There are thousands of Christian denominations in the world today – sadly this can have disastrous consequences..

Christian+denominations+not+oc+for+what+it+s+worth+i+am_c97ed6_4591347

 

I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump. I ran over and said: “Stop. Don’t do it.”

“Why shouldn’t I?” he asked.

“Well, there’s so much to live for!”

“Like what?”

“Are you religious?”

He said, “Yes.”

I said, “Me too. Are you Christian or Buddhist?”

“Christian.”

“Me too. Are you Catholic or Protestant?”

“Protestant.”

“Me too. Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?”

“Baptist.”

“Wow. Me too. Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?”

“Baptist Church of God.”

“Me too. Are you original Baptist Church of God, or are you Reformed Baptist Church of God?”

“Reformed Baptist Church of God.”

“Me too. Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915?”

He said: “Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915.”

I said: “Die, heretic scum,” and pushed him off.



Categories: Christianity, Silly

206 replies

  1. LOL!!

    But no beheadings, murders, bombing of one another’s places of worship, or destruction of entire countries. ISlam needs only two major sects and look at the damage it causes in the world today.

    Like

    • Lol Fido!!! Christians have been murdering each other and non-Christians for centuries! As always, you are more bark than bite!

      Liked by 2 people

    • Fail

      “Christians have been murdering each other and non-Christians for centuries! ”

      So have muslims – so Do muslims. In fact if I was to open any news website today, I can almost be guaranteed to find news of muslims murdering each other and any one else who gets in the way of your angry god.

      WHat does that have to do with christian denominations? And how does Paul’s claim that christians are calling each other “scum” detract from the fact that muslims harbour murderous hatred for the various sects within it?

      Like

  2. I would blame this on the heresy of Sola Scriptura. In the year 1,500 AD there were 4 main churches. The Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and the Assyrian Church. Now there are thousands because of Sola Scriptura.

    It is true that small groups popped up but fizzled out quickly such as the Arians, the Donatists, the Novatians, and others. These were proto-protestant groups who used Sola Scriptura. St. Vincent of Lerins makes an excellent point in his 5th Century work, the Commonitorium. In Chapter 2 it reads:

    “But here some one perhaps will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church’s interpretation? For this reason—because, owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters. For Novatian expounds it one way, Sabellius another, Donatus another, Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, another, Photinus, Apollinaris, Priscillian, another, Iovinian, Pelagius, Celestius, another, lastly, Nestorius another. Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of Ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation.”

    There’s another great quote from St. Francis de Sales in his book The Catholic Controversy showing all of the differences in the protestant world. After all, the three greatest reformers, Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli all had different views on the Eucharist and on baptism(this is before baptists came along btw).

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Allan are there not denominations within Catholicism as well? Take the SSPX for example and also consider the massive chasm between both more liberal and conservative Catholics.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Hello Patrice,

      The SSPX priests and bishops are part of the Church but their organization, the SSPX has no canonical jurisdiction, though talks are getting close between Bishop Fellay and the Pope. If you’ve studied the history of the SSPX, they are just a group of Catholic priests who are under suspension since 1976. It’s not a denomination as they still accept Francis as Pope.

      Liked by 1 person

  4. ‘the massive chasm between both more liberal and conservative Catholics’ – denominations in all but name

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Indeed it would seem the only difference between Protestants and Catholics is that the Protestants don’t pretend they are unified whereas Catholics hide behind the image of unity but when one looks more closely they are just as divided.

    Liked by 2 people

    • That’s a great point – a big schism within islam that is not categorized as “denominational” concerns the issue of violence in islam.

      Some muslims maintain that islam is a religion of peace, while others maintain that it is a religion of violence – both draw from the same quran and hadith collection but decide to focus on the points they believe are the “true” islam.

      But as patrice has pointed out below, who gets to decide what is the “true” islam? As far as I know, there is no central authority in islam that makes these kinds of decisions, and since there are numerous explicit violent commands in both the hadith and the quran – it can go either way. The quran and hadith are contradictory in that they have verses that seem to call for wars of defence, but also have verses that call for offensive war.

      That’s not all, though, some muslims claim that there is no death penalty for apostasy, others insists that there is, or that there is no command for stoning adulterers. These are all significant issues that change the entire complexion of the faith.

      Even though they share the fundamentals – tawhid (although few muslims can actually explain the doctrine LOL), mohammed as the prophet (even though the quran says that you can be a muslim without him as a prophet), and the quran as the literal word of god (even though it cannot be literally literal because it came via the angel jibril), these differences are huge and should be considered sectarian since they reflect a major difference in how one practices the faith.

      Like

    • I didn’t raise the point to then use it to take aim at Islam – nearly every religion can be broken down into different denominations, with each one proclaiming theirs is the only true way. I have recently been arguing with someone who believes the Bible is literally true, and anyone with different interpretations is utterly wrong.

      Like

    • I agree with you.

      Like

  6. That is indeed true however despite the differences the core beliefs are the same such as belief in a Unitarian God, The Qur’an as the literal word of God and Muhammad as the Prophet of God. Whereas Christian sects can hold different ideas about core beliefs such as the Trinity, Deity of Christ, The Bible (Whats in the Bible and its authority) etc..

    Liked by 1 person

    • Patrice:
      Not really; all the groups that Allan Ruhl named (the 4 ancient churches) and historic Protestantism all agreed on the Deity of Christ and the Trinity. (they all agreed with Nicea (325 AD) and Constantinople ( 381 AD). Unitarianism is not Christian at all. Denial of the Deity of Christ and the Trinity makes one by definition not a Christian. The Monophysites and Assyrians (from Nestorius) differed over how to understand the 2 natures of Christ, but the Assyrians were accused of things they actually did not believe; and Nestorius himself, at the end of his life, actually agreed with Leo I’s work on the 2 natures of Christ – 451 AD – Council of Chalcedon.

      They all agreed on the 27 books of the NT. There was debate about the Apocrypha books up until the RCC dogmatically declared them canonical at the Council of Trent in 1545-1563.

      and to Allan Ruhl’s comment:

      I would blame this on the heresy of Sola Scriptura. In the year 1,500 AD there were 4 main churches. The Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and the Assyrian Church. Now there are thousands because of Sola Scriptura.

      Well, it is not a heresy; as it means that the Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith for the church. Human beings, like bishops and Popes are not infallible, so local churches can make mistakes. There was no such thing as the bishop of Rome being the bishop over all other bishops in authority in the early centuries. (Cyprian and 86 other bishops all over the Christian world rebuked Stephen for such a claim around 257 AD.)

      The reason why there is so many denominations is more related to political and social freedom – the undoing of the complete unity between church and state (The Byzantine Emperors Justinian and Heraclius vs. the Copts and other Monophysites (500s-600s AD), and Roman Catholic Church and its history of burning heretics, Crusades, Inquisitions, etc.) – when that was undone, it allowed freedom for people to form churches and interpret scripture differently and yes, even freedom to become heretical and cultic.

      At the beginning of the Reformation, the Protestants also inherited that culture of punishing heretics and so whatever they did for a while (Luther’s rant against the Jews and the peasants revolt and Wiccau prophets; Calvin agreeing to Servetus being burning for heresy; Zwingli approving of Felix Manz and others who rebaptized themselves being executed; the Salem Witch trials, etc. ) – those were the results of inheriting that wrong understanding of church and state.

      The Baptists were one of the first movements calling for the separation of church from civil government. (but they did not mean one could not talk about God or Christ in public or in government, contrary to modernistic revisionism of atheists today.) The original intent of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the USA was to keep government out of the church and avoiding any Federal “State Church”, like the Anglican Church in England and the Lutheran churches of Germany and Scandinavian countries.

      Like

    • ‘Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith for the church.’ Where does the scripture teach that?

      Like

  7. I think it all depends on how one defines what either Islam or Christianity is in the first place. If you allow for a definition which seeks to accomodate all the various sects which self identify as such would render the term rather useless in my view since it lacks any real explanatory power.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Denial of the Deity of Christ and the Trinity makes one by definition not a Christian. ( As I wrote above)

      All the churches, RC, EO, Copts, monophysites, Assyrians, Protestants (Lutherans, Reformed, Presbyterian, Anglicans, Baptists, Methodists, etc.) believed (and some still do) in the Deity of Christ and the Trinity. Those that don’t, like Liberals – are not Christians – they have a dead shell with the name of those ancient churches, but if they don’t hold to the faith, they are not in the faith.

      Unitarianism, Liberalism, Mormonism, Jehovah’s Witnesses are by definition Not Christians.

      Like

    • Your definition is partisan and arbitrary. There were many in the early church who knew nothing of a trinity of three co-equal persons constituting the Godhead. Certainly no one in OT times knew of such a tri-partite being.

      Calvinism which you follow was unknown for 1,500 years in the church and is a religious innovation.

      Like

  8. “Unitarianism is not Christian at all. Denial of the Deity of Christ and the Trinity makes one by definition not a Christian”

    Thats exactly my point Ken it depends on who gets to define what Christianity is in the first place or else its open season for anyone to claim that their opponents are not Christians. I imagine the Unitarians, Arians and so on would disagree with what you consider to be definitional.

    Ken in order to be able to debate on who is or not a Christian depends on a working definition that all sides can agree upon a ‘Mere Christianity’ if you will

    Liked by 1 person

    • That is exactly right Patrice

      Like

    • Jesus said, “Truly truly I say to you that unless you believe that I am, you will die in your sins.”
      John 8:24

      Unitarians therefore are not Christians.

      Like

    • So you claim. But they point to verses where Jesus clearly says he has a God as we do to support their view.

      Like

    • Patrice

      “Thats exactly my point Ken it depends on who gets to define what Christianity is in the first place or else its open season for anyone to claim that their opponents are not Christians.”

      That’s true of islam also, though. Is the true islam violent and oppressive, or is it peaceful and compatible with liberal democracy? Are jihadists real muslims, or are they not muslims? They read from the same books as the peaceful muslims.

      Sunni and shia have both considered the other apostate, and neither of them accept the ahmadiyya, nor the druze, nor the bahai even though they are monotheistic sects who accept mohhamed as a prophet.

      Like

  9. ‘Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith for the church.’ Where does the scripture teach that?

    It is theologically taught in principle by the harmonization of many texts.

    1 Corinthians 4:6 – “do not go beyond what is written”

    2 Tim. 3:16-17
    1 Timothy 5:18
    Jude 3
    2 Peter 1:12-21
    John 17:8
    John 17:17
    John 14:26
    John 16:13
    2 Peter 3:16

    Like

    • A list of references does not impress. Where does the bible teach that the OT and NT are the ONLY infallible rule of faith. No list of references please.

      Like

    • Don’t be lazy; you have to study all those verses and more and read good books on the subject and also see that I wrote, “it is theologically taught by principle from harmonizing lots of Scripture.” You have to study, think, and do theology.

      Like

    • So it is very far from clear that the bible teaches this doctrine.

      Like

    • Where does the bible teach that the OT and NT are the ONLY infallible rule of faith. No list of references please.

      LOL – “where” vs. “no list of references please” = contradiction of logic.

      Like

    • Lol I have read the Bible from cover to cover and I never saw any writer claim that the Bible is the ONLY infallible rule for faith. Therefore it is a man made doctrine unsupported by scripture.

      Like

    • It is theologically derived and was made more clear by the problems of history, that Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and others realized as it came to a head in the 1500s. But Athanasius in the 300s wrote: “Scripture alone is self-sufficient”

      Athanasius also wrote:

      “in these alone (the 27 books of the NT) are the doctrine of godliness” (that is Sola Scriptura in seed form). (Festal Letter 39) “Alone” = (Greek, “mono” = alone, which in Latin, “Sola”)

      And, Athanasius also wrote, “the holy and God-breathed Scriptures are self-sufficient for the preaching of the truth.” (Contra Gentiles, “Against the Heathen”, 1:3)

      Athanasisus also wrote:

      “Vainly do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith’s sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things . . . ” (De Synoodis 6)

      Like

    • If anyone here wants to understand the Catholic position on scripture they should read three papal encyclicals. All are available at vatican.va. They are:

      Providentissimus Deus by Pope Leo XIII in 1893
      Spiritus Paraclitus by Pope Benedict XV in 1920
      Divino Afflante Spiritu by Pope Pius XII in 1943

      These texts talk about how the Church uses scripture. Every one of these documents quotes 2 Timothy 3:16-17. We’re not scared of this verse but we have always understood that verse differently than protestants. It proves scripture is an authority, not the only authority.

      Mr. Temple, if a muslim points to a piece of scripture in the NT that says Jesus was a man, does that refute the Christian position? No, because we believe Jesus is both God and man. The same goes with scripture being an authority. Proving its an authority doesn’t make it the only authority and therein lies the problem for Sola Scriptura.

      Liked by 1 person

    • we also believe Scripture clearly teaches that Jesus is both God and man.

      Problem with your church is it exalted Mary too much and was praying to her and icons and statues; and made Muslims think Mary was part of the Trinity. (Surah 5:116; 5:72-78; 6:101)

      Like

    • “we also believe Scripture clearly teaches that Jesus is both God and man.”

      Amen but that wasn’t my point, the point is, can you find an example of scripture saying its the ONLY authority, not simply an authority, I don’t believe so. The encyclicals I provided talk about 2 Tim 3 and many other verses.

      It’s not the Church’s fault that the Quran misunderstands the Trinity. It just shows that the author of the Quran was uneducated. Even muslims admit that Muhammad could not read so it makes sense that he couldn’t read any of the Catholic literature at the time regarding Mary or the Trinity.

      Like

    • “It’s not the Church’s fault that the Quran misunderstands the Trinity. It just shows that the author of the Quran was uneducated. Even muslims admit that Muhammad could not read so it makes sense that he couldn’t read any of the Catholic literature at the time regarding Mary or the Trinity.”

      The only problem with your interpretation is:

      1) The Qur’an does not get the trinity wrong, rather it redicules the belief in which Christians worship Jesus and Mary peace be upon them instead of God. No where does the Qur’an say “the trinity is God, the Son and the Mother.” Rather the verse says, “And (remember) when Allah will say (on the Day of Resurrection): “O ‘Îsa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary)! Did you say unto men: ‘Worship me and my mother as two gods besides Allah?’ ” He will say: “Glory be to You! It was not for me to say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing, You would surely have known it. You know what is in my inner-self though I do not know what is in Yours; truly, You, only You, are the All-Knower of all that is hidden (and unseen).”

      2) There were people around who were both Christians and who could read Hebrew and had interactions with Christians. Why didn’t those people either reject the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم’s message or at least correct him in order to keep the illusion going? In order for Christians to understand things this way, they literally need to reject all historical context

      Like

    • Khaled Ahamd

      “The Qur’an does not get the trinity wrong, rather it redicules the belief in which Christians worship Jesus and Mary peace be upon them instead of God.”

      The quran does get the trinity wrong – very wrong – and it doesn’t even get the jewish names of the characters right a lot of the time. And it gives no indication that it had any idea that jesus lived 6 centuries before, nor that he carried out his ministry in israel. Sorry, but the quran is completely ignorant about christian belief – but I agree that it does ridicule christianity, but this is the ridicule of the ignorant fool who does not understand enough to make intelligent commentary so resorts to mockery.

      Christians have never worshiped mary – even catholics will tell you that they don’t worship mary. I’m not catholic, but it might be better to say that catholics venerate her in a way similar to the way muslims venerate mohammed. I could be wrong on that, though.

      Like

    • You are wrong. I already quoted the verse. Its up to you to find where it says trinity in it and how worshipping Mary and Jesus instead of God equals a trinity in your world.

      As far as worshiping Mary, I would say you are the first protestant in history to not accuse the Catholics of this. They actually pray to her and venerate her image

      Like

    • BTW Mr. D, I’m not sure if you are a fan of Dr James White, but all you have to do is look up “james white catholic mary” on Google and see how many hits you’ll get of him describing their view towards Mary peace be upon her as worship.

      May Dr James White made “factual statements that are self-contradictory” or maybe “he got the trinity wrong because he doesn’t do enough reading”, I’m not sure

      Like

    • Khaled Ahmad

      “You are wrong. I already quoted the verse. Its up to you to find where it says trinity in it and how worshipping Mary and Jesus instead of God equals a trinity in your world.

      As far as worshiping Mary, I would say you are the first protestant in history to not accuse the Catholics of this. They actually pray to her and venerate her image”

      I doubt that I am wrong. The quran has absolutely no idea what it is talking about when it mentions christianity – show me where it mentions any of the christian doctrines? Where does it mention the father, son and holy spirit? Incarnation? Atonement?

      It doesn’t – the blokes hwo wrote your holy book were talking smack about something they knew nothing about. And where does your book indicate that it knew jesus lived 6 centuries before and ministered in israel? As far as we know, the gys who wrote your book though jesus was some dude who lived in Sanaa and dies 6 months before the “revelation”

      And show me in your quran where your god says he has 99 attributes/personalities, or that he cannot enter his own creation.

      As for worshiping Mary, muslims venerate mohammed and the back stone and the kaaba but you would deny that you are worshiping these things. Even with this, the quran got it wrong.

      Like

    • Khaled Ahmad

      “Mr. D, I’m not sure if you are a fan of Dr James White, but all you have to do is look up “james white catholic mary” on Google and see how many hits you’ll get of him describing their view towards Mary peace be upon her as worship.

      May Dr James White made “factual statements that are self-contradictory” or maybe “he got the trinity wrong because he doesn’t do enough reading”, I’m not sure”

      Why should I look up dr white? He can believe whatever he wants, but I am obliged to think for myself and can make up my own mind about the matter.

      Like

  10. Jesus said to her, “Do not cling to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’” – John 20:17

    Unitarians therefore are Christians. Ken can you provide a full definition of what the term ‘Christianity’ is without cherry picking verses from Johns Gospel?

    Liked by 1 person

    • You also cherry picked a verse from John’s gospel. That verse has to be understood in the context of the whole book. Trinitarians have good explanation of that verse.

      Like

    • And so do Unitarian Christians. It’s a matter of interpretation, either way Jesus has the same God we do. Those are clearly his words.

      Like

    • No, Unitarians cannot explain that verse in the light of John 1:1-5; 5:17-18; 8:24, 8:56-59; 10:27-39; 17:5; 18:1-6; 19:1-6; 20:28.

      Like

    • But as I explained on the other thread, jesus also made statements where he claimed divinity.

      Like

    • “jesus also made statements where he claimed divinity” So you are saying that Jesus, peace be upon him, made “factual statements that are self-contradictory”? I’ll assume based on these contradictory statements that Jesus, peace be upon him, made the statements that denied his divinity and later authors added the statements in which he does (although even though are beyond vague, but I’ll let you have it) because this is what makes sense in light of the message of the OT. And considering Jesus, peace be upon him, was at least a practicing Jew, if not a Prophet, then the statements where he denies divinity seem to make more sense.

      Like

    • khaled AHmad

      “So you are saying that Jesus, peace be upon him, made “factual statements that are self-contradictory”

      No.

      I’m saying that he made statements that attested to his being divine and fully human – it is your biases that presume contradiction. He made both types of statement and that’s why we believe he had two natures.

      It is a classic false dichotomy and a classic fallacy of circular reasoning to presume that he was either one or the other – the text speaks for itself since he stated both.

      Like

    • It is not a bias, it is called logic. God cannot be man and man cannot be God according to the OT. A person cannot be both god and man as that is logically impossible. In addition, even if we were to accept that it is possible (even though it is not), it would still beg the question of why Jesus would refer to God as “your god and my god.” I am both a human being and a freight forwarder, if you were shipping with my company I wouldn’t say to you “let’s go to your freight forwarder and my freight forwarder” when talking about myself. There probably couldn’t be any more far fetched interpretation than that in all honesty

      Like

    • Khaled hamd

      “It is not a bias, it is called logic. God cannot be man and man cannot be God according to the OT. ”

      It is called bias and bad logic. You believe that the OT and the NT are corrupt, so how can you know what these books actually say? That is bad logic too and ignorant. Like the quran and the men who wrote it.

      “I am both a human being and a freight forwarder, if you were shipping with my company I wouldn’t say to you “let’s go to your freight forwarder and my freight forwarder” when talking about myself. ”

      As a human you would still need a freight forwarder to forward your freight, but as a freight forwarder, you would not need to make this statement. As both, you would not be making contradictory statements since both would be true.

      On the other hand, your god has two right arms, 99 personalities and can take anything from his creation as a spouse to produce offspring, including, I presume, goats if he so chooses.

      I’ll stick with the trinity.

      Like

    • I guess my logic is “bad”, but God can be man is “good” logic. Ok… I have been soundly defeated…

      As far as believing the OT is corrupted, then I’m not sure how that changes its basic message. I have read the OT and the NT and I don’t believe that they teach that god can be human and a diety at the same time. In fact, my understanding of the OT is that this is considering both logically impossible, as well as paganism. But maybe you can correct me if I’m wrong.

      As far as your last statement, then this is again why Christianity is dying while Islam is striving. Having 99 attributes is 99 “personalities”, but having 3 persons is one is… one…

      I am wasting my time

      Like

  11. Ken would the disciples’ words prior to being written down be considered inspired? What about the passage in Johns Gospel which states that there are many other stories about Jesus that were not written down as there were too many?

    Like

    • “seeing that His divine power has granted to us everything we need for life and godliness” – 2 Peter 1:3

      seeing that His divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness, through the true knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence.

      The Lord has give us the Scripture and the Holy Spirit.

      prior to being written down – that was a period of inscripturation (AD 33 preaching, 45 to 96 AD- writing) – 2 Thess. 2:15 (written around 51 AD) speaks to that – the Thessalonians did not have Romans or John or Ephesians or Colossians.

      Once it was all written down, we had everything we needed.

      The faith was once for all time delivered to the saints – Jude 3.

      John says that one did not need the other stuff not written down.

      John 20:30-31

      Like

  12. No, Unitarians cannot explain that verse in the light of John 1:1-5; 5:17-18; 8:24, 8:56-59; 10:27-39; 17:5; 18:1-6; 19:1-6; 20:28.

    Like

    • Oh yes they can explain all these verses in a Unitarian theology

      Like

    • Not in any meaningful or logical way.

      Like

    • “Not in a meaningful or logical way.” I thought you were the one that said the Trinity ultimately doesn’t make sense. I never heard a Unitarian saying his beliefs don’t make sense.

      As far as your list of references, the Unitarians also provide a list of verses for their beliefs and they are all pretty clear and don’t require any explanation. As opposed to your views which require me to “read” more, which I’m guessing means read more of your sects’ teachings.

      Like

    • It makes sense to believers who have the Holy Spirit and believe in the Scriptures; that is we have faith when we read all the verses and harmonize them together. It does not make ultimate sense to those who are not regenerated. You must be born again in order for it to click in your heart and mind.

      Like

    • So I need to believe and ONLY THEN will it make sense. So it seems there is no reason to argue about your points since and I will never believe them until I am born again.

      I know you realize how ridiculous it is to believe that. It literally means you will never change your opinion about things no matter how much better the other side of the argument is since you automatically believe you are guided. There is literally no point in discussing things with you.

      And this is why Islam is dominating, because our religion makes 100% sense. This is why you find people who are the biggest enemies of Islam becoming Muslim; because the religion made sense despite their biases. Your religion only makes sense IF you have certain biases.

      Like

  13. Ken your answer doesn’t even begin to address my question about oral tradition. Would the disciples’ words prior to being written down be considered inspired?

    Like

    • Yes – 2 Thess. 2:15 – but all that we need of their teachings was eventually all written down. 1-2 Thessalonians were very early epistles. (50-52 AD) Only Galatians (48-49 AD) of the Pauline corpus is earlier; and possibly only other books at that time were Mark, Matthew, and James.

      Like

  14. as they still accept Francis as Pope.

    I don’t think so . . .

    There are several groups of Roman Catholics who do not accept any Pope after Pope Pius XII. ( 1958)

    they consider all Popes since then as heretical, and Vatican 2 as heretical.

    Like

    • Mr. Temple,

      The SSPX accepts Francis as Pope. I challenge you to find me a statement in any of their literature where they don’t. You are referring to sedevacantists who don’t accept Popes after 1958, not the SSPX. The SSPX has always opposed sedevacantism. As someone who subscribes to their magazine, has been to their chapels, personally met Bishop Williamson(who is no longer with them unfortunately) has read several books by their founder Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, I know where they stand.

      But what about the sedevacantists? They’re protestant, plain and simple. They call themselves Catholic but they’re not. The EO’s, OO’s and some protestants use the word Catholic when they chant the creed but they’re not part of the Church. The same goes with sedevacantists.

      Like

    • There seems to be several different groups of Sedevacantists, and they accept all Roman Catholic doctrines and dogmas and extra piety, etc. until Popes after 1958 and Vatican 2.

      I accept that you are right about SSPX – I don’t have time right now to study the nuances. But I have seen even some of them say that even though Popes from 1958 are Popes, they are teaching heretical things and Vatican 2 Was heretical, because it goes against the tradition of “no salvation outside the church” and the Tridentine Latin Mass.

      Like

  15. Ken since you agree that oral tradition can also be inspired as well as scripture (for even it became scripture) why then do you believe in Sola Scriptura?

    Liked by 1 person

    • Because the oral tradition was all eventually written down in the 27 books of the NT.

      “oral tradition” after the death of the apostles is not revelation. Revelation stopped at the death of the apostles and whichever last book was written was, whether it was Jude or Revelation.

      “the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” – Jude 3

      Even Roman Catholicism has NEVER shown any extra-Biblical, non-canonical statement as being from the apostles.

      Like

  16. Because the oral tradition that was authoritative teaching as in 2 Thess. 2:15, was all eventually written down in the 27 books of the NT.

    Like

  17. Roman Catholics many times claim Marian dogmas, Papal doctrines, Purgatory, and Transubstantiation was taught orally by the apostles and they anachronistically put these things back in 2 Thess. 2:15, but there is no evidence for them at all for centuries.

    Like

  18. But Ken not all of oral tradition was written down as is stated in the Gospel of John:

    “Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book.”- John 20:30

    You say it was not necessary but it was remembered.

    Like

    • Patrice

      “But Ken not all of oral tradition was written down as is stated in the Gospel of John:”

      Or would a more reasonable interpretation of that passage be that not all of jesus’ works were written down in HIS gospel, but were in the others? In which case, he would be lending credibility to the other gospels?

      Liked by 1 person

  19. d for demented
    original sin stained germ.

    quote :
    As for the issue of NIDD then it is understood as someone of equal standing that has the ability to challenge the other.

    As for min dooni then it carries with it the meaning of taking that entity as a god or to worship while they recognize that they are falling way short of Allah.

    So, when a person takes another God as a NIDD to Allah then he or she is challenging the authority of Allah while min doone then he recognises that it is a lower entity but still worships it.
    end quote

    in light of the quote above

    “the father is greater than i”

    “i can of my own self do nothing”

    on the other hand the father can, on his own self do everything. no permission seeking required to access “divine nature”

    since mary + jesus could do nothing by themselves, unlike father who could, why is the quran incorrect ?

    if the quran really thought that mary was an equal in trinity wouldn’t it have used your crack induced way of thinking and say mary was made an equal with god ?

    you being a christian worship

    “inside god”

    who is ignorant and needs to learn his own sophia/wisdom

    this is clearly a lesser god than the “outside ” god

    trust, devotion, love , calling out , moving of the heart towards the mother who bore your god, seeking her “hail oh mary….”

    mary the mediator moves hearts of the catholic mary worshipper.

    quote :

    But they are allowing themselves to be overwhelmed by human qualities (righteousness, self-sacrifice, mystery, authority) and use these to motivate their devotion. This is diminishing the human being (worshipers) by making them subservient than a fellow traveler. Stating or believing a false philosophy or theology is not idolatry – idolatry is a movement of the heart – not the brain.

    end quote

    calling out
    feelings of divine love
    hope
    dependency
    trust

    Like

  20. Fido barked:

    “So have muslims – so Do muslims. In fact if I was to open any news website today, I can almost be guaranteed to find news of muslims murdering each other and any one else who gets in the way of your angry god.

    WHat does that have to do with christian denominations? And how does Paul’s claim that christians are calling each other “scum” detract from the fact that muslims harbour murderous hatred for the various sects within it?”

    LOL, deflecting from the topic again, eh? What does this have to do with the fact that Christian denominations hate each other and, when given the opportunity, would gladly kill each other?

    The only reason Christian violence has subsided is because the Christians have been de-fanged by the secularization of their societies. They don’t have the power they once had. Even so, there are many Christian terrorist groups operating in the world today. Of course, an ignoramus like you probably has not heard of any of them, despite the fact that they are responsible for atrocious acts of violence! Epic fail again from Fido, the Gentile Christian dog! LOL!!

    Like

    • Patrice

      “But Ken not all of oral tradition was written down as is stated in the Gospel of John:”

      Or would a more reasonable interpretation of that passage be that not all of jesus’ works were written down in HIS gospel, but were in the others? In which case, he would be lending credibility to the other gospels?

      /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

      ” I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.”

      so he thinking that even if the whole world had books they won’t be able to include everything because of lack of space.

      either this buffoon man worshipper was exaggerating which then will call into question the other bs he includes in gospel of john or he really meant that their was lack of room.

      you are are d for demented original sin stained dog slime germ.

      Like

  21. Allan Ruhl wrote:

    It’s not the Church’s fault that the Quran misunderstands the Trinity.

    Yes, it is your (in the 500 and 600s )Church’s fault (what later became RC and EO) because they exalted Mary too much and so Muslims thought Mary was part of the Trinity. (5:116)

    They left their first love (Rev. 2:4-5) and didn’t do any evangelism any more. Did not reach out in love to the Arabs in central Arabia.

    And in addition to that:

    They emphasized rituals and works to the point that sound doctrine about justification and sanctification was eclipsed and corrupted.

    until Wycliff (1300s) , Hus (1400s) , and Luther, Zwingli, Calvin. (1500s)

    Like

    • LOL, this is an amusing debate. The fact is that Christianity has had many sects. One such sect believed that Mary was a divine being. Surah 5:116 says nothing about the trinity. It only refers to the worship of Jesus and Mary as “gods”, something that has a precedent in Christian history.

      Like

    • Mr. Temple,

      You understand what we believe even though we have a high view of Mary. The Quran doesn’t because it had an author who was uneducated about Christianity. That’s the reason, its as simple as that.

      We didn’t do any evangelism or didn’t reach out to Arabs in Arabia? The Catholic Church has been the most effective Church against Islam in the history of the Christian faith. All of the great apologists against Islam are Catholic. St. John of Damascus, Peter the Venerable, St. Francis of Assisi, Hilaire Belloc, I could go on.

      Remember, it was Luther who wanted the Turks to Conquer Europe. It was the English protestants who helped the Turks against the Holy League during the 16th Century. Who won the Battle of Lepanto? Catholics did with Pope St. Pius V blessing every ship that sailed into battle. The great Spanish monarchs drove Islam out of Spain and Portugal. The Austro-Hungarian army fought the Turks tooth and nail(while the British protestants were helping the Turks by supplying them with tin) to liberate Catholic and EO lands in the balkans that muslims occupied. Whether its Charles Martel, Skanderbeg, St. John Capistrano, Don John of Austria or Jan Sobieski, the Catholic Church has been saving Christendom, not protestants.

      What I’m trying to say is that the Catholic Church has safeguarded Christendom against Islam. This is true militarily since Islam started out by invaded Catholic lands, not the other way around. Also, Catholics have provided the best apologetical material against Islam. Catholic Scholasticism triumphed where Spanish Islamic philosophy failed. Aquinas was the one to reconcile faith and reason, not a muslim or a protestant. Ibn Rushd completely collapsed on this issue.

      The fact that most Arab Christians are Catholic or EO shows that our Church has succeeded among the Arabs. If you go to Iraq, Syria, or Israel, what religion are the Christians? These are the oldest Christian communities in the world. They are Catholic or Orthodox(Chalcedonian or Monophysite). They don’t believe in sola fide, sola scriptura, or TULIP because that wasn’t part of Christianity until those you mention – Wycliff, Hus, Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin came on the scene. No evangelism? Well almost no middle eastern Christians are protestant we have a double standard.

      Christ promised that the Gates of Hades would not triumph against his Church. If the true Church didn’t exist until Wycliff as you mentioned then your religion calls the Son of God a liar. By the way, if you’ve ever read what St. Robert Bellarmine has written about Hus, he shows that he’s a heretic by Lutheran standards and exposes Martin Luthers double standards on that topic. The same Luther that wanted the muslim Turks to conquer Europe. What a guy, eh?

      Like

    • With the name Allah the Gracious the Merciful

      Look what Sydney H. Griffith, a specialist in Arabic/Syriac Christianity, and early Christian-Muslim encounters,  has to say about this (thanks for br.Paul Bilal Williams who has brought his works to my attention):

      The recognition of the Christian significance of the Qurʾān’s phrase thālith thalāthatin in sūrat al-Māʾidah 73 effectively takes away the Qurʾānic basis for the allegation made by many commentators, ancient and modern, Muslim and non-Muslim, that since the Qurʾān speaks of the Messiah, Mary’s son as ‘third of three’, the Qurʾān must espouse the view that the Christian Trinity consists of Allāh, the father, Mary of Nazareth, the mother, and Jesus, the Messiah, Mary’s son, the ‘third of three’.80 These same commentators often cite sūrat al-Māʾidah 116 in support of this allegation, a verse that from the point of view of rhetorical analysis appears within a group of verses (109–120) that feature “Jesus’ and his apostles’ profession of monotheistic faith.”81 Here God asks, “O Jesus, son of Mary, have you said to people, ‘Take me and my mother as two gods besides God?’ He said, ‘Glory be to You; it is not for me to say what is not for me the truth’” (V al-Māʾidah 116). Rhetorically speaking, the verse cannot reasonably be taken as evidence  that the Qurʾān supposes that Mary, the mother of Jesus, is a member of the Christian Trinity. Rather, God’s question to Jesus puts in high relief what the Qurʾān thereby highlights as being, from its point of view, the absurd corollary of the Christian belief that Jesus is the Son of God, namely that Mary his mother must therefore also somehow be divine. The passage in fact recalls the then current theological controversy dividing the largely Syriac/Aramaic-speaking, Jacobite and Nestorian Christians in the Qurʾān’s own milieu over the propriety and veracity of the Marian title theotokos, ‘Mother of God’.82 Nestorian Christians rejected the title for much the same reason as does the Qurʾān in this verse; it would seem logically to claim too much for Jesus’ human mother. The Jacobites, to the contrary, supported the propriety and orthodoxy of this title for Mary because in their view it protects the Nicene affirmation of the full divinity of Jesus of Nazareth as the consubstantial (homoousios) Son of God the Father. This matter was at the heart of the long drawn out, church-dividing Christological controversies that troubled the Christians of the sixth and seventh centuries. And here, as elsewhere, the Qurʾān seems very much au courant with precisely these matters.83
      (The Bible in Arabic: The Scriptures of the ‘People of the Book’ in the Language of Islam: kindle edition loc:679)

      So according to Griffith,  the Qur’an seems very much au courant with precisely these matters, in other words the Qur’an cleverly devise a rhetoric criticizing the major christian doctrine in its milieu thus it is historically accurate and not misrepresenting anything.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Actually, it proves the Qur’an is not au courant (well aware of what’s going on), because it accuses the Christians of taking Mary as a god with Jesus and God (the Father) and yet, even the RC, Orthodox did not do that officially. What is does show that the Qur’an, Muhammad and the first Arabs thought they were worshiping Mary by calling her “Mother of the God” (Theotokos) and praying to her, having icons, etc. Even those things were not meant to say she is Deity or part of the Trinity, but the Qur’an mis-understands what is going on because Muhammad is illiterate and they are going by what they see and hear. They cannot read and have not studied the deeper issues. The Qur’an shows no depth of knowledge on this. Qur’an 5:72-78 – “Allah is third of three”; and puts Mary and Jesus together and the statement, “they used to eat their daily food” and “Messiah, was only a messenger”, etc. shows the Qur’an thought Mary was part of the Trinity. Also Qur’an thought wrongly that Christians thought God had sex with Mary – Surah 6:101, 112. Griffith’s “rhetorically speaking” is just a creative way of trying to save the Qur’an from embarrassment. Griffith failed. He does not show that the Qur’an knows the details of what is exactly going on.

      Like

    • Griffith has no reason to save the Quran from embarrassment as he is an ordained Christian minister

      Liked by 1 person

    • except that is what he is trying to do by calling it “rhetorical” and “creative strategies”, and just asserting this. Anyone can do that. It is just bare assertion without facts or showing knowledge.

      Like

    • Actually if you bother to read his careful discussion of the Quran’s rhetorical polemics it throws considerable light on the Book’s criticism of Christian doctrines.

      Like

    • He tries to, but it is a massive jump in logic to just jump to bare assertions and call them “rhetorical” and “creative strategies”. It is he who is employing a creative strategy.

      Like

  22. I never said the church did not exist at all until Wycliff or Luther. it was filled with corruptions that needed reform. But it still existed.

    Those communities were there before Islam came; they are the only ones left after Islam imposed Dhimmism on them. They later adopted Arabic as their language later after the Muslims conquered their areas, but before Islam came, they had other languages. Coptic, Syriac, Armenian, Greek, etc.

    Like

    • Paraphrasing temple’s statement:

      I never said the Islam did not exist at all until Prophet Muhammad (p) it was filled with corruptions that needed reform. But it still existed.

      Those communities were there before trinitarian came; they are the only ones left after trinitarian imposed greco-romanism on them. They later adopted greek and latin as their language later after the trinitarian conquered their areas, but before trinitarian came, they had other languages. Hebrew, Syriac, Aramaic etc.

      Like

    • What an ignorant statement. Greek was the NT language and they later translated it into Syriac. You are totally wrong on that. The Monophysites, Jacobites, Nestorians, Copts ALL believed in the Trinity, the council of Nicea 325 AD and Constantinople of 381 AD long before Islam came.

      Like

    •  

      With the name Allah the Gracious the Merciful

      Not at all, the religion of Jesus was never “christianity” he even did not even use the term. He was a jewish rabbi who spoke aramaic. Jesus follow semitic religion of his ancestor: Abraham who worship and submit to his God (in semitic language it’s called muslim)  You  follow an innovative and alien greco-roman tradition.

      Like

    • Jesus was the Messiah; in Greek ho Christos ‘ο Χριστος . His disciples were full of integrity and believers in God and helpers of God and Jesus (Qur’an 3:52-53; 61:14) who became the uppermost, obvious, victorious ones. They wrote the NT in Greek. Jesus said, in His prayer to the Father, “the words You gave Me, I have given to them” (John 17:8). and “Your Word is Truth” ( 17:17). They, and apostle Paul, his half-brothers James and Jude, Luke, Mark, and probably Barnabas as writer of Hebrews, wrote down the true and original gospel, which was from Jesus. Christianity came from “Christ” and the followers/disciples were called “Christians” (Acts 11:26; 26:28; I Peter 4:16. Peter, eyewitness and disciple of Jesus says so, in talking about them suffering for their faith under Nero’s persecution and spreading to Asia. 1 Peter 4:12-16.

      Yours in the alien and innovative religion begun 600 years with no connection to deep knowledge of the Scriptures. What good is has was gotten from the heretics and Apocryphal gospels and Gnostic heretics in the deserts, mixed with some good things (monotheism, Mary as virgin; Jesus is called Al Masih المسیح – translation of ‘ο Χριστος , that Jesus did miracles and taught the gospel). But Qur’an twisted and corrupted the already established true religion; and at the same thought it was confirmed previous Scriptures (Surah 5:47; 10:94) and yet denies real history and then went on aggressive unjust wars of conquering.

      Like

    • Islam is the religion from all prophets and the Qur’an came to correct “christianity” innovation making idolatry that Jesus was “god” in a human form which then to atone for the sins of people. The thing which has no support in the Jewish Bible.
      Jesus who was a Jew, walking uprightly in Palestine and propounding nothing that is not in Jewish Bible, never claiming to be God.

      Like

    • Wrong, the Jewish OT prophesied of the Jesus the Messiah, His Deity, His Sonship, and His death and resurrection. All the NT writers were Jews except for Luke, who interviewed the other Jewish believers and Mary, etc. Islam is false and a legalistic, war-like religion that seeks to force and conquer and establish the Sharia and Caliphate and unjust Dhimmi-ism. It is oppressive and cruel to Christians, and unthinking for it does not allow Muslims to think and reject Islam and become Christians or any other religion without threats of execution in the laws of apostasy. It allows no freedom for others once it takes over an area. It is Islam that first started all the wars and attacking(632 AD onward), that later led to the Crusades and other wars.

      I agree with Allan Ruhl that those catholics like Charles Martel (722 AD, Battle of Tours), etc. were defending Europe for your religions unjust aggressive wars.

      Like

    • Ken you have failed before to provide any evidence that the OT says messiah would be God and die and be resurrected on third day.

      You are shameless.

      Like

    • Mark 14:60-64 – the Jewish high priest knows that Messiah would be Son of God. Psalm 2, Proverbs 30:3-4 shows this. Psalm 110:1 shows the 2 persons are Deity and Jesus Himself and the NT writers quote this to prove His Deity – Matthew 22:44; Mark 12:36: Luke 20:42-43; Acts 2:34-35; Hebrews 1:13. Micah 5:2 also shows Deity of Messiah.

      Daniel 9:24-27 with Isaiah 52-53 already established Messiah would be substitutionary sacrifice for sins.

      Like

    • Nope, there is nothing in the hebrew bible which point to divine messiah. Yours is a belief mixing universal truths of Jesus messiah-ship to the jews and church false doctrines, tampering the true mission of God  prophets, and their true covenant with God. True teaching from God is there is one God and the salvation is achieved by obedience to God, while you believe human sacrifice for salvation.

      Like

    • I already proved you wrong by all the OT quotes above and how the believing Jews and Jesus of the 1st century understood them, and even the unbelieving Jews (the high priest, Pharisees) understood the OT. You have already been proven wrong.

      Like

    • With the name of Allah

      No. You read the OT with skewed presupposition . there is nothing in the OT which suggest a “divine Jesus”

      Looong before greco-roman ‘christianity’ no Jew alive would have seen that passage in OT as a divine jesus prophecy. Nope

      Like

    • the high priest (mark 14:60-64) and first century followers of Jesus were Jews. You failed big time.

      Like

    • Yes and they never recognized Jesus as God nor a divine messiah. They just believe him as a prophet and a rabbi.

      Like

    • No, the high priest expected the Messiah to be also Son of God. The first century believers believed He was Son of God and God in the flesh. John 1:1-5; 14

      Like

    • With the name of Allah

       

      No. The Jewish high priests denied Jesus as a divine Messiah who was fulfilling the prophecy of their scriptures

      Also nowhere in John 1:1-5; 14 is said that “God” is in the flesh. You are doing bad eisegesis.

      Like

    • John 1:1 – the Word was God; John 1:14 The Word became flesh ; the Word became human, God became human = “God in the flesh” = the incarnation. 2nd person of the Trinity, the Word/the Son, became flesh. John 17:5 – the Son was in eternity with the Father before He became human.

      Like

    • With the name of Allah

      The lack of definite article here only mean that Λογος is not God himself..all that John 1:1 tells us is that the Λογος as God’s self expression existed with God in the beginning.

       John 17:5 is not sn indication of eternity.
      This meant that the God has given  prophet Jesus the glory δόξῃ as God’s plan, he could may well be God’s plan from the beginning, and he became flesh only when he was conceived ie a created being.

      Like

    • You don’t know Greek very well. Even Paul Williams admitted that the Greek of John 1:1 teaches the orthodox position. (Not Jehovah’s Witness’ view, which you seem to agree with; and not modalism view.) http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2012/01/muslim-agrees-with-greek-of-john-11.html

      Like

    • With the name of Allah

      I had studied this idea of Johannine Logos from philological point of view. Originally it is only obvious  the opening phrase of John 1:1  En arche en ho Logos – Εν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος’  (lit. ‘In the beginning the Word was’) borrows the structure of Gen 1:1 of the Alexandrian Jews who wrote the Septuagint in pre-Christian era.

      ᾿Εν ἀρχῇ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν.

      En (in) arche (beginning) epoiesen (created) ho Theos (the God) ton uranon (the heavens) kai (and) ten gen (the earth)

      The Greek word ‘αρχή’ (beginning) in the Genesis 1:1 directly refers to the word εποίησεν (‘created’/ ‘made’), a word that relates to an activity of creation, and the word arche in the book, is directly not to refer to ho Theos (the God) as the agent. So, the use of the Greek word arche in this opening sentence is not to announce the idea on the eternal beginning of God who created, but it is to confirm about the beginning of God’s creation.

      Similarly, the original reference in the Hebrew also echoes the same idea,

      בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית בָּרָ֣א אֱלֹהִ֑ים אֵ֥תהַשָּׁמַ֖יִם וְאֵ֥ת הָאָֽרֶץ

       

      Be (in) reshit (beginning) bara (created) Elohim (God) et ha-shemayim (the heavens) ve  (and) et ha-aretz  (the earth)”

      (lit. ‘in beginning God created the heavens and the earth’).

      Only later the the Hellenic philosophy which echoes the Platonist “Logos”which  used the term Logos to mean an intermediary divine being, or demiurge crept in.

      But I agree that now this distorted understanding has became predominant in the whole discourse of Johannine logos.

      Like

    • You did not read the article and you don’t understand the Greek structure of the sentence.

      Like

    • The Jewish high priest knew that the OT taught that the Messiah would also be the Son of God. “Tell us, are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One (God) ? Jesus said, “I am”. Mark 14:60-64; also same in Matthew 26:63 – “tell us whether you are the Messiah the Son of God”

      Like

    • No he denied it. He did not think that Jesus was fulfilling OT prophecy. Besides in jewish understanding the messiah is never a divine being and the son of god title did not mean god incarnate. There were many in the OT beared that title.

      Like

    • He denied that Jesus was the Messiah and Son of God; but by his question, he believed that there would be one who would be both Messiah and Son of God. He obviously understand that the Messiah would be the Son of God; he just did not believe that Jesus was that person. Therefore, they crucified Him.

      Like

    • Wrong. The jews apply the “Sons of God” or “children of God” to Israel as people ( Ex. 4: 22 and Hos. 11:1) and to all members of the human race who are pious. By no mean they understand the term as the idea of incarnate God .

      And as for the reason for crucifixion it was the Roman  not the jews who crucified Jesus on the ground of attempting to incite revolution against Rome.

      Like

    • No; the Messiah, the Anointed One is also the Son of God in Psalm 2:2, 7 and God commands, “worship/kiss/prostrate to the Son, lest He become angry”

      10 Now therefore, O kings, show discernment;
      Take warning, O judges of the earth.
      11 Worship the Lord with reverence
      And rejoice with trembling.
      12 Do homage (worship, prostrate; kiss, bow) to the Son, that He not become angry, and you perish in the way,
      For His wrath may soon be kindled.
      How blessed are all who take refuge in Him! Psalm 2:10-12

      Like

    • Thats not a jewish understanding, it says, “Do homage in purity, lest He be angry, and ye perish in the way, when suddenly His wrath is kindled. Happy are all they that take refuge in Him.”

      Like

    • The text says “to the Son” and verse 7 shows the context “You are My Son, Today I have begotten You”.

      You are inconsistent, relying on a modern Jewish understanding, which deliberately rejected Jesus Al Masih and had to develop a different theology after 70 AD and after 135 AD (Bar Kokhba Rebellion). But you reject the original Jewish TEXT of Genesis 22, which points to Isaac as the type of the beloved unique son, who would be a symbol and type of the Messiah as a substitutionary sacrifice.

      Like

    • Jesus taught that sins could be forgiven without sacrifice anything

      Like

    • No; He said He would be the one who would serve mankind by offering His life as a ransom for many. Mark 10:45; Matthew 20:28 (showing He understood Himself as the fulfillment of Isaiah 52:13-15 and 53:1-12); and that His blood was shed for the new covenant. (Mark 14:24)

      Like

    • Actually Yes. You are wrong. Look at the Lord’s Prayer

      Like

    • The model prayer for the disciples was taught before the historical event of the ransom of the cross for the disciples, who were Jewish, and the temple is still standing, so there was already and understanding of the need for blood sacrifice in the temple, based on everything in OT before it – Genesis 3, Genesis 22 (Abraham and Isaac and God giving the substitute ram, also affirmed in the Qur’an, Surah 37:107, Exodus 12 (Passover); Leviticus chapters 1-7, 16-17 (Day of Atonement; and without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness) (Even Rabbi Michael Skobac admitted Jesus death is parallel to the Day of atonement – https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2013/07/07/rabbi-admits-that-the-day-of-atonement-is-parallel-to-jesus-christ/
      and temple sacrifices ( 1 Kings 4-8; 2 Chronicles 3:1) and prophesy about the Messiah to come and be the substitutionary sacrifice ( Daniel 9:24-27; Isaiah 52:13-15 and 53:1-12; Psalm 22)

      Like

    • With the name of Allah the Gracious the Merciful

      Ridiculous, absolutely ridiculous, the text does not have “to the son”ben בְּנִ֥ but it is bar בר. The meaning of the Hebrew word bar is “pure” or “clear” Only in Aramaic could bar בר mean “son.” Psalm is not written in Aramaic, however, in Aramaic, bar is used only as a construct “son of” (Proverbs 31:2; Ezra 5:1-2, 6:14).  So this construct too can work that way. So for some strange reason trinitarians mix  hebrew text with non hebrew text in order to make it suit their theological purpose. This is a deliberate tampering of the text which the Qur’an warns.

      Verse 7 does have the word “son” but it uses hebrew word ben בְּנִ֥ which is the correct word for son, in this case בְּנִ֥י beni or “my son”.

      Like

    • Not true. The Aramaic בר is used there in Psalm 2:12, and also in Proverbs 31:2 – the first construction is not “son of”, though the next 2 are. The first one is “What are you doing, my son?” and the next 2 do have that.

      In Psalm 2:12, the deliberate use of the Aramaic was a way of addressing the foreign nations who needed to repent and submit to the Lord. The whole Psalm is about the rebellion of the nations, and the strategy of the LORD’s (Yahweh) that His Son, the Messiah, will save people from all the nations out of their sin and rebellion (verse 8 – ask of Me and I will give you the nations, verses 10-12 – O kings, o nations, be wise, repent, return, worship the Son, take refuge in Him, etc. ), and those that don’t repent will be judged and broken like iron breaks clay pots.

      Like

    • With the name of Allah the Gracious the Merciful

      Problem is

      in Proverbs 31:2 Aramaic, bar is used only as a construct “son of”  the “my son”בְּ֭רִי has the suffix yod in there which denote possessiveness. The definite form of “son” in Aramaic (which would have to be used in verse Psalm 2) is בראָ  ber’a.
      Also no Aramaic words are used in the Book of Psalms. The Aramaic language was not the spoken vernacular long after the Psalms were composed.
      The context of  in v12 is: with sincerity of heart,  avoid God’s anger. Thus text  simply means “do homage in purity” makes more sense than “kissing the son”

      Like

    • No because the context of all of Psalm 2 is the rebellion of the nations against the Lord and His Messiah (verses 1-4), and the Lord’s strategy for the Son (5-7) to redeem some from all the nations. (verse 8, 10-12)

      Like

    • With the name of Allah the Gracious the Merciful

      The overall theme of the psalm is the struggle of a king to establish his God obedience society ,but the context in Ps 2 is how to obey God with sincerity of heart to avoid God’s anger. Yes in Ps 2v7 God has appointed a king and calls him “My son”  but no-one can literally be God’s son,  whoever serves God is His son. Israel are called God’s son (Ex 4:22). Even the stars are called sons of God (Jb 38:7).

      Also no foreign nations and no foreign kings are mentioned in it. Psalm 2 is  entirely Jewish, that is, it deals only with the land and the people of the Psalmist.  No way  בר bar (verse 12) means “the son”, The correct word for son is בְּנִ֥  ben (as in verse 7). Also בר  bar means “pure” or “clear” in other places in the Psalms (e.g. 24:4, 73:1) and in any case the verse tells us to worship God, not the “son”.

      Like

    • Wrong; in verses 10-12 of Psalm 2, God turns to the nations (verses 1-4) and says: “O kings! and O judges of the earth”, etc. – he is addressing the foreign Gentile nations surrounding Israel.

      10 Now therefore, O kings, show discernment;
      Take warning, O judges of the earth.
      11 Worship the Lord with reverence
      And rejoice with trembling.
      12 Do homage [prostrate, bow and kiss] to the Son, that He not become angry, and you perish in the way,
      For His wrath may soon be kindled.
      How blessed are all who take refuge in Him!

      Like

    • Im surprised you have a shallow knowledge of the passage, the hebrew word translated as “earth” is אֶ֗רֶץ eretz, it does not mean the whole world it means “land”. Here King David was up againts internal opponents , this is the acholarly view like Samuel Daiches his “Studies in the Psalms, Oxford University Press 1930, page 38.

      The “kiss the son” is wrong rendering and makes no sense, while the overall theme is to obey God:

      10. Now, O princes, be sensible –
      Be chastised, O judges of the land.

      11. Serve the Lord with awe,
      Rejoice with trembling.

      12. Worship (Him) in purity,
      Lest He be angry, and you perish in the way
      When His anger flares up in a moment – Happy are they who take refuge in Him!

      Like

    • No, it הָאָֽרֶץ can mean both land and earth, depending on the context. Same word is used in Genesis 1:1 “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”
      בְּרֵאשִׁית בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְאֵת הָאָֽרֶץ׃

      It is you who have a shallow understanding of this passage.
      verse 1 is “why do the Gentiles (nations = Goyim גֹויִם) rage? לָמָּה רָגְשׁוּ גֹויִם וּלְאֻמִּים יֶהְגּוּ־רִֽיק׃

      Rather, this is the scholarly view – that is about the future Messiah – King – the Son of God, context of the nations rebelling and seeking power/to make war, etc.

      Like

    • But it is not intended that the messiah will be God.. from the same book ( Hermann Gunkel Introduction to Psalms Mercer University Press 1998), this is said designating King/ruler as God is polytheistic thought not judaic.

      Like

    • Messiah will be the Son of God. the Jewish high priest knew this in Mark 14:60-64 and Matthew 26:63-65, so it is not polytheism, but Jewish Monotheism to understand that the Messiah would be the Son of God, and then later the NT Jews understood Jesus to be the Son of God by nature/essence/substance, which means He was God in essence, the same essence as the Father. “kiss the son” or “do homage to the Son” or “worship/prostrate to the Son” shows this.

      Like

    • Adam is “the Son of God” according to Luke.

      Like

    • “of God” – but Adam was created out of dust of earth. Jesus was born of the virgin Mary. combination of human nature and the divine nature – different – Luke 1:34-35 “for this reason” He will be called the Son of God.

      Like

    • Jesus was created at conception as per the nativity narratives in Matt and Lk

      Liked by 1 person

    • No, it הָאָֽרֶץ “ha eretz” can mean both the land, land and the earth or earth, depending on the context. Both with or without the definite article, Ha ה

      Like

    • Of course It can be translated as the Earth, this works the same way as أَرَّضَ in Arabic revolves around the idea of “land” it can mean “land” vs. sea & air, “country”, or “ground”. But in Psalm context it means eretz Yisrael the land of Isaelite-Judean territory this is scholarly view the like of  Hermann Gunkel  (Introduction to Psalms: p120. Mercer University Press 1998). Also No goyim גֹויִם in Psalm should not be translated as “nations” but it’s arrogant prominent men in the world of Psalmist.

      Like

    • goyim גֹויִם means “nations” , “Gentiles”, the non-Jewish nations.

      Like

    •  

      With the name of Allah

       

      No גֹויִם in this context should not be translated as nations, because Psalm is entirely jewish dealing only with  eretz Yisrael the land of Isaelite-Judean territory.

      This is the view of Psalm scholar like Dr. Samuel Daiches

       

      Like

    • Typo
      “So this construct too can work that way” …should be… “So this construct too can not work that way. “

      Like

    • Sorry for typos.

      Yours is the alien and innovative religion begun 600 years later, with no connection to a deep knowledge of the previous Scriptures. What good it has in it, was taken from the Jewish Midrash, and heretics and Apocryphal gospels and Gnostic heretics in the deserts, mixed with some good things (monotheism, Mary as virgin; Jesus is called Al Masih المسیح – translation of ‘ο Χριστος , that Jesus did miracles and taught the gospel). But Qur’an twisted and corrupted the already established true religion; and at the same thought it was confirming the previous Scriptures (Surah 5:47; 10:94) and yet denies real history; and then went on aggressive unjust wars of conquering.

      Like

    • Griffiths demonstrates in considerable scholarly detail why your assumptions are incorrect Ken. He is a top scholar and ordained Christian minister. You trash the reputation of a fellow believer by your ignorant dismissal of his critically acclaimed work.

      Like

    • Griffiths is a scholar, but giving scholarly detail and then just asserting a conclusion by calling it “creative strategies” and “rhetorical” is just an unreasonable jump in logic and just bare assertion. He does not make the connection at all by those bare assertions and conclusions.

      Like

    • You have obviously not read his book.

      Like

    • yes, I have read everything that you have written about and more and much of it.

      Like

    • Then you have very poor comprehension skills Ken.

      Like

    • Not at all; Griffiths jumps from scholarly details to just bold assertion that the Qur’an is using a ‘creative strategy” and “rhetoric”. Anyone can anything “creative” and “rhetoric” when it is inaccurate and making jumps in conclusions and non sequiter argumentation.

      Like

    •  

      With the name of Allah

       

      No גֹויִם in this context should not be translated as nations, because Psalm is entirely jewish dealing only with  eretz Yisrael the land of Isaelite-Judean territory.

      This is the view of Psalm scholar like Dr. Samuel Daiches

      Daiches goyim psalm 2.png

      daiches view 2

       

      Liked by 1 person

  23. Allan,

    I don’t want to detract from your amusing debate with Ken, but I was just wondering if you had a chance to check out the error in Acts 7 regarding Stephen’s testimony. You said you were going to respond on your blog but I haven’t seen anything yet.

    Like

  24. Allan,

    OK, just thought I should ask. 🙂

    Like

  25. Allan Ruhl wrote:

    What I’m trying to say is that the Catholic Church has safeguarded Christendom against Islam. This is true militarily since Islam started out by invaded Catholic lands, not the other way around.

    You are right about that – Muslims were always attacking first, aggressive, and doing unjust wars, all through their history; and trying to conquer more, ever since Omar attacked Byzantine and Persian in UN-just wars. Charles Martel and all the others you named were right to defend Europe.

    Like

  26. Burhanuddin1 thinks historical reality is “looney”. LOL

    Like

  27. That’s all you have left. You cannot refute with argumentation, evidence, etc. so you resort to name calling and “you are an arrogant looney”.

    Like

    • You are not interested in argumentation and evidence. All you are interested in is your looney belief shoving down peoples throat.

      “Muslims were always attacking first, aggressive, and doing unjust wars…” That’s just looney racist bullshit man

      Liked by 1 person

    • History is against you as from 634 to 1600s, Islam kept attacking all the time in trying to conquer Europe. They unjustly conquered Spain, Greece, Bulgaria, etc. for some 500 years, etc. They were trying to take Vienna until the Europeans stopped them in the 1600s. These attacks were unjust by the centuries of Islam since Medina and Muhammad and Omar, etc. They unjustly attacked the Hindus also in India and Buddhist areas too. All unjust of Islam. The Taliban later blew up with dynamite areas that were Buddhist before Islam invaded and conquered.

      Like

  28. The Taliban blew up Buddhists statues with dynamite a few years ago – leftovers from Buddhist areas they unjustly conquered centuries earlier . they were obeying Qur’an and Sunna and Hadith.

    Like

  29. Islam as a religion and system is not a race, so it cannot be racism to object to its ideas or actions in history. Argumentation against an ideology has nothing to do with race or racism.

    Like

    • What a fool

      Like

    • See, you cannot refute that. Since Islam is not a race, but rather a religion and ideology and system of thought, then to object to it is NOT racist.

      Like

    • I just don’t want to waste my time on you any more. You are a white western supremacist who thinks everyone else has to follow his insane beliefs.

      I have had enough of you. You make me sick.

      All over Europe the fascists are on the rise again, and fundamentalist Christians like yourself are supporting it by their anti-Muslim propaganda. You will be responsible too for the next holocaust committed against the weakest minority. Shame on you.

      Like

    • No; I believe in freedom of thought and religion and critical thinking. We actually allow freedom of thought and freedom to change from one religion to another, without any persecution or threat.

      And Christians love all the nations – Revelation 5:9 – some from every nation, tribe, language and people group were redeemed by the blood of the lamb. We hang out and eat food and learn other people’s languages and cultures and respect those aspects that are respectable. Most Muslims are hospitable and fun people to interact with and have discussions over coffee, shish-kebab, etc. Both Iranian food and Turkish food, Lebanese food – some of the best cuisine in the world !! We follow Jesus’ command, “love your neighbor as yourself” and let people decide without violence or coercion, and they can apostatize if they want to later with no threat or violence. Boom! on your stupid argumentation.

      Like

  30. I agree that the fascists are evil and wrong. The most famous of all, Adolph Hitler, admired Islam (documented in Eric Metaxas’ book, Bonhoeffer) and met with the Grand-Mufti of Jerusalem – Amin Al Housseini, and they agreed with other about their truly racists ideas against the Jewish people.

    Like

    • LOL, Christianity has produced the greatest number of fascists! That is documented history.

      Your vacuous appeal to the alliance between Al-Housseini and Hitler has been refuted elsewhere. Christian apologists always like to appeal to this as if it proves anything except that the Arabs had a common enemy with Hitler in the hated British empire. Even the Jews later turned on the British after the end of the war. They were bombing hotels in an attempt to force the British to leave Palestine.

      Like

    • nope; nothing in true Christianity supports hatred of people or fascism or racism. Whatever historical examples of wrongs you may bring, are from people who violated the Bible, not from obeying it.

      You did not refute that before. The British were on the side of justice with the allies against Hitler.

      Like

  31. Obviously, Ken is just another uneducated apologist who likes to whitewash Christian history and then demonize Islamic history. Facts have no place in Christianity. LOL!!

    Like

  32. LOL, Ken brays like a stubborn mule, as is his forte: “Nope, you’re wrong”.

    “nope; nothing in true Christianity supports hatred of people or fascism or racism. Whatever historical examples of wrongs you may bring, are from people who violated the Bible, not from obeying it.”

    LOL!! Yeah, sure! Tell that to the people who believed they are fulfilling the Bible, not “violating” it! Special pleading much?

    “You did not refute that before. The British were on the side of justice with the allies against Hitler.”

    LOL, what a childish statement! Yes, this is the fairy tale version that is told in elementary school. But history is not a fairy tale. The British were interested in one thing: the preservation of the imperialist British empire. Obviously, Nazi Germany was a threat to that. The best evidence that England was looking out for itself is in the fact after the war, it helped support tyranny in places like Greece. I referred to this elsewhere and you did not respond: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/30/athens-1944-britains-dirty-secret

    “On the side of justice”? Yeah, right! Keep your childish fairy tales to yourself, you silly apologist! Otherwise, get educated first, and then open your mouth!

    Liked by 2 people

  33. Individual actions of injustice does not discount the overall justice of fighting against Hitler and the Nazis.

    I agree that shooting the 27 protesters in Greece was wrong. thanks for that information.

    Plus, the article about the WW 2 Dresden bombing has a lot of facts wrong.
    1. It says the War was over, but it was not over until much later. It was not over in Feb. of 1945, but rather in Europe in May-June of 1945; and then it lasted several more months in Asia until Japan finally surrendered, Sept. of 1945.

    2. it says that 500,000 people were killed, and it emotionalized it as worse that than the atom bombs in Japan.
    However, if you do a little research, the official studies that have been done estimate around 25,000 deaths; a lot lower than that figure.

    Hard to trust left wing papers and internet articles that don’t get the facts straight.

    Like

    • Lol, there goes Ken with his the self-righteous rambling that is so common among western apologists!

      “Individual actions”? You, sir, are an idiot. It was the government’s decision to support tyrannical forces, not “individual actions”.

      Then you tried to downplay the significant of the Dresden bombings. There may be disagreement over how many people actually died, but the very fact that 25,000 deaths occurred doesn’t seem to bother you. Thank you for proving how sick you are. 500,000 or 25,000…does it make a difference? People still died, right? Is it still not a war crime? Not in your sick mind, it seems. This is the true face of a self-righteous Christian apologist.

      As I said, keep your fairy tales to yourself. You Christians seem to like fairy tales. Lol!

      Liked by 1 person

  34. Also, you referred to the atomic bombings in Japan. I would think that decent people would be saddened by the enormous loss of life. But not you it seems.

    In addition, the fact is that rhe bombings were completely unnecessary. They were done more to show the Soviet Union the new power that America possessed. The Japanese were already contemplating surrender. They only wanted the condition that the emperor would be allowed to stay in power, something the allies would not allow. Also, the reason they eventually surrendered was because the soviets had invaded Manchuria. Ironically, after the surrender, the emperor was allowed to stay. The bombings were thus simply a political statement and thousands of people died because of it. Only a sick individual would try to defend such barbarism.

    Like

    • Here is Oliver Stone’s take on the atomic bombings. You should read his book “The Untold History of the United States”, which dispels popular western myths about WW2:

      “President Truman argued in 1945 and subsequently that using the atomic bomb to target civilian populations was preferable to a land and air war which would have resulted in tens of thousands of American deaths.

      But many US generals, including Douglas MacArthur and General Leslie Groves, in charge of the Manhattan Project, believed the invasion of Japan was militarily unnecessary. General Dwight Eisenhower admitted to being very depressed when he learned America was going to drop the atomic bomb because the Japanese were already defeated and he didn’t want America to be the first to use such a terrible weapon. It was Eisenhower who later called for the international control of atomic weapons” (http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/latenightlive/oliver-stone-history/4787498).

      Also, many Japanese cities were firebombed just like Dresden:

      “Besides dropping the atomic bombs, the United States firebombed 100 Japanese cities with incendiary bombs, which carried napalm and white phosphorus, and the impact on these mostly paper cities, made of bamboo and wood, was ‘catastrophic’.”

      “On the side of justice”, huh? They were no better than the Nazis and the Japanese, who committed similar and often worse crimes.

      Of course, Hitler and Hirohito had to be stopped. But to say that the Allies were fighting for “justice” is nonsense. They all had their own interests in mind. Stalin was an “Ally” as well, but I don’t think anyone in their right mind would call him an agent of “justice”.

      Like

  35. Of course, Hitler and Hirohito had to be stopped.

    Case closed.

    Human beings are sinners and only Christianity has the proper understanding of the evil motives of the human heart, and admits when there are mistakes.

    “Just War” that humans do will always tainted with self-righteousness and pride and selfishness and evil motives. It is never pure justice.

    Only when Christ المسیح (The Messiah, translated and transliterated for Paul Williams 😉 ) comes again and judgment day will there be pure and righteous justice.

    Revelation 19:11
    Revelation 20:10-15
    Matthew chapter 25

    Like

    • Um, no. Not “case closed” you sick apologist:

      But to say that the Allies were fighting for “justice” is nonsense. They all had their own interests in mind. Stalin was an “Ally” as well, but I don’t think anyone in their right mind would call him an agent of “justice”.

      In a “just war”, one doesn’t indiscriminately kill non-combatants, especially on purpose. That is why Islam is the only religion that provides clear rules on warfare. Christianity, on the other hand, offers no such rules.

      And for you make light of the suffering of others just goes to show how demented your worldview is. And since it seems that it’s your false religion that inspires such a view, it is just as vile and demented as you are! No use denying it now.

      Like

    • By the way, Christ was supposed to come in the 1st century. He’s about 2000 years late! 😉

      Like

  36. Of course the Allies vs. Nazis and Japan were on the side of justice, however not perfect human justice in this world is.

    And I cited the fact that only Christianity and the Bible offers the proper diagnosis of the wickedness of the human heart, evil motives, selfishness.
    Jeremiah 17:9,
    Genesis 6:5;
    Mark 7:20-23

    That is why the western Judeo-Christian tradition and history and people have guilt and introspection over the atrocities of the past. ( like the over-kill of Dresden, etc.)

    We don’t see that kind of remorse or guilt-feelings or introspection in the Muslim world, it seems to me.

    Like

    • LOL, so now Dresden was “over-kill” huh? Before, you are stuck on the statistics of how many died, not realizing that PEOPLE DIED, no matter what the number was.

      Your religion only offers vague ramblings of the “wickedness of the human heart”. It doesn’t offer any solutions. It is a religion with no answers.

      “That is why the western Judeo-Christian tradition and history and people have guilt and introspection over the atrocities of the past. ( like the over-kill of Dresden, etc.) ”

      LOL!!! Where is this “guilt and introspection”? You certainly did not have it before!

      I also like how you referred to “the western Judeo-Christian tradition”. Besides the fact that Judaism and Christianity are not “western” traditions, the term “Judeo-Christian” is mainly a modern term. It didn’t exist until recently. In any case, for the most part, this “Judeo-Christian tradition” has created more problems and suffering in the world than it has solved. Even today, the “Judeo-Christian tradition” has been responsible for atrocities (the Iraq war for example). And all the pathetic Christian apologists do is ramble on about their vague Bible, but provide no solutions to humanity’s problems, many of which they have caused in the first place!

      Like

  37. Christ “came” in judgment in 70 AD; and also later against churches. (by allowing other nations to invade)
    70 AD – Matthew 23:36, Matthew 24:1-3, 15

    Future to us, second coming: Matthew 24:36- end of chapter 24 and chapter 25; Revelation 19-20

    Against the church in Ephesus
    Revelation 2:4-5 – I am coming against you, . . . unless you repent

    Against the church in Pergamum
    Revelation 2:16 – “repent therefore, or else I am coming to you quickly and I will make war against you . . .

    Against the church in Thyatira
    Revelation 2:21-23

    Against the church in Sardis
    Revelation 3:3
    repent . . . if you don’t wake up I will come against you . . .

    Like

    • LOL!!! Special pleading by a dishonest Christian apologist who is too embarrassed to admit that his god could not fulfill his own appointment! The following is from the thread about C.S. Lewis that I posted:

      “Matthew 24:36 – “but of that day” = the second coming. the subject changes. Matthew 24:36 ff and chapter 25 about second coming, judgment, and end of time.”

      Um no, because verse 30 says clearly that the “son of man” will appear and that all the people of the earth will see him. Compare this to Revelation 1:7, which is clearly talking about the 2nd coming and not the destruction of the temple:

      Matthew 24:30 – Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory.

      Revelation 1:7 – “Look, he is coming with the clouds,” and “every eye will see him, even those who pierced him”; and all peoples on earth “will mourn because of him.”

      Clearly, the 2nd coming was supposed to occur in the 1st century. There is no denying this. Give it up and grow up. (https://bloggingtheology.net/2016/05/19/the-most-embarrassing-verse-in-the-bible-c-s-lewis/#comment-15629)

      Here is more evidence from the Bible that the 2nd coming was supposed to occur in the 1st century. The following is from my article on the Book of Revelation: http://quranandbible.blogspot.com/2015/05/the-book-of-revelation.html

      The myth of a revivified Nero coming to conquer Rome with Parthian support was commonly believed around the time Revelation was written. Thus, it is not surprising that Revelation contains a clear “prophecy” of armies from the east coming to fight for the beast:

      “The sixth angel poured out his bowl on the great river Euphrates, and its water was dried up to prepare the way for the kings from the East.”[121]

      Commenting on this verse, Mounce states:

      “…the historical context of John’s imagery favors the interpretation of the kings as Parthian rulers.”[122]
      In fact, the myth of Nero leading an army from Parthia was widely known even to non-Romans and invariably found its way into Jewish and Christian circles as well. Scholars have long known that the myth of “Nero redivivus” is found in apocryphal works like the Sibylline Oracles and the Ascension of Isaiah.[123] As for the former, Mounce explains that (emphasis in the original):

      “The tradition that Nero, although dying by his own hand, would return from the East leading a great army of Parthian warriors is preserved in the Sibylline Oracles (4:115-39).”[124]

      Even if apologists could somehow prove that a Parthian army led by Nero was not what the author of Revelation had in mind, but rather some Russian or Middle Eastern (Islamic) army in modern times, they must still ask themselves some logical questions: what modern army would need the Euphrates River to dry up first before it could advance on the Holy Land? What modern army, using technology like helicopters and airplanes, would be held back because of a river, as the Book of Revelation claims? The fact is that when the Book of Revelation was written, the Euphrates River served to separate the Roman Empire from the Parthian Empire. It was a natural barrier which served to keep Rome safe from a Parthian invasion.[125] Hence, given that the first two clues provide strong evidence of the Nero myth in Revelation, there is little doubt that the author of Revelation had Nero in mind. (https://bloggingtheology.net/2016/05/19/the-most-embarrassing-verse-in-the-bible-c-s-lewis/#comment-15737)

      Liked by 1 person

    • Revelation 1:7 seems to be about the second coming of Christ, future to us.

      But others argue that it is about “cloud coming” judgment, like Isaiah 19:1, in 70 AD. “tribes of the land” = tribes of Israel, in that view. Words for earth and “land” of Israel are the same.

      Like

  38. The facts that
    1. “six hundred and sixty six” = Neron Caesar נרון כסר in Hebrew letters. (Revelation 13:18)
    2. Revelation 17:9-10 – the seven hills points to the city of Rome
    the seven kings points to seven Roman Emporers, if one starts with Julius Caesar, then 5 have fallen, and “one is” at the time of writing, points to Nero being alive when Revelation was written.
    3. The adulterous/ harlot like woman who rides the beast, controlling the beast – Revelation 17-18 points to Israel ( OT background: “the sons of Israel played the harlot and went after the Baals”, etc.) points to apostate Israel who rejected the Messiah and killed Him and persecuted the apostles ( “drunk with the blood of the saints”, etc. “we have no king but Caesar” – points to apostate Israel “riding” / controlling / manipulating Rome to crucify Jesus and persecute the church.
    4. Revelation 11:8 – ” . . . the great city which mystically/symbolically is called Sodom and Egypt, where their Lord was crucified.” – points to Jerusalem. Jerusalem has become apostate and the enemy of God, so God calls her Sodom, Egypt, and “Babylon” in Rev. 17-18.

    These are more clear points that have lead me to believe that Revelation was written before 70 AD and is mostly about 70 AD judgment on apostate Israel, but with also a mixture of other things future to us.

    Matthew 24:29-30 seems to be also about the second coming future to us, but remember the disciples ADDED 2 more issues to Jesus’ initial statement about the destruction of the temple. (Matthew 24:3)

    Therefore, His answer is a mixture of 70 AD and also future events like the second coming of Christ.

    But Isaiah 19:1 God says He is “coming” and “riding on clouds” coming to Egypt to judge the idols of Egypt. That is apocalyptic language for judgment on nations by ordaining and allowing other nations to attack and judge the nation. God did not literally come on a cloud, but it is apocalyptic language of judgement.

    Same in Isaiah 13:11 where the context is against Babylon, and God stirs up the Medes to come against them (Isaiah 13:17) and that is what happened when the Medes and Persians conquered Babylon later in 539-536 BC.

    Like

    • Your post is riddled with assumptions. First of all, the “seven hills” are probably symbolic. From my article:

      Though scholars disagree as to the identities of the seven heads of the beast, they all agree that the heads represent the Roman Empire in one way or another. Some scholars identify each head with successive emperors (such as Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero and Vespasian),[112] but as Mounce observes, this theory has some flaws (emphasis in the original):

      “It regards Augustus as the first emperor although his predecessor, Julius Caesar, took the title Imperator, and was reckoned by many writers (both Roman and Jewish) as the first emperor. A second problem is the omission of the three rival emperors who ruled briefly between Nero (A.D. 54-68) and Vespasian (A.D. 69-79).”[113]

      Instead, Mounce posits the theory that the use of the number seven is actually symbolic, and represents the “the power of the Roman Empire as a historic whole”, and not specific emperors.[114] Even so, he acknowledges:

      “Certainly the terrors of the Neronian persecution in A.D. 64…would be a more likely historical expression of Antichrist.”[115]

      Thus, even if the seven heads do not specifically refer to individual emperors, it is clear that the Roman Empire was the intended target of the author’s caricature. (http://quranandbible.blogspot.com/2015/05/the-book-of-revelation.html).

      Also, the date of the book was most probably around the turn of the 1st century, during the reign of Domitian. Even Daniel Wallace, the darling of the Christian apologetic camp, agrees (though he says that Neronian date could be a possibility):

      “Rather than get into all the details of date, we believe that this book was written during the reign of Domitian (c. 95-96 CE), rather than during Nero’s reign” (https://bible.org/seriespage/27-revelation-introduction-argument-and-outline).

      Moreover, the fact remains that both Matthew and Revelation refer to the coming of Christ and that “every eye will see him”. Revelation 1:7 is even more clearer as to the context since it says “even those who pierced him”. That can only be a reference to the Romans. The Roman empire has been extinct for 1600 years and Christ never came.

      Also, the drying up of the Euphrates river to make way for armies from the east shows clear evidence of a 1st century 2nd coming. It cannot apply to modern times since no modern army needs to wait for a river to dry up before they could invade the Holy Land. It is laughable to say that this could somehow happen in modern times.

      Liked by 1 person

    • yes, scholars debate about the 7 kings, beginning with Julius Caesar, or with Augustus or just a general symbolic number.

      But, those views don’t explain the phrase “5 have fallen” and “one is”

      Like

  39. so, yeah, I totally disagree with all the pre-trib. and pre-Millennial madness preachers on TV that try to predict end time events, etc. and said in the 70s-80s that it was the Soviet Union (1970s -80s Hal Lindsay and The Late Great Planet Earth) or modern Russia or Muslims are the stuff in Revelation –

    I don’t agree with that stuff – I don’t agree with Hal Lindsay or the heretic John Hagee or Jack Van Impee or Tim LaHaye.

    Like

    • That’s irrelevant. The fact remains that the 2nd coming was supposed to happen ~2,000 years ago.

      Like

    • nope; the relevant passages are a mixture of 70 AD judgment and the future to us second coming. 2 Peter 3:1-15 ; 1 Thess. 4:13-18; Rev. 19-20; Mattthew 24:36-chapter 25, 1 Cor. 15:23-28 and 15:51-55 shows the second coming is still future to us.

      Like

  40. “Revelation 1:7 seems to be about the second coming of Christ, future to us.

    But others argue that it is about “cloud coming” judgment, like Isaiah 19:1, in 70 AD. “tribes of the land” = tribes of Israel, in that view. Words for earth and “land” of Israel are the same.”

    The “cloud coming” is a reference to Daniel 7:13, which is clearly talking about the Messianic age:

    “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man,[a] coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.”

    Of course, Christian translations say “worshiped”, but the word means “served”, which is how Jews interpret the verse (http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/16490#showrashi=true).

    Regardless, it’s a clear reference to the Messianic age, i.e. Christ’s 2nd coming. It had to occur shortly after Revelation was written.

    Like

  41. Daniel 7:13 is about the ascension of Jesus:
    the son of man, coming
    and He came up to the Ancient of Days . . .

    It is about His ascension and session (sitting down at the right hand of the Father, after the atonement and resurrection) – He ruling and reigning even now over the world from heaven.

    Like

  42. Wrong! Daniel 7:13 is not about Jesus let alone a divine Jesus  reading Daniel 7 IN CONTEXT. It becomes clear that it has small chance  to do with a God to become man.

    Jesus is only “son of man.” but God is not a man, God is not a son of man,  God is unchanging He is as He always was and will be.

    Like

    • Exactly. The “son of man” is literally “human being” in the original Aramaic:

      “The Aramaic phrase bar enash means human being” (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=daniel+7&version=NIV#fen-NIV-21947a).

      On the other hand, God is referred to as the “Ancient of Days”. This contradicts the gospel of John, which claims that Jesus was with God from the beginning!

      Like

    • Yes, Daniel 7:13  is not about divine or anything , it is a gross error in the mind of temple, the hebrew-aramaic text says כְּבַר אֱנָשׁ “k’var enash” the son of human being, and there is also the כְּ (kaf) in  כְּבַר אֱנָשׁ, the כְּ changes it from “son of a human being” to “LIKE a son of a human being.” Obviously “son of man” a distorted  translation to make it appear a relation to that “the son of man” in the NT. It is not! It is just a regular expression for man in general and often serves as an indefinite pronoun and in none of the extant texts does “son of man” figure as a title.  This is the view of scholar like Geza Vermes.

      Like

  43. “yes, scholars debate about the 7 kings, beginning with Julius Caesar, or with Augustus or just a general symbolic number.

    But, those views don’t explain the phrase “5 have fallen” and “one is” ”

    Mounce does acknowledge that if the line of emperors starts with Caligula, who was the first Roman emperor to “[provoke] a crisis over emperor worship…”, and skipping the three minor emperors between Nero and Vespasian, we would arrive at the reign of Domitian as the sixth emperor (one more was to come, and the eight was to be one of the seven). Also, Mounce cites the theory posited by J.H. Ulrichsen, that since the ten horns of the beast also represent Roman emperors, then it is possible to arrive at Domitian’s reign by starting with Caligula and including the three minor emperors (Ibid., fn. 42). Since it is generally accepted that the Book of Revelation was written around Domitian’s reign, and not of Vespasian, this theory is plausible (http://quranandbible.blogspot.com/2015/05/the-book-of-revelation.html#_edn111).

    It makes sense, thus, that the seven hills represent Rome itself, while the 10 horns represent individual emperors.

    “nope; the relevant passages are a mixture of 70 AD judgment and the future to us second coming. 2 Peter 3:1-15 ; 1 Thess. 4:13-18; Rev. 19-20; Mattthew 24:36-chapter 25, 1 Cor. 15:23-28 and 15:51-55 shows the second coming is still future to us. ”

    Nope, 2 Peter is a later forgery that was written precisely in a time that Christians were having a crisis of faith. They couldn’t understand why Christ had not yet come. The author argued that God had delayed the coming to give people more time.

    But the context from Matthew and Revelation shows that the 2nd coming was supposed to have occurred almost 2,000 years ago. It seems that the appointment was missed.

    “Daniel 7:13 is about the ascension of Jesus:
    the son of man, coming
    and He came up to the Ancient of Days . . .

    It is about His ascension and session (sitting down at the right hand of the Father, after the atonement and resurrection) – He ruling and reigning even now over the world from heaven.”

    Oh brother. Daniel 7:13 cannot be referring to the ascension because it clearly states that:

    “…all nations and peoples of every language [served] him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.”

    The “serving” occurred right after the “son of man” was brought into God’s presence. Since when did “all nations and peoples of every language” serve Jesus after his ascension?

    Also, the phrase “even those who pierced him” clearly means the Romans. Therefore, it is clear that the author of Revelation was referring not to the ascension but to the 2nd coming. It had to occur during the height of the Roman empire’s power. It didn’t.

    Like

  44. Of course, the great white mass bwana Ken Temple is a true Christian. He loves the food the house Muslims prepare for the true loving Christian mastermind. Those evil wicked totally depraved Muslims.
    Only the true Christian is able to love, only the true Christian is able to have a relationship with God, only the true Christian is able to find forgiveness for his petty arrogant ignorant hypocrisy.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Indeed. Spiritual arrogance and ignorance.

      Like

    • I think that most christians believe that muslims are misled by their false religion and fake holy book. Your prophet could not tell the difference between a demon and an angel from god and we feel sorry for you.

      Even those muslim that everyone agrees are wicked, we feel that they have been bamboozled by your man-made religion. No bigotry here, I’m afraid.

      Like

  45. Fido barked:

    “I think that most christians believe that muslims are misled by their false religion and fake holy book. Your prophet could not tell the difference between a demon and an angel from god and we feel sorry for you.

    Even those muslim that everyone agrees are wicked, we feel that they have been bamboozled by your man-made religion. No bigotry here, I’m afraid.”

    LOL!!! No, it’s not bigotry. It’s just self-righteous hypocrisy! Yeah, that’s much better!

    You have been humiliated so many times on this matter already. Jacob was injured by a man whose name he did not know. The man himself did not know Jacob’s name! If that was “God” or some “angel”, then I’m the Queen of England! LOL!!

    Daniel was terrified of Gabriel and even fainted! He didn’t even know who he was! LOL!!!

    Your cesspool cult is for the brainless and idiotic. You’re right at home, Fido! Woof, woof!!

    Like

    • Fail

      But your prophet could not tell the difference between an angel and a demon. No one mistakes the true god and his angels for demons. Why couldn’t your god make his presence obvious? He couldn’t and so, he cannot be the true god.

      Please, move away from the darkness and come towards the light. Jesus is waiting.

      Like

  46. Hey Fido, why didn’t your god keep his appointment? He was supposed to show up to destroy the Roman empire, as Revelation clearly shows. Instead, he missed his appointment and the Roman empire flourished for another…few hundred years. Ouch!!!

    Like

  47. Fido barked:

    “Fail

    But your prophet could not tell the difference between an angel and a demon. No one mistakes the true god and his angels for demons. Why couldn’t your god make his presence obvious? He couldn’t and so, he cannot be the true god.

    Please, move away from the darkness and come towards the light. Jesus is waiting.”

    LOL!!! Fido sounds like a broken record! Is this all you have left, my little flea-infested chihuahua?

    Why couldn’t your god overpower a poor shepherd like Jacob? Why was he ignorant of his name? What kind of god is that? LOL!!!

    Please, move away from the darkness of your cesspool cult and come towards the light. Allah is waiting. If you take one step to Him, He will come running to you.

    Like

    • Fail

      “What kind of god is that?”

      A god that never gets mistaken for a demon? LOL!!!!

      “Please, move away from the darkness of your cesspool cult and come towards the light. Allah is waiting. If you take one step to Him, He will come running to you.”

      Don’t you mean “hop” – doesn’t your god only have one leg? Or maybe he’ll handstand his way towards me with his two right hands. LOL!!!

      Let’s hope is 99 personalities aren’t bickering amongst themselves and he can move in a straight line to get to me. LOL!!!!

      Like

  48. Still waiting, Fido! Are you going to make me wait just like your god made his disappointed followers wait for his 2nd coming? LOL!!!

    Like

  49. Fido barked:

    “A god that never gets mistaken for a demon? LOL!!!!”

    LOL!!! And a god who doesn’t know who he is wrestling? And can’t even overpower the poor shepherd? Oh, that’s much more impressive! LOL!!!

    “Don’t you mean “hop” – doesn’t your god only have one leg? Or maybe he’ll handstand his way towards me with his two right hands. LOL!!!

    Let’s hope is 99 personalities aren’t bickering amongst themselves and he can move in a straight line to get to me. LOL!!!!””

    LOL!!! Unlike your 4-eyed god with feet like bronze! I wonder why he didn’t have feet like gold? LOL!!!

    Like

  50. Fido barked:

    “Fail

    Still waiting for what? To find out if your “god” sent a demon to do his work?”

    LOL!! Still not answering? Why did your god miss his appointment when he said he was returning very soon?

    Liked by 1 person

  51. Reblogged this on A Thirst For Fire and commented:
    This is so true.

    Like

  52. Reblogged. This was halarious.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: