One Universal Church Run By Papacy From Rome Is Inconsistent With Paul's Teachings
Not-easily-duped
Inconsistent with Paul's teaching when he said that Peter was sent
by God to the circumcised and he Paul was sent to the uncircumcised.
If There were two different groups and doctrines, there would never be
one
single Church. Yet the papacy want us to believe that there was one
catholic Church.
the question is, since when did they merge?
Given this fact, it is safe to say that there was no single Church at
the
beginning as the pharisees who accepted Jesus as their Messiah could
never
gentilized and the gentiles could never judaized. It was meant to be
two
world at the very begining
Paul never preached outside the Greeco-Roman world.
One universal Church run by a pope from Rome is a fraud and was never
meant by God. It is Commun sense.
One Christianity, one Church, two different versions. The gentiles
version
survived as Catholic, the jews version survived as Islam.
The TWO WORLDS.
Malcolm
"Not-easily-duped" <Codeb...@bigsecret.com> wrote in message
>
> If There were two different groups and doctrines, there would never be
> one single Church. Yet the papacy want us to believe that there was one
> catholic Church.
> the question is, since when did they merge?
>
kept in communication, and had disputes on doctrine. It is true that
missionary work was divided up, with Paul taking responsibility for the
Greek world, but this doesn't imply two churches, any more than a company
with branches in Britain and America is two companies.
>
> One Christianity, one Church, two different versions. The gentiles
> version survived as Catholic, the jews version survived as Islam.
> The TWO WORLDS.
>
survived, undocumented, until the Islamic period.
Cap Tool
"Not-easily-duped" <Codeb...@bigsecret.com> wrote in message
news:bbba7302.04062...@posting.google.com...
Sajo Markecz
"Not-easily-duped" <Codeb...@bigsecret.com> wrote in message
news:bbba7302.04062...@posting.google.com...
> One universal Church run by a pope from Rome is a fraud and was never
> meant by God. It is Commun sense.
of Germany :
When Martin Luther was asked whether it is morally justifiable to box the
ears of a Jew , he said " Certainly . I for one would smack him on the jaw .
Were I able , I would knock him down and stab him in my anger . It is lawful
, according to both the human and the divine law , to kill a robber ; then
it is even more permissible to slay a blasphemer ".
" If I had to baptise a Jew , I would take him to the bridge of the Elbe ,
hang a stone round his neck and push him over with the words ' I baptise
thee in the name of Abraham ' ".
" We ought to take revenge on the Jews and kill them ".
" The Jews deserve to be hanged on gallows seven times higher than ordinary
thieves ".
" Set fire to their synagogues and schools ; and what will not burn , heap
earth over it so that no man may see a stone or relic of them forever ".
Pages 50 - 51 in
"http://www.tentmaker.org/books/MartinLuther-HitlersSpiritualAncestor.html"
, Martin Luther ~ Hitler's Spiritual Ancestor , by Peter F. Wiener , Author
of German For the Scientist , and German With Tears , Hutchinson & Co. (
Publishers ) Ltd . London : New York : Melbourne : Sydney . The work was put
into electronic format by Patsy Jackson for Tentmaker Publications - 118
Walnut - Hermann , Missouri , 65041 , U.S.A.
See also Who voted for the Nazis?(electoral history of the National
Socialist German Workers Party) , by Dick Geary , Professor of Modern
History at the University of Nottingham and the author of Hitler and Nazism
( Routledge 1993 ) , in History Today , October 1998 , in association with
The Gale Group and LookSmart , 2000 ,
"http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m1373/n10_v48/21207858/print.jhtml"
Martin Luther the German [ born 1483 and died in 1546 ], published in 1543
an essay called " On the Jews and Their Lies ," in which Luther urged that
Jewish synagogues be burnt , because most of the Jews refused to convert to
Christianity on a large scale , which Martin Luther hoped would be a sign of
the return of Jesus Christ in the near future . This essay, as also the
other printed and published essays of Martin Luther, were often reprinted,
studied, taught, and preached in Germany, at least before Germany's final
defeat in the Second World War in 1945 .In 1938 , in Nazi Germany , on
Kristallnacht [ Crystalnight , or The Night of Broken Glass ] , many Jewish
synagogues were burnt , as Martin Luther had urged in his often reprinted
and preached 1543 essay called " On the Jews and Their Lies ." This essay
was often preached by most German Lutheran pastors , with a few exceptions ,
until May 8, 1945 . After the German federal election of the 5th of March ,
1933 , Alfred von Hugenberg , the leader of the mainly Lutheran laypersons'
[ non - pastors ] " German National Peoples' Party ," formed a coalition
with the Nazis , in order to outvote the Communists and Social Democrats .
By Lutheran laypersons' or non - pastors , we should remember that Martin
Luther called Christians " the priesthood of believers ." The Nazis gained
about 44% of the seats in the lower house of the German federal parliament ,
the Reichstag , in the German federal election of the 5th of March , 1933 .
On the 14th of July , 1933 , all political parties except the Nazi party
were prohibited in Nazi Germany . However , Alfred von Hugenberg , who died
in 1951 , and who was the leader of the mainly Lutheran laypersons' "German
National Peoples' Party ," continued to be a member of the German Reichstag
until 1945 , even when all political parties except the Nazi Party were
banned in Germany after the 14th of July , 1933.
From 1929 - 1933 , the Nazis gained the largest votes in German state
elections where the Lutherans formed the majority of the states' population
. Between 1929 - 1933 , these following German states , all of them with a
mainly Lutheran population , had state governments where the Nazis were
either coalition leaders or partners : Braunschweig [ Brunswick in English ]
, Mecklenburg , Mecklenburg - Strelitz , Lubeck , Thuringia , Saxony -
Anhalt , Harzburg , Oldenburg , and Lippe . Only the German state of
Schleswig - Holstein , another mainly Lutheran state , had a state
legislature between 1929 - 1933 where the Nazis had a majority of the seats
in that state legislature . Schleswig - Holstein had been taken from Denmark
by Germany in a war that had broken out in 1864 and again in 1866, although
in 1920 the northern third of Schleswig was returned to Denmark after a
League of Nations sponsored referendum had been held on the issue as one of
the terms of the Versailles Peace Treaty with Germany . The Nazis gained
their lowest votes in the rural and mainly Catholic areas of southern
Bavaria , while they gained more votes in the northern parts of Bavaria ,
also known as Franconia , an area of Germany that has a mixed Catholic and
Lutheran population .
One of the reasons why Germany , out of all other nations , had the Nazis
come to power during the economic Great Depression of 1929 - 1939 , was
because Germany lacked a strong democratic tradition . Between 1850 - 1919 ,
the German state of Brandenburg - Prussia had a three class electoral law ,
although the state of Bavaria had introduced universal adult male suffrage
in 1904 , followed by Baden - Wurttemberg [ formerly Swabia ] , in 1906 .
The German state governments nominated the members of the German federal
upper house , the Bundesrat , which , along with the German Chancellor and
Kaiser , had final veto powers over the German federal lower house , the
Bundestag . The German Catholics are found mostly in the southern ,
south-eastern , and western parts of Germany , and in March 1938 German -
speaking Austria was " forcibly " annexed by Nazi Germany .
Martin Luther the German [ born 1483 - died 1546 ] , basing his views on St.
Paul's epistle to the Romans ch. 13 : 1 - 7 , urged that the German peasant
revolt of 1525 be brutally suppressed by the German knights , in his 1525
printed and published essay called "Against the Thieving and Murdering
Hordes of Peasants ." St . Paul the Apostle wrote in his epistle to the
Romans , chapter 13 : 1 - 7 , that all authorities who wield the sword are
appointed by God to enforce the law . The word "authorities" is a plural
word however . In the U.S.A. , the adult male citizen voters , who have the
constitutional authority to elect their politicians , also have the
constitutional authority under the Second Bill of Rights to bear arms as
members of a well regulated state militia , for example , the U.S. National
Guard , which the U.S. Supreme Court interpreted as being a safeguard
intended by the American law makers of the 1780's to protect the states from
any likelihood that the U.S. federal government would become dictatorial ,
although the state , county , and municipal governments are just as likely
to become dictatorial , as the southern U.S. states often treated their
black , or very dark brown minorities , in a dictatorial manner . However ,
I still believe that rioters should be dispersed by firing rubber coated
metal bullets into their legs , stomachs , and chests , with the use of
scopes for accurate aiming and semi - automatic rifles to control the rate
of fire . The safety of the riot police comes before the safety of rioters ,
because peaceful and legal protesters lose many civil rights when they
decide to become violent rioters and cowardly mob tyrants .
Martin Luther's views on predestination and God's foreknowledge are set out
in his 1525 published essay called "On the Bondage of the Will." Although
free will exists according to 1 Timothy 2 : 1 - 4 and 2 Peter 3 : 9 , since
these two references from the New Testament says that God wants everyone to
be saved , God , who is eternal , with no beginning and no end , and who is
all knowing , knows what choices people will make in the future [ see the
Acts of the Apostles 15 : 18 ] . God is not the author of evil , but Satan ,
the fallen angel , is . Personally , I have up to a certain extent great
admiration for Girolamo Savonarola [ 1452 - 1498 ] and Cornelius Otto Jansen
[ 1585 - 1638 ] . From faith and the gift of God's grace, good works flow
[ see Ephesians 2 : 8 - 10 by St. Paul the Apostle ]. Repenting out of fear
or attrition is acceptable according to Proverbs 13 : 13 , Proverbs 14 :
26 - 27, and Proverbs 19 : 23 , but repenting out of contrition or genuine
sorrow is even better .
Most of the Japanese are Mahayana Buddhists and Shintoists at the same time
. The Mahayana Buddhists are the Protestants of Buddhism , as opposed to the
Theravada Buddhists , who are the Catholics of Buddhism . The Mahayana
Buddhists believe that members of the Buddhist laity , as well as members of
the Buddhist monkhood , can achieve nirvana more quickly . The Mahayana
Buddhists also tend to place greater emphasis on the sincerity of a
believer's faith , the relationship between motives and methods , and the
role of divine grace , then Theravada Buddhists do .
In 1925 universal adult male suffrage or voting rights was introduced for
national elections for the first time in the history of Japan , although by
1941 Japan had become a one - party state military dictatorship .
Since 1911 , the martial art of judo , which traces its ancestry to the
samurai martial art of jujitsu , has been a compulsory subject in Japanese
schools for students above the age of 8 years , although it was banned as a
compulsory subject in Japanese schools from 1945 - 1951 , after which it was
again reintroduced as a compulsory school subject from the age of 8 years
and upwards . After 1945 , the requirement of all able - bodied Japanese
males over the age of 21 to do three years of compulsory military service ,
was abolished , although the martial arts still figure prominently in the
training of the members of Japan's voluntary Self - Defense Forces and
police force to this day . The three techniques of judo are nagewaza [
throwing ] , katamewaza [ wrestling ] , and atemiwaza [ punching and
kicking ] . Atemiwaza may only be taught to judokas above the rank of white
belt , and may only be used by them in training and self - defense , but
never in judo sporting contests . Katamewaza may only be used in judo
sporting contests by judokas who are at least above the age of 13 . During
the Second World War , when low on bullets and food , the Japanese soldiers
would often launch a banzai bayonet charge and judo - atemiwaza attack ,
preferring a heroic death to humiliating surrender .
Heinrich Himmler , the leader of the German Nazi Gestapo , who looked a bit
like Emperor Hirohito, the somewhat puppet of Premier Hideki Tojo of Japan,
a 20th Century Japanese Shogun and Temujin or Genghis Khan of Asia, once
ridiculously tried to prove that the Japanese are undercover Aryans , since
the Japanese racially mixed with the indigenous peoples of the Japanese Home
Islands , the Ainu , who once had some Caucasian - like physical features ,
and that the Japanese were really Germans who physically and linguistically
separated from the Germans of the European part of the Eurasian Continent
many thousands of years ago , genetically mutating in the process in order
to adapt to their new Asian environment . Today , there are few or no Ainu
without some Japanese ancestry . Maybe the Ainu are the distant cousins of
the Eastern Finns, or of the Guanches of the Canary Islands , who before the
Spanish conquest had blonde hair and were tall in average height , but who
like the Berbers and the Basques had dark olive brown skin , and who spoke a
non - Indo - European language , to be sarcastic . The Japanese themselves
are a mixture of Altaic people [ speakers of the closely related Korean ,
Manchurian , Tungus , Inner Mongolian [ Chinese province ] , and Outer
Mongolian [ Occupied by the Russian military from 1916 - 1991 ] languages ,
and the Malay people , including the Indonesians and Filipinos . The
southern Chinese , Taiwanese Chinese , and Vietnamese , Laotian , Cambodian
and Thai languages show a heavy Malay substratum , a result of racial mixing
between indigenous or earlier arrived people and foreign invaders .
Al@nopoopovspam.com AGG
this sermon, Blessed Augustine, considered the "father" of the Latin
church's theology, argues so eloquently against the notion that Peter is the
"rock." A quote from the sermon:
Our Lord Jesus Christ, in the final days of His earthly life, in the days of
His mission to the race of man, chose from among the disciples His twelve
Apostles for preaching the Word of God. Among them, the Apostle Peter for
his fiery ardour was vouchsafed to occupy the first place (Mt 10:2) and to
be as it were the representative person for all the Church. And therefore it
is said to him, preferentially, after the confession: "And I give thee the
keys of the Kingdom of Heaven: and if thou bindest upon the earth, it will
be bound in the Heavens: and if thou loosenest upon the earth, it will be
loosened in the Heavens (Mt 16; 19). Wherefore it was not one man, but
rather the One Universal Church, that received these "keys" and the right
"to bind and loosen." And that actually it was the Church that received this
right, and not exclusively a single person, turn your attention to another
place of the Scriptures, where the same Lord says to also all His Apostles:
"Receive ye the Holy Spirit" -- and further after this: "Whoseso sins ye
remit, are remitted them: and whoseso sins ye retain, are retained" (Jn
20:22-23); or: "with what ye bind upon the earth, will be bound in Heaven:
and with what ye loosen upon the earth, will be loosened in the Heavens" (Mt
18:18). Thus, it is the Church that binds, the Church that loosens; the
Church, built upon the foundational corner-stone -- Jesus Christ Himself
(Eph 2:20) doth bind and loosen. Let both the binding and the loosening be
feared: the loosening, in order not to fall under this again; the binding,
in order not to remain forever in this condition. Wherefore "by the passions
of his own sins -- says Wisdom -- is each ensnared" (Prov 5:22); and except
for Holy Church nowhere is it possible to receive the loosening.
"Not-easily-duped" <Codeb...@bigsecret.com> wrote in message
news:bbba7302.04062...@posting.google.com...
Cunneen
>>meant by God. It is Commun sense.
>
Two issues: one universal Church, and that Church run by the pope.
One universal Church is the teaching of Scripture. Eph 5 compares husband and
wife to Christ and "his church". Unless you are into spiritual bigamy, there
is only one Christ, so there must be only one Church.
That Church is present in many different places. Reference is made to the
Church that is in Corinth and the Church that is in Rome, as well as other
places. These Churches however are all joined together in the one Univeral
Church which is the bride of Christ.
Not-easily-duped
Now explain why the Roman National and Inmperial Church claims to be
the universal Church?And why it is still busy exporting its sacrements
everywhere
around the world. We need to stop any kind of religious imperialism.
Not-easily-duped
> What are you talking about? Islam is nothing like Christianity or Judaism.
Islam is another version of Christianity. Want to know what
I am talking about? THEN GIVE ME your definition of Christianity and back it
up with the Bible.
Not-easily-duped
> "Not-easily-duped" <Codeb...@bigsecret.com> wrote in message
> >
> > If There were two different groups and doctrines, there would never be
> > one single Church. Yet the papacy want us to believe that there was one
> > catholic Church.
> > the question is, since when did they merge?
> >
> If you read Acts and the letters of Paul it is obvious that Paul and Peter
> kept in communication, and had disputes on doctrine. It is true that
> missionary work was divided up, with Paul taking responsibility for the
> Greek world, but this doesn't imply two churches, any more than a company
> with branches in Britain and America is two companies.
But this is not what the Council of Jerusalem says. According to that Council
jews should stick to Moses Laws and costums while the gentiles were
encouraged by Paul to depart from that Law. This means that jews should keep
on circumcising their children, not eating pork and obeys others
requirements while the gentiles were free to eat anything they want
> >
> > One Christianity, one Church, two different versions. The gentiles
> > version survived as Catholic, the jews version survived as Islam.
> > The TWO WORLDS.
> >
> The problem is that the length of time the Jewish church is supposed to have
> survived, undocumented, until the Islamic period.
Undocumented by the western scholars??? Is this what you are trying to say?
Maybe yes, but there is no better document than the Qur'an itself.
If you want to know what the jewish Christianity would looks like, read
the qur'an and pay attention to its doctrines.
Read also my other post: The Council of Jerusalem, the rejecters and Islam.
Mike Craney
Codeb...@bigsecret.com says...
> "Cap Tool" <capital...@comcast.ent> wrote in message news:<da1Ec.168743$3x.54140@attbi_s54>...
> > What are you talking about? Islam is nothing like Christianity or Judaism.
>
>
> Islam is another version of Christianity. Want to know what
> I am talking about? THEN GIVE ME your definition of Christianity and back it
> up with the Bible.
Non sequitur. Christ didn't set up a church within his teachings, and
the Bible writings only extend through the 1st century A.D., during
which the Church was a loose federation due to resistance from both the
Jews and the Romans.
IOW, your question essentially says "Give me your definition of
Christianity but back it up with writings prior to the the time during
which the definition was forged.
So, the criteria for definition you set makes it impossible to give you
a definition, Nonetheless, there IS a definition of CHristianity, and
one which precludes the notion that Jesus was merely a human prophet.
Mike
Mike Craney
> > "Not-easily-duped" <Codeb...@bigsecret.com> wrote in message
> > >
> > > If There were two different groups and doctrines, there would never be
> > > one single Church. Yet the papacy want us to believe that there was one
> > > catholic Church.
> > > the question is, since when did they merge?
> > >
> > If you read Acts and the letters of Paul it is obvious that Paul and Peter
> > kept in communication, and had disputes on doctrine. It is true that
> > missionary work was divided up, with Paul taking responsibility for the
> > Greek world, but this doesn't imply two churches, any more than a company
> > with branches in Britain and America is two companies.
>
>
> But this is not what the Council of Jerusalem says. According to that Council
> jews should stick to Moses Laws and costums while the gentiles were
> encouraged by Paul to depart from that Law. This means that jews should keep
> on circumcising their children, not eating pork and obeys others
The Council of Jerusalem was not the final word on this issue.
>
>
>
>
> > >
> > > One Christianity, one Church, two different versions. The gentiles
> > > version survived as Catholic, the jews version survived as Islam.
> > > The TWO WORLDS.
> > >
> > The problem is that the length of time the Jewish church is supposed to have
> > survived, undocumented, until the Islamic period.
>
> Undocumented by the western scholars??? Is this what you are trying to say?
> Maybe yes, but there is no better document than the Qur'an itself.
For kitty litter paper, perhaps.
> If you want to know what the jewish Christianity would looks like, read
> the qur'an and pay attention to its doctrines.
I've read it thrice. A comic book of unrelated teachings drawn from
Messianic Judaims and Zoroastrianism.
Mike
Cunneen
>>
>> One universal Church is the teaching of Scripture. Eph 5 compares husband
>and
>> wife to Christ and "his church". Unless you are into spiritual bigamy,
>there
>> is only one Christ, so there must be only one Church.
>>
>> That Church is present in many different places. Reference is made to the
>> Church that is in Corinth and the Church that is in Rome, as well as other
>> places. These Churches however are all joined together in the one Univeral
>> Church which is the bride of Christ.
>
>Now explain why the Roman National and Imperial Church claims to be
>the universal Church?And why it is still busy exporting its sacrements
>everywhere
>around the world. We need to stop any kind of religious imperialism.
>
Why not? It is ancient (SS Peter and Paul) and catholic (it is found all
around the world). It is NOT national (there is no Roman nation; Italians
constitute only a small percent of the Catholics of the world) nor imperial
(empires have legions and armies; the Catholic church has a few guards in
ancient Swiss uniforms).
And it is busy exporting sacraments everywhere because Jesus told us to: "All
power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go, therefore, and make
disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the
Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded
you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age." Matthew
28:18-20
bam
You take one line of scripture, misinterpret it in order to arrive at the
conclusion you need, and ignore hundreds of volumes of Christian literature
written in the first few centuries that would educate you as to the
structure of the early Church.
Jesus said "my Church". Not "my independent, autonomous, free floating
theological, headless churches".
BAM
"Not-easily-duped" <Codeb...@bigsecret.com> wrote in message
news:bbba7302.04062...@posting.google.com...
Not-easily-duped
> You take one line of scripture, misinterpret it in order to arrive at the
> conclusion you need, and ignore hundreds of volumes of Christian literature
> written in the first few centuries that would educate you as to the
> structure of the early Church.
>
> Jesus said "my Church". Not "my independent, autonomous, free floating
> theological, headless churches".
Jesus said my Church and you and the Pope say it is in Rome, not even in
Jerusalem. Since you and I were not there when Jesus allegedly said this,
one question remains:Why did not tell the same thing to Paul? Why did
not tell Paul that He already built a Church in Rome and that is Catholic.
Let me rephrase my contentions so that no misunderstanding may occur.
The Roman Emperial Church is a NATIONAL Church of the Roman Empire.
It is not universal.
What I mean by that is this, since no Chinese nor Japanese
delagates were represented when Constantine called for a council at Nicea,
whatever was decided in term of doctrines and theology was strictly done so
for national interests, the interests of the Roman Empire. The New Testament
is only one source among many which represent Paul's view
of the mystery of the MESSIAH/CHRIST.
As we all know, Paul was sent purposedly to the Greeco-Roman world.
Whoever understands Paul's theological and Christological position is able
to draw up a jumble of theologial and historical accounts on Jesus and called
them "Gospel". THE CANON IS A GREECO-ROMAN CANON ON JESUS AND NOT BY JESUS,
The semetic Canon is a different according to the Qur'an,
so be careful when you use the word Church.
Not-easily-duped
> >> Two issues: one universal Church, and that Church run by the pope.
> >>
> >> One universal Church is the teaching of Scripture. Eph 5 compares husband
> and
> >> wife to Christ and "his church". Unless you are into spiritual bigamy,
> there
> >> is only one Christ, so there must be only one Church.
> >>
> >> That Church is present in many different places. Reference is made to the
> >> Church that is in Corinth and the Church that is in Rome, as well as other
> >> places. These Churches however are all joined together in the one Univeral
> >> Church which is the bride of Christ.
> >
>
> >Now explain why the Roman National and Imperial Church claims to be
> >the universal Church?And why it is still busy exporting its sacrements
> >everywhere
> >around the world. We need to stop any kind of religious imperialism.
> >
>
> Why not? It is ancient (SS Peter and Paul) and catholic (it is found all
> around the world).
It was not found all around the world in the first century. Give me the names
of two bishpos who represented India during the Nicea Council
where the term Catholic was coined.
It is NOT national (there is no Roman nation; Italians
> constitute only a small percent of the Catholics of the world) nor imperial
> (empires have legions and armies; the Catholic church has a few guards in
> ancient Swiss uniforms).
But there used to be the Roman Emppire and the Prince of that Empire, history
tell us called for a council. What does this tell you.
>
> And it is busy exporting sacraments everywhere because Jesus told us to:
Were you there when Jesus said that? Paul did not confirm it. He did not
even instructed Tite nor Timothy to send missions around the globe in accor
dance with the divine will. HOW COME???
Either Paul had a divine mandate or was a self-proclaimed apostle.
I do believe that he had a divine mandate. As why he never sent mission
in China or India? The answer is that Jesus never meant what you
imperialists understand
"All
> power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go, therefore, and make
> disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the
> Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded
> you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age." Matthew
> 28:18-20.
And you think that He had papal Curia in mind????????
Not-easily-duped
> In article <bbba7302.04063...@posting.google.com>,
> Codeb...@bigsecret.com says...
> > "Cap Tool" <capital...@comcast.ent> wrote in message news:<da1Ec.168743$3x.54140@attbi_s54>...
> > > What are you talking about? Islam is nothing like Christianity or Judaism.
> >
> >
> > Islam is another version of Christianity. Want to know what
> > I am talking about? THEN GIVE ME your definition of Christianity and back it
> > up with the Bible.
>
> Non sequitur. Christ didn't set up a church within his teachings, and
> the Bible writings only extend through the 1st century A.D., during
> which the Church was a loose federation due to resistance from both the
> Jews and the Romans.
>
> IOW, your question essentially says "Give me your definition of
> Christianity but back it up with writings prior to the the time during
> which the definition was forged.
>
>
> So, the criteria for definition you set makes it impossible to give you
> a definition, Nonetheless, there IS a definition of CHristianity, and
> one which precludes the notion that Jesus was merely a human prophet.
I thought your definition was solely derived from Paul doctrines. As for
Jesus being a mere human prophet, those who hold that view
were mostly Torah/Law observers and anti-Paul, since
Paul taught that the Law/Torah
of Moses had ended with the advent of the Messiah/Christ. See Act 15.
Messiah being a prophet is consistent with the Torah/Law as it is written
in the Law of Moses, "Messiah is a prophet like Moses." Deut 18:15.
To come back to the word Christian, the Acts of the Apostles tells us
that it was first used by the pagans in Antioch to refer to anyone who
thought and follow Jesus as the Messiah/Christ.
In this sense, Muslims also are Christians though some groups tend
to monopolize this word by excluding others.
Not-easily-duped
> In article <bbba7302.04063...@posting.google.com>,
> Codeb...@bigsecret.com says...
> > "Malcolm" <mal...@55bank.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message news:<cbq3j9$i0n$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk>...
> > > "Not-easily-duped" <Codeb...@bigsecret.com> wrote in message
> > > >
> > > > If There were two different groups and doctrines, there would never be
> > > > one single Church. Yet the papacy want us to believe that there was one
> > > > catholic Church.
> > > > the question is, since when did they merge?
> > > >
> > > If you read Acts and the letters of Paul it is obvious that Paul and Peter
> > > kept in communication, and had disputes on doctrine. It is true that
> > > missionary work was divided up, with Paul taking responsibility for the
> > > Greek world, but this doesn't imply two churches, any more than a company
> > > with branches in Britain and America is two companies.
> >
> >
> > But this is not what the Council of Jerusalem says. According to that Council
> > jews should stick to Moses Laws and costums while the gentiles were
> > encouraged by Paul to depart from that Law. This means that jews should keep
> > on circumcising their children, not eating pork and obeys others
> > requirements while the gentiles were free to eat anything they want.
>
> The Council of Jerusalem was not the final word on this issue.
The Council was meant to be the final word on every issue debated.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > One Christianity, one Church, two different versions. The gentiles
> > > > version survived as Catholic, the jews version survived as Islam.
> > > > The TWO WORLDS.
> > > >
> > > The problem is that the length of time the Jewish church is supposed to have
> > > survived, undocumented, until the Islamic period.
> >
> > Undocumented by the western scholars??? Is this what you are trying to say?
> > Maybe yes, but there is no better document than the Qur'an itself.
>
> For kitty litter paper, perhaps.
>
> > If you want to know what the jewish Christianity would looks like, read
> > the qur'an and pay attention to its doctrines.
>
> I've read it thrice. A comic book of unrelated teachings drawn from
> Messianic Judaims and Zoroastrianism.
How about the Cathechism of the Catholic Church? A comic book of unrelated
teachings drawn from judaism and mystery religions of the Greeco Roman
world. LOL
It is Islam versus Catholicism and not Christianity versus Islam as some want
us to believe. This is my point.
Mike Craney
Codeb...@bigsecret.com says...
Don't care. I'm Orthodox. They started from us.
> It is Islam versus Catholicism and not Christianity versus Islam as some want
> us to believe. This is my point.
In numbers, perhaps. In terms of consistent doctrine, not even.
Mike
Mike Craney
> > In article <bbba7302.04063...@posting.google.com>,
> > Codeb...@bigsecret.com says...
> > > "Cap Tool" <capital...@comcast.ent> wrote in message news:<da1Ec.168743$3x.54140@attbi_s54>...
> > > > What are you talking about? Islam is nothing like Christianity or Judaism.
> > >
> > >
> > > Islam is another version of Christianity. Want to know what
> > > I am talking about? THEN GIVE ME your definition of Christianity and back it
> > > up with the Bible.
> >
> > Non sequitur. Christ didn't set up a church within his teachings, and
> > the Bible writings only extend through the 1st century A.D., during
> > which the Church was a loose federation due to resistance from both the
> > Jews and the Romans.
> >
> > IOW, your question essentially says "Give me your definition of
> > Christianity but back it up with writings prior to the the time during
> > which the definition was forged.
> >
> >
> > So, the criteria for definition you set makes it impossible to give you
> > a definition, Nonetheless, there IS a definition of CHristianity, and
> > one which precludes the notion that Jesus was merely a human prophet.
>
>
> I thought your definition was solely derived from Paul doctrines.
Actually, it's defined by the words of Christ himself. The notion that
he didn't identify himself as such is one of those Muslim-and-atheist
"if I say it enough people will think its true" kind of things.
> As for
> Jesus being a mere human prophet, those who hold that view
> were mostly Torah/Law observers and anti-Paul, since
> Paul taught that the Law/Torah
> of Moses had ended with the advent of the Messiah/Christ. See Act 15.
> Messiah being a prophet is consistent with the Torah/Law as it is written
> in the Law of Moses, "Messiah is a prophet like Moses." Deut 18:15.
> To come back to the word Christian, the Acts of the Apostles tells us
> that it was first used by the pagans in Antioch to refer to anyone who
> thought and follow Jesus as the Messiah/Christ.
> In this sense, Muslims also are Christians though some groups tend
> to monopolize this word by excluding others.
It's is somewhat fair to use the term "Christian" WRT muslims if the
term is taken to mean "follower of the teachings of Christ", although
Muslims restrict themselves to a spurious subset of his teachings.
However, to a Christian, the word has an entirely different definition.
Although I would tend to refer to Islam as a Messianic Jewish sect......
Mike
Not-easily-duped
You should care jerk, orthodox are the most authentic catholics in the world.
By Catholic do you infer the western branch only?
I did not imply that.
>
>
>
> > It is Islam versus Catholicism and not Christianity versus Islam as some want
> > us to believe. This is my point.
>
> In numbers, perhaps. In terms of consistent doctrine, not even.
This is where I appealed to the decrees of the Council at Jerusalem,
the only authority. Islam is a jewish Christianity with arabian flavor.
>
> Mike
Not-easily-duped
> conclusion you need, and ignore hundreds of volumes of Christian literature
> written in the first few centuries that would educate you as to the
> structure of the early Church.
>
> Jesus said "my Church". Not "my independent, autonomous, free floating
> theological, headless churches".
Jesus said my Church and you and the Pope say it is in Rome, not even in
Jerusalem. Since you and I were not there when Jesus allegedly said this,
one question remains:Why did not tell the same thing to Paul? Why did
not tell Paul that He already built a Church in Rome and that is Catholic.
Let me rephrase my contentions so that no misunderstanding may occur.
The Roman Emperial Church is a NATIONAL Church of the Roman Empire.
It is not universal.
What I mean by that is this, since no Chinese nor Japanese
delagates were represented when Constantine called for a council at Nicea,
whatever was decided in term of doctrines and theology was strictly done so
for national interests, the interests of the Roman Empire. The New Testament
is only one source among many which represent Paul's view
of the mystery of the MESSIAH/CHRIST.
As we all know, Paul was sent purposedly to the Greeco-Roman world.
Whoever understands Paul's theological and Christological position is able
to draw up a jumble of theologial and historical accounts on Jesus and called
them "Gospel". THE CANON IS A GREECO-ROMAN CANON ON JESUS AND NOT BY JESUS,
The semetic Canon is a different one according to the Qur'an,
so be careful when you use the word Church in relation to
the Messiah, the one Moses prophecesied of when he said to the Israelites:
"Eternal your God will raise for you the Messiah, a prophet like myself
Him you shall listen. This is all what you asked for in Horeb when you
said...
Nothing was said about about a Son of God
Mike Craney
.....until the next council. You're subjecting yourself to a fatal
misread of Christian ecclesiastical history.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > One Christianity, one Church, two different versions. The gentiles
> > > > > > > version survived as Catholic, the jews version survived as Islam.
> > > > > > > The TWO WORLDS.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > The problem is that the length of time the Jewish church is supposed to have
> > > > > > survived, undocumented, until the Islamic period.
> > > > >
> > > > > Undocumented by the western scholars??? Is this what you are trying to say?
> > > > > Maybe yes, but there is no better document than the Qur'an itself.
> > > >
> > > > For kitty litter paper, perhaps.
> > > >
> > > > > If you want to know what the jewish Christianity would looks like, read
> > > > > the qur'an and pay attention to its doctrines.
> > > >
> > > > I've read it thrice. A comic book of unrelated teachings drawn from
> > > > Messianic Judaims and Zoroastrianism.
> > >
> > >
> > > How about the Cathechism of the Catholic Church?
> >
> > Don't care. I'm Orthodox. They started from us.
>
> You should care jerk, orthodox are the most authentic catholics in the world.
> By Catholic do you infer the western branch only?
> I did not imply that.
Why should I care about a catechisical document which, from an Orthodox
standpoint, is irrelevant to our doctrine?
Mike
bam
Shaddap.
BAM
bam
Shaddap.
BAM
Cunneen
>> around the world).
>
> It was not found all around the world in the first century.
Of course not. Jesus told them to go to the whole world; the church hadn't
gotten there yet.
>Give me the names
> of two bishpos who represented India during the Nicea Council
> where the term Catholic was coined.
Persia was there. As for the names, go look them up yourself. I'm not here to
do your research for you.
> It is NOT national (there is no Roman nation; Italians
>> constitute only a small percent of the Catholics of the world) nor imperial
>> (empires have legions and armies; the Catholic church has a few guards in
>> ancient Swiss uniforms).
>But there used to be the Roman Emppire and the Prince of that Empire, history
> tell us called for a council. What does this tell you.
>
And that Roman Empire was centered in Constantinople and the council was called
by THAT Roman emperor. You are confusing us with the Orthodox, who DO have a
nationalist Imperial concept of church. Or at least they did until they lost
their empire to the Moslems in the 15th century. The Russians still nurse
religio-imperial ideas.
>> And it is busy exporting sacraments everywhere because Jesus told us to:
>
> Were you there when Jesus said that?
Stupid discussion. I quoted Scripture; if that doesn't convince you, then
forget it.
>Paul did not confirm it.
Paul isn't Jesus. He was busy BEING the mission to the world. Once the
churches were planted, he saw to it that there were leaders to care for them.
He was still out doing church planting when he was arrested.
>I do believe that he had a divine mandate.
You can believe anything you want to.
>As why he never sent mission
> in China or India?
Because Thomas went to India. I don't think they even knew that China existed.
They didn't sent anyone to Peru or New Zealand then, either, but that's
because they didn't know they were there.
>The answer is that Jesus never meant what you
> imperialists understand
<g> So you are inventing your own Jesus? I'm sure he'll end up looking a lot
like you. Most made up Jesus' do.
Not-easily-duped
No where in the apostolic document is found something like this.
No where it is said that the bishops would override the apostolic decrees
and the daitery Laws until the next council in accordance with
their own whims.
The question is this: Who is more authoritative, the college of the Apostles
or the bishops
Not-easily-duped
Heeeerrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Tu es à court d'ideés
>
> BAM
Mike Craney
That's not the question, partly because the question assumes a false
dichotomy -- that the Apostles and Ecumenical Councils are at odds,
while they are one in the same. However, the other part is more
relevant, that being that the words of Christ are the most
authoritative, and it was He that declared himself the fullfillment of
the Law, and that man is not made unclean by what he eats and drinks.
St. James, as the eldest (most likely) of the Apostles, was known to the
Jews as a man whose adherence to the Law was above reproach. As the
Bishop of Jerusalem, there was more to that adherence than simply the
pious training of his youth -- it also kept the Christians in Jerusalem
from being persecuted. The Jews there needed to believe that
Christianity was only a Messianic Jewish sect.
So, without evidence to the contrary, and in light of the clear words of
Christ, it is logical to assume (and WAS assumed, by the Church
hierarchy going forward) that the dichotomy given at the Council between
gentiles and jews was for the sake of expediency only. St. Peter clearly
stated at Council that man is saved though the grace of Christ, and St.
James clearly stated that he agreed with the Christology of St. Peter.
Not a word about the Law, therefore, in the early salvatory theology of
the Church.
I'll also point out the obvious -- if the attendees of the Council had
gone away with any OTHER assumption regarding any need for jewish
christians to observance of the Law, this debate would have come up
heatedly later in time. But, it did not, meaning that everyone seems to
have understood that it was a temporal expediency.
Also, having two sets of standards is rejected in the O.T. (God is not a
respector of persons) and in the writings of St. Paul.
So, bottom line, have a hot dog.
Mike
Not-easily-duped
> In article <bbba7302.04070...@posting.google.com>,
> Codeb...@bigsecret.com says...
> > Mike Craney <mcr...@hotop.com> wrote in message news:<MPG.1b4d03553...@news-server.houston.rr.com>...
> > > In article <bbba7302.04063...@posting.google.com>,
> > > Codeb...@bigsecret.com says...
> > > > "Cap Tool" <capital...@comcast.ent> wrote in message news:<da1Ec.168743$3x.54140@attbi_s54>...
> > > > > What are you talking about? Islam is nothing like Christianity or Judaism.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Islam is another version of Christianity. Want to know what
> > > > I am talking about? THEN GIVE ME your definition of Christianity and back it
> > > > up with the Bible.
> > >
> > > Non sequitur. Christ didn't set up a church within his teachings, and
> > > the Bible writings only extend through the 1st century A.D., during
> > > which the Church was a loose federation due to resistance from both the
> > > Jews and the Romans.
> > >
> > > IOW, your question essentially says "Give me your definition of
> > > Christianity but back it up with writings prior to the the time during
> > > which the definition was forged.
> > >
> > >
> > > So, the criteria for definition you set makes it impossible to give you
> > > a definition, Nonetheless, there IS a definition of CHristianity, and
> > > one which precludes the notion that Jesus was merely a human prophet.
> >
> >
> > I thought your definition was solely derived from Paul doctrines.
>
> Actually, it's defined by the words of Christ himself. The notion that
> he didn't identify himself as such is one of those Muslim-and-atheist
> "if I say it enough people will think its true" kind of things.
What are you talking?????????
Muslims know Jesus as the Christ/Messiah.
Jesus never used the word christian nor did Paul.
Here is the text where the word Christian was first used.
"Then Barnabs departed to Tarsus to seek Paul
and he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch...
and the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch. Acts 11:26
Those first disciples called Christians have one thing in common
with Catholics, orthodox and Muslims and that is their confessions
of Jesus being the Messiah/Christ.
Again, in light of this text Muslims are Christians.
Yet some people still think that Paulism was the only form of Christianity.
And that is wrong.
>
> > As for
> > Jesus being a mere human prophet, those who hold that view
> > were mostly Torah/Law observers and anti-Paul, since
> > Paul taught that the Law/Torah
> > of Moses had ended with the advent of the Messiah/Christ. See Act 15.
> > Messiah being a prophet is consistent with the Torah/Law as it is written
> > in the Law of Moses, "Messiah is a prophet like Moses." Deut 18:15.
> > To come back to the word Christian, the Acts of the Apostles tells us
> > that it was first used by the pagans in Antioch to refer to anyone who
> > thought and follow Jesus as the Messiah/Christ.
> > In this sense, Muslims also are Christians though some groups tend
> > to monopolize this word by excluding others.
>
> It's is somewhat fair to use the term "Christian" WRT muslims if the
> term is taken to mean "follower of the teachings of Christ", although
Who are listening to the propagande version of Islam and not the authentic
version set up in the Qur'an
> Muslims restrict themselves to a spurious subset of his teachings.
> However, to a Christian, the word has an entirely different definition.
>
> Although I would tend to refer to Islam as a Messianic Jewish sect......
Stop being a jerk. Who is there to define a sect? The decrees of
the Apostle's council to which Muslims adhere. Tey are the only ones to
observe the daitery Laws in accordance with the apostolic regulations.
The true sect is you. ASSHOLE you are
>
> Mike
Not-easily-duped
What is the diferrence between Messiah and Christ?
You are playing with words of the same meaning: Messianic or Christian
>
> Mike
Mike Craney
Not at all. When I refer to Islam thusly, I am simply pointing out that
it's beliefs and practices are primarly derived from Judaism (thus, a
"sect") who believes as one of its primary tenets that the Messiah
(Christ) has come (thus, "Messianic").
"Christian" is a term which now infers a belief in Christ as Deity,
according to common use. Thus, although "Christian", the way YOU are
using the term ("follower of Christ's teachings) is not incompatible
with Islamic belief (it's simply a stretch....) it is not the common use
of the term as it has organically evolved, and thus cannot be used to
describe Islam without an explanation to avoid confusion.
Mike
>
> >
> > Mike
>
Mike Craney
Christ=Messiah=Son of Man(Daniel 7)=God
> Jesus never used the word christian nor did Paul.
Nor would either be expected to.
> Here is the text where the word Christian was first used.
> "Then Barnabs departed to Tarsus to seek Paul
> and he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch...
> and the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch. Acts 11:26
> Those first disciples called Christians have one thing in common
> with Catholics, orthodox and Muslims and that is their confessions
> of Jesus being the Messiah/Christ.
> Again, in light of this text Muslims are Christians.
> Yet some people still think that Paulism was the only form of Christianity.
> And that is wrong.
It's not wrong. Read Galatians. After more than a decade of ministry,
St. Paul went to St. Peter to discuss with him the gospel he preached,
to insure he was of one mind with the Apostles. Same Christianity.
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> > > As for
> > > Jesus being a mere human prophet, those who hold that view
> > > were mostly Torah/Law observers and anti-Paul, since
> > > Paul taught that the Law/Torah
> > > of Moses had ended with the advent of the Messiah/Christ. See Act 15.
I can recite Acts 15, for all practical purposes. :-)
> > > Messiah being a prophet is consistent with the Torah/Law as it is written
> > > in the Law of Moses, "Messiah is a prophet like Moses." Deut 18:15.
Which does not negate the Deity of Christ.
> > > To come back to the word Christian, the Acts of the Apostles tells us
> > > that it was first used by the pagans in Antioch to refer to anyone who
> > > thought and follow Jesus as the Messiah/Christ.
> > > In this sense, Muslims also are Christians though some groups tend
> > > to monopolize this word by excluding others.
In that sense, you're correct. I state that clearly in the very next
sentence. Why take up bandwidth convincing me of something I already
agreed with?
My point, which you haven't addressed, is that the term "Christian" is
organically different now from then. It encompasses the Biblical
definition and circumscribes it.
> >
> > It's is somewhat fair to use the term "Christian" WRT muslims if the
> > term is taken to mean "follower of the teachings of Christ", although
>
> Who are listening to the propagande version of Islam and not the authentic
> version set up in the Qur'an
>
> > Muslims restrict themselves to a spurious subset of his teachings.
> > However, to a Christian, the word has an entirely different definition.
> >
> > Although I would tend to refer to Islam as a Messianic Jewish sect......
>
> Stop being a jerk. Who is there to define a sect?
Who is any of us to do so? We see the world and call it as we see it.
> The decrees of
> the Apostle's council to which Muslims adhere.
They do not. Sts. Paul, Peter, and James all agreed that salvation is
through the grace of Jesus Christ, from which it is easily and
unarguably derivable that salvation is NOT through adherence to the Law.
Like all Islamic teachings, this understanding is simply a cut and paste
from Jewish teachings, selectively filtered to fit the pan-Arabian
ambitions of the dog Muhammad and his immediate followers.
> Tey are the only ones to
> observe the daitery Laws in accordance with the apostolic regulations.
Why would they? You said yourself that St. James ordained them for Jews.
Muslims aren't Jews.
> The true sect is you. ASSHOLE you are.
If you're muslim, you indeed will find me to be an asshole. My wife is
from Syria, and suffered a little too much persecution under Muslims for
my tastes. It's not a good life for Christians in the lands of the
Mohammadans.
Mike
>
>
> >
> > Mike
>
Not-easily-duped
> Because Thomas went to India. I don't think they even knew that China existed.
> They didn't sent anyone to Peru or New Zealand then, either, but that's
> because they didn't know they were there.
According to papal source, Thomas went to India but I can bet that he did not
go there to promote the Son of God but the Messiah of Israel
and the Savior of the wordl that Moses foretold at Horeb.
Son of God would make no sense to indians as it would to those who
worship Caesar as son of God. I am glad to see Jesus seated on
Caesar's throne though.
Not-easily-duped
> > > > > >
> Christ=Messiah=Son of Man(Daniel 7)=God
Christ=Messiah=Prophet(Moses, Deut 18:15)
Before Daniel, there was the Torah/Law of Moses, the most religious
authoritative book in Israel
Not-easily-duped
This is Ok according to the Council of Jerusalem. Act 15
This is why I also pointed out that Christianity was of two versions
at the beginning: The Gentile version/the version of the uncircumcised
and the semitic version/the version of the circumcised.
Islam is no sect.
>
> "Christian" is a term which now infers a belief in Christ as Deity,
> according to common use. Thus, although "Christian", the way YOU are
Common use is not the Scriptures. What the Scriptures say is more
important than anything else.
> using the term ("follower of Christ's teachings) is not incompatible
> with Islamic belief (it's simply a stretch....) it is not the common use
> of the term as it has organically evolved, and thus cannot be used to
> describe Islam without an explanation to avoid confusion.
You admitting that some tend to monopolize the word for missionnary purpose.
But their mission will fail.
>
> Mike
> >
> > >
> > > Mike
Not-easily-duped
This needs correcting. Paul version of Christianity is not the only
Christianity at the beginning.
> > >
> > > It's is somewhat fair to use the term "Christian" WRT muslims if the
> > > term is taken to mean "follower of the teachings of Christ", although
> >
> > Who are listening to the propagande version of Islam and not the authentic
> > version set up in the Qur'an
> >
> > > Muslims restrict themselves to a spurious subset of his teachings.
> > > However, to a Christian, the word has an entirely different definition.
> > >
> > > Although I would tend to refer to Islam as a Messianic Jewish sect......
> >
> > Stop being a jerk. Who is there to define a sect?
>
> Who is any of us to do so? We see the world and call it as we see it.
>
> > The decrees of
> > the Apostle's council to which Muslims adhere.
>
> They do not. Sts. Paul, Peter, and James all agreed that salvation is
> through the grace of Jesus Christ, from which it is easily and
> unarguably derivable that salvation is NOT through adherence to the Law.
Yet the same James instructed the jews to stick to the costumes of Moses.
He complained in the Acts that Paul taught jews to depart from Moses.
And to make sure that Paul is faithful to Moses, he asked him to shave.
That is enough to say that,they had a different understanding of salvation
by grace issue.
> Like all Islamic teachings, this understanding is simply a cut and paste
> from Jewish teachings, selectively filtered to fit the pan-Arabian
> ambitions of the dog Muhammad and his immediate followers.
It is called Inculturation. Planting Christ deep into culture.
Paul did the same. He planted the Jewish Messiah deep into
the Greeco Roman world using language they could understand.
If you knew how Mohammad confirmed Jesus as the Messiah of Israel,
you would not call him dog. You really don't understand the Scriptures
as it should be done.
>
> > Tey are the only ones to
> > observe the daitery Laws in accordance with the apostolic regulations.
>
> Why would they? You said yourself that St. James ordained them for Jews.
> Muslims aren't Jews.
But as the Biologial sons of Abraham, they already circumcised their boys
as he was required through Ismael, thus they had no problem going back
to the decrees of the Council. This is the point the writer of the Qur'an
made throughout the entire Book. But you missed it.
Not-easily-duped
> It's not wrong. Read Galatians. After more than a decade of ministry,
> St. Paul went to St. Peter to discuss with him the gospel he preached,
> to insure he was of one mind with the Apostles. Same Christianity.
Paul told the Galatians/Gentiles not to bother with Mosaic costums and Laws,
he never told the jews not to bother with Moses. He later shaved
himself as any jew. Don't be confused with the forgone conclusion
some missionaries easily reached.
Mike Craney
I thought you were trying to claim there was still two versions. BTW,
"sect" is not necessarily a negative term.
>
>
>
> >
> > "Christian" is a term which now infers a belief in Christ as Deity,
> > according to common use. Thus, although "Christian", the way YOU are
>
> Common use is not the Scriptures. What the Scriptures say is more
> important than anything else.
No, what the Church says is what's more important than anything else,
with the caveat that the Church cannot contradict Scripture.
>
>
> > using the term ("follower of Christ's teachings) is not incompatible
> > with Islamic belief (it's simply a stretch....) it is not the common use
> > of the term as it has organically evolved, and thus cannot be used to
> > describe Islam without an explanation to avoid confusion.
>
> You admitting that some tend to monopolize the word for missionnary purpose.
> But their mission will fail.
No, I'm simply pointing out that you're not going to be able to change
the common usage of the term.
Mike
Mike Craney
You're missing the point. Galatians 2, 1-10.
Mike
>
Pantheras
Why can't you guys keep your religion out of alt.history. This is off
topic and you are likely to get a complaint to ab...@hotop.com or
whatever is appropriate.
--
Cork-O-Mattic
The Proper Stopper
Exclusive butt plug of
the Special Olympics
Mike Craney
No. I still have issue with the way you're using "version." As shown,
James, Peter, and Paul were all in agreement on Christology. James kept
the Mosaic law in for the Jewish converts at the time. One version, two
different practices, with the Mosaic law "demoted" from salvatory
necessity to pious practice with regard to the Jerusalem church. Things
like the eating regs and circumsicion became recommended practice, not
mandatory.
>
>
>
> > > >
> > > > It's is somewhat fair to use the term "Christian" WRT muslims if the
> > > > term is taken to mean "follower of the teachings of Christ", although
> > >
> > > Who are listening to the propagande version of Islam and not the authentic
> > > version set up in the Qur'an
> > >
> > > > Muslims restrict themselves to a spurious subset of his teachings.
> > > > However, to a Christian, the word has an entirely different definition.
> > > >
> > > > Although I would tend to refer to Islam as a Messianic Jewish sect......
> > >
> > > Stop being a jerk. Who is there to define a sect?
> >
> > Who is any of us to do so? We see the world and call it as we see it.
> >
> > > The decrees of
> > > the Apostle's council to which Muslims adhere.
> >
> > They do not. Sts. Paul, Peter, and James all agreed that salvation is
> > through the grace of Jesus Christ, from which it is easily and
> > unarguably derivable that salvation is NOT through adherence to the Law.
>
> Yet the same James instructed the jews to stick to the costumes of Moses.
> He complained in the Acts that Paul taught jews to depart from Moses.
> And to make sure that Paul is faithful to Moses, he asked him to shave.
> That is enough to say that,they had a different understanding of salvation
> by grace issue.
They finished the council in agreement with Pauline doctrine. This was
stated both in Acts and in Galatians. Your understanding of this dynamic
was incorrect. Certainly, the two read with different emphasis, but if
you read both Paul and James, you see that the two are completely in
harmony.
>
>
> > Like all Islamic teachings, this understanding is simply a cut and paste
> > from Jewish teachings, selectively filtered to fit the pan-Arabian
> > ambitions of the dog Muhammad and his immediate followers.
>
> It is called Inculturation. Planting Christ deep into culture.
> Paul did the same. He planted the Jewish Messiah deep into
> the Greeco Roman world using language they could understand.
> If you knew how Mohammad confirmed Jesus as the Messiah of Israel,
> you would not call him dog. You really don't understand the Scriptures
> as it should be done.
Muhammad was a blasphemer. He said that Jesus was not God, but only a
prophet.
>
>
>
> >
> > > Tey are the only ones to
> > > observe the daitery Laws in accordance with the apostolic regulations.
> >
> > Why would they? You said yourself that St. James ordained them for Jews.
> > Muslims aren't Jews.
>
> But as the Biologial sons of Abraham, they already circumcised their boys
> as he was required through Ismael, thus they had no problem going back
> to the decrees of the Council. This is the point the writer of the Qur'an
> made throughout the entire Book. But you missed it.
The writer of the Qur'an seems to ignore the point that Ishmael was the
son who was banished without birthright. This point is not lost on
either Jews nor Christians.
Mike
Polik
Islam is a demonic cult which refers to Christ as one prophet in a line of
prophets, sealed by the dog, Mohammed.
++
Polik quoted an entire !!!! thread back six responses in order to generalize Islam to four newsgroups with the following statement:
You are right, not-easily-duped. Islam is not a sect of Christianity. Islam is a demonic cult which refers to Christ as one prophet in a line of prophets, sealed by the dog, Mohammed.
Bill
Tasos wrote:
> Subject:
> Re: From antiwar.com
> From:
> ++ <yourf...@erols.com>
> Date:
> Fri, 02 Jul 2004 00:03:46 -0400
> Newsgroups:
> alt.religion.christian.east-orthodox
>
> Ya gotta wonder about an anonymous netnazi who demeans the Orthodoxy of
> others while posting using symbols such as ++,or signing as
> yourfriend@. Sane? Judge for yourself
Not-easily-duped
> churches were planted, he saw to it that there were leaders to care for them.
> He was still out doing church planting when he was arrested.
"Paul is not Jesus". This sounds like a muslim. Do the catholics understand
that the Church in the Greeco-Roman world makes no sense without Paul?
No matter how they twist history to link this Church to Peter or Jesus,
we all know from the Acts of the Apostles that it was Paul who was mandated
by God to bring the pagans into the household of the God of Israel.
It was not Peter. The whole creed was built onto Paul's Christology and
doctrines. Now the Question is: why are they embarrassed to mention Paul
without associating Peter with him? The answer is
Paul did not know the earthly Jesus. Peter knew the earthly Jesus but yet
he had no official mission from Jesus to the Greeco Roman world.
TDP
(Not-easily-duped) wrote:
Duped again my friend! Silence....you know nothing.
Not-easily-duped
Coming from you I see it as a compliment.
Of course your brainswashing and indoctrination are somthing I am not
interested in knowing because they have no bearing on reality.
It is called Church propaganda.
Not-easily-duped
>
> That Church is present in many different places. Reference is made to the
> Church that is in Corinth and the Church that is in Rome, as well as other
> places. These Churches however are all joined together in the one Univeral
> Church which is the bride of Christ.
Pure dogmatism, endoctrination and propagandas
>
> >Now explain why the Roman National and Imperial Church claims to be
> >the universal Church?And why it is still busy exporting its sacrements
> >everywhere
> >around the world. We need to stop any kind of religious imperialism.
> >
>
> Why not? It is ancient (SS Peter and Paul) and catholic (it is found all
> around the world). It is NOT national (there is no Roman nation; Italians
> constitute only a small percent of the Catholics of the world) nor imperial
> (empires have legions and armies; the Catholic church has a few guards in
> ancient Swiss uniforms).
There is a difference between a multinational Church and a Universal one.
no one is fooled.
The western branch of the Catholic Church, or should I say the Roman
Imperial State Church is a multinational Church and hardly a universal Church
no matter what the pope thinks
Not-easily-duped
>
> > Yet the same James instructed the jews to stick to the costumes of Moses.
> > He complained in the Acts that Paul taught jews to depart from Moses.
> > And to make sure that Paul is faithful to Moses, he asked him to shave.
> > That is enough to say that,they had a different understanding of salvation
> > by grace issue.
>
> They finished the council in agreement with Pauline doctrine. This was
> stated both in Acts and in Galatians. Your understanding of this dynamic
> was incorrect. Certainly, the two read with different emphasis, but if
> you read both Paul and James, you see that the two are completely in
> harmony.
In agreement on what??????
Yet Paul does not follow the dietary Laws recommanded by the council.
He later instructed the corinthians to eat whatever they in the market place.
Shall we then say that the writer of the Acts of the Apostles was a laying pig
when he wrote that they reached agreement
Not-easily-duped
> The Council of Jerusalem was not the final word on this issue.
You are right on this, the council was not the final word on this issue.lol
But I think you would rather go and tell this to those who think that
the Bible is the literal word of God.
How do they explain the fact that Paul overrided the decrees of the
council regarding the dietary Laws and told the Romans to eat everything.
Nothing seems to be the final word even"YOU ARE PETER AND ON THIS ROCK I WILL
BUILD MY CHURCH"
Talk about nonsense
Not-easily-duped
> Polik quoted an entire !!!! thread back six responses in order to
> generalize Islam to four newsgroups with the following statement:
>
> >You are right, not-easily-duped. Islam is not a sect of Christianity. Islam is a demonic cult which refers to Christ as one prophet in a line of prophets, sealed by the dog, Mohammed.
Peter referred to him as a prophet, Stephen did the same in Acts, and
most jews who
thought of Jesus as the Messiah were likely to use the Torahic Christology
which states through Moses that Christ is a prophet like Moses Deut 18:15.
Mohammad invented nothing, HE RECAPITULATED MOSES.
You don't know what you are talking about.
> >
> As a Christian, not a Muslim, I honor Christ but I would never call
> another human a dog or demonic. We do not honor Christ who demean God's
> works.
>
> --
Not-easily-duped
> Trim your headers. We don't need religion in alt.history
RELIGION HAS HISTORY TOO,JERK
Alberich
(Not-easily-duped) wrote:
>cun...@aol.com (Cunneen) wrote in message news:<20040701040721...@mb-m05.aol.com>...
>
>>
>> That Church is present in many different places. Reference is made to the
>> Church that is in Corinth and the Church that is in Rome, as well as other
>> places. These Churches however are all joined together in the one Univeral
>> Church which is the bride of Christ.
>
> Pure dogmatism, endoctrination and propagandas
Terrible refutation.
>> >Now explain why the Roman National and Imperial Church claims to be
>> >the universal Church?And why it is still busy exporting its sacrements
>> >everywhere
>> >around the world. We need to stop any kind of religious imperialism.
>> >
>>
>> Why not? It is ancient (SS Peter and Paul) and catholic (it is found all
>> around the world). It is NOT national (there is no Roman nation; Italians
>> constitute only a small percent of the Catholics of the world) nor imperial
>> (empires have legions and armies; the Catholic church has a few guards in
>> ancient Swiss uniforms).
>
> There is a difference between a multinational Church and a Universal one.
> no one is fooled.
> The western branch of the Catholic Church, or should I say the Roman
> Imperial State Church is a multinational Church and hardly a universal Church
> no matter what the pope thinks
Well done! I especially like the manner in which you restate your
theory, imagining it to somehow prove itself!
Alberich
"It would be atrocious," I said, "to kill a man in order to say bu-ba-baff!"
"It would be atrocious," William remarked, "to kill a man even to say 'Credo in unum Deum.'..."
Mike Craney
copy was sent to the cited author.]
In article <bbba7302.04071...@posting.google.com>,
Codeb...@bigsecret.com says...
> Mike Craney <mcraney@hot
> >
> > > Yet the same James instructed the jews to stick to the costumes of Moses.
> > > He complained in the Acts that Paul taught jews to depart from Moses.
> > > And to make sure that Paul is faithful to Moses, he asked him to shave.
> > > That is enough to say that,they had a different understanding of salvation
> > > by grace issue.
> >
> > They finished the council in agreement with Pauline doctrine. This was
> > stated both in Acts and in Galatians. Your understanding of this dynamic
> > was incorrect. Certainly, the two read with different emphasis, but if
> > you read both Paul and James, you see that the two are completely in
> > harmony.
>
>
> In agreement on what??????
> Yet Paul does not follow the dietary Laws recommanded by the council.
Look, if you're not going to listen, there's no sense continuing. The
dietary laws discussed in council were temporal -- they were for keeping
the Jerusalem Church out of trouble with the Jews.
There are no eating restrictions necessary for anyone whose salvation
comes through Christ. If you want to try and get yourself saved the hard
way, go ahead. Good luck with it.
Mike
Mike Craney
copy was sent to the cited author.]
In article <bbba7302.0407...@posting.google.com>,
Codeb...@bigsecret.com says...
I already explained it. See previous post.
Mike
Mike Craney
copy was sent to the cited author.]
In article <bbba7302.04071...@posting.google.com>,
Codeb...@bigsecret.com says...
> ++ <yourf...@erols.com> wrote in message news:<40e891c8$0$3093$61fe...@news.rcn.com>...
> > Polik quoted an entire !!!! thread back six responses in order to
> > generalize Islam to four newsgroups with the following statement:
> >
> > >You are right, not-easily-duped. Islam is not a sect of Christianity. Islam is a demonic cult which refers to Christ as one prophet in a line of prophets, sealed by the dog, Mohammed.
>
>
> Peter referred to him as a prophet, Stephen did the same in Acts, and
> most jews who
> thought of Jesus as the Messiah were likely to use the Torahic Christology
> which states through Moses that Christ is a prophet like Moses Deut 18:15.
Revisonist mythology.
> Mohammad invented nothing, HE RECAPITULATED MOSES.
And Zoroaster, for that matter.
> You don't know what you are talking about.
Actually, I do.
Mike
Not-easily-duped
> [This followup was posted to alt.religion.christian.east-orthodox and a
> copy was sent to the cited author.]
>
> In article <bbba7302.04071...@posting.google.com>,
> Codeb...@bigsecret.com says...
> > ++ <yourf...@erols.com> wrote in message news:<40e891c8$0$3093$61fe...@news.rcn.com>...
> > > Polik quoted an entire !!!! thread back six responses in order to
> > > generalize Islam to four newsgroups with the following statement:
> > >
> > > >You are right, not-easily-duped. Islam is not a sect of Christianity. Islam is a demonic cult which refers to Christ as one prophet in a line of prophets, sealed by the dog, Mohammed.
> >
> >
> > Peter referred to him as a prophet, Stephen did the same in Acts, and
> > most jews who
> > thought of Jesus as the Messiah were likely to use the Torahic Christology
> > which states through Moses that Christ is a prophet like Moses Deut 18:15.
>
> Revisonist mythology.
Revisionist ????? Ten you don't what that word means.
Let it be clear. If anyone ever told you that Jews were waiting
for a son of God, that person is a liar. And the author of the Qur'an
made also clear that that terminology was invented for the gentiles
to relate to. I believe is right.
>
>
> > Mohammad invented nothing, HE RECAPITULATED MOSES.
>
> And Zoroaster, for that matter.
Just as the Greeco Roman world and their mystery cult.
>
> > You don't know what you are talking about.
>
> Actually, I do.
Then explain the relationship between Jesus and Caesar
Mike Craney
Codeb...@bigsecret.com says...
> Mike Craney <mcr...@hotop.com> wrote in message news:<MPG.1b5b8248d...@news-server.houston.rr.com>...
> > [This followup was posted to alt.religion.christian.east-orthodox and a
> > copy was sent to the cited author.]
> >
> > In article <bbba7302.04071...@posting.google.com>,
> > Codeb...@bigsecret.com says...
> > > ++ <yourf...@erols.com> wrote in message news:<40e891c8$0$3093$61fe...@news.rcn.com>...
> > > > Polik quoted an entire !!!! thread back six responses in order to
> > > > generalize Islam to four newsgroups with the following statement:
> > > >
> > > > >You are right, not-easily-duped. Islam is not a sect of Christianity. Islam is a demonic cult which refers to Christ as one prophet in a line of prophets, sealed by the dog, Mohammed.
> > >
> > >
> > > Peter referred to him as a prophet, Stephen did the same in Acts, and
> > > most jews who
> > > thought of Jesus as the Messiah were likely to use the Torahic Christology
> > > which states through Moses that Christ is a prophet like Moses Deut 18:15.
> >
> > Revisonist mythology.
>
>
> Revisionist ????? Ten you don't what that word means.
> Let it be clear. If anyone ever told you that Jews were waiting
> for a son of God, that person is a liar. And the author of the Qur'an
> made also clear that that terminology was invented for the gentiles
> to relate to. I believe is right.
Underline "believe". You may believe whatever you wish, regardless of
its source.
> >
> >
> > > Mohammad invented nothing, HE RECAPITULATED MOSES.
> >
> > And Zoroaster, for that matter.
>
> Just as the Greeco Roman world and their mystery cult.
Similarity does not prove plagarism, now, does it?
>
>
> >
> > > You don't know what you are talking about.
> >
> > Actually, I do.
>
> Then explain the relationship between Jesus and Caesar.
See above.
Mike
Not-easily-duped
> > > And Zoroaster, for that matter.
> >
> > Just as the Greeco Roman world and their mystery cult.
>
> Similarity does not prove plagarism, now, does it?
Is this also true for Islam and Zoroaster?
You westerners have no understanding of religion,cultures and Christ/Messiah.
You interpret the Bible and history
as If Christ/Messiah came to destroy cultures and establish THE Greeco Roman
way of life. YOUR UNDERSTANDING IS LAUGHABLE.
Mike Craney
>
>
> > > > And Zoroaster, for that matter.
> > >
> > > Just as the Greeco Roman world and their mystery cult.
> >
> > Similarity does not prove plagarism, now, does it?
>
>
> Is this also true for Islam and Zoroaster?
>
> You westerners have no understanding of religion,cultures and Christ/Messiah.
> You interpret the Bible and history
> as If Christ/Messiah came to destroy cultures and establish THE Greeco Roman
> way of life. YOUR UNDERSTANDING IS LAUGHABLE.
Well, there's an erudite retort. Suffice to say that I'm the one
laughing at your arrogance.
Is that something your religion teaches? Arrogance? There's certainly no
shortage of it in Arab/Middle Eastern/Islamic rhetoric, and there's no
more reason to believe you as there was to believe the Taliban when they
claimed they had shot down a B-52 with rifle fire.
Mike
Not-easily-duped
> > You westerners have no understanding of religion,cultures and
> > Christ/Messiah.
> > You interpret the Bible and history
> > as If Christ/Messiah came to destroy cultures and establish THE Roman
> > way of life. YOUR UNDERSTANDING IS LAUGHABLE.
>
> Well, there's an erudite retort. Suffice to say that I'm the one
> laughing at your arrogance.
>
> Is that something your religion teaches? Arrogance? There's certainly no
> shortage of it in Arab/Middle Eastern/Islamic rhetoric, and there's no
> more reason to believe you as there was to believe the Taliban when they
> claimed they had shot down a B-52 with rifle fire.
It makes no difference whether you believe me or not.
For 2000 years you have been misrepresenting Jesus the Messiah and his teaching
not in pursuing of truth but in pursuit of your own interest.
Suffice to think of 300,000 churches run like private corporations
by self proclaimed preachers.
You led mankind into thinking that Jesus was walking around proclaiming
to the world "I am the Son of God" which is not the case.
The question is, When did God get pregnant?
As we know, he promised to the Hebrews through Moses that he would
send them the Messiah, a prophet like Moses.
Arrogant and liars you are you westerners and your missionary mind set.
T
>
> Mike
Mike Craney
>
>
> > > You westerners have no understanding of religion,cultures and
> > > Christ/Messiah.
> > > You interpret the Bible and history
> > > as If Christ/Messiah came to destroy cultures and establish THE Roman
> > > way of life. YOUR UNDERSTANDING IS LAUGHABLE.
> >
> > Well, there's an erudite retort. Suffice to say that I'm the one
> > laughing at your arrogance.
> >
> > Is that something your religion teaches? Arrogance? There's certainly no
> > shortage of it in Arab/Middle Eastern/Islamic rhetoric, and there's no
> > more reason to believe you as there was to believe the Taliban when they
> > claimed they had shot down a B-52 with rifle fire.
>
>
> It makes no difference whether you believe me or not.
Nor the converse.
> For 2000 years you have been misrepresenting Jesus the Messiah and his teaching
> not in pursuing of truth but in pursuit of your own interest.
In your opinion, which we have found to be in opposition to the New
Testament and the proceedings of the Apostolic council.
> Suffice to think of 300,000 churches run like private corporations
> by self proclaimed preachers.
You're talking Islam now, right? Sunni, Shia, Deobandi, Allawi, Sufi,
etc, etc,, etc, with no hierarchical structure, each preacher on his
own.
Right?
> You led mankind into thinking that Jesus was walking around proclaiming
> to the world "I am the Son of God" which is not the case.
Uh, he DID say "I am the Son of God." The debate is about what he meant.
> The question is, When did God get pregnant?
The entire mechanism is laid out in the synopic gospels. You're pretty
good at pointing to the N.T. when you want to prove your point. You're
also pretty good at ignoring the parts that refute your positions. You
seem a bright guy, but you're intellectually dishonest.
> As we know, he promised to the Hebrews through Moses that he would
> send them the Messiah, a prophet like Moses.
And He did. And more.
> Arrogant and liars you are you westerners and your missionary mind set.
Matthew 5:11. Glory!
Mike
>
Not-easily-duped
> Testament and the proceedings of the Apostolic council.
The NT seems to support both, Islam and Catholicism at the same time.
You read it as supporting only Paul's version of Christianity that
catholicism follows.
Paul said Jesus was Son of God before all ages but you went on to manufacure
some "Gospels" were Jesus is begotten through Mary, how dare.
DEATH TO ALL JEWS AND TO YOU TOO
Not-easily-duped
> [This followup was posted to alt.religion.christian.east-orthodox and a
> copy was sent to the cited author.]
>
> In article <bbba7302.04071...@posting.google.com>,
> Codeb...@bigsecret.com says...
> > Mike Craney <mcraney@hot
> > >
> > > > Yet the same James instructed the jews to stick to the costumes of Moses.
> > > > He complained in the Acts that Paul taught jews to depart from Moses.
> > > > And to make sure that Paul is faithful to Moses, he asked him to shave.
> > > > That is enough to say that,they had a different understanding of salvation
> > > > by grace issue.
> > >
> > > They finished the council in agreement with Pauline doctrine. This was
> > > stated both in Acts and in Galatians. Your understanding of this dynamic
> > > was incorrect. Certainly, the two read with different emphasis, but if
> > > you read both Paul and James, you see that the two are completely in
> > > harmony.
> >
> >
> > In agreement on what??????
> > Yet Paul does not follow the dietary Laws recommanded by the council.
>
> Look, if you're not going to listen, there's no sense continuing. The
> dietary laws discussed in council were temporal -->
Where in the Body of the letter, the Apostolic college did say
the dietary Laws were temporal??
Where did Paul said the decisions of the Apostles regarding the dietary
were temporal?
I am assuming by temporal you mean, lasting only for a time.
Paul ignored the decision which weakens your position that the Bible
is a dictated word of God.
Not-easily-duped
> > There are no eating restrictions necessary for anyone whose salvation
> comes through Christ. If you want to try and get yourself saved the hard
> way, go ahead. Good luck with it.
You should be there to remind this to the Apostles.
What you are doing is called "pick and chose"
>
> Mike