Sometimes I wonder about the Trinitarian view.

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by adjensen

 

I stated very clearly that "Bob" is Jesus. Are you denying that Jesus died for us?

Jesus died for us. Therefore only baptism in Jesus name is valid.

Originally posted by adjensen

No, I'm arguing against your illogical theology, which is not in support of either Christian baptism or the name of Jesus Christ.

The apostles baptized in Jesus Christ. That is Christian baptism and you are arguing against it.

reply to post by adjensen


My views are always subject to change. The information I receive is not limited to the bible or Christianity, I look at other religions as well, that is where this "new" information comes from. I don't limit my intake to one certain field.

I know that, and Jesus is a relabeling of Bacchus. Rome was infamous for taking others ideas and refashioning them to fit their own ideals. Bacchus was one of Rome's gods long before Jesus ever came into the picture. They took bits and pieces from the Bacchus myth and incorporated them into Jesus' life. They did the same thing with Dionysus, tweaked the myth in order to create Bacchus.

If you can't see that then you are ignoring it.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by adjensen

 

I stated very clearly that "Bob" is Jesus. Are you denying that Jesus died for us?

Jesus died for us. Therefore only baptism in Jesus name is valid.

So someone who honestly believed that Jesus' name was Bob can legitimately baptize people with the name Bob, because they think that's how you pronounce Jesus' name. Okay, glad that we have that behind us.

The apostles baptized in Jesus Christ. That is Christian baptism and you are arguing against it.

No, I'm not -- you and I and the Apostles are in agreement -- it doesn't matter what the spelling or pronunciation is, the words associated with baptism are not what is important, rather that it is done by the authority of Christ, which is what "in the name of" means.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by adjensen

 

My views are always subject to change. The information I receive is not limited to the bible or Christianity, I look at other religions as well, that is where this "new" information comes from. I don't limit my intake to one certain field.

I know that, and Jesus is a relabeling of Bacchus. Rome was infamous for taking others ideas and refashioning them to fit their own ideals.

Except that Jesus isn't Roman.

He was Jewish, all the earliest Christians were Jews and all of the authors of the New Testament were Jews. Saying that Jews would recast a Greek god of the harvest into their Messiah is, literally, as dumb as your "Jesus was a woman" theory. Stop being so ignorant.

reply to post by adjensen


Oh, but Paul was a Roman and so were many (if not most) of the early church fathers. I think you're the one being ignorant by ignoring Rome's part in all of this.

You're telling me that Constantine would legalize the ultimate truth? He was a tyrant, and as I've said before, tyrants don't support the truth, only lies. What makes you think in a world full of lies that the ultimate truth would be allowed to permeate for so long.?

You are ignorant to the world around you apparently, otherwise you'd see what I see.


Religious leaders of any time know what they are doing, they know that they are lying. They don't care where the lies come from, as long as the truth does not spread. They care about money and always have, if an opportunity comes up that fattens their pockets, they're going to take it. Coincidentally, Jesus' name has been a HUGE money maker throughout history.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


Constantine? What does Constantine have to do with anything? Christianity was well established centuries before Constantine had anything to do with it.

You overemphasize Paul's being a Roman citizen because you don't understand Judaism. He was a "Roman of convenience", not one of daily living. Judaism was Paul's religion, and it took precedence over his nationality, read all about it in Acts and his letters.

reply to post by adjensen


If it weren't for Constantine Christianity may have never spread like it did. You're ignoring his part in Christianity, he's even considered a saint by the RCC, even though he didn't lead anywhere near a saintly life.

Paul was allowed to have his letters received by Roman officials and even persecuted Jesus and his followers for the Roman empire. You can call it whatever you want, but he was employed by Rome and was even saved by Rome on occasion.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by adjensen

 

If it weren't for Constantine Christianity may have never spread like it did.

Christianity was already spreading fast when Constantine legalized it -- he was reacting to a reality, not creating it. Yes, it helped spur Christianity's growth, but he had nothing to do with its creation.

Paul was allowed to have his letters received by Roman officials and even persecuted Jesus and his followers for the Roman empire.

Where on earth do you get your history from? Just pull it out of thin air? Paul persecuted the early church (not Jesus, there is no indication that Paul met Jesus prior to the resurrection) for the Jewish authorities, not the Romans. The Romans couldn't care less if the Jewish Christians were committing blaspheme against the God of the Israelites.

reply to post by adjensen


I never said Constantine created Christianity, I'm saying that he legalized it. I guess he thought it was better to kill all the pagans who outnumbered Christians at the time? Christians were by far the minority around the time Constantine legalized it. Odd that they would decide to persecute the majority instead of the minority don't you think?

I sensationalized the persecution of Jesus thing, but my point still stands. If he persecuted Jesus' followers, he may as well have persecuted Jesus himself. That was the point I was trying to get across, I didn't mean it literally. Sorry for not clarifying that bit.

You do realize that the Jewish authorities answered to the Roman authorities right? If the Romans didn't approve of something, it didn't happen. If the Romans didn't care about whether Christians blasphemed or not, then why did they persecute them along with the Jews? They obviously cared enough to authorize their persecutions, so your assumption is proved false.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by adjensen

 

If the Romans didn't care about whether Christians blasphemed or not, then why did they persecute them along with the Jews? They obviously cared enough to authorize their persecutions, so your assumption is proved false.

You don't know anything about the relationship between the Romans and the Jews.

The Romans granted the Jews an exception to their laws regarding worship of the Emperor, and that extended to the Christians for as long as they were Jewish Christians -- when they became overwhelmingly Gentile, that exemption ended, and their refusal to worship the Emperor was the justification for their persecution.

The Romans didn't care, not one iota, who you worshiped, so long as you agreed that the Emperor was divine. They gave the Jews an exception because they raised such a stink about it, preferring to kill and/or die than to break their monotheism. The destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD was the reaction of a Jewish uprising, it wasn't part of a systematic repression of non-militant Jews.

reply to post by Blue_Jay33

. . . it parallels the ride of the four Horseman of the Apocalypse in Revelation written after 70 AD.

This is the device that all the futurists use, by looking for little "proofs" that it was, in a very biased way, to support the conclusion that they had already decided on.
Evidence supports Revelation as maybe being the earliest book in the New Testament.
Which of course places it before the events of 70 AD.

Also Scriptures like Matthew 24:14 could have the good news proclaimed in the known world at the time, but there were limitations on how far people could travel, the bible never existed in it's complete form even.

Before the Catholic Church ever got around to it, there was a well established Christian Church in the British Isles, so the gospel did go out "to the world", at least the world as they knew it.
The Roman church probably just invented the stories of Peter and Paul dying in Rome, and they probably went out to those places. Paul in Romans spells out his plan to go to Spain.

Most Christians acknowledge that what Jesus commanded Christians to do in his parting words to them at the end of Matthew chapter 28, could not be fully accomplished on a worldwide scale without a completed bible in multiple languages.

This is pure fabrication that you probably got out of the Watchtower. Paul did not need a Bible to found churches wherever he went. Your theory presupposes that the Apostles were all long dead before 70 AD.

So it must point to a time after 70 AD, consider just one simple aspect of the prophesy. The knowledge amongst humanity of the prevalence of earthquakes. It was impossible for a Christian living in Europe or Asia to know about earthquakes happening in distant parts of the earth. Today we know exactly what is going on all over the world with earthquakes, just as Jesus prophesied.

Some people may wonder what I mean when I say "cult propaganda", well here is a good example of what I mean. Grasping at straws to support a theory, that Jesus was foretelling TV and radio, and I guess now, the internet.

reply to post by adjensen


So Rome didn't care who you worshiped as long as you worshiped the emperor? That doesn't make any sense. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying it doesn't make sense. If they cared whether you worshiped the emperor or not, then they cared who you worshiped.

The Jewish revolt has nothing to do with the persecution of early Christians. Jews were not Christians, they didn't accept the divinity of Jesus. Either way you look at it, the Jewish authorities answered to the Roman authorities pretty much 100% of the time. They didn't do anything unless they had the approval of Rome.

Are you trying to say that Christians didn't make a huge fuss about recognizing the emperor as divinity? Why give one group the exception but not another? The reason Rome tolerated Judaism is because those who followed it were kept in line, always in fear of blaspheming Yahweh. Rome tolerated fear, which is why they tolerated Judaism in my opinion.

Care to address any of my other points?

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by adjensen

 

So Rome didn't care who you worshiped as long as you worshiped the emperor? That doesn't make any sense. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying it doesn't make sense. If they cared whether you worshiped the emperor or not, then they cared who you worshiped.

Of course it makes sense. Most people of the time were polytheists, so adding the Emperor to the "list of gods" was no big deal, and from the Roman standpoint, the divinity of the Emperor was a political matter, so if someone accepted that, who cared who else they worshipped?

Are you trying to say that Christians didn't make a huge fuss about recognizing the emperor as divinity?

Of course I'm not saying that.

Why give one group the exception but not another?

Because the exception had been given to Jews, not Christians, and for political reasons, it was determined that Christians were not Jews.

The reason Rome tolerated Judaism is because those who followed it were kept in line, always in fear of blaspheming Yahweh. Rome tolerated fear, which is why they tolerated Judaism in my opinion.

No, you're still not getting it. They tolerated every religion. Their issue was whether you added the Emperor to your list of gods, and the Jews would not, and their staunch monotheism (over a lengthy occupation of Israel) caused enough problems as a result that the exception was granted.

reply to post by windword

Still, if they were Jews, they would've repented to Yahweh, no?

Not from my point of view.
I'm not really arguing with you over this, since I don't think you were taking a position as much as just asking the question.
Yahweh, as I have mentioned before, is a god who lived in a stone building on a hill called Mount Zion, in Jerusalem.
The writings usually associated with Qumran saw the temple cult as totally corrupt, so they may not have been so fond of that god either.
John the Baptist gets mixed in with that sort of thinking and he has this saying of taking the axe to the root, which would mean the temple, so the Gospel writer is using this as a device to foretell the destruction of the temple, which effectively eliminated that god who now exists in name only.
So, John would not have been baptizing in that name, in my opinion.

reply to post by adjensen


This is way beside the point. My point is that Paul was a Roman Pharisee who answered to Rome before his conversion. If he answered to the Jewish authorities then he (by default) also answered to Roman authorities.

Rome was infamous for absorbing others ideas and changing them to fit their needs. That is exactly what Rome ordered Paul to do, fake his conversion then turn Jesus' teachings on their head. His message is completely different than that of Jesus. He morphed Jesus' Father's identity with that of his god Yahweh.

If Paul was such an enemy to the state, then why were his letters allowed to be received by Roman authorities? You would think that Rome would kill him just as they killed Jesus, but they didn't. Paul was no longer Jewish after his conversion, which calls into question why Rome protected him on at least one occasion.

If Paul was Christian, that means that he no longer viewed the emperor as divinity and was also no longer a part of the exception that Rome granted the Jews. So why was he allowed to have his letters received/preserved and why was he allowed to carry out his missions without hindrance from the Romans?

As a side note: After Peter cut off the Roman soldiers ear, why was he allowed to sit with the Roman soldiers at Jesus' trial? You would think they'd have him hanged or flogged or something, but no, they let him just walk right into the trial and sit with those he had just attacked. Could it be because Peter was a spy sent by Rome? He did deny Jesus three times.

reply to post by jmdewey60


You know those last replies tell me one thing, you are just ignoring the bible whenever it does not fit your perspective, you always have some bizarre answer for everything.
For example thinking that the prophesies of Revelation were penned and distributed in enough time to have warned Christians about events leading up 70 AD. John wrote that near the end of his life on the Island of Patmos.
Now who is reaching, with weak argumentation ?

reply to post by Blue_Jay33

You know those last replies tell me one thing, you are just ignoring the bible whenever it does not fit your perspective, you always have some bizarre answer for everything.

No, I'm not ignoring the Bible.
You have all these Watchtower fake factoids brainwashed into your psyche so normal real facts seem bizarre to you.
I'm going by the normal interpretation, you aren't. You are following a cult version.

For example thinking that the prophesies of Revelation were penned and distributed in enough time to have warned Christians about events leading up 70 AD.

That is the normal up to date understanding of Revelation.
There is only a very tenuous argument for a late date for Revelation, and that is a sort of matching, and it isn't clear to me how they do this, but they supposedly try to figure out what sort of persecution of Christians is being described, then they look at the known historical persecutions and see which one fits. Now they did this a hundred years ago and not surprisingly came up with one that was in the 90's AD, after the fall of Jerusalem. As it turns out, modern analysis finds that the supposed facts used in that earlier study were wrong, and there is no match, but that gets ignored by people with vested interest in pushing the date of Revelation's writing to after 70 AD, like the Jehovah's Witnesses, and the Dispensationalists.

John wrote that near the end of his life on the Island of Patmos.

No, because John was later released and returned to the mainland.

Now who is reaching, with weak argumentation ?

All you have is a very sad and corrupt cult that has brainwashed you into believing a fantastic story, and you using arguments long proven to be just made up.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by adjensen

 

is it a legitimate baptism to be done in the name of Bob?

No, Bob did not die for us.

I have to wonder... How does someone claim to be Christian while having so much dislike for Christian baptism and Jesus Christ.

That's a straw man, Adj didn't say anything like that. It's quite obvious he is presenting reductio ad absurdum arguments to you.

edit on 3-5-2013 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)

No, it is the truth. Bob did not die for us, therefore baptism into Bob would do nothing.

The only name given by which we must be saved is Jesus Christ. A Christian would not fight against this.

I think at this point you should Google what a reductio ad absurdum argument is and what it's purpose is.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by adjensen

 

This is way beside the point. My point is that Paul was a Roman Pharisee who answered to Rome before his conversion. If he answered to the Jewish authorities then he (by default) also answered to Roman authorities.

Boy, you just get crazier and crazier. No, Paul was a Roman citizen, he was not a Roman authority. He had some rights (basically, the right not to be scourged, and the right to have his trial in Rome) but that was about it -- he was a Jewish Pharisee, there's no such thing as a "Roman Pharisee."

I don't think that we need go on from there -- you are so utterly ignorant in historical fact that debating with you is like debating with a tree stump.

reply to post by adjensen


Okay, he was a Roman citizen who was also a Pharisee. Sorry you can't look past that one tiny mistake. My points still stand. And when did I say he was an authority? Doesn't the part of my post you quoted say that he answered to the authorities? You ignore what you want it seems.

That's not just an excuse to ignore the rest of my post is it?

What's with the personal attacks? I haven't attacked you personally, so why do you have to resort to it? Are my questions making you uneasy or something? Obviously they are just too hard for you to answer, so you decide to ignore them.