Why is it "so" important for Christians to confess Jesus as their Lord?

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

So how did they (the Empire) influence the gospel accounts?

By the fact that there was a state religion of Rome, and being a religion, and the people involved in writing the New Testament lived in the Roman Empire.

Christianity wasn't the state religion of Rome at the time the New Testament books were written, it was made the state religion of Rome by Constantine's 2nd successor. That's why I tossed out the possibility that the Gnostic books were Rome-influenced. They were penned at that point in time.

Originally posted by jmdewey60

Originally posted by sHuRuLuNi

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by sHuRuLuNi

 

Have you not learned that in school?

I can only guess that I went to a completely different sort of school than what you went to.
I went to American public school in the sixties in Southern California, where religion was not taught.

If you learned history and the Roman Empire, you could have not skipped the part about Roman Gods, the Pantheon, etc.

As a matter of fact I am currently in the midst of a personal inquiry (at some expense, as far as books and how they cost money to buy) into this very topic and so the skepticism on my part.

For example, one book that I recently purchased: Gospel of Matthew in its Roman Imperial Context (Library Of New Testament Studies)" John K. Riches
Amazon
Normally sells for $72, and if you are lucky, you can find used copies for considerably less, but when you buy a few of these academical type books at premium prices, your bill adds up pretty fast.

edit on 2-1-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

You are not kidding!

I'm not a copyright lawyer; but was TOLD, by a librarian, that electronically reproducing out of print religious texts for the purpose of religious study had been a known loophole in the copyright laws. If I recall he said something about it being untested in courts-- but that was over twenty years ago.

At the time, I was only interested if I could make copies of certain texts-- so all I am sure of is that what I had stacked before me had the librarian's approval for me to copy.

No doubt that would not apply to making copies for sale-- but only for personal or academic use.

How I wish I had my portable scanner in those days-- when I spent my life in the basement of an old theological library!

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

So, I've never said Hell was created for man, it wasn't. It was created for the devil and his angels. Men go there as a result of worshiping satan, either willfully or ignorantly.

So this is a philosophy you just invented, or is it something peculiar to your particular cult?
Hell is an invention of people's imagination, yet they could actually go there if they want, but then God will put you there, whether you like it or not? Is that what you are saying?

No, again, sorry to "beat a dead horse", but a straw man fallacy is just that, a fallacy. I proclaim that hell was created for the devil and his angels because that's what the scripture tells us:

"Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:"

Matthew 25:41

reply to post by Frira

This is exactly what I had in mind when I said you and I do, sometimes, disagree-- and that disagreement is usually on history. Your version of the first four hundred years of the Church cannot be supported by period documents and requires belief in a huge conspiracy and thorough "cleansing" of the record. It is not proof that there is no truth to it-- but it fails on the Occam's Razor concept-- in requiring too many new theories which must first be proved... and probably cannot be.

And don't forget the liberal use of the "Special Pleading Fallacy" where he requires others to provide Biblical support for everything they post and to provide the historical documents themselves, but for his posts he himself makes he doesn't feel obligated in the least bit to provide the same documents or Biblical support for his claims to the contrary.


A reed shaking in the wind.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Christianity wasn't the state religion of Rome at the time the New Testament books were written . . .

I didn't say that.
I said there was a Roman state religion.
Being a religion, period, and being spread about its sphere of influence, meaning the empire over which it held sway, then it was bound to influence the people who lived in this empire, namely the people who wrote the NT.

It's so sad...the same exact people, come into EVERY single thread that is put up, and turn it into the "same ol' song and dance" every single time. Completely suck the life out of the thread and turn it into a "he said, she said" debate and nothing on topic anymore, or nothing what was asked in the OP.

It's pretty sad the amount of harm some of you are doing rather than good. If you are spending ALL your time defending and trying to convince, then you just don't have a clue what is is all about in the end.

I can now see why so many people get turned off from it from the beginning. Such a tragedy.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

I didn't say that.
I said there was a Roman state religion.
Being a religion, period, and being spread about its sphere of influence, meaning the empire over which it held sway, then it was bound to influence the people who lived in this empire, namely the people who wrote the NT.

So your contention is, and I'll use your terminology, that the New Testament was 'inspired' by Roman culture and not the Holy Spirit? Orthodox historical Christianity includes the affirmation that the Holy Spirit was the inspiration for the scriptures.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

No, where did I say that?

That is just the way you act, being sarcastic and putting up sneering emoticons, when you don't have anything to back up your claims.

There is however church historical documents and writings from early church fathers in attendance as to the discussions and the conclusions of the council of Nicea.

Like I said, I'm sure you would love to produce those documents.

reply to post by Frira

. . . that electronically reproducing out of print religious texts for the purpose of religious study had been a known loophole in the copyright laws. If I recall he said something about it being untested in courts-- but that was over twenty years ago.

A lot of previously untested law has been tested recently thanks to Google Books which wants to copy every book in existence.

reply to post by Frira


I am surprised you can't recall his name, that was a pretty powerful story. I would think that is something you would never forget.

Thanks for the post!

reply to post by jmdewey60

That is just the way you act

Well, since you know now that straw man arguments are a fallacy and irrelevant, can we come to a gentlemanly agreement to only comment and address what we actually say to one another?

Like I said, I'm sure you would love to produce those documents.

How can I produce the actual documents though? Unless I'm in possession of them I can only refer to the historical record of them, in the same manner Wikipedia referenced them in the same link I posted a few pages ago.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

. . . hell was created for the devil and his angels because that's what the scripture tells us . . .

The word, Hell, is not in that verse.
It says, fire.
The fire was prepared for Satan.
And it never specifies what made the fire.
It could have been something which is just a natural part of the universe and is the end of useless things, I don't know and I don't think you do, either.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

. . . you know now that straw man arguments are a fallacy . . .

I could not care less about your labels and they do not create an argument.
You also said quoting the Bible is a "special pleading" fallacy.

How can I produce the actual documents though?

Are we in kindergarten now? I mean show that such a thing exists.

. . . can we come to a gentlemanly agreement to only comment and address what we actually say to one another?

I think my point bears out, that you have no intention to back up your argument, as witnessed right here by your claim to not be able to (with some lame excuse).

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Frira

 

This is exactly what I had in mind when I said you and I do, sometimes, disagree-- and that disagreement is usually on history. Your version of the first four hundred years of the Church cannot be supported by period documents and requires belief in a huge conspiracy and thorough "cleansing" of the record. It is not proof that there is no truth to it-- but it fails on the Occam's Razor concept-- in requiring too many new theories which must first be proved... and probably cannot be.

And don't forget the liberal use of the "Special Pleading Fallacy" where he requires others to provide Biblical support for everything they post and to provide the historical documents themselves, but for his posts he himself makes he doesn't feel obligated in the least bit to provide the same documents or Biblical support for his claims to the contrary.


A reed shaking in the wind.

I do NOT disrespect JMDewey-- or you. You two go at it like cats and dogs-- and I generally fall somewhere between the two of you in my own views-- seeing reason on both sides of the arguments you two have-- but not necessarily supporting either.

JMD references some books which I am simply not interested in reading-- we all make such judgements. We are all open minded-- but only to a point. What is that? Something about "being so open-minded that your brain drops out!" So we all have our biases which have already reasoned and thus chose what we accepted and what have not-- having no real impetus to cause us to look back to reconsider yet again-- we have been there and done that already. And still, we came to different conclusions.

That happens. Its okay. All are searching, all have their own experiences-- and none of our conclusions are intended as personal affronts to others. I'm going to let JMD stay where he is on his history things, and I am going to let you stay on your sola scriptura thing, while I am going to let myself reject both.

But I read both your posts with interest-- because you are both obviously smart and passionate. That is good stuff-- even if I think it is sometimes (only sometimes) wrong. And I have my strongly held views, a few of which I know stand teetering on the brink for lack of support, too.

reply to post by Frira

How I wish I had my portable scanner in those days-- when I spent my life in the basement of an old theological library!

The reason I think a lot of these types of books are so expensive is because they are only limited editions to where they only print enough to go into such libraries and are not for a popular audience. Some of the books I buy are actually make to be college and seminary course textbooks and I remember those days and how expensive it was just to outfit for a semester.

Originally posted by Awoken4Ever
reply to post by Frira

 

I am surprised you can't recall his name, that was a pretty powerful story. I would think that is something you would never forget.

Thanks for the post!

I did not hear of his end until at least a year (maybe two) after that encounter-- and I heard two different reports of his death-- one that a truck blocked him and he was shot and another that a truck blocked him and a bomb went off-- and in those days (1990-ish), the only way available to me at the time to research was "microfiche" at a large city library.

I'll poke around and Google some more (I keep getting stuff about Uganda and South Africa and know neither of those had anything to do with the man I met) to see if I can find him. But it was long ago-- and a brief encounter.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Orthodox historical Christianity . . .

So when did you convert to Catholicism?
Talk about special pleading, at least you could name the source for this profound concept.
I did not say the NT was "inspired" by the Roman Religion.
I said the Romans influenced every person living in its empire, including the people who wrote the NT, meaning it had to deal with the problems produced by being in this empire.
I suggest that instead of being hypercritical about things you know nothing about, why not do some actual study on the subject before commenting on it in a way that only shows your ignorance and puts the name Christian to shame.

Originally posted by Awoken4Ever
reply to post by IblisLucifer

 

I don't know if you are insane, brilliant, something is talking through you, for you, or these are your actual words. I have read it a couple of times, and each time I go through it something changes. I need to leave it alone for now and come back to it. Tomorrow it will have new meaning I am sure.

Since people often find it easier to be a result of the past than a cause of the future.

My life story...period.

No more. Never again!

I am not a victim anymore.

Thank you most all is my own writing except the statement "People often find it easier to be a result of the past than a cause of the future." I don't remember who said it or where i read it, but it is one of my favorite statements

Its been said by many people that

"The Devil's greatest accomplishment was convincing the world he didn't exist."- Jim Carroll.

That not the devils greatest accomplishment in my opinion Its making people believe it to be God their Lord that is by far the most dangerous of tricks.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

. . . hell was created for the devil and his angels because that's what the scripture tells us . . .

The word, Hell, is not in that verse.
It says, fire.
The fire was prepared for Satan.
And it never specifies what made the fire.
It could have been something which is just a natural part of the universe and is the end of useless things, I don't know and I don't think you do, either.

Is one kind of everlasting fire worse than another?