One thing at a time, you are not going to pull that jazz of throwing peas against the wall to see if anything sticks. You originally posted all of them together and Ignatius is the one that sticks out like a sore thumb. Now I want to see proof of the claims in this post IN CONTEXT. Please provide attribution. Keep in mind that Wikipedia articles are not considered scholarship.
I addressed your comments on Ignatius .. comments to which you have failed to respond. Avoidance and denial is not an argument for much. What is your response to Clement and Justin Martyr and to my comment on Ignatius "Do you think God - the Father - is corruptible" ? I did provide proof of claim - I gave you the words of Clement, Ignatius, Justin Martyr. It is not my fault that these folks believed that Jesus was subordinate to the Father. In Matt/Mark - Jesus refers to the Father as someone other than himself. He prays to his God asking "take this cup from my hand". On the cross Jesus calls out to God "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me". So what happened here - did Jesus forget who he was in some masochistic delerium ?
And yet the new church kept jewish beliefs and incorporated the idea of blood sacrifice into christianity, which IMO, was never a part of what christ taught. There is even a scripture in the OT where God said that He never wanted blood sacrifices. And yet they arose, and were already in existence when god was supposed to have uttered that to a prophet. Kinda similar to the scripture JC used when he broke jewish beliefs and basically said that God could be one with man. Anathema. That we could all be sons of God. So it seems the traditional ideas the jews had about man and God was that God would never find a dwelling place in the human body, the human mind. And to promote this was dealt with by being killed. It was just unthinkable. So in this sense, JC was a revolutionary. And for some reason, He was later turned into the jewish idea of a blood sacrifice. Yet it seems to me that the blood sacrifice, the saving merits of the blood of christ, shed for mankind, should have been seen as symbolizing what must happen within human consciousness, the death of the ego or self, followed by the rebirth of the psyche, a psychological revolution in human consciousness, which is what actually saves man. But instead of being used as a symbol of what must happen to man, his consciousness, it became a very literal thing. That the very act of christ dying, shedding blood, somehow, in some magical manner, is what saves man. Washed clean by the blood of JC. As the animal sacrifices were supposed to roll sin forward, as God is appeased by the death and blood of his creation. A blood cult, that reminds me of the human sacrifices of the Aztecs, done to appease and please their gods. It is almost as if there is something in human consciousness which knows that something must die for salvation, and being concentrated on what is outside of consciousness, grabbed onto killing something else. Oh no doubt that anything that did not mesh with orthodoxy was considered heresy, and not only were those books destroyed, but heretics were not treated very well at all by the men in power in the church. And if not for some of these books being buried, we would have no access to them today, and they would be totally forgotten, only learning of some of them from early writings where these books were talked about as heretical. We will probably never know, unless more books or history is dug up, what really went on after the death of JC. That era really is shrouded in mystery, and there may have been books we have never heard of that might have shed greater light on what actually went on. This kind of stuff has always held great interest for me, given I just have a sneaking suspicion that the real story is not yet known.
Actually, he was quoting Psalm 22 to show that a prophecy had been fulfilled. And no, you did not address my question about Ignatius, you ignored it and tried to obfuscate the issue with more gibberish.
you are the one blubbering gibberish Quit accusing me of your actions. There is no "prophecy" in Psalm 22. That the person in the Psalm thinks God has forsaken them does not explain "God - in the form of Jesus" saying that God has forsaken him. Once again ... did God forget who he was in some masochistic delerium and start calling on himself ? You completely avoid addressing the issue of Jesus referring to God as someone other than himself throughout Mark and Matt. What question about Ignatius was not addressed ? You asked if Ignatius said "Jesus was God" and you were answered. Ignatius did believe Jesus was divine/a God ...but he did not believe Jesus was the God of Abraham and says Jesus was subject to corruption. Do you believe God - the Father - is subject to corruption ? If not then you do not believe in the same thing as Ignatius. Then you completely avoided the fact that your claim "Clement believed Jesus was God (God of Abraham)" was refuted. So once again ... How does Clement saying "Let all the heathen know that thou [the Father] art God alone, and that Jesus Christ is thy Servant" not go against the idea that Jesus was God ?
Here is another quote from Ignatius " be the followers of Jesus Christ, even as He is of His Father" So what then .. is God now chasing his tail .. .following himself ? Ignatius believes Jesus is subordinate to the Father .. a follower of the Father ... not himself the Father.
Protestant fanatic, obviously. It is pure foolishness to turn religion into "science". And vice versa, but that would be a different story.
Many many scholars disagree with you. It was John the Apostle that wrote Revelation.External Evidence (the writings of the Church Fathers) and internal evidence (syle and theology) support that it was John the Apostle. So I suppose you discount the writings of the Apostle Paul, especially in Phillipians Chapter 2 "Your attitude should be the same of Christ Jesus. Who being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing...... The Father is God before He took on the weaknes of Human flesh. God the Son took on our human weakness only with a divine nature. The Holy Spirit is what God uses to empower those that believe in His provision.
Phillipians is accepted as one of the epistles attributed to Paul that was written by Paul. Revelations is quite another story. As given in the previous link the internal evidence - difference in language and style makes it impossible to identify the Apostle John with Revelations on this basis. Modern scholarship is what was given in the link presented and Modern scholarship does not claim the Apostle John wrote Revelations - and neither did ancient scholarship. Dionysius, Origen and Eusebius - and other writers in the first three centuries - state rather matter o factly that Revelations was a forgery. . http://dqhall.com/revelation/ While Revelations is a fine piece of Apocraphia - and perhaps was the result of some Nostrodamas style prophets vision/dream - the likelihood that it was written by John the Apostle is very low. Eusebius had access to Origin's library- unfortunately most of which is lost to use due to the zeal of the early Church leaders for burning anything that remotely conflicted with Church doctrine. Origin's had a massive library and was "a prolific writer who wrote roughly 2,000 treatises in multiple branches of theology, including textual criticism, biblical exegesis and hermeneutics, philosophical theology, preaching, and spirituality. He was one of the most influential figures in early Christian theology, apologetics, and asceticism.He has been described as "the greatest genius the early church ever produced" That these three Christian figures said that Revelations was a forgery is very strong evidence against authorship by the Apostle John. Now to the Catholic Encyclopedia - and unfortunately you are not going to get much help from there either. Note that Revelations is referred to as " the Apocalypse" http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01594b.htm Not sure where your "scholars" are getting their information from as this is very damning to the case for Joannine authorship.
I see you are as good at reading my posts as you are at reading scripture, which is not very good at all. I have been reading some of your other posts, which make you sound more like a conspiracy theorist than a serious scholar. I think we're done here.
Accusations backed up with nothing (aka- fallacy) followed by demonization of the messenger followed by running to the playground to stick head deep in the sandbox of denial. The mark of a "serious scholar" ...
Considering that your very first post to me in this thread was to express your doubts as to whether I had actually attended seminary you have nothing to complain about, "pot" - or is it "kettle"? The rest of your postings to everyone else are just fact free braggadocio. The burden of proof remains on you and you have yet to deliver.
I can see why God chose 'Constantine to preserve the integrity of the Christian faith'. Constantine, after all, did murder his wife and son. So that made him the perfect man for the job.
It was at Nicaea where St. Nicholas (yes, that St Nicholas) punched Arius in the face. It was the Christian thing to do.
I am not "protesting" so I do not come under the definition of Protestant. I am a believer and not a believer of the Papal system. You just make the case that "the traditions of men" outweigh the authorship of the Holy Spirit. So you just undermine the entire scripture as valid in your own mind.Know this, there are many many that disagree with you entirely.
I have surpassed the burden of proof. Clement, Ignatius, and Justin Martyr did not believe that Jesus was the God of Abraham and I have given quotes from all 3 demonstrating this. You could not refute Clement and Martyr and while you protested Ignatius - you have refused to address any refutations put forward against your protests (which essentially consisted of abject denial). Avoiding discussion, denial and demonization is not an argument for much. Once again in relation to Ignatius who states that Jesus was corruptible. Do you believe that God - The Father - is corruptible.
Dude, you're torturing the language and passing opinion off as fact. You have the worst case of confirmation bias I have ever seen, and that's saying something. I have already spent too much time on you.
You keep making claims "Torturing language" without backing those claims up. This is fallacy land (assumed premise) and that is all you have for material. How am I "torturing language" by asking you to explain what you posted "He became subject to corruption" in relation to your claim that Jesus is God - The Father. How can "The Father" be subject to corruption ? Since you can not seem to handle that one... how about this one ? Ignatius says - "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" Is Jesus subject to the Father in the same way that the apostles were subject to Christ ? How does Clement saying "Let all the heathen know that thou [the Father] art God alone, and that Jesus Christ is thy Servant" not go against the idea that Jesus was God. So far all you have done is avoided answering these questions.
ROFL ... again you avoid answering the question. What is more laughable is the Theologians who disagree with you. So much for your appeal to authority fallacy. So lets try again: Ignatius says of Jesus "He became subject to corruption" in relation to your claim that Jesus is God - The Father. How can "The Father" be subject to corruption ? Ignatius says - "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" Is Jesus subject to the Father in the same way that the apostles were subject to Christ as Ignatius says ? How does Clement saying "Let all the heathen know that thou [the Father] art God alone, and that Jesus Christ is thy Servant" not go against the idea that Jesus was God.
This has been 'Heresy #1' for the entire history of Christianity. It always comes up, taking center stage, since the Divinity of Jesus is the biggest stumbling block for humanity. Jesus: Yesterday, today, and always, in this world: A Stone of stumbling, and a Rock of offense. He is spiritualized to the complete loss of His humanity, or humanized to the loss of His deity. Deceivers and heretics constantly distort His words and mission. They stumble over the Rock, and someday it will crush them. Col2:8See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ. 9For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form.. ... 18Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you. Such a person also goes into great detail about what they have seen; they are puffed up with idle notions by their unspiritual mind. 19They have lost connection with the head, from whom the whole body, supported and held together by its ligaments and sinews, grows as God causes it to grow. The Head. That is what matters. But the deceivers and enemies of Jesus do all they can to minimize, spiritualize, and trivialize the Head. They are detached from the body, and are dead to the Head.
