The Bible. A problem with interpretation.

Awww .. you poor thing - you have been proven dead wrong on a number of theological issues and now all you have is name calling and demonization of the messenger.

1) You claimed that Constantine had nothing to do with insertion of the term "Homoousios" into the Nicene Creed

The "Journal of Church History" states that

"According to Eusebius of Caesarea the word "homoousios" was inserted into the creed solely by personal order of Constantine"

Verdict ? Pants on Fire False

2) you stated that my claim that many of the Early Church Fathers believed that Jesus was subordinate to the Father was a lie.

Ignatius states - "Be subject to the bishop and to one another, as Jesus Christ in the flesh was subject to the Father and the apostles were subject to Christ and the Father,"

Ignatius states plainly Jesus was subject to the Father -

Verdict - Pants on fire False

 

You don't have any facts, and the only honest scripturally literate person here is me and no, if I've heard internet trolls pushing heresies once I've heard it a million times. I don't need to hear it from you.

 

I have no intention of giving out private information to people who are either retarded or insane. And no, I am part of the ordained priesthood. I don't think you know what the ordained Priesthood is, though.

 

So no ability or willingness to discuss the issue with intellectual honesty. Got it. I'd ask you why the Bible specifically states that all, specifically including the Son, will be subordinated to the Father, but you lack either the ability or the willingness to address that fact. I'd ask why the scriptures say that Christians have one God, specifically the Father, and one Savior, specifically the Son, but you lack either the ability or the willingness to address that fact. Same goes for the dozen or so other verses specifically calling out the idea that the Son is subordinate in authority to the Father . . . a position, by the way, accepted by most major denominations.

I have the facts, and you refuse to confront them.

 

Now you know why nobody would take you seriously.

 

I have Quaker friends who believe in the Priesthood of all Believers. They say it is an ordination as well. Ordination is different according to different denominations, and you refuse to identify which you belong(ed) to. This isn't any more personal information than what you have already revealed.

But I can understand being so terrified of honest debate that you have to label anyone who dares challenge your claims as "either retarded or insane." Such childishness is easier than an honest debate.

 

Biblical style, Murder is when you know the enemy
or it is merely killing.

Check Out
Carl Jung's essay
Answer to Job
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Answer_to_Job
Jung lays out, God Matures Too.



Those days of Samuel, etc. were "those days".

Samuel, Saul and the Amalakites. A fav.
No Forgiveness for King Saul.
David on the other hand got away with . . . .

 

This argument implies God had to learn that killing kids is bad. Do you agree with that theology?

 

Not only that - he refuses to discuss anything once information that conflicts with his narrative is presented. From that point on it is Ad Hom, Strawman, name calling and various other attempts to demonize the messenger - rather than discuss the topic.

I don't know too much about the Catholic process but I suspect it is quite thorough. Having a number of relatives - and have interacted with numerous others who have graduated from the Missouri Synod - 7-8 years - learning Greek, Latin, Hebrew - Church History and so on - can tell you that these folks are well educated.

These folks know things like the fact that "According to Eusebius of Caesarea the word "homoousios" was inserted into the creed solely by personal order of Constantine" - Journal of Church History.

They know that the early Church Fathers had beliefs that differed from modern Trinity doctrine. It is not like this is some big secret - and so they have to cover this stuff.

Apparently the above is a big secret kept from ITJM - as he went into a rage crying "Lies Lies Lies" upon having this info presented to him.

 

"Jesus is subordinate in authority to the Father" and that's accepted by most denominations???????????

Now I know that you don't know what you are talking about. If that's you claim, prove it. Show me in each denomination's statement of faith (they all have one) and prove it.

Or shut up.

 

Not just those denominations, but the scriptures themselves. Are you willing to discuss this issue and address sources I provide or are you going to dismiss everything with the usual ad hom arguments? I'm not going to do homework for you if you aren't going to engage.

For now, at least start with 1 Corinthians 15:28.

 

I don't take myself seriously most of the time but apparently you do !

If not you would not go into such a rage information presented by me proves you wrong.

 

Well, you've proved one thing about yourself, that's for sure.

 

There are verses in the Bible that have Jesus as subordinate to the Father and many denominations accept that the Bible is the inspired word of God.

That their statement of faith contradicts this fact - is not my problem.

I have already given you verses to this effect - so you have your proof. Unfortunately - on receiving this proof - you started name calling followed by a ridiculous attempt to explain away these verses.

 

Being able to support (prove) one's claims is a good thing. I realize that it must be difficult for a Priest to have so many of his claims about Church History proven false but - rather than trying to demonize the messenger - perhaps you should learn to change your perspective based on the facts.

 

I am from an assimilationist Jewish family
and grew up with Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the 4th of July.


I study the Bible.
It isn't about "agree" or "disagree" with a theology.
I do believe you will enjoy the Jung reference; recommended to me
by Gnostic Bishop, Stephan Hoeller who understood I don't read well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephan_A._Hoeller
When I tried to read it, it was not a labor. It flowed.
Meeting with Hoeller on two occasions what phenomenal
8 - 9 hours passed as minutes. But, we all became hungry and
went out for food.



BTW my best friend and I have done simultaneous study.
He was an Alter Boy never abused. Now has feelings of inadequacy over never . . kidding.
And an attending physician to the Pope's staff at
L.A. Coliseum. The Pope had his own physician in attendance.
We have studied the above and also spent 10 years
studying the History of Texas. At that time we
knew of the Alamo but not the Battle of San Jacinto.
Those days of our purely intellectual pursuits are GWTW.


Please, read the Jung essay.
Even a dyslexic can. I did.
It is only an essay, not a whole book.
Available online.
And the morality around the Book of Job is the issue.

 

Well argued! LOL!!!

The catch with religion is that there is no decision making process.

So, when questions arise, there isn't even agreement on methodology for resolving the difference.

It's no wonder that there is such stupendous religious diversity.

 

I hear this from messageboard "experts" (who never set foot in a Church building at any time). In reality, there isn't a dimes worth of difference between the mainstream Christian denominations because at one time they were all Catholics. I am sure that will come as a shock to the people who claim to have relatives in the ministry.

 

I'm not "demonizing" you, I am pointing out your lies for those playing along at home.

 

No, I am not going to discuss anything with another armchair "expert" who pulls things out of his arse and misapplies scripture in an attempt to prove it. Do you know what they call pulling one verse out of it's context to make a whole doctrine? It's called "proof texting" and it is how fundies, atheists, and Jehovahs Witnesses get their idiotic ideas.

 

Why don't you take your claims to your alleged Missouri Synod Lutheran relatives so they can tell you how full of it you are? I am sure they will be impressed that you have skimmed through an online article on the subject.

 

Well, Christianity is not even the only religion based on the Bible.

The real point here is that religion doesn't provide a decision making process.

So, religion resolves issues by bifercation - even over what you call isseus that aren't worth a dime!! But, it grows to the point where we have Hindusim, newage mother Earth, etc., etc. And, there still is no methodology for making decisions - not even a common basis for decision making.

Obviously, that results in irresolvable differences. And, it is not a satisfactory methodology for examining how our physical universe works.

 

I'm not "demonizing" you, I am pointing out your lies

Dude - if you accuse someone of lying - in civil circles - you must provide an example of that Lie.

To not do so is the definition of demonization.

You are a conflicted soul

 

I grew up with these people in my life - and have had discussions of the Trinity Doctrine .. and other things related to Church History - some of which we have been discussing. For me this has been a life long Journey.

These people do not act like you, do not talk like you, name call, build strawmen - and other seriously lame argument tactics. It is part of having some training in Philosophy - we just don't act like that.

Did you receive no training in Philosophy on your path to Priesthood ?

 

Do you mean like when you said I wasn't a Priest? You must like standards, you have two of them.