Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - lapwing

Pages: 1 ... 101 102 [103] 104 105 ... 315
Quote from: Jem
All this took place despite the fact that no scripture ever states that Jesus is Almighty God. There is not one mention of "God the Son" nor is there one mention of "God the Holy Spirit" in all of the NT. These are terms invented by men.

Don't you think you've done this strawman to death Jem. Inventing a set of words that you know are not in the Bible and then saying, in effect, "ooh look this set of words aren't in the Bible".

Proper theologians derive their theology from what is in the Bible not what isn't.

Just as Judaism adopted the traditions of men and treated them as more important than the word of God, so Christendom has followed the exact same pattern. (Mark 7:6-8)
This is just empty assertion: Jesus was referring to the Pharisees not the Church.

he would have to deal with the weeds of false Christianity
Now you're inventing words that aren't in the Bible.

The cross itself, which is accepted as the very symbol of Christianity, is not Christian in origin.

4716 staurós – the crosspiece of a Roman cross; the cross-beam (Latin, patibulum) placed at the top of the vertical member to form a capital "T." "This transverse beam was the one carried by the criminal" (Souter).
Christ was crucified on a literal Roman cross (4716 /staurós). 4716 /staurós ("cross") is also used figuratively for the cross (sacrifice) each believer bears to be a true follower-of-Christ (Mt 10:38, 16:24, etc.).

Jem, the cross of crucifixion was Roman in origin. It was the Romans who crucified Christ.

Choose Your Own Topic / Re: Infant Baptism according to the Didache
« on: September 24, 2014, 03:04:40 AM »
No, the parents of infants answered for them at circumcision when they became members of the Old Covenant Church, The House Israel. Baptism is the New Circumcision, where Infants are brought into the New Covenant Church.

There are various objections to this:

1. We are under the New Covenant of the priesthood of all believers and baptism, not the Old Covenant of priests and circumcision.
2. Only male children were circumcised, but the gospel is for male and female who are all baptised.
3. Baptism was practised by converts to Judaism, and was known as tevila i.e. immersion. So for Judaism baptism and circumcision were and are distinguished as different rites.
4. There is no explicit record of children being baptised in the NT and the practise did not develop until centuries later. Augustine, Jerome, John Chrysostom etc. were baptised as adults despite having Christian parents.

The oft cited passage from Col 2:

For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, 10and in Christ you have been brought to fullness. He is the head over every power and authority. 11In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not performed by human hands. Your whole self ruled by the flesh was put off when you were circumcised by Christ, 12having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through your faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.

is referring to a circumcision not performed by human hands i.e. a metaphor for conversion as is baptism here. The use of this passage to try to establish covenant theology is flawed since it ignores the clear wording of the passage.

Choose Your Own Topic / Re: So many Christianities to choose from...
« on: September 24, 2014, 02:39:37 AM »
Quote from: Jem
Which bit of "faith without works is dead" do you not understand?.....
This is a sadly flawed view of the Bible: find a passage that apparently contradicts a passage you don't like and that means the passage you don't like has been negated. This view is entirely false.

James 2:18-22 does not obliterate Eph 2:8,9. James is explaining how one can know one's faith is genuine. Genuine faith is validated by works. But it is the faith that saves you not the works, otherwise why ask:

What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? James 2:14

It is the right kind of faith (validated by works) that saves you.

Choose Your Own Topic / Re: Infant Baptism according to the Didache
« on: September 23, 2014, 06:11:52 PM »
Quote from: Gordy
The parents answer for the infant before the age of reason, that does not change the efficacy of Baptism.

When the NT refers to baptism it is the person baptized who is the one referred to, not someone else.

The infants are Baptized, however because they are under the age of reason, their parent answer for them.

There is no biblical basis for the parents "answering for them", Gordy. The RCC has made this doctrine and practice up.

We trust that God as the righteous judge will do the right thing with infants who die before the age of responsibility. There is nothing in the Bible that indicates baptism is some kind of magic water ritual.

Choose Your Own Topic / Re: So many Christianities to choose from...
« on: September 23, 2014, 06:06:16 PM »
Quote from: Gordy
Lapwing said it earlier, that works aren't necessary for salvation, when clearly they are.

You have contradicted what is in the Bible, Gordy:

8For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast

Which bit of "not as a result of works" don't you understand?

Many Protestants believe faith alone apart from works is enough for their salvation, and this is false
What is false is this statement of yours and this has already been explained to you in #177: so this is a deliberate falsehood by you.

Quote from: FreeWill
If we abide in Christ, then their is no such thing as the caricature of "faith alone" that you rightly castigate.  Believing that mere lip service amounts to faith in God is a fool's delusion.  When we trust God, we endeavour to abide in Him, and anytime we truly do that, we'll have Love, and out of that Love necessarily flows the charity, teaching, and other good works.

Quote from: JohnDee
it is precisely this import of the spiritual from Romans ch3 which is unwarranted in the interpretation of Romans ch9-11
Chapter 4 not chapter 3 JohnDee.

It is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are reckoned as descendants. The ‘children of the promise’ in Paul’s exegesis are those who, like Abraham, believe the promise of God and are therefore Abraham’s spiritual offspring. Compare 4:11–18, and also the ‘allegory’ which Paul draws out of the Isaac-Ishmael narrative in Galatians 4:22–31.
F F Bruce, Tyndale Commentary

As I said "For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel" works perfectly on the physical level you do not need to import the spiritual and to do so confuses everything, there were plenty of bastards and plenty of physical descendants whom God did not direct his recognition to.
So was Esau a "bastard"? Difficult to maintain that given they were twins!

Not only that, but Rebekah’s children were conceived at the same time by our father Isaac. 11Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: 12not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” 14What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”
Rom 9:10-14

Which members of the Knesset and the rest of the Jews today have not been "recognised by God?" How about those who have not trusted Christ who are "enemies of the gospel".

I pointed out that "Israel" in the NT is used with different meanings.

Even if that's the case, how does it amount to a denial that the promises to Israel will be literally fulfilled?

Where have I denied that in this thread?

You didn't?

Well that's what I was talking about and you responded to:

"I think it makes better sense to say that "Israel means Israel" in the Bible. God's promises to Israel, if they are to be fulfilled, have to be fulfilled on a literal level."

I asked a question and you didn't answer it.

Please provide the quote where I denied that "the promises to Israel will be literally fulfilled"

I suspect you are letting politics dictate how you interpret the Bible.


It means you don't treat them as if they were identical. You originally said
"I see no difference in principle between ISIS, Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran"

I can't see anything here but nitpicking of John Hagee's words.

Hopefully neither you or John Hagee work in foreign relations or intelligence. I still don't know whether you want to nuke the whole of the Middle East except Israel.

The US supported Iraq in the Iran Iraq war during which the attack on Halabja occurred.

The U.S. provided critical battle planning assistance at a time when U.S. intelligence agencies knew that Iraqi commanders would employ chemical weapons in waging the war, according to senior military officers with direct knowledge of the program. The U.S. carried out this covert program at a time when Secretary of State George P. Shultz, United States Secretary of Defense Frank C. Carlucci and National Security Adviser General Colin L. Powell were publicly condemning Iraq for its use of poison gas, especially after Iraq attacked Kurdish villagers in Halabja in March 1988. U.S. officials publicly condemned Iraq's employment of mustard gas, sarin, VX and other poisonous agents, but sixty Defense Intelligence Agency officers were secretly providing detailed information on Iranian deployments, tactical planning for battles, plans for airstrikes and bomb-damage assessments for Iraq. It has long been known that the U.S. provided intelligence assistance, such as satellite photography, to Saddam's regime. Carlucci said: "My understanding is that what was provided" to Iraq "was general order of battle information, not operational intelligence." "I certainly have no knowledge of U.S. participation in preparing battle and strike packages," he said, "and doubt strongly that that occurred." "I did agree that Iraq should not lose the war, but I certainly had no foreknowledge of their use of chemical weapons." Secretary of State Powell, through a spokesman, said the officers' description of the program was "dead wrong," but declined to discuss it. His deputy, Richard L. Armitage, a senior defense official at the time, used an expletive relayed through a spokesman to indicate his denial that the United States acquiesced in the use of chemical weapons

Your enemy's enemy is your friend is a flawed policy.

There is no evidence that Saddam had operational ties with AQ.

On April 29, 2007, former Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet said on 60 Minutes, "We could never verify that there was any Iraqi authority, direction and control, complicity with al-Qaeda for 9/11 or any operational act against America, period."

Quote from: JohnDee
my respect goes to whether what they say makes sense,
... according to you. But you may well be wrong JohnDee - do you ever consider that?

"For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel"


Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham’s offspring—not only to those who are of the law but also to those who have the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all.

"All" there means all Christians not just Jewish Christians. This was an important reason for writing Romans.

One shouldn't let political loyalties affect your interpretation of the Bible.

I pointed out that "Israel" in the NT is used with different meanings.

Even if that's the case, how does it amount to a denial that the promises to Israel will be literally fulfilled?

Where have I denied that in this thread?


This is like calling Chinese "slitty eyed" (the Duke of Edinburgh).

What on earth are you talking about!?? It's nothing like that!

The Iranians aren't Arabs and have a very different history and culture.

So that means they aren't inspired by a similar evil ideology?

It means you don't treat them as if they were identical. You originally said
"I see no difference in principle between ISIS, Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran"

I didn't get your view about nuking all the Arabs and the Iranians?

Quote from: JohnDee
Your quotation of Romans 9 and 11 do not in fact fudge the distinction between church and Israel
You haven't understood my post. I didn't set out to fudge "the distinction between church and Israel". I pointed out that "Israel" in the NT is used with different meanings. The minister of my church believes this as well. He is highly trained and works on translating the Bible into Persian. But maybe you know better than him!

Quote from: bskeptic
I think you mean murder and decapitations.

Why should they be considered much different from a Western viewpoint?
This is like calling Chinese "slitty eyed" (the Duke of Edinburgh). The Iranians aren't Arabs and have a very different history and culture. It's the difference between clumsy foreign policy that just makes things worse and getting it right - or maybe USA should nuke the whole Middle East bar Israel?

Quote from: Jem
Only those taken into the new covenant with Jesus can be part of that ruling class. They alone will be "kings and priests" so logically we can't have all rulers with no subjects and priests without sinner for whom to perform priestly duties.
This is replacing the Bible with Russell/Rutherford JW dogma: human wisdom not God's wisdom.


9But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. 10Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.

where does it say the royal priesthood is a small 144000 elite? This letter was written to the whole church.

From the second century onward, the weeds of false Christianity grew into what became Roman Catholicism under Constantine the Great in the 4th century.
Constantine moved his capital to Constantinople. This was long before the schism between East (Constantinople) and West (Rome) so there wasn't an RCC at this time.

Why did church leaders not use the Scriptures more when they made decisions?
This applies to the JWs who prefer the teachings of Russell and Rutherford to the Bible.

Define "Christian" and you have the answer to that question.
Your point was that the church doesn't do evangelism. Now you're saying the results aren't perfect. You need to revisit the parable of the sower. How many children of JW families leave the organisation despite indoctrination and threats of being disfellowshipped?

Quote from: lapwing
The doctrine of the Trinity was being formulated well before Nicea. It wasn't invented on the back of a cigarette packet by Constantine (psst Constantine wasn't a theologian). It is much more likely that Constantine's theological advisors provided his official input for him.
Jem you need to look at or do you refuse to read non-JW material?

150 AD Justin Martyr "The Father of the universe has a Son, who also being the first begotten Word of God, is even God." (Justin Martyr, First Apology, ch 63)
•150 AD Justin Martyr "Christ is called both God and Lord of hosts." (Dialogue with Trypho, ch, 36)
•150 AD Justin Martyr "Therefore these words testify explicitly that He [Christ] is witnessed to by Him who established these things, as deserving to be worshipped, as God and as Christ." - Dialogue with Trypho, ch. 63.
•170 AD Tatian the Syrian "We are not playing the fool, you Greeks, nor do we talk nonsense, when we report that God was born in the form of a man" (Address to the Greeks 21). 
and many more examples from

On the development of the doctrine of the Trinity and homoousion you should read:

Note that having criticised me for not "backing up" after 1 am my time you are duty bound to study the sources I have provided, and it would be dishonourable to repeat these questions without doing so. It's time for you to do some work Jem if you're really interested. If you're not really interested don't ask these questions just  to try to score petty points. 

Pages: 1 ... 101 102 [103] 104 105 ... 315