The Inquisition Redux

Manfred

Well-known member
I'm tired of all the mopping up I need to do.
Sadly you lost the debate with the first response given to you.

Still waiting for your proof that Jesus anywhere at any time taught that the Gospel should be thrust down peoples throats by violence and if they did not comply, to kill them.

The only mopping required is the mopping up of the drek that is your op.
 
Last edited:

Manfred

Well-known member
It isnt a supposition at all it is by identification with Him as Jesus was identified with Him. God manifest Himself in us. See Matt 3:16 this is how He does in man and always has.
You supposition: The righteousness of Christ is not a requirement for salvation, because you think you make yourself righteous.
You have just proven it again.

Your theology is meaningless gibberish Gary

Can you expound why His way is filthy deeds for you? Im curious how you come to the conclusion His way is evil?
Your deeds are nothing more that filthy rags. You do not have the imputed righteousness of Jesus the Christ, therefore you think your supposed sinlessness and holiness makes you righteous.

Your way which you claim to be God's way is a gross misrepresentation of the gospel, and not God's way at all.
You can repeat your mantra a million times, it will still not make it God's way.
 
Sadly you lost the debate with the first response given to you.

Still waiting for your proof that Jesus anywhere at any time taught that the Gospel should be thrust down peoples throats by violence and if they did not comply, to kill them.

The only mopping required is the mopping up of the drek that is your op.
ROFL!
 

Gary Mac

Well-known member
You supposition: The righteousness of Christ is not a requirement for salvation, because you think you make yourself righteous.
You have just proven it again.
Righteousness is Gods salvation. And because you do not know what it is to be His righteouss, anointed of god which is Christ in you, you think it isd self imposed just as you stated. It isnt self imposed at all, all we can do is what Jesus did and obey and let God come in and be your righteousness. You really do not klnow what it is to be the righteousness of God in Christ, anointed of God yourself.
Your theology is meaningless gibberish Gary
My theology? You act as if I wrote what Jesus commanded of us if we are to be in the Father as he was in the Father. Read of him in John 17 and see if that is my theology that I be in God and He be in me as one as Jesus said he was on in Him.

But then I do understand why what Jesus says you should be like Him is gibberish for you.
Your deeds are nothing more that filthy rags. You do not have the imputed righteousness of Jesus the Christ, therefore you think your supposed sinlessness and holiness makes you righteous.
Actaully we who are born of God it is impossible to be in sin, 1 John 3:9. ANd 1 John 3 when you yourself see Him as He is, (if you ever do) ye shall be like Him as well. And in 1 John 3 He takes away the sins of this world.

There is nointg I can do at all except give up my life and receieve His, which is very clear His way is just filthy rags for your religion, what ever that may be?

BTW if you are a sinner as you promote sin and not righteousness, See 1 John 3:8, it tells you clearly where your religion comes from.
Your way which you claim to be God's way is a gross misrepresentation of the gospel, and not God's way at all.
All one has to do is read what Jesus said you should be and wouldm be if you had the same from the Father he had from Him. You make Jesus a liar when he commanded that you be ye therefore perfect even as your Father in heaven is perfect, and make him a liar when he prayed to his God in John 17 that you be one in the Father with He in you and you in Him as one as Jesus was one in Him. And you make him a liar when you deny Matt 3:16 where God really did come to that man by His Spirit and opend all of His heaven to him, just as He did in Adam Moses, abraham, 120, and me. And you make him a liar when he said the kingdom fo God doesnt come with observation it is withn you. Luke 17:20-21, But I do agree with you that His kingdom definatly is not withn you.
You can repeat your mantra a million times, it will still not make it God's way.
Bingo! You finally got someting right. His way is to receieve from Him that what Jesus receieved form Him where God Himself is manifest in you. And Jesus was spot on when he siad he is the way the rtuth and the life in the Father and no one come to the Father except this way, He in you and you in Him as one in which you are so antichrist to have in yourself.

So thank you for answering why His way is evil for you.
 

Slyzr

Well-known member
You require the imputation of His righteousness before He will lead you on a journey of sanctification.

Some posters here think they make themselves perfect by ceasing to sin and being self made holy.
You were probably fooled by some such.


Never heard that before. :rolleyes:

Is that what they call Calvinism? :cool:
 

El Cid

Member
I wasn't assuming anything... I took my knowledge of your position as I've gleaned it from your posts on this forum thus far and, knowing my own position, drew a conclusion that my views are heretical from your perspective. What I didn't presume to know is whether you knew of my academic background (I mentioned it in passing over in the historical Jesus thread) and/or my views, thus my rejection of the label you gifted me was qualified with "knowingly or not".
No, I hadnt really paid much attention to your posts, I was dealing with the Unknown Soldiers posts.
That process is under way...


Christianity has been a diverse religious phenomenon since the very beginning... one group's orthodoxy is another's heresy and what may have emerged as orthodoxy among the majority could have been otherwise under different cultural and historical circumstances.
No, most Christians have consistently agreed that the Apostles Creed, the Ten Commandments, and the moral teachings of Christ are the essentials of Christianity for close to 2000 years. Yes, it could have been otherwise but God controlled the cultural and historical circumstances to create the orthodox essentials for the majority of Christians up until recently.
Nah, I was simply conveying some basic information about how degrees and educations are evaluated within academia and I remain unimpressed with Butt's credentials and choice of insular education. Now, if I were constructing an argument against his article on these grounds, you would be correct to call me out for engaging in a form of genetic fallacy. As it stands, I've begun dealing with his claims and will be making no reference to his education in critiquing them...

Kind regards,
Jonathan
Glad to hear it.
 

En Hakkore

Well-known member
Besides the Christian belief that the ultimate author of the BIble is a singular Author thereby naturally producing a unified story, this little article explains some aspects of its unity: https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=13&article=2151
I'll post my responses to the four sections I outlined previously individually beginning tomorrow, then circle back to engage with any replies...
The third and fourth parts of Butt's article that I've chosen to respond to both fall under "Objections", which section aims to anticipate the conjectured rebuttals of the author's interlocutors to his case for unity of the biblical texts, which for me was wholly unconvincing (see previous two posts). The first supposed objection and the subject of this post is "The Writers Copied Each Other" --- Butt claims that "the mere objection assumes the perfect unity of the 66 books of the Bible." When I earlier implied the Chronicler and the author of 1 Peter had access to the Genesis flood narrative, no such assumption as Butt suggests prompted it... evidence of copying exists within the biblical corpus as comparisons between Chronicles and Samuel-Kings or among the four gospels amply demonstrates, but it is rarely word-for-word and the deviations are insightful, often bringing the disunity of the biblical anthology into sharper relief with the subtle and sometimes not-so-subtle corrections to perceived problems in the earlier text(s). Butt shows no awareness of how his critics would actually invoke evidence of copying to strengthen their own arguments...

Butt then claims that "this allegation assumes that the various Old Testament prophets and New Testament writers had access to perfectly preserved texts of the various books," following which he affirms "the astonishing preservation of the text of the Bible." The assumption Butt imputes to his critics is again erroneous. The biblical texts have been adequately preserved so we have a relatively good idea what its various authors and redactors intended to convey... to suggest we have anything beyond this, however, is wishful thinking. Textual critics in both testaments have largely abandoned the goal of reconstructing the so-called original texts of the various biblical books:

We disregard the ipsissima verba of the biblical authors and oral formulations of the biblical books since both are beyond our evidence. Rather, we focus on the written text or edition (or a number of consecutive editions) that contained the finished literary product (or one of its earlier stages) that stood at the beginning of the textual transmission process. This formulation gives a certain twist to the assumption of an original text as often described in the scholarly literature. Our definition does not refer to the original text in the usual sense of the word, since the copy described here as the final literary product could have been produced by earlier literary crystallizations. Reconstructing elements of this copy (or copies) is one of the aims of textual scholars, although the discussion is constantly plagued by the difficulty of defining the literary stages. There is no evidence for the existence of the model of an original text because of the late date of our manuscripts, even the ones from the Judean Desert. (Tov 165-66)

many textual critics now avoid using the term original, opting instead to use other more precise and defensible phrases, such as "the earliest attainable form of the text." (Ehrman, 343)

These theoretical problems with reconstructing the so-called original text of the Bible are not even on Butt's radar in the article and yet they are critical to questions on the alleged preservation of the text... scribal intrusion is demonstrable, more so the farther back one goes in the transmission history, and the gaps -- significant in the case of the various books of the Hebrew Bible -- between putative "original" and first, often fragmentary, extant manuscripts introduce elements of genuine uncertainty that Butt seems unwilling to acknowledge.

Kind regards,
Jonathan


Works cited:
Ehrman, Bart D. The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament. Updated and with a New Afterword. Oxford University Press, 2011.
Tov, Emanuel. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. Third Edition, Revised & Expanded. Fortress Press, 2012.
 

Manfred

Well-known member
Rolling around on the floor laughing, does not help your case at all. It strengthens the veracity of the rebuttal given to you.

You did not even try to rebut my last post in our discussion, nor those of others and then you pretend you did not get your argument demolished.

If I am wrong, then prove your OP by giving us a clear scripture indication where Jesus even once told His followers to use physical violence to spread a good news message.
 

Manfred

Well-known member
Righteousness is Gods salvation. And because you do not know what it is to be His righteouss, anointed of god which is Christ in you, you think it isd self imposed just as you stated. It isnt self imposed at all, all we can do is what Jesus did and obey and let God come in and be your righteousness. You really do not klnow what it is to be the righteousness of God in Christ, anointed of God yourself.

My theology? You act as if I wrote what Jesus commanded of us if we are to be in the Father as he was in the Father. Read of him in John 17 and see if that is my theology that I be in God and He be in me as one as Jesus said he was on in Him.

But then I do understand why what Jesus says you should be like Him is gibberish for you.

Actaully we who are born of God it is impossible to be in sin, 1 John 3:9. ANd 1 John 3 when you yourself see Him as He is, (if you ever do) ye shall be like Him as well. And in 1 John 3 He takes away the sins of this world.

There is nointg I can do at all except give up my life and receieve His, which is very clear His way is just filthy rags for your religion, what ever that may be?

BTW if you are a sinner as you promote sin and not righteousness, See 1 John 3:8, it tells you clearly where your religion comes from.

All one has to do is read what Jesus said you should be and wouldm be if you had the same from the Father he had from Him. You make Jesus a liar when he commanded that you be ye therefore perfect even as your Father in heaven is perfect, and make him a liar when he prayed to his God in John 17 that you be one in the Father with He in you and you in Him as one as Jesus was one in Him. And you make him a liar when you deny Matt 3:16 where God really did come to that man by His Spirit and opend all of His heaven to him, just as He did in Adam Moses, abraham, 120, and me. And you make him a liar when he said the kingdom fo God doesnt come with observation it is withn you. Luke 17:20-21, But I do agree with you that His kingdom definatly is not withn you.

Bingo! You finally got someting right. His way is to receieve from Him that what Jesus receieved form Him where God Himself is manifest in you. And Jesus was spot on when he siad he is the way the rtuth and the life in the Father and no one come to the Father except this way, He in you and you in Him as one in which you are so antichrist to have in yourself.

So thank you for answering why His way is evil for you.
Not worth reading, nor responding to.

You think your righteousness and your good deeds is His way of salvation.
It is not.
 

Manfred

Well-known member
Never heard that before. :rolleyes:

Is that what they call Calvinism? :cool:
No, not Calvinism.

Christians believe that Jesus was without sin and perfectly righteous. Therefore death and hell, did not have a legal right to hold Him.
He conquered death and sin.

So when you put your faith in Jesus as your Lord and Savior, he (His shed blood as a sacrifice) covers your sin by His perfect righteousness and he takes your sin upon Him.

So you are not saved by God because of being good, or obeying laws, you are saved because of the righteousness of Christ.
The other things come naturally after, but you are not perfected as yet. Your journey of sanctification only starts at faith.

God is light, and in Him is no darkness. No one can enter the Light which is God, all fall short. It is only by the righteousness of Christ that we are made pure and are able to enter His presence.

Calvinists believe that we do not choose to believe in God, but that God chooses us. It is because of His mercy and compassion. Only the elect are saved by faith in Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.
Arminians believe that all people are elect and have a choice to either choose salvation through Jesus Christ and eternity with Him or to reject Jesus Christ as their Lord and savior, and eternity separated from Him.

Both groups however believe that we are saved by the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, and the debate between them is not an argument on salvation.

You can read this and be convicted in your "heart" that you need the righteousness of Christ imputed to you, or you can ignore the conviction and just keep on as always.

Jer29:
11 For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope. 12 Then you will call upon me and come and pray to me, and I will hear you. 13 You will seek me and find me, when you seek me with all your heart. 14 I will be found by you, declares the Lord,
 

Gary Mac

Well-known member
Not worth reading, nor responding to.
It never is to one who has formed his own god to obey your own beliefs of a god.
You think your righteousness and your good deeds is His way of salvation.
It is not.
Good deeds is His way for salvation? You dont get it at all. Good deeds are result from His salvation to walk as He walks in His same light.

Your mind is a little mixed up due from lack in having from God that what He sent Jesus as example for who you are supposed to be in God as Jesus was in God. And saved from these religious beliefs you harbor where you dictate to your god what his salvation should be from a belief instead of coming face to face with God to learn from God HJimself instead of all these beliefs about Him.

Gods salvation is Him manifest in you, you just have a different OPINION for salvation is all from lack if hearing from God Himself.

How can you say you are saved if you do not walk as He walks in it? Ill tell you how, you have made up ypour own salvation apart from His to be ye therefore perfect as He is perfect.
 

Gary Mac

Well-known member
Those of the same ilk found that brainwashing is more effective.
Which is common today among these religious denominations. It is their way or no way at all using the same tactics for brain washing by having a form of godliness but never coming face to face with God Himself that He may show the way.
 
The ends justifying the means is a violation of Gods law.
You're making that up. The laws in the Bible are not that sophisticated.

Anyway, the reason Christians no longer burn people at the stake is because our modern, secularized civilization will not allow them to do so. Apologists would have us believe that the acts of the Inquisition were contrary to the Gospel, but it's not difficult to see why this claim is bogus. As far as I know few if any Christians in the heyday of the witch burnings came forward to denounce those executions as somehow against what Christ taught. The greatest Christian Bible scholars of that time did not oppose but supported the Inquisition. Are we to believe that all those scholars somehow missed the Gospel's message of love and kindness? Did it take another four or five centuries until Christians finally figured out that Jesus preached compassion for the enemies of the church? The truth of the matter is that our moving away from the Gospel is what put an end to that cruel and crazy violence and not some "awakening" in the church to what Christ really taught.

So I'm looking forward to the continued decline of Christianity and the attendant rise of true love and compassion as provided by secularism.
 

Slyzr

Well-known member
You're making that up. The laws in the Bible are not that sophisticated.

Anyway, the reason Christians no longer burn people at the stake is because our modern, secularized civilization will not allow them to do so. Apologists would have us believe that the acts of the Inquisition were contrary to the Gospel, but it's not difficult to see why this claim is bogus. As far as I know few if any Christians in the heyday of the witch burnings came forward to denounce those executions as somehow against what Christ taught. The greatest Christian Bible scholars of that time did not oppose but supported the Inquisition. Are we to believe that all those scholars somehow missed the Gospel's message of love and kindness? Did it take another four or five centuries until Christians finally figured out that Jesus preached compassion for the enemies of the church? The truth of the matter is that our moving away from the Gospel is what put an end to that cruel and crazy violence and not some "awakening" in the church to what Christ really taught.

So I'm looking forward to the continued decline of Christianity and the attendant rise of true love and compassion as provided by secularism.

As a matter of course they now prefer killing by the "word".

seriously ..... by sword or by word.; all shall die.

That was their motto all along.

Take advantage .... don't be a lamb, be a lion; make another be the lamb.
 
As a matter of course they now prefer killing by the "word".

seriously ..... by sword or by word.; all shall die.

That was their motto all along.

Take advantage .... don't be a lamb, be a lion; make another be the lamb.
What you posted here doesn't make any sense.
 

En Hakkore

Well-known member
Besides the Christian belief that the ultimate author of the BIble is a singular Author thereby naturally producing a unified story, this little article explains some aspects of its unity: https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=13&article=2151
I'll post my responses to the four sections I outlined previously individually beginning tomorrow, then circle back to engage with any replies...
The fourth and final part of Butt's article I'd like to respond to, also under "Objections", is his section on "The Bible Contains Contradictions" --- he anticipates this critical response in the previous part where he claims that "non-canonical writers...wrote material that contradicted the canonical Scriptures." He then proceeds to state that while "individuals often contradict their own writings due to a slip of the mind or a change in their previous thinking," "no such slips, changes, or other aberrant occurrences can be found in the 66-book library of the Bible." In the section proper, he asserts that "competent Christian apologists have thoroughly and effectively refuted the charges of alleged biblical discrepancies." In short, no; Christian apologists have done no such thing... the very existence of a two-volume work such as Butts references -- one among many such attempts, which are sometimes thicker than the average Bible -- attempting to explain (away) all the inconsistencies should be cause for concern.

Might some of the existing contradictions be attributable to scribal error? Sure. Might some of the alleged tensions be overblown by critics? Sure. But all of them? Surely not. Despite apologists' best efforts, quite a few problems remain and the explanations offered to resolve them are ad hoc and often convoluted... using this method, one could harmonize any of the aforementioned non-canonical writings with the supposed canon -- the division itself is arbitrary and disputed amongst the various factions of Christians. Despite accompanying claims of reverence for the texts in question, the solutions to proposed contradictions often ignore what they plainly assert in order to force a harmonization.

Butt is correct that authors sometimes slip and contradict themselves or change their minds... an example of the latter would be Luke's chronology of the ascension. In his gospel he places it on the evening of the resurrection, but by the time of writing Acts he has changed his mind and placed it forty days after this event. Contradictions exist when the gospels are compared to each other... I noted previously the chronological conflict between John and the so-called Synoptic tradition on the date of Jesus' crucifixion. Other chronological discrepancies exist... Mark narrates Jesus calling Simon, Andrew, James and John as followers, who then accompany him into a synagogue where he expels an unclean spirit, later heals Simon's mother-in-law and effects similar such cures... Luke, finding this arrangement lacking in verisimilitude, places the aforementioned exorcisms and healings before the calling of Simon, James and John (Andrew is curiously omitted), whose reactions to leave their nets is far more believable, particularly after the miraculous catch of fish Luke inserts. Elsewhere Mark narrates Jesus entering the temple on the day of his triumphal entry but cleanse it of market activity the following day, this act sandwiched between Jesus cursing a fig tree on his way into Jerusalem that morning and the discovery of it withered the next day... Matthew instead narrates Jesus cleansing the temple on the day of triumphal entry and on the following morning cursing the fig tree, which withers right there and then.

Problems exist within the Hebrew Bible, as well. The ark tradition in Exodus has it overlaid with gold and adorned with two cherubs, the work of a metallurgist named Bezalel... the iconoclastic Deuteronomist presents a simple wooden box made by Moses himself. The sacrificial altar is overlaid with bronze in the Exodus tradition, again by Bezalel, but Numbers presents an etiological story about it becoming plated with bronze from the incense censors melted down after the ill-fated rebellion of Korah... LXX contains a harmonization that telescopes the latter into the Exodus narrative and removes the altar itself from the list of items for which the community's freewill offering of bronze was used. Joshua lists the king of Bethel as being among the conquered Canaanite monarchs, but Judges claims Bethel was conquered by the house of Joseph after the death of Joshua... again LXX contains a harmonization: Bethel is lacking in the Joshua listing --- indeed, contradictions in the text were evident in antiquity and the means of dealing with them were to tamper with the texts themselves (on which practice generally see my previous post).

The above examples are the proverbial tip of the iceberg. While Butt's claim that the Bible has survived the "razor-sharp scalpel of supposed contradictions...with no scratches or scars, none the worse for wear" may sound reassuring to some, a careful reading of the biblical texts reveals numerous genuine conflicts...

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 

Slyzr

Well-known member
No, not Calvinism.

Christians believe that Jesus was without sin and perfectly righteous. Therefore death and hell, did not have a legal right to hold Him.
He conquered death and sin.

So when you put your faith in Jesus as your Lord and Savior, he (His shed blood as a sacrifice) covers your sin by His perfect righteousness and he takes your sin upon Him.

So you are not saved by God because of being good, or obeying laws, you are saved because of the righteousness of Christ.
The other things come naturally after, but you are not perfected as yet. Your journey of sanctification only starts at faith.

God is light, and in Him is no darkness. No one can enter the Light which is God, all fall short. It is only by the righteousness of Christ that we are made pure and are able to enter His presence.

Calvinists believe that we do not choose to believe in God, but that God chooses us. It is because of His mercy and compassion. Only the elect are saved by faith in Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.
Arminians believe that all people are elect and have a choice to either choose salvation through Jesus Christ and eternity with Him or to reject Jesus Christ as their Lord and savior, and eternity separated from Him.

Both groups however believe that we are saved by the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, and the debate between them is not an argument on salvation.

You can read this and be convicted in your "heart" that you need the righteousness of Christ imputed to you, or you can ignore the conviction and just keep on as always.

Jer29:
11 For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope. 12 Then you will call upon me and come and pray to me, and I will hear you. 13 You will seek me and find me, when you seek me with all your heart. 14 I will be found by you, declares the Lord,

Yawn ......

So you are into ..... yawn ... excuse ....... me

YAWN ...... excuse me ..... not sure what got over me.

are you saying .... blah ... blah ..... blah Christians win?

Yawn ........

Christians really win ....... win .......

So exciting ...... back to sleep now.

Wake me up when it over.


High five? 🖐
 
Last edited:
Top