extant writing again in Antioch, coincidentally, although the useage seems to imply that the name wasn't novel, but was being used commonly) "Catholic."

So, there you have it.

Now, I can point to beliefs that the Church held from the very earliest writings that oppose your beliefs, but are thoroughly in concert with the beliefs of the Catholic Church today. Some of these writings pre-date even the last of the NT books; IOW, they were beliefs held by the Church even during the lifetime of the Apostles.

For instance, the Didache (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-roberts.html) tells us that, while full imersion is the preferred form of baptism, pouring is perfectly acceptable:
Chapter 7. Concerning Baptism. And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit.

... and that the Eucharist is a sacrifice:
Chapter 14. Christian Assembly on the Lord's Day. But every Lord's day gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one who is at odds with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned. For this is that which was spoken by the Lord: "In every place and time offer to me a pure sacrifice; for I am a great King, says the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the nations."

Many also talked about infant baptism. There are earlier quotes, but this is about as clear as you can get, and is certainly ante-Nicea:
"The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit" (Origen - Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).

Actually the first recorded controversy about infant baptism was whether you HAD to wait until the baby was 8 days old, like Jewish circumcision, or whether you could baptise earlier than that:
"As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born" (Cyprian of Carthage

Letters 64:2 [A.D. 253]).
Note that this date, too, is well before the Council of Nicea.

There are even more, earlier, and more stark writings on the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, such as:
"I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible" (Ignatius of Antioch
Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" (Ignatius of Antioch
Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).
My point, again, is that there was a Church that Jesus commissioned, and this Church believed the same things that the Catholic Church believes today. Well before 325.

And, this Church held to a line of succession that has an unbroken continuity with the Catholic Church of today.

How in the world, other than pure obstinance in the face of contravening facts, can you claim that the Catholic Church didn't start until 325?


Uh, yeah I'm pretty much covniced at this point that you are either really stupid or just delusional, and I'm not willing to read your stuff anymore. Is there an ignor button on this sight so I don't have to waste my time with your post anymore?

Kingarthurhk
05-28-2011, 20:47
Uh, yeah I'm pretty much covniced at this point that you are either really stupid or just delusional, and I'm not willing to read your stuff anymore. Is there an ignor button on this sight so I don't have to waste my time with your post anymore?

Jesuit priests always put forth the party line. I wouldn't worry about it all that much. He will keep doing what he does, it is his job.

Brasso
05-28-2011, 23:46
There was a Church begun by Christ. It was called "the Way" ...

This the funniest part. The "Way" is what the Apostles called themselves. Paul referred to them as Nazarenes. Something the RCC called heretics because they kept the Sabbath and all those Old Testament commandments. The Apostles would be rolling over in their graves, sitting up, and saying "what the..." if they knew the RCC was calling itself the Church that Christ started.

Kingarthurhk
05-29-2011, 00:08
This the funniest part. The "Way" is what the Apostles called themselves. Paul referred to them as Nazarenes. Something the RCC called heretics because they kept the Sabbath and all those Old Testament commandments. The Apostles would be rolling over in their graves, sitting up, and saying "what the..." if they knew the RCC was calling itself the Church that Christ started.

That is ironic. My wife and I were discussing something similiar today. How, Mary, when resurrected would probably be very offended to be awoken and find out that she had been worshiped for over 1,000 years and idols fashioned after her. Or that Peter, who felt he was so unworthy of die like Jesus, and was crucified upside down, would have a complete list of blasphemies and corruptions attributed to him while he slept in the earth.

jjboogie
05-29-2011, 16:36
Alot of confusion seems to center around the fact that since Jesus was born a Jew he partook of and was taught by the Jews.

How many believe this?
If so why supporting facts?


Of course he was taught by Jews! He was part of a Jewish community is entire life attending synagogues and participating in all the Jewish customs and traditions.

Schabesbert
05-31-2011, 10:21
Uh, yeah I'm pretty much covniced at this point that you are either really stupid or just delusional, and I'm not willing to read your stuff anymore. Is there an ignor button on this sight so I don't have to waste my time with your post anymore?
It's obvious that you're not able to deal with the Truth at this point in your life. You insist that the Catholic Church didn't begin until 325, and yet I've provided quotes (http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=17414770#post17414770)that show that the Church which existed way before then held to the same beliefs as the Catholic Church does today.

If you want to ignore, then you're free to do so.

We all can do with your un-Christian, un-charitable remarks though.

Schabesbert
05-31-2011, 10:26
This the funniest part. The "Way" is what the Apostles called themselves. Paul referred to them as Nazarenes. Something the RCC called heretics because they kept the Sabbath and all those Old Testament commandments.
:rofl:
And you think this was the SAME group?

Naive to the extreme.

(Or dishonest. Can't rule that out.)

The Apostles would be rolling over in their graves, sitting up, and saying "what the..." if they knew the RCC was calling itself the Church that Christ started.
Nope. But you, using their good names to spread disinformation, well, I'm sure that distresses them.

But they KNOW that now:
Re 6:10 they cried out with a loud voice, "O Sovereign Lord, holy and true, how long before thou wilt judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell upon the earth?"

Brasso
05-31-2011, 11:40
Drink some more Kool-Aid. It will be all right.

Schabesbert
05-31-2011, 11:57
Drink some more Kool-Aid. It will be all right.
Sorry, I won't drink what you're offering.

This offer might work on those weak-minded people you're used to, but I know better.

THAT is what has you so upset that you have to make these kinds of replies (gratuitous insults, devoid of any supportive information).

achysklic
05-31-2011, 13:42
It's obvious that you're not able to deal with the Truth at this point in your life. You insist that the Catholic Church didn't begin until 325, and yet I've provided quotes (http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=17414770#post17414770)that show that the Church which existed way before then held to the same beliefs as the Catholic Church does today.

If you want to ignore, then you're free to do so.

We all can do with your un-Christian, un-charitable remarks though.

So what you are saying then is that the early rcc kept the 7th day Sabbath?

Schabesbert
05-31-2011, 14:14
Originally Posted by Schabesbert
It's obvious that you're not able to deal with the Truth at this point in your life. You insist that the Catholic Church didn't begin until 325, and yet I've provided quotes that show that the Church which existed way before then held to the same beliefs as the Catholic Church does today.

If you want to ignore, then you're free to do so.

We all can do with your un-Christian, un-charitable remarks though.

So what you are saying then is that the early rcc kept the 7th day Sabbath?
Please point out where, from the post you've replied to (repeated above), or from my prior posts, you would get this.

Are you just putting words in my mouth to be a wise-guy, are you truly being deceitful, or are you that confused by plain English?

Brasso
05-31-2011, 16:36
Just give it up with Bert. He's a "true believer". The Bible be damned.

Listen to what he's saying. We can quote Scriptures about the Sabbath all day long, and despite that there is not a single passage speaking of a Sunday Sabbath, he calls what we believe the imaginations of men!

Just give up. God will deal with him.

Kingarthurhk
05-31-2011, 16:38
Sorry, I won't drink what you're offering.

This offer might work on those weak-minded people you're used to, but I know better.

THAT is what has you so upset that you have to make these kinds of replies (gratuitous insults, devoid of any supportive information).

If that is trully the case, than you two have established some common ground, as per capita, most of your posts are about insulting the person rather than dealing with the issue.

achysklic
05-31-2011, 16:39
and yet I've provided quotes (http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=17414770#post17414770)that show that the Church which existed way before then held to the same beliefs as the Catholic Church does .
Here ya go bert. U claim the rcc held the beliefs of the early church. You claim those same beliefs are held today. I say rubbish. The catholic church has admitted the early church kept the sabbath and that they the rcc changed it to sunday. Card gibbons states this in the catholic mirror. Would you like me to post that for u bert? Denial is a horrible thing but you cant change your churches past.

Schabesbert
05-31-2011, 17:14
Here ya go bert. U claim the rcc held the beliefs of the early church. You claim those same beliefs are held today. I say rubbish. The catholic church has admitted the early church kept the sabbath and that they the rcc changed it to sunday. Card gibbons states this in the catholic mirror. Would you like me to post that for u bert? Denial is a horrible thing but you cant change your churches past.
Is THAT your response to the quotes I provided? That's all you got?

A quote from Cardinal Gibbons is not considered infallible, BTW. Although I'm quite sure that in context it doesn't mean quite what you claim it to mean.

But rather than change the subject as you're wont to do whenever you're backed into a corner (Hmmm ... my prediction in post 225 really had Brasso in mind, but I should get partial credit for this, right?), could you try to address the quotes I provided?

achysklic
05-31-2011, 18:20
Is THAT your response to the quotes I provided? That's all you got?

A quote from Cardinal Gibbons is not considered infallible, BTW. Although I'm quite sure that in context it doesn't mean quite what you claim it to mean.

But rather than change the subject as you're wont to do whenever you're backed into a corner (Hmmm ... my prediction in post 225 really had Brasso in mind, but I should get partial credit for this, right?), could you try to address the quotes I provided?

Is that all I got? lol
No it is not.... here ya go for your reading enjoyment this article is straight from the horses...errr mouth...lol
http://biblelight.net/chalng.htm
http://www.remnantofgod.org/romeadmits.htm

In context it means exactly what it says..I actually challenge you to deny what it says....Try and twist and weasle out of what it says ok!

I hardly am backed in a corner as you state........come on read the article then deny that the catholic church admitted it changed the Sabbath.

achysklic
05-31-2011, 18:29
Also one more thing Bert. to say I what the catholic mirror was saying was out of context is silly and grasping at straws.(strawman as you like to say)

A little history for you dear Bert. The Catholic Mirror was the OFFICAL publication of the RCC at that time. If anything that Card. Gibbons said was in error it would have never made print. and if it had a retraction would have had to be printed if it wasn't true.

Peace

Schabesbert
06-01-2011, 08:45
Also one more thing Bert. to say I what the catholic mirror was saying was out of context is silly and grasping at straws.(strawman as you like to say)
But rather than change the subject as you're wont to do whenever you're backed into a corner (Hmmm ... my prediction in post 225 really had Brasso in mind, but I should get partial credit for this, right?), could you try to address the quotes I provided?

A little history for you dear Bert. The Catholic Mirror was the OFFICAL publication of the RCC at that time.
Was it really?
Sorry, but you're woefully ignorant of the structure of the Catholic Church.
HINT: The US Catholic Church is a small, small part of the structure.

Further, even IF it were what you say it was, that doesn't mean that everything in the newspaper is necessarily correct.

If anything that Card. Gibbons said was in error it would have never made print.
BS. Show me where the Church says this. I'll wait. :popcorn:

(yet again, this guy is being less than truthful)

Now, please address my questions and stop trying to evade the things that show you, Brasso, KingA, and the "bandmaster" to be flat-out wrong.

achysklic
06-01-2011, 14:12
But rather than change the subject as you're wont to do whenever you're backed into a corner (Hmmm ... my prediction in post 225 really had Brasso in mind, but I should get partial credit for this, right?), could you try to address the quotes I provided?


Was it really?
Sorry, but you're woefully ignorant of the structure of the Catholic Church.
HINT: The US Catholic Church is a small, small part of the structure.

Further, even IF it were what you say it was, that doesn't mean that everything in the newspaper is necessarily correct.


BS. Show me where the Church says this. I'll wait. :popcorn:

(yet again, this guy is being less than truthful)

Now, please address my questions and stop trying to evade the things that show you, Brasso, KingA, and the "bandmaster" to be flat-out wrong.


This is funny, now you are saying the US catholics church doesn't listen to the vatican.....lol you said it brother not I....lol

I will bet money by the way you answered you neverf read the series of articles I povided posted in the Catholic Mirror. You never read what others offer you too. You find it much easier to twist and try to turn it around on the other person to make them look wrong.. Funny thing is you ALWAYS fail at this.

The catholic church doesn't deny changing the Sabbath to sunday...only people like you Bert have a problem with it...The reason being it makes your whole belief system and all the lies you told about the church come out.

Stop dancing in circles, circus dogs do that. Take the challenge head on, read the articles, prove me wrong, and take off the clown makeup.

Schabesbert
06-01-2011, 16:13
The catholic church doesn't deny changing the Sabbath to sunday...
Of course we don't deny it. The teaching on keeping the Lord's Day was from the paradosis of the Apostles. The Apostles were Catholic. Ergo, the Catholic Church changed the primary day of worship (not the Sabbath, though).


Take the challenge head on, read the articles, prove me wrong, and take off the clown makeup.
Done, and done. I'll ignore your insults, seeing as how that's all you have to resort to.

achysklic
06-01-2011, 17:01
Of course we don't deny it. The teaching on keeping the Lord's Day was from the paradosis of the Apostles. The Apostles were Catholic. Ergo, the Catholic Church changed the primary day of worship (not the Sabbath, though).



Done, and done. I'll ignore your insults, seeing as how that's all you have to resort to.

See this is a grave error with you, the primary day of worship since creation has been the 7th day Sabbath.... The bible is clear on this and if you HAD READ the articles instead of saying you had, you would admit just as the cath.church has that this is true.

bandmasterjf
06-01-2011, 18:50
It's obvious that you're not able to deal with the Truth at this point in your life. You insist that the Catholic Church didn't begin until 325, and yet I've provided quotes (http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=17414770#post17414770)that show that the Church which existed way before then held to the same beliefs as the Catholic Church does today.

If you want to ignore, then you're free to do so.

We all can do with your un-Christian, un-charitable remarks though.

Christ church began when he left Peter in charge, it just wasn't the RCC as it exist today. You've provided nothing that proves that in any way. You are delusional.

bandmasterjf
06-01-2011, 18:52
Sorry, I won't drink what you're offering.

This offer might work on those weak-minded people you're used to, but I know better.

THAT is what has you so upset that you have to make these kinds of replies (gratuitous insults, devoid of any supportive information).


I thought Catholics would drink anything. :tongueout:

bandmasterjf
06-01-2011, 20:16
Of course we don't deny it. The teaching on keeping the Lord's Day was from the paradosis of the Apostles. The Apostles were Catholic. Ergo, the Catholic Church changed the primary day of worship (not the Sabbath, though).



Done, and done. I'll ignore your insults, seeing as how that's all you have to resort to.
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

The Aplstles were Jewish. Was Paul a Catholic too? I'm going to have to go with your old standby.


Liar, Liar Pants on fire. You are so full of crap it's hit your brain and is spewing out the top.

bandmasterjf
06-01-2011, 20:31
Is that all I got? lol
No it is not.... here ya go for your reading enjoyment this article is straight from the horses...errr mouth...lol
http://biblelight.net/chalng.htm
http://www.remnantofgod.org/romeadmits.htm

In context it means exactly what it says..I actually challenge you to deny what it says....Try and twist and weasle out of what it says ok!

I hardly am backed in a corner as you state........come on read the article then deny that the catholic church admitted it changed the Sabbath.


I know your not bert, but I wanted to use this quote to say this. Bert pull your head out. The sabbath is Saturday. I'm baptist and go to church on Sunday. I understand why I go to church on Sunday and I don't believe for a second that it is heracy to go to church on Sunday. BUT The biblical sabbath is, was an will always be SATURDAY. There is no resonable arguement. Of courst that never made much of a difference to you did it.

bandmasterjf
06-01-2011, 20:36
But rather than change the subject as you're wont to do whenever you're backed into a corner (Hmmm ... my prediction in post 225 really had Brasso in mind, but I should get partial credit for this, right?), could you try to address the quotes I provided?


Was it really?
Sorry, but you're woefully ignorant of the structure of the Catholic Church.
HINT: The US Catholic Church is a small, small part of the structure.

Further, even IF it were what you say it was, that doesn't mean that everything in the newspaper is necessarily correct.


BS. Show me where the Church says this. I'll wait. :popcorn:

(yet again, this guy is being less than truthful)

Now, please address my questions and stop trying to evade the things that show you, Brasso, KingA, and the "bandmaster" to be flat-out wrong.

Um, about what? I've been wading through this for awhile and don't know what the question is. Oh yes............you're full of crap.

bandmasterjf
06-01-2011, 20:42
This is funny, now you are saying the US catholics church doesn't listen to the vatican.....lol you said it brother not I....lol

I will bet money by the way you answered you never read the series of articles I provided posted in the Catholic Mirror. You never read what others offer you too. You find it much easier to twist and try to turn it around on the other person to make them look wrong.. Funny thing is you ALWAYS fail at this.

The catholic church doesn't deny changing the Sabbath to sunday...only people like you Bert have a problem with it...The reason being it makes your whole belief system and all the lies you told about the church come out.

Stop dancing in circles, circus dogs do that. Take the challenge head on, read the articles, prove me wrong, and take off the clown makeup.

Wouldn't that make them the ununified catholic church. I thought there was only one catholic church, oh yeah except for the Greek Orthodox, but they are really Catholics and just don't know it. Except the Greek Orthodox priest I met last week said they are separate from the Roman Catholic church since that whole Theodosius thing. He was probably wrong though, cause apparently the Pope is the only one that is infallible, uh except that guy that married his sister and the one who...............:rofl:

Schabesbert
06-02-2011, 06:25
See this is a grave error with you, the primary day of worship since creation has been the 7th day Sabbath.... The bible is clear on this and if you HAD READ the articles instead of saying you had, you would admit just as the cath.church has that this is true.
The 7th day honored Creation. The Lord's Day honors the Redemption, which is an even greater miracle.

I explained how that article is true ... the Catholic Church (i.e., the Apostles) did change the day of worship. It just wasn't explicitely recorded in Scripture.

Schabesbert
06-02-2011, 06:27
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

The Aplstles were Jewish. Was Paul a Catholic too? I'm going to have to go with your old standby.
Yes, Paul was a Catholic. Absolutely.
There WAS only one Church.

Liar, Liar Pants on fire. You are so full of crap it's hit your brain and is spewing out the top.
Thanks for once again demonstrating your Christianity.

Schabesbert
06-02-2011, 06:29
Um, about what? I've been wading through this for awhile and don't know what the question is. Oh yes............you're full of crap.
Gee, what a clever response.

Still evading, now with vulgarities.

Schabesbert
06-02-2011, 09:18
Um, about what? I've been wading through this for awhile and don't know what the question is. Oh yes............you're full of crap.
I just realized your tactic - since you can't present any logical, cohesive, scriptural argument, you're just trying to get the thread closed.

You might want to review the policies of the website, too, as this could get you banned.

Schabesbert
06-02-2011, 09:19
uh except that guy that married his sister and the one who...............:rofl:
I was trying to leave your family out of this.
:tongueout:

achysklic
06-02-2011, 09:46
The 7th day honored Creation. The Lord's Day honors the Redemption, which is an even greater miracle.

I explained how that article is true ... the Catholic Church (i.e., the Apostles) did change the day of worship. It just wasn't explicitely recorded in Scripture.


The reason why is wasn't recorded is because it was changed in 326 ad.

First who has the power to change the Sabbath?
Only He who is Lord of the Sabbath casn change it.
Is there any command by the Lord of the Sabbath to make any day Holy?

Jesus taught do not follow the traditions of men.

Men changed the Sabbath,God didn't so the change is a tradition of men and Jesus clearly stated to refute it.

Bert believe how you will, if the Cath. church told you it's ok to be gay are you going to embrace it? Oh wait they already have...LOL

iF the CC told you it's ok to take part in paganism are you going to do that? Oh wait they already have......lol

if the cc told you to worship a man on earth and refer to him as your father are you>? Oh wait there again they already have......lol

See the CC does as they please, Gods words mean nothing if it goes against what they want. This is why they rewrite and reject half of scripture.


Go ahead be part of the FALSE church it's your choice.

I will agree your church was alround when the apostles were here (actually much longer) Your pope is the modern age NIMROD. Enjoy bowing to him!

creaky
06-02-2011, 10:48
The reason why is wasn't recorded is because it was changed in 326 ad.

If you're talking about the Edict of Constantine, it was actually in 321 AD. There is plenty of evidence that Christians worshiped on the first day of the week as an established practice, hundreds of years before the Edict. See Ignatius of Antioch and Justin Martyr.

The rest of this travesty of a post has been deleted, but your continued slander of the Church and the Pope is noted.

achysklic
06-02-2011, 13:40
The rest of this travesty of a post has been deleted, but your continued slander of the Church and the Pope is noted.

The two horned mitre that the pope wears is the very mitre worn by Dagon, "out of the deluge emerged Dagon, the fish god, or god of the sea, Dagon is mentioned in bible samuel, chapter 5, when the philistines capture the ark of the covenant and place it in the temple of Dagon...philistines worshipped nimrod as fish god dagon.The pope wears the scarlet robes of Nimrod and the mitre of Dagon, plus they carry the sheperds crock of nimrod and the mystical kings of Janus and Cybele, who were the pagan gods and goddesses representing Nimrod and Semiramis.The roman bishops wore only white robes until they recieved the title Pontifex Maximus, Dagon is another name for Nimrod, also Tiara worn by popes is identical to that worn by philistine Fish God Nimrod.

Even though the Catholic Church hold to the claim that Peter was the first pope, when in fact it is obvious that the CC first pope was indeed NIMROD!

Schabesbert
06-02-2011, 13:46
The two horned mitre that the pope wears is the very mitre worn by Dagon, "out of the deluge emerged Dagon, the fish god, or god of the sea, Dagon is mentioned in bible samuel, chapter 5, when the philistines capture the ark of the covenant and place it in the temple of Dagon...philistines worshipped nimrod as fish god dagon.The pope wears the scarlet robes of Nimrod and the mitre of Dagon, plus they carry the sheperds crock of nimrod and the mystical kings of Janus and Cybele, who were the pagan gods and goddesses representing Nimrod and Semiramis.The roman bishops wore only white robes until they recieved the title Pontifex Maximus, Dagon is another name for Nimrod, also Tiara worn by popes is identical to that worn by philistine Fish God Nimrod.

Even though the Catholic Church hold to the claim that Peter was the first pope, when in fact it is obvious that the CC first pope was indeed NIMROD!
achy, it's more hilarious to read your posts than it is to listen to Nancy Pelosi. Only she's much more honest.

Where's Vic to complain about a thread hijack???

bandmasterjf
06-02-2011, 14:14
If you're talking about the Edict of Constantine, it was actually in 321 AD. There is plenty of evidence that Christians worshiped on the first day of the week as an established practice, hundreds of years before the Edict. See Ignatius of Antioch and Justin Martyr.

The rest of this travesty of a post has been deleted, but your continued slander of the Church and the Pope is noted.

Constantine wasn't even a Christian in AD 321. He was a worshiper of the Sun at the time. Oh, and it's AD 321 not 321 AD.

achysklic
06-02-2011, 14:49
achy, it's more hilarious to read your posts than it is to listen to Nancy Pelosi. Only she's much more honest.

Where's Vic to complain about a thread hijack???
Since you like reading my post I'll post alittle more history about your beloved popey.

The Babylonian pagan worship of Nimrod, Semiramis, and the god-incarnate son extended throughout the entire world and eventually assumed the name of Trinitarian Christianity in Rome.Trinitarian paganism spread from Babylon to Rome by way of Pergamum. The Babylon Kings, who were descended from Nimrod, served as both king and priest of the pagan Babylonian Mystery religion.
As priests, they bore the title "Pontifex Maximus" or "Supreme Pontiff," meaning "supreme pathfinder" or "bridge maker," representing "the path or connection between this life and the next."
They ruled upon the throne of Satan, which is the throne of Nimrod as the "hidden god."The last king to reign in Babylon was Belshazzar, who celebrated the pagan Babylonian ritual using the sacred Jewish temple vessels which his father King Nebuchadnezzar confiscated from the Jewish temple in 587 B.C.:
In 63 B.C., Julius Caesar, who had been elected Pontifex Maximus, became emperor of Rome and vested the office of Roman emperor with the priestly powers and functions of the Babylonian Pontiff.
Henceforth, the title Pontifex Maximus was used by the Roman Caesars as illustrated on a Roman coin depicting the image of Augustus Caesar (27 B.C.-14 A.D.) with his title "Pont. Max.," which is an abbreviation of Pontifex Maximus.
Thus, the Roman emperors, like the preceding Babylonian emperors, now served as priests of Babylonian paganism, and bore the title Pontifex Maximus.
In 376 A.D., Gratian became the first Roman emperor to refuse the idolatrous title of Pontifex Maximus. He presented the Babylonian Throne, or Satan-Nimrod’s Throne to the bishop of Rome.
By this time, the Roman bishops had advanced in political power, and in 378 A.D., Bishop Damasus was elected Pontifex Maximus, becoming the official pagan Babylonian priest seated on Satan’s throne in Rome.
As such, the bishop converted the pagan Babylonian temples of Rome into Trinitarian Christian churches and introduced the worship of Nimrod, Semiramis and the god-incarnate son under the respective titles of "god the father," "god the son" and "god the holy spirit."
All the pomp and ceremony that existed in ancient Babylon was now practiced as Roman Trinitarian Christianity.
Before the Babylonian conversion into Trinitarian Christianity, the early Christians were a small cult surrounded by numerous Babylonian pagan temples.
Historians, however, relate the amazing "overnight" conversion of Romans to Trinitarian Christianity, which coincided to a remarkable and unprecedented disappearance of paganism.
In actuality, the Roman pagans did not convert to Trinitarian Christianity; but rather, Bishop Damasus exercised his authority as head of Babylonian paganism in Rome, and replaced all the Christian elders with pagan priests and continued the practice of the pagan Babylonian Mystery religion under the name of Trinitarian Christianity.

Henceforth, all the bishops of Rome have donned the robes of Nimrod along with the title of Pontifex Maximus.

Also............

Further evidence supports the fact that the papal office is the pagan Babylonian priesthood. Roman Catholic popes not only bear the title Pontifex Maximus and are seated on Satan-Nimrod’s throne, but they also wear the scarlet robes of Nimrod and the miter of the fish-god Dagon, plus they carry the shepherd’s crook of Nimrod and the mystical keys of Janus and Cybele, who were the pagan god and goddess representing Nimrod and Semiramis respectively.
The Roman bishops wore only white robes until they received Satan’s throne and the title Pontifex Maximus. Roman Catholic popes and cardinals now wear the scarlet robes of Nimrod. The shepherd’s crook or crosier carried by the pope is the magical crook traced directly to Nimrod who was the first shepherd king

Schabesbert
06-02-2011, 14:55
Since you like reading my post I'll post alittle more history about your beloved popey.

The Babylonian pagan worship of Nimrod, Semiramis, and the god-incarnate son extended throughout the entire world and eventually assumed the name of Trinitarian Christianity in Rome.Trinitarian paganism spread from Babylon to Rome by way of Pergamum. The Babylon Kings, who were descended from Nimrod, served as both king and priest of the pagan Babylonian Mystery religion.
As priests, they bore the title "Pontifex Maximus" or "Supreme Pontiff," meaning "supreme pathfinder" or "bridge maker," representing "the path or connection between this life and the next."
They ruled upon the throne of Satan, which is the throne of Nimrod as the "hidden god."The last king to reign in Babylon was Belshazzar, who celebrated the pagan Babylonian ritual using the sacred Jewish temple vessels which his father King Nebuchadnezzar confiscated from the Jewish temple in 587 B.C.:
In 63 B.C., Julius Caesar, who had been elected Pontifex Maximus, became emperor of Rome and vested the office of Roman emperor with the priestly powers and functions of the Babylonian Pontiff.
Henceforth, the title Pontifex Maximus was used by the Roman Caesars as illustrated on a Roman coin depicting the image of Augustus Caesar (27 B.C.-14 A.D.) with his title "Pont. Max.," which is an abbreviation of Pontifex Maximus.
Thus, the Roman emperors, like the preceding Babylonian emperors, now served as priests of Babylonian paganism, and bore the title Pontifex Maximus.
In 376 A.D., Gratian became the first Roman emperor to refuse the idolatrous title of Pontifex Maximus. He presented the Babylonian Throne, or Satan-Nimrod’s Throne to the bishop of Rome.
By this time, the Roman bishops had advanced in political power, and in 378 A.D., Bishop Damasus was elected Pontifex Maximus, becoming the official pagan Babylonian priest seated on Satan’s throne in Rome.
As such, the bishop converted the pagan Babylonian temples of Rome into Trinitarian Christian churches and introduced the worship of Nimrod, Semiramis and the god-incarnate son under the respective titles of "god the father," "god the son" and "god the holy spirit."
All the pomp and ceremony that existed in ancient Babylon was now practiced as Roman Trinitarian Christianity.
Before the Babylonian conversion into Trinitarian Christianity, the early Christians were a small cult surrounded by numerous Babylonian pagan temples.
Historians, however, relate the amazing "overnight" conversion of Romans to Trinitarian Christianity, which coincided to a remarkable and unprecedented disappearance of paganism.
In actuality, the Roman pagans did not convert to Trinitarian Christianity; but rather, Bishop Damasus exercised his authority as head of Babylonian paganism in Rome, and replaced all the Christian elders with pagan priests and continued the practice of the pagan Babylonian Mystery religion under the name of Trinitarian Christianity.
Since you're plagarizing this (BTW, that's not only against the website policy, it's also illegal, especially without attribution) from Hislop's book, I'd like to post something from an independant source or two about it:

From The Two Babylons - Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two_Babylons):

It has been recognized by scholars as discredited and has been called a "tribute to historical inaccuracy and know-nothing religious bigotry" with "shoddy scholarship, blatant dishonesty" and a "nonsensical thesis".[3][4]

Although scholarship has shown the picture presented by Hislop to be based on a misunderstanding of historical Babylon and its religion, his book remains popular among some fundamentalist protestant Christians.[1]

The book's thesis has also featured prominently in the conspiracy theories of racist groups such as The Covenant, The Sword, and the Arm of the Lord[5] and other conspiracy theorists.[6]

Although extensively footnoted, giving the impression of reliability, commentators (in particular Ralph Woodrow) have stated that there are numerous misconceptions, fabrications and grave factual errors in the document

achysklic
06-02-2011, 15:27
Since you're plagarizing this (BTW, that's not only against the website policy, it's also illegal, especially without attribution) from Hislop's book, I'd like to post something from an independant source or two about it:

From The Two Babylons - Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two_Babylons):

It has been recognized by scholars as discredited and has been called a "tribute to historical inaccuracy and know-nothing religious bigotry" with "shoddy scholarship, blatant dishonesty" and a "nonsensical thesis".[3][4]

Although scholarship has shown the picture presented by Hislop to be based on a misunderstanding of historical Babylon and its religion, his book remains popular among some fundamentalist protestant Christians.[1]

The book's thesis has also featured prominently in the conspiracy theories of racist groups such as The Covenant, The Sword, and the Arm of the Lord[5] and other conspiracy theorists.[6]

Although extensively footnoted, giving the impression of reliability, commentators (in particular Ralph Woodrow) have stated that there are numerous misconceptions, fabrications and grave factual errors in the document

Bert quit crying, First I am not claiming I wrote this.I am presenting a History lesson to you. By doing this I am able to use whatever books that are made public that I choose. So again I say quit CRYING.

I can use many many more sources other than A Bishops books. shall I show you?

I was merely pointing out the relationship between your pope and NIMROD. Sorry you had a fit, now as someone else said before dawn on your big boy pants and suck it up...

Schabesbert
06-02-2011, 15:41
Bert quit crying, First I am not claiming I wrote this.I am presenting a History lesson to you.
No, this is, and I quote, a "tribute to historical inaccuracy and know-nothing religious bigotry" with "shoddy scholarship, blatant dishonesty" and a "nonsensical thesis".

What part of "shoddy scholarship, blatant dishonesty" don't you understand?
Or, are you advocating a "historical inaccuracy and know-nothing religious bigotry" with "shoddy scholarship, blatant dishonesty" and a "nonsensical thesis"?

By doing this I am able to use whatever books that are made public that I choose. So again I say quit CRYING.
Just trying to make you look less foolish than you're apparently determined to make yourself look. A Sisyphusian task, to be sure.

I can use many many more sources other than A Bishops books. shall I show you?
They probably all have Hislop as a "primary source."

I was merely pointing out the relationship between your pope and NIMROD. Sorry you had a fit, now as someone else said before dawn on your big boy pants and suck it up...
You were pointing out that you can repeat lies. I already knew that, all too well.

Kingarthurhk
06-02-2011, 15:54
achy, it's more hilarious to read your posts than it is to listen to Nancy Pelosi. Only she's much more honest.

Where's Vic to complain about a thread hijack???

So, have you taken your fourth vow yet?

achysklic
06-02-2011, 15:57
No, this is, and I quote, a "tribute to historical inaccuracy and know-nothing religious bigotry" with "shoddy scholarship, blatant dishonesty" and a "nonsensical thesis".

What part of "shoddy scholarship, blatant dishonesty" don't you understand?
Or, are you advocating a "historical inaccuracy and know-nothing religious bigotry" with "shoddy scholarship, blatant dishonesty" and a "nonsensical thesis"?


Just trying to make you look less foolish than you're apparently determined to make yourself look. A Sisyphusian task, to be sure.


They probably all have Hislop as a "primary source."


You were pointing out that you can repeat lies. I already knew that, all too well.

Bert you know what is funny about all of this? The fact that your only come back is a fail at a wikipedi review.

If you feel so strong about how you feel, prove what I posted wrong. It's easy to say nana nana boo boo you posted lies about the pope... Go ahead reach in your lil bag of tricks and deciet and pull out proof that the pope and Nimrod are not connected.

I will be sitting and waiting...........:dunno:

Money on the tbale you will side step this and not give any proof. This is the Bert way...talk about foolish :rofl:

bandmasterjf
06-02-2011, 16:10
Bert you know what is funny about all of this? The fact that your only come back is a fail at a wikipedi review.

If you feel so strong about how you feel, prove what I posted wrong. It's easy to say nana nana boo boo you posted lies about the pope... Go ahead reach in your lil bag of tricks and deciet and pull out proof that the pope and Nimrod are not connected.

I will be sitting and waiting...........:dunno:

Money on the tbale you will side step this and not give any proof. This is the Bert way...talk about foolish :rofl:


Lies, lies, lies. You are so decietfull you are a bad person because you're not Catholic. Even Moses was Catholic. The Catholic church started right before Eve bit the fruit. :rofl: Or something like that. :rofl:

Schabesbert
06-02-2011, 16:19
Bert you know what is funny about all of this? The fact that your only come back is a fail at a wikipedi review.
Fail??? Hardly.

If you feel so strong about how you feel, prove what I posted wrong.
C'mon .... EVEN YOU or your merry band of LA Laker Cheerleaders (bandmaster and KingA) (my apologies to the Laker girls who are much more manly) aren't dumb enough to ask to prove a negative.

Well, maybe you three are. But nobody else reading this is that dumb.

Schabesbert
06-02-2011, 16:22
Bert you know what is funny about all of this? The fact that your only come back is a fail at a wikipedi review.

BTW, you did notice those little numbers in the Wikipedia article, didn't you?

Those are things that adults call "references." You know, things that can be checked.

Here are some of them for this article:
References^ a b Grabbe, Lester L. Can a 'history of Israel' be Written? p. 28, 1997, Continuum International Publishing Group
^ [1] Christian Book Reviews November 12th, 2005
^ Book Review: Plan 9 From Saturday Christian Book Reviews November 12th, 2005
^ Book Review: Honesty is the Best Policy Christian Book Reviews November 12th, 2005
^ Michael Barkun Religion and the Racist Right, pp. 192-193, UNC Press 1997
^ Michael Barkun A Culture of Conspiracy, p. 210, Univ. of California Press 1997
^ Woodrow, Ralph BOOK REVIEW - The Two Babylons: A Case Study in Poor Methodology Christian Research Institute, Vol. 22, No. 2, 2000
^ a b Woodrow, Ralph BOOK REVIEW - The Two Babylons:A Case Study in Poor Methodology Christian Research Institute, Vol. 22, No. 2, 2000
^ Bill Ellis Raising the Devil, p. 135, University Press of Kentucky 2000



Money on the tbale you will side step this and not give any proof. This is the Bert way...talk about foolish :rofl:
Save your money to buy your girlfriend. Or to rent.

achysklic
06-02-2011, 16:41
Wow bert your adult wiki references sure are impressive. I could post as many positives reviews about the book as well. But i wont pull a bert. As predicted you avoided the question. Hurry run in your corner say 3 hail marys for talking so harsh of us and maybe the dead woman or the pope will forgive you. I doubt it. Lol.

achysklic
06-02-2011, 23:43
Dont worry about my money i have plenty from winning bets from catholics. Lol. Seriously though i actually have more than enough my God has blessed us greatly.

Schabesbert
06-03-2011, 08:02
Wow bert your adult wiki references sure are impressive.
Compared to anything you offer, certainly.

I could post as many positives reviews about the book as well.
Yeah, but none from actual historians and people with credibility.

But i wont pull a bert.
No, of course you won't. That would involve: thinking, investigating, and providing something reliable. You certainly won't.

achysklic
06-03-2011, 09:38
Compared to anything you offer, certainly.


Yeah, but none from actual historians and people with credibility.


No, of course you won't. That would involve: thinking, investigating, and providing something reliable. You certainly won't.

And yet again you "pulled a Bert" and side stepped away from what was asked of you. Did you read your ref. from wiki.? Hardly historians!

Bert continue as you will, always avoiding, always pointing fingers, always insulting, always blamming others, never answer what is asked of you directly.

The RCC is a curse, a plague on society. The only reason it exists is to fulfill prophecy and ensure the return of Christ!

What a day it will be when your church is put away, and your broken knees will bow to the ONE TRUE GOD of Israel!

Even Mary won't be able to save you then..........:tongueout:

Schabesbert
06-03-2011, 10:38
And yet again you "pulled a Bert" and side stepped away from what was asked of you. Did you read your ref. from wiki.? Hardly historians!
The references were from a smattering of Jewish Theologians/Historians, Protestant Authors (including Woodrow, who absolutely refutes his earlier work which had built upon and endorsed this extremely stupid position which you espouse), a Political Science professor who is an expert in conspiracy theories, among other scholars.

Bert continue as you will, always avoiding, always pointing fingers, always insulting, always blamming others, never answer what is asked of you directly.
This is a textbook case of projection.


The RCC is a curse, a plague on society. The only reason it exists is to fulfill prophecy and ensure the return of Christ!
I'd be careful if I were you.

Christ had been accused of being in league with Satan (Matthew 12, Luke 12). So, too, are people like you now accusing His Body, His Bride.



What a day it will be when your church is put away, and your broken knees will bow to the ONE TRUE GOD of Israel!
And now, a textbook case of delusion.

achysklic
06-03-2011, 10:55
I'd be careful if I were you.

Christ had been accused of being in league with Satan (Matthew 12, Luke 12). So, too, are people like you now accusing His Body, His Bride.
.


I assure you the RCC is not the bride of of Christ. It is however, as I have shown you the modern day babylonian empire. Your head is modern day NIMROD.

Talk about denial, you ignore Jesus teaching repeatedly for your own pagan teaching. I refuse to worship your god of this world!

I believe in what Jesus said His world is final...So go ahead bow to Nimrod, kiss his hand, it's your soul.

Schabesbert
06-03-2011, 11:25
I assure you the RCC is not the bride of of Christ. It is however, as I have shown you the modern day babylonian empire. Your head is modern day NIMROD.
"Hey, look: that guy has a hat that could, if you really stretch your imagination, maybe a little bit look like a description of something in common with Nimrod. Therefore," using some kind of leap of "logic," "he must BE Nimrod!"

This is the kind of physical association that people usually outgrow around the 3rd grade. Or, it betrays a superstitious nature that is extremely credulous.

A juvenile, superstitious association.

I really don't think many intelligent people could be taken in by this for more than 5 minutes.

achysklic
06-03-2011, 15:24
"Hey, look: that guy has a hat that could, if you really stretch your imagination, maybe a little bit look like a description of something in common with Nimrod. Therefore," using some kind of leap of "logic," "he must BE Nimrod!"

This is the kind of physical association that people usually outgrow around the 3rd grade. Or, it betrays a superstitious nature that is extremely credulous.

A juvenile, superstitious association.

I really don't think many intelligent people could be taken in by this for more than 5 minutes.


Try and make a joke out it to avoid the obvious, it is much more than a mere hat and you know this... The pope not only wears the attire of Nimrod, the actions, customs and whole way of running the church is the same as the babylonian empire.

Try and "pull a Bert" again and twist and poke and use the slight of hand.

But guess what? You and you church fools only those that aloud it to happen (those weak in faith).

Peace brother

fattboyzz
06-03-2011, 15:30
It was fairly common for all Jews to have about memorized the Torah by the time they were adults. Besides, He was a Jew. He partook of the usual Feast Days, Sabbath, and obeyed the commandments. And, He was the son of YHWH after all. He was the Living Torah.

No need to read any further since this IS the answer !

GREAT POST !!!!

Schabesbert
06-03-2011, 15:57
Try and make a joke out it to avoid the obvious, it is much more than a mere hat and you know this... The pope not only wears the attire of Nimrod, the actions, customs and whole way of running the church is the same as the babylonian empire.

Try and "pull a Bert" again and twist and poke and use the slight of hand.

But guess what? You and you church fools only those that aloud it to happen (those weak in faith).

Peace brother
It's no joke: it IS the argument you presented. Well, yes, all your arguments are pretty comical, so I guess it might be a joke.

Especially when "aloud"[sic] to happen :rofl:.

Kingarthurhk
06-03-2011, 16:22
It's no joke: it IS the argument you presented. Well, yes, all your arguments are pretty comical, so I guess it might be a joke.

Especially when "aloud"[sic] to happen :rofl:.

http://nysj.org/s/316/nypsj.aspx?sid=316&gid=1&pgid=885

Schabesbert
06-03-2011, 17:26
http://nysj.org/s/316/nypsj.aspx?sid=316&gid=1&pgid=885
Thanks, guys. I really do appreciate your tacit admission that you have no plausible counter-argument. :cool:

Kingarthurhk
06-03-2011, 17:59
Thanks, guys. I really do appreciate your tacit admission that you have no plausible counter-argument. :cool:

Just wondering if you have taken your 4th vow yet.

achysklic
06-03-2011, 18:21
Just wondering if you have taken your 4th vow yet.


Oh no his faith is too weak for that, he would rather come on here and look a fool. :rofl:

Schabesbert
06-03-2011, 23:42
Oh no his faith is too weak for that, he would rather come on here and look a fool. :rofl:

You didn't really need to chime in with nothing but insults; I had already realized long ago that you have no plausible counter-argument.

bandmasterjf
06-04-2011, 06:13
You didn't really need to chime in with nothing but insults; I had already realized long ago that you have no plausible counter-argument.


This coming from the man who's only real argument is "The Catholic Church is right becuase they tell me they're right.:faint:

achysklic
06-04-2011, 09:59
Well Bert or should I say Herbert Schabes it took me a few mins to profile you, but I now have a understanding as to why you are so set in you ways and hard headed. I will take it easy on you from now on old timer.

Peace brother.

Schabesbert
06-04-2011, 10:21
This coming from the man who's only real argument is "The Catholic Church is right becuase they tell me they're right.:faint:
So now you're resorting to mis-characterizing my positions? :upeyes:

Seriously, man, if you had any confidence, any confidence at all, in your position, you wouldn't have to resort so readily to lying.

I guess that's all you've got.

Schabesbert
06-04-2011, 10:28
Well Bert or should I say Herbert Schabes it took me a few mins to profile you, but I now have a understanding as to why you are so set in you ways and hard headed. I will take it easy on you from now on old timer.

Peace brother.
No, I'm "set in my ways," as you put it, because I've yet to see a compelling reason that the Truths that came from the Apostles have in any way been compromised. And the lack of cogent arguments from you bunch (not to mention that you guys simply resort to ad homs and silly, puerile insults) really confirms my beliefs.

bandmasterjf
06-04-2011, 10:56
So now you're resorting to mis-characterizing my positions? :upeyes:

Seriously, man, if you had any confidence, any confidence at all, in your position, you wouldn't have to resort so readily to lying.

I guess that's all you've got.


No bert. I'm calling a spade a spade. That's really all you do. You don't seem to have anything to add except for the Catholic view given by Catholic historians or coming driectly from the Catholic Church. You don't seem to have a single bit of evidence outside your Church. You even ignore simple truthes that are in the scriptures. I have plenty of confidence in my points. Unlike some others, including you I will admit when someone is right, even when you are. That's just not very often.

Oh, have I mentioned that I think you're full of crap lately? Not saying you are, just asking. :rofl:

Schabesbert
06-04-2011, 11:17
No bert. I'm calling a spade a spade. That's really all you do. You don't seem to have anything to add except for the Catholic view given by Catholic historians or coming driectly from the Catholic Church. You don't seem to have a single bit of evidence outside your Church.
Hey, you must've left your webcam on. I found a picture of you posting this:
http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee310/schabesbert/bandmaster.jpg


You even ignore simple truthes that are in the scriptures.
Well, then it's exceedingly sad that you are not able to articulate any such thing.

I have plenty of confidence in my points. Unlike some others, including you I will admit when someone is right, even when you are. That's just not very often.
Yeah, right. :upeyes:
See the picture above. :rofl:

Oh, have I mentioned that I think you're full of crap lately? Not saying you are, just asking. :rofl:
I had hoped that you might have outgrown this stuff by now.