Question for conservative Christians

[spirit5er]

In Matthew 19, Jesus refers to the law one must keep to be saved, as a set of moral instructions, not a “who”.

Jesus demanded that his followers obey the Mosaic Law. How exactly does this equate Jesus with the Law?

Obviously, they remained zealous for the Law. They thought it was necessary for salvation. Their “zealousness” isn’t praised by the author of Acts.

Thank you very much for finally agreeing to the obvious. Sure sounds like the gospel they converted to taught them that the Mosaic system continues unaffected after the death of Jesus, agreed?

They had certainly been converted, but failed to understand the true status of the Mosaic Covenant.

Excuse me…where did you ever get the idea that they failed to understand the true status of the Mosaic Covenant? Yes, they remained zealous for the law, thinking it was necessary for salvation, but what makes you think this view was false?

To fulfill means more than to obey.

Not so, I fulfill the speed limit laws when I OBEY them. You must therefore demonstrate that Jesus meant something more than mere obedience when he said he came to “fulfill” the law.

It is evident that Christ fulfilled the Law in His own person; this is the only coherent reconciliation between the statements you have already pointed to. It is also in accord with John’s theology of Christ as “logos”.

That reconciliation requires you to to presuppose that the view of James’s converts in Acts 21:20 “zealous for the Law”, meaning they thought it was necessary to salvation, was a misunderstanding. You have not demonstrated that their viewpoint here was such misunderstanding. I’ve already shown that Jesus demanded full obedience to the Mosaic Law for his followers, so Acts 21:20 need not be a misunderstanding but a sign that James and his congregation were doing what Jesus told them to do.

The Law was not done away with, but fulfilled in Christ’s own person. This is an important distinction.

yeah, I knew I’d catch you in double-talk sooner or later. Paul himself said the law is DONE AWAY in Christ:

2 Corinthians 3:14-16
14 But their minds were hardened; for until this very day at the reading of the old covenant the same veil remains unlifted, because it is removed in Christ.
15 But to this day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their heart;
16 but whenever a man turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.

In order to account for the legalism Peter had fallen into, we can say that he either never genuinely understood that adherence to the prescripts of the Old Law was no longer neccessary

,

Which is excessively unlikely given his full three year tenure with the earthly Jesus, whose early ministry offered salvation equally to Jew and Gentile from it’s earliest phase (John 3:16). Jesus must have saved many Gentiles in that three-year ministry with Peter at his side. And Peter never “genuinely understood” how the Mosaic Law applies to Gentile Christians? Absurd!

or otherwise gradually became convinced of the legalistic error in a human attempt to conform to certain statements Christ made.

Jesus made it perfectly clear from the earliest phase of his ministry that Gentiles need to obey the Mosaic Law in order to be his true followers (Matthew 5, John 3:16). Paul should never have rebuked Peter, Peter’s conduct was fully Christlike. Even worse, if all Peter was doing was going along with the legalists simply to avoid giving offense, that was something that Paul himself admitted doing (Acts 16:3, 1st Corinthians 9:20), so Paul then was the hypocrite, not Peter. Peter was obeying Jesus in his choice to adhere to Mosaic Law and renounce fellowship with Gentiles who didn’t conform to Mosaic demands for such fellowship, and this legalism comes from “men from James”, so James himself was such a legalist, and the worst that Peter did was try to avoid giving offence to Gentile Christians by eating with them.

No, it means they were zealous for the prescripts of the Mosaic Covenant.

It appears that you’ve taken scripture out of context in this instance. The description of the Jewish Christians as “zealous for the law” was placed in the mouth of the people who were confronting Paul. It is not the assertion of the author of Acts that this was desirable.

First problem: the Acts author places this description of James’ converts in the mouth of James himself:

Acts 21:18-20
18 And now the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present.
19 And after he had greeted them, he began to relate one by one the things which God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry.
20 And when they heard it they began glorifying God; and they said to him, "You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed, and they are all zealous for the Law;

 

[spirit5er]

The Acts author places that the legalistic description of converts in the mouth of James and his elders, whom Paul met up with. So assuming Acts’ honesty in reporting, James and his elders are telling Paul that their congregation of tens of thousands of Christian Jew converts, remained zealous for the Law. I have taken nothing out of context, and worse, nobody in this context is saying that this legalistic viewpoint wasn’t desireable. Paul would only have been encouraging this “undesireable” legalism with his stated conformity to James’ request to take a vow that required temple ritual and sacrifice. Unless you wish to say that Paul knew their view was undesireable, but encouraged them in it by agreeing to observe temple rituals at their request, you are forced to the position that Paul only obeyed this request of James to avoid a public relations disaster. While James says Paul’s conformity to the Law will prove Paul keeps the law, that is a lie: Paul admits in 1st Corinthians 9:20 that he’d PRETEND to keep the law when in the company of Jews, for the sake of gaining converts, which signifies he wasn’t above pretending to keep peace when in the company of those who hold to a different theology. Your attempt to make it appear that the Acts author condemned the legalism of James’s congregation fails. What prevents you from admitting that their legalism existed because that’s the sort of gospel James gave them, to which they converted?

I don’t think Peter understood correctly that which Christ had taught. It’s also possible that he gradually, in his human intellectual weakness, drifted from the genuine teaching towards a legalistic interpretation.

Sure, anything’s possible, but I’ve advanced arguments to demonstrate that Peter’s legalism was not due to any misunderstanding of Jesus. Contrawise, you have merely admitted the possibility of Peter misunderstanding, but have advanced no arguments to show that such misunderstanding is more than likely the case.

I, myself, 2000 years later, have the benefit of the teaching of the Doctors of the Church and many eminent theologians throughout history who gave the faith greater definition.

This is better than actually living with the real historical Jesus himself for three years and then being filled with the Spirit on the day of Pentecost? I sincerely doubt that the imperfect work of church theologians after the first century are a better benefit to you than the Jesus of the gospels that you don’t need a theologian to help you understand.

I’m simply repeating what they have offered. I’m sure if I were living at the time of St. Peter, I’d be just as clueless as he was at times.

What makes you think Peter’s conformity to legalists from James was one of those “clueless” moments?

And how do you answer Galatians 2:12, which links James directly to the Judaizers?

…which is therefore a biblical proof that James’s faction disagreed with Paul about the continuing applicability of the Law to Christian Jews.

That’s all well and good.

I still don’t see the problem. Clearly, there was a certain doctrinal cleavage in the early Church.

Fine, but such cleavage means at least one of them must be wrong, both cannot be right. So then which one was the heretic, James or Paul?

Some believed that adherence to the precepts of the Mosaic Law was still necessary for salvation. Is it your argument that the existence of this cleavage disproves Christian revelation?

It is my argument that, given a dispute between Paul and James about the need of the law for salvation, the person who is more likely to hold the correct opinion is the person who actually knew the real historical earthly Jesus of the gospels. Without an argument to the contrary, my arguments show Paul (whose sole claim to inspiration is restricted to visions) to be the true heretic, not the Judaizers.

In what respect?

If we assume that James and Paul were equally saved and equally sincere in their prayers to God to guide their respective minds as they pursued theology, God has no reason whatsoever to reveal truth to one and not the other. The fact that one got the truth and the other persisted in heresy, while both were equally saved and equally sincere in asking God to guide their minds, sounds less like a divinely inspired religion, with no god to insure the followers stay like-minded, and it sounds more like the expected results of a purely human religion. Your God is not the author of confusion. Paul’s law-free gospel is in clear contradiction to Jesus’ own legalistic demands upon Gentiles for salvation, so Paul is more likely the heretic, and the Judaizers appear to be in complete harmony with Jesus. Jesus NEVER relaxed the Mosaic law for anybody, as Paul did, and as the Acts author says the apostles did in Acts 15.

Sure, the pope forbids the idea that apostle Paul was a heretic, but in the real world, dogma doesn’t trump sound argumentation, otherwise Mormons would be justified to simply dogmatize that they are in the true religion, whenever they see rebuttal to their beliefs. You’d immediately catch that as a false excuse to hide from criticism, so you should immediately identify it as error whenever any other form of Christianity tries to trump sound arguments with papal dogma

 

[spirit5er]

I’d bet you don’t even know what an indulgence is, or what form they take in modern times. Without scrambling off to Wikipedia, would you care to give me your definition?

Unnecessary, my point was that your Roman Catholic Church has it’s own share of corruption and ignorance, so that whatever you try to imply by the ignorance of Dawkins and his followers, could just as easily apply to anybody who follows a religion with a similar history of corruption and ignorance. From now on, whenever you insult those who criticize your religion, I’ll just shorten your leash by saying “when in the coin in the coffer rings…”

Or maybe, “Galileo, you are wrong…”

Deal?

 

[spirit5er]

This has really gone in many different directions. I do have a quick question. What would be the reason that the “Acts-author” would include passages like Luke 18:18-27 but “lie” about Acts 10 and 15?

Probably for the same reason that Protestant theologians hold to inconsistent theology?

Maybe Luke figured that “God’s mysterious ways” was the perfect excuse for him to set forth theology that was inconsistent with his other beliefs?

Maybe Luke wrote his gospel before he became Paul’s propagandist?

Maybe Luke had a first-hand view of how profitable Paul’s business enterprise was, even if it’s defense required writing and saying things that were inconsistent with his previously published gospel?

I don’t see how Luke’s admission that Jesus was legalistic, is any sort of control over what he meant when writing something else. Lord knows people often aren’t bothered by inconsistencies in their beliefs. They are more often happy to “give it all to God” and thereby think they are no longer accountable for setting forth contradictory opinions.

 

[spirit5er]

Originally Posted by spirit5er
I disagree with you that the “faith” atheists have in materialism is comparable to the “faith” of Christians. I have “faith” that my car remains in the driveway after I turn away from looking at it. YOU have “faith” that Jesus rose from the dead 2000 years ago. Such faiths are clearly worlds apart.

It is only Christians who deny the existence of cars. How sad that your religious viewpoint forces you to drag other more provable realities down to your level of blind faith.

What objective standard of reality says my eyes are only revealing an illusion to me? Is it also an illusion when I successfully make it to the car, start it, pick up a friend, and go to church with him?

What’s the likelihood you’ll be informing the accident reconstruction team that the wreck you caused, is just an illusion?

We find then that your desperate speculations to duck my arguments don’t even work according to YOU.

Indeed, what leads you to call it “your car” at all?

Is that how you’d talk to an insurance adjuster who is determining the dollar-amount of damages you caused in a car wreck? That there is no real proof that your car is your car?

It is a collection of various materials, nothing more.

Oh, so it’s NOT just an illusion as you said seconds ago?

A collection of materials that the higher authorities, which can take away my freedom, have agreed with me is my car.

That it will be in “your driveway” at all is due to the culture Christians have erected, with its notions of property rights and civil behavior.

Well at least you admit the existence of culture, Christians, notions of property rights and civil behavior. So I have to wonder why you agree those things exist, but not my car?

Dude, where’s my car?

As we have seen in those countries where atheists have run the show lock, stock, and barrel, “your car” and “your driveway” are abstractions you will be disabused of in short order.

?! How does theft or deprivement of your property, prove that the property was really just an abstraction? is this how you talk to your insurance agent when filing a theft claim after your house is broken into? Your stuff was really just illusions?

You don’t understand what you’re reading and thus keep bouncing up against barriers even the Sunday Schooler successfully avoids.

Wouldn’t that language sound cozy in a sermon to a bunch of people who already agree with you about Christianity?

Quote:
The most ironic thing in this world is a Roman Catholic apologist exposing moral faults of non-Catholics.

And you don’t understand what the word “irony” means either. How rich!

That is supposed to be a “rebuttal”?

Quote:
Can we both agree that moral faults in individual people don’t negatively impact the truth of their worldview?

Can we both agree that your last sentence and your second-to-last are in violent disagreement?

No, can you answer my question yes or no?

We don’t even need to refute you—you refute yourself.

Mormons tell me that all the time, usually not until I’ve foisted on them an argument they can’t answer. If you don’t think such language proves I failed to expose Mormonism as a fraud, then your own use of such language doesn’t prove I failed to support my arguments here against your Pauline beliefs.

But it’s nice to know that you people still mistake dogma for truth. You don’t accept it when Mormons set forth the statements of Joseph Smith as the final answer to their critics, so apparantly, dogma does NOT guarantee truth. The history of Popes who contradicted each other should have made you wary of depending on papal announcements for truth, but noooo…

 

[spirit5er]

Originally Posted by spirit5er
Now you contradict Jesus who told Gentiles they wouldn’t enter the kingdom unless they adhered to the Law more closely than Pharisees. See Matthew 5.

A Judaizer could agree to that completely, and say “yeah, when we obey Torah, this is following Christ, because Christ IS Torah.”

If a Judaizer can agree to what you said, then you haven’t given the reason the Judaizers were wrong.

As I’ve explained, the issue is not one of salvation of gentiles but of the need to adhere to the prescripts of the Mosaic Law.

The “news” which Peter and his Jewish Christian brothers were startled by in Acts 10 and 11, was not Gentiles “adhering to Law”, but “Gentiles getting saved”.

Instead of addressing the argument, you’re simply parroting what you’ve already told me (ie. “Peter suddenly realized the gentiles can be saved! How crazy is that?”). I don’t accept this conclusion for the reasons I’ve already offered.

The “news” that Peter’s Christian Jew-followers were amazed by, was specifically the notion that Gentiles could be SAVED. Please read Acts 11:18 again:

Acts 11:18
"And when they heard this, they quieted down, and glorified God, saying, “Well then, God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life.”

“repentence that leads to life” is obviously talking about SALVATION. Agreed?

This idea is presented as “news” to Peter’s followers in Acts 10 and 11, agreed?

Quote:
Oh, ok, so then one way you reconcile the truth with apostolic teaching is by saying the apostles probably didn’t realize the truth about Jesus fulfilling the law in his own person?

Oy vey! Has it taken this long?

That’s basically it. The teaching is implicit in Christ’s own words, but was not defined with any clarity until later.

What would you think of a Mormon who said “some of our teachings don’t seem to square up with what the apostles wrote and said, however, the teaching is implicit in Christ’s own words, but was not define with any clarity until later…” ?

I’m sure he went to confession, which would have been public at his time.

Where is your historical evidence for “confession” in Paul’s first-century context?

Quote:
Does a perfect human, who is himself fully God, produce feces? God identified feces as something that defiles him, see Deuteronomy 23:13-14. Apparantly, the fact that Jesus was “fully” human doesn’t necessarily mean he did everything humans do. Or, if your assumption is correct, then Jesus produced things from his body which defile the Lord God. Welcome to your nightmare.

You clearly fail to understand the way in which ritual law in the old covenant has been made unnecessary. God has made clean that which was unclean.

yeah, there’s a statement about God cleansing stuff that used to be unclean thar somewhar in Acts 10, but I seriously doubt this was referring to God viewing feces any differently than he did in Deuteronomy 23. If you accept Peter’s own explanation of the vision where God said that, then what God made clean was the Gentiles. Absent any biblical proof from you on how Jesus can produce non-defiling feces, this natural function of his body continues to deny his full acceptance with the god of Deuteronomy 23. I’m sure you’ll simply blindly rely on tradition and insist that Jesus was entirely holy, even if you can’t figure out how.

Although it would be odd, an argument could be made that this particular aspect of Christ’s incarnation foreshadowed the definitive abrogation of the prescripts of the Mosaic Covenant, since it contradicts the idea that God is defiled by feces.

Or maybe the full humanity of Christ entails theological consequences that the authors of this new theology didn’t think through too well.

You haven’t yet determined whether Jesus’ feces would or wouldn’t be viewed by the Father as equally defiling as the feces of other normal humans.

Also, God deliberately humbled himself by taking on human form. This fact of Christ’s full humanity is probably best understood as an aspect of His humility.

The “humility” aspect doesn’t help defend the incarnation against charges of inconsistency. For example, in the kenosis of Philippians 2:6, the very idea that the Old Testament “YHWH” would humble himself, is inconsistent with his non-humble character, and God’s character or attitude is not subject to change, Malachi 3:6.

 

[Teflon93]

It is only Christians who deny the existence of cars. How sad that your religious viewpoint forces you to drag other more provable realities down to your level of blind faith.

Yes, and how sad that your bigotry and misplaced pride lead you to miss the obvious. There is simply no such thing in reality as “your car.” The construct itself consists of electrical charges across empty voids at the atomic level. The notion of it being “yours” is a nicety that Judeo-Christian cultures developed guided by their religion, “Thou shalt not steal”, “Thou shalt not covet” being the basis of our property laws.

Philosophy obviously isn’t a strong suit for you either.

What objective standard of reality says my eyes are only revealing an illusion to me? Is it also an illusion when I successfully make it to the car, start it, pick up a friend, and go to church with him?

All of which are real only to the extent that your senses say they are. The essence of the thing remains created ex nihilo. Just as Scripture says.

We find then that your desperate speculations to duck my arguments don’t even work according to YOU.

LOL—you haven’t even MADE an argument!

Moreover, you don’t seem to be able to recognize one.

Is that how you’d talk to an insurance adjuster who is determining the dollar-amount of damages you caused in a car wreck? That there is no real proof that your car is your car?

Were you consistent, that is the argument YOU would make as a good little materialist, rather than relying on Judeo-Christian culture for such niceties as property rights and insurance. Funny how the atheist regimes of the 20th century didn’t have such things.

Oh, so it’s NOT just an illusion as you said seconds ago?

It is an “illusion of the senses”, the reality being a collection of electrical charges separated by vacuum. Property rights are pure abstraction.

A collection of materials that the higher authorities, which can take away my freedom, have agreed with me is my car.

Until an atheist runs things and then it’s not. Ask the kulaks.

Well at least you admit the existence of culture, Christians, notions of property rights and civil behavior. So I have to wonder why you agree those things exist, but not my car?

Here’s what an argument looks like:

1. An illusion is something which is not what it appears to the senses to be.
2. A car which appears to be uniformly solid is in fact at the atomic level a cloud of electrons surrounding a particulate nucleus which repels and attracts other atoms through electrical charge and is in fact separated from those atoms by a gulf of vacuum.
3. Therefore, the solidity of a car is an illusion.

?! How does theft or deprivement of your property, prove that the property was really just an abstraction? is this how you talk to your insurance agent when filing a theft claim after your house is broken into? Your stuff was really just illusions?

Yes, the materialist view really is reductive and stupid, isn’t it?

Why do you hold it?

Wouldn’t that language sound cozy in a sermon to a bunch of people who already agree with you about Christianity?

Wouldn’t know—we don’t need to discuss such elementary philosophical concepts having long since left the college dorm room and Pink Floyd behind.

Mormons tell me that all the time, usually not until I’ve foisted on them an argument they can’t answer. If you don’t think such language proves I failed to expose Mormonism as a fraud, then your own use of such language doesn’t prove I failed to support my arguments here against your Pauline beliefs.

You don’t even know the difference between Mormonism and Catholicism, do you?

But it’s nice to know that you people still mistake dogma for truth. You don’t accept it when Mormons set forth the statements of Joseph Smith as the final answer to their critics, so apparantly, dogma does NOT guarantee truth. The history of Popes who contradicted each other should have made you wary of depending on papal announcements for truth, but noooo…

Here’s how this bit of nonsense would look if you bothered to formulate an argument (or knew how to do so):

1. Mormons set forth the statements of Joseph Smith as the final answer to their critics.
2. Therefore, dogma does not guarantee truth.

See anything missing?

Oh yeah—THE ARGUMENT.

Here’s my argument:

1. Schools—particularly public schools—in the United States no longer teach critical thinking to students.
2. As a result, many Americans graduate with an inability to form a proposition, support it with evidence, and draw conclusions from the evidence, having never been taught how to do so nor given experience and so doing.
3. These students grow up to troll Internet forums where their missteps are a constant source of amusement.

 

[Augustin83008]

I’d just like to poke my head in and suggest 2 books: **Jesus of Nazareth **by Pope Benedict XVI and The Lord by Romano Guardini. At the very least, Spirit5er, they may help you sharpen your arguments; on the other hand, they may help you see with a bit more clarity what our Church teaches about Jesus and why, from 2 very serious heavyweights who address many of the specific issues you’ve raised.

I’ve actually enjoyed taking the time to read nearly everything you’ve written here in this thread, but I have to say that your slash and burn rhetorical style (where you “demolish” this, and “destroy” that, and “prove” this with stern “objectivity”) makes it very difficult to take you seriously. It’s an amusing, gestural style, and all, but it’s murder to any credibility.

Have you read The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, for example? Ehrman does a heck of a job posing serious questions precisely because he doesn’t pretend to be an objective know-it-all with the final truth about very old and very complex questions. Have you read the very thin Proper Confidence by Leslie Newbigin? He’s pretty successful in outlining and persuasively undermining your ‘critical fundamentalist’ style.

Seriously, best wishes.

 

[spirit5er]

Yes, and how sad that your bigotry and misplaced pride lead you to miss the obvious. There is simply no such thing in reality as “your car.” The construct itself consists of electrical charges across empty voids at the atomic level. The notion of it being “yours” is a nicety that Judeo-Christian cultures developed guided by their religion, “Thou shalt not steal”, “Thou shalt not covet” being the basis of our property laws.

First, where did you ever get the silly idea that materialism forbids rationalism? The mere fact that you choose to explain the atomic unknown with ‘god’ is actually the dishonest position here, we materialists admit we don’t have all the answers about how the universe works. You therefore misrepresent us dishonestly, as you are smarter than that.

All of which are real only to the extent that your senses say they are.

So? Again, your “goddidit” explanation is not provable, while our “we don’t know everything about the nature of matter” is.

The essence of the thing remains created ex nihilo. Just as Scripture says.

Whatever you pontificate on , you popishness.

LOL—you haven’t even MADE an argument!

Oh sure, all I ever did here was assert blindly that James was a legalist.

Moreover, you don’t seem to be able to recognize one.

Should I imitiate you, and just throw insults around, or should I have more respect for this place than you?

Were you consistent, that is the argument YOU would make as a good little materialist, rather than relying on Judeo-Christian culture for such niceties as property rights and insurance. Funny how the atheist regimes of the 20th century didn’t have such things.

Are you just a stupid protestant pretending to be a Catholic? Would a truly educated Catholic open that door to discussion of all the abuses of Judeo-Christian rights the Roman Catholic Church has committed?

Sorry, but my car is both “my property” AND “collection of electrical charges”. Since it is obvious to any third-grader that ancient peoples all over the world lived in groups which agreed to property rights and other laws, your assertions about America’s property laws coming from Judeo-Christian concepts is neither unexpected nor compelling.

It is an “illusion of the senses”, the reality being a collection of electrical charges separated by vacuum. Property rights are pure abstraction.

So? “abstraction” doesn’t mean “could only come from god”.

A collection of materials that the higher authorities, which can take away my freedom, have agreed with me is my car.

Until an atheist runs things and then it’s not. Ask the kulaks.

Ok, unless you are stupid, Roman Catholic authorities have stomped on biblical human rights and “confiscated” (i.e., STOLEN) many times. I really have to wonder whether you know enough to keep up in a debate like this. Why don’t you just say atheist dictators violate basic human rights, so I can have a real good laugh at the irony?

Here’s what an argument looks like:

1. An illusion is something which is not what it appears to the senses to be.
2. A car which appears to be uniformly solid is in fact at the atomic level a cloud of electrons surrounding a particulate nucleus which repels and attracts other atoms through electrical charge and is in fact separated from those atoms by a gulf of vacuum.
3. Therefore, the solidity of a car is an illusion.

False, the configuration of that structure at the atomic level is exactly what PRODUCES the visual effect we see. That’s why different configurations of electrons cause one object to be “gold” and another “paper napkin”. You have not separated the atomic truth from the visual effect produced thereby. If a fan is spinning sufficiently fast, our eyes can’t keep up with the rotation, so it looks like a blur, but we materialists realize, as with our cars, that the basis of the illusion is the limitations of the human eye to detect such things. Atoms are too small to be apprecited distinctly by the human eye. What else would a car made of atoms look like at the level of human eyesight, except a car?

Wouldn’t know—we don’t need to discuss such elementary philosophical concepts having long since left the college dorm room and Pink Floyd behind.

The case of Galileo having proved you left the college before class started.

You don’t even know the difference between Mormonism and Catholicism, do you?

Of course I do! Brigham Young was Pope Sixtus the 5th, wasn’t he?

 

[spirit5er]

Here’s how this bit of nonsense would look if you bothered to formulate an argument (or knew how to do so):

1. Mormons set forth the statements of Joseph Smith as the final answer to their critics.

1. Therefore, dogma does not guarantee truth.

See anything missing?

Oh yeah—THE ARGUMENT.

All you did was merely cut yourself out of the argument that was based on YOUR views. The truthful argument goes like this:

YOU don’t believe the citation of a non-Roman Catholic prophet or authority is the end of all argument.

But you DO think citing Catholic authorities is the end of all argument.

So you appear to think just fine until it comes to your religious views, then suddenly, citation of authority is the final word for you.

Since you offer no reason to think Catholic authorities are “better” than non-Catholic authorities, your choice to accept Catholic authority as the final word is an inconsistency on your part.

Worse, you needed this obvious argument broken down for you, probably because you left college long ago.

Here’s my argument:

1. Schools—particularly public schools—in the United States no longer teach critical thinking to students.

If you left college long ago, little wonder why you screw up here.

1. As a result, many Americans graduate with an inability to form a proposition, support it with evidence, and draw conclusions from the evidence, having never been taught how to do so nor given experience and so doing.

So what? As long as they trust the highest Catholic authorties on whateover they speak about, all will be well, amen?

1. These students grow up to troll Internet forums where their missteps are a constant source of amusement.

What’s worse, amusing you with my ignorance, or the contradictions between Popes?

 

[Teflon93]

First, where did you ever get the silly idea that materialism forbids rationalism? The mere fact that you choose to explain the atomic unknown with ‘god’ is actually the dishonest position here, we materialists admit we don’t have all the answers about how the universe works. You therefore misrepresent us dishonestly, as you are smarter than that.

Well, you’ll have to show me where I’ve explained “the atomic unknown” with God.

In fact, I pointed out what is well known in basic physics—what appears to be solid is merely a field of electrical repulsion.

In other words, an illusion of the senses. Catch up to Plato—it’s only been 2,500 years.

So? Again, your “goddidit” explanation is not provable, while our “we don’t know everything about the nature of matter” is.

Move those goalposts. It is the materialist who claims everything reduces to materialism; despite the inconvenient and persistent fact that to the best knowledge of cosmologists everything was not only in fact created from nothing but is in large part made of nothing.

Whatever you pontificate on , you popishness.

Grammar isn’t a strength for you either. When combined with muddled thought and your materialist religious fervor, it doesn’t make for an argument, much less a persuasive one.

Oh sure, all I ever did here was assert blindly that James was a legalist.

Haven’t you wondered why every one of us has had to ask repeatedly what point you’re making?

Or do you honestly believe you’re smarter than the room?

Should I imitiate you, and just throw insults around, or should I have more respect for this place than you?

LOL—you’ve had the same interaction with everyone who’s posted here. Are you familiar with the saying, “When everyone tells you you’re drunk it’s time to sit down.”?

Are you just a stupid protestant pretending to be a Catholic? Would a truly educated Catholic open that door to discussion of all the abuses of Judeo-Christian rights the Roman Catholic Church has committed?

Hey, at least you refrained from insults in respect for this place!

Another self-refuting post.

As I mentioned earlier, I’ll trade you one Alexander VI for your choice of renowned atheists Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, Pol Pot, or Mao Tse-Tung.

Sorry, but my car is both “my property” AND “collection of electrical charges”. Since it is obvious to any third-grader that ancient peoples all over the world lived in groups which agreed to property rights and other laws, your assertions about America’s property laws coming from Judeo-Christian concepts is neither unexpected nor compelling.

Sure—name those groups.

Or read some Hobbes and get educated.

So? “abstraction” doesn’t mean “could only come from god”.

Reading comprehension having now eluded you, perhaps you can show me where I’ve claimed that abstraction = “could only come from God”.

Atheism is an abstraction which manifestly did NOT come from God.

Ok, unless you are stupid, Roman Catholic authorities have stomped on biblical human rights and “confiscated” (i.e., STOLEN) many times. I really have to wonder whether you know enough to keep up in a debate like this. Why don’t you just say atheist dictators violate basic human rights, so I can have a real good laugh at the irony?

Ahh, so will you be defending Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao now?

I see no reason why we should not consider atheist societies in evaluating whether it is religion or materialism which results in more manmade misery and horror.

False, the configuration of that structure at the atomic level is exactly what PRODUCES the visual effect we see. That’s why different configurations of electrons cause one object to be “gold” and another “paper napkin”. You have not separated the atomic truth from the visual effect produced thereby. If a fan is spinning sufficiently fast, our eyes can’t keep up with the rotation, so it looks like a blur, but we materialists realize, as with our cars, that the basis of the illusion is the limitations of the human eye to detect such things. Atoms are too small to be apprecited distinctly by the human eye. What else would a car made of atoms look like at the level of human eyesight, except a car?

You seem to not understand that vision is merely one of the senses.

When I type on my keyboard, the keys feel and look solid. In reality, the material content is quite small compared to the empty space encompassed by the key. It is an illusion. I’ll type slower for you.

The case of Galileo having proved you left the college before class started.

I attended a service academy where attendance was mandatory for the full time.

Unfortunately, you know nothing of Galileo’s case. Read “Galileo’s Mistake” and learn something.

Of course I do! Brigham Young was Pope Sixtus the 5th, wasn’t he?

Another self-refuting post.

Keep them coming—they make me smile.

 

[Teflon93]

All you did was merely cut yourself out of the argument that was based on YOUR views. The truthful argument goes like this:

YOU don’t believe the citation of a non-Roman Catholic prophet or authority is the end of all argument.

But you DO think citing Catholic authorities is the end of all argument.

You do realize that the above isn’t an argument, right? You’ve simply made two claims unsupported by evidence or logical reasoning.

So you appear to think just fine until it comes to your religious views, then suddenly, citation of authority is the final word for you.

Perhaps it is your tic of using “So” which leads you to falsely believe you’re forwarding an argument.

Since you offer no reason to think Catholic authorities are “better” than non-Catholic authorities, your choice to accept Catholic authority as the final word is an inconsistency on your part.

Okay, now you misuse “inconsistency”.

You also fail to distinguish between cause and effect.

Let me educate you:

1. You offer no reason to think Catholic authorities are “better” than non-Catholic authorities.
2. You choose to accept Catholic authority as the final word.
3. Therefore, you are inconsistent.

See the problem with your “argument”?

Worse, you needed this obvious argument broken down for you, probably because you left college long ago.

Well, at least you didn’t insult me, having respect for this place!

I left college in 1993 as a matter of fact. I read between 200 and 300 books a year (thanks, Amazon Kindle) so the education never stops.

If you left college long ago, little wonder why you screw up here.

1. You left college long ago.
2. Therefore, you screw up here.

Still missing something.

So what? As long as they trust the highest Catholic authorties on whateover they speak about, all will be well, amen?

We are all mind-numbed robots, as opposed to Dawkins’ groupies?

Then why do I know more about crafting an argument than you do?

Such things are useless skills for mind-numbed robots, aren’t they?

What’s worse, amusing you with my ignorance, or the contradictions between Popes?

I’d say begging the question is worse. Why don’t you Google it?

 

[Dauphin]

A Judaizer could agree to that completely, and say “yeah, when we obey Torah, this is following Christ, because Christ IS Torah.”

If a Judaizer can agree to what you said, then you haven’t given the reason the Judaizers were wrong.

It’s not my intent to prove anyone wrong. In one sense, the Judaizers were correct to insist that nothing of the Law can be abandoned.

There is nothing deficient or inferior in Christ; He is the entire substance of the Law.

The “news” which Peter and his Jewish Christian brothers were startled by in Acts 10 and 11, was not Gentiles “adhering to Law”, but “Gentiles getting saved”.

The “news” that Peter’s Christian Jew-followers were amazed by, was specifically the notion that Gentiles could be SAVED. Please read Acts 11:18 again:

“repentence that leads to life” is obviously talking about SALVATION. Agreed?

This idea is presented as “news” to Peter’s followers in Acts 10 and 11, agreed?

No. You’ve got it completely wrong.

The issue is not one of salvation of gentiles per se, but of whether those who have not been integrated into the tribe of Israel through circumcision may be saved.

The amazed behavior of Peter’s followers is in reaction to the idea that an uncircumcized gentile may receive the Holy Spirit. At it’s core, this is a controvery about whether the prescripts of the Old Law must be applied to the gentiles. It is not a controvery about whether gentiles can be saved.

Is it clear now?

What would you think of a Mormon who said “some of our teachings don’t seem to square up with what the apostles wrote and said, however, the teaching is implicit in Christ’s own words, but was not define with any clarity until later…” ?

That sounds like a very stupid argument.

My argument, gladly, is entirely different. Everything scripture asserts “squares up” perfectly with the idea of Christ as logos. What the apostles wrote and said is perfectly in line with this doctrine.

Where is your historical evidence for “confession” in Paul’s first-century context?

“He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.” - John 20: 21-23

yeah, there’s a statement about God cleansing stuff that used to be unclean thar somewhar in Acts 10, but I seriously doubt this was referring to God viewing feces any differently than he did in Deuteronomy 23.

I don’t think that’s an argument.

Why do you doubt this? The uncleanliness of feces is something laid down in the old Ritual Law.

If you accept Peter’s own explanation of the vision where God said that, then what God made clean was the Gentiles.

If you look at the vision itself, it involved the cleanliness of animals. The cleanliness of the gentiles was inferred by Peter.

Absent any biblical proof from you on how Jesus can produce non-defiling feces, this natural function of his body continues to deny his full acceptance with the god of Deuteronomy 23.

That doesn’t make any sense. Feces itself is made “non-defiling” by the abrogation of the prescripts of the Old Law. I haven’t claimed that Jesus produced some new species of feces.

I’m sure you’ll simply blindly rely on tradition and insist that Jesus was entirely holy, even if you can’t figure out how.

I’ve explained very clearly how God has made clean what was unclean.

You haven’t yet determined whether Jesus’ feces would or wouldn’t be viewed by the Father as equally defiling as the feces of other normal humans.

I see. You’re not understanding what I’m saying.

I’m saying that feces itself has ceased to be defiling by virtue of the fact that God has made it clean, not that Christ’s bodily functions are any different.

It’s a very simple concept, really.

The “humility” aspect doesn’t help defend the incarnation against charges of inconsistency. For example, in the kenosis of Philippians 2:6, the very idea that the Old Testament “YHWH” would humble himself, is inconsistent with his non-humble character, and God’s character or attitude is not subject to change, Malachi 3:6

This is where the hypostatic union comes into play. Christ’s Divine nature is in no way diminished. It is in reference to His human nature that He has been humbled. This is in fact precisely what’s laid down in Philippians 2.

We seem to have strayed a bit from the topic.

 

[spirit5er]

Well, you’ll have to show me where I’ve explained “the atomic unknown” with God.

It’s called your Roman Catholic trust in Genesis 1:1. How often do atheists need to remind you of what you believe?

I will not play your immature “tit-for-tat” game. If you seriously think you can refute materialism, then accept my challenge to debate it formally or shut up about it.

In fact, I pointed out what is well known in basic physics—what appears to be solid is merely a field of electrical repulsion.

And we know human eyes cannot analyse material objects that closely, because of the scientific method.

In other words, an illusion of the senses. Catch up to Plato—it’s only been 2,500 years.

You have not given any demonstration that this “field of electrial repulsion” is different than the material object it constitutes.

So? Again, your “goddidit” explanation is not provable, while our “we don’t know everything about the nature of matter” is.

Move those goalposts.

Excuse me? Where did I ever claim that materialism has all the answers?

It is the materialist who claims everything reduces to materialism; despite the inconvenient and persistent fact that to the best knowledge of cosmologists everything was not only in fact created from nothing but is in large part made of nothing.

Unless you are ignorant of the vast amount of disagreement among cosmologists on what caused the universe or whether it needed a cause at all, your statement is a deliberate misrepresentation.

Grammar isn’t a strength for you either. When combined with muddled thought and your materialist religious fervor, it doesn’t make for an argument, much less a persuasive one.

this is “rebuttal”?

Oh sure, all I ever did here was assert blindly that James was a legalist.

Haven’t you wondered why every one of us has had to ask repeatedly what point you’re making?

No. since I have advanced the exact arguments of Baur that were sufficient to get other real Christian scholars to know what he meant and stimulate debate on his points, the only reason I could find for your constant failure to get the point, is that your ability to grasp the issues is less than scholarly.

Are you just a stupid protestant pretending to be a Catholic? Would a truly educated Catholic open that door to discussion of all the abuses of Judeo-Christian rights the Roman Catholic Church has committed?

Hey, at least you refrained from insults in respect for this place!

But I was the first person to suggest dispensing with them, not you.

As I mentioned earlier, I’ll trade you one Alexander VI for your choice of renowned atheists Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, Pol Pot, or Mao Tse-Tung.

Now, what exactly do you hope to prove by comparing the corruption of atheist institutions with the corruption of the Roman Catholic institution?

Sorry, but my car is both “my property” AND “collection of electrical charges”. Since it is obvious to any third-grader that ancient peoples all over the world lived in groups which agreed to property rights and other laws, your assertions about America’s property laws coming from Judeo-Christian concepts is neither unexpected nor compelling.

Sure—name those groups.

Property rights existed in the laws of Hammurabi, which is older than the conservative dates for Moses.

Or read some Hobbes and get educated.

Or read anything in a high school world history textbook.

So? “abstraction” doesn’t mean “could only come from god”.

Reading comprehension having now eluded you, perhaps you can show me where I’ve claimed that abstraction = “could only come from God”.

from that Roman Catholic faith that you presuppose in all your statements. This probably isn’t the first time atheists have had to remind you of what you believe.

Atheism is an abstraction which manifestly did NOT come from God.

atheism is lack of belief in god, or the belief that no god exists.

Ok, unless you are stupid, Roman Catholic authorities have stomped on biblical human rights and “confiscated” (i.e., STOLEN) many times. I really have to wonder whether you know enough to keep up in a debate like this. Why don’t you just say atheist dictators violate basic human rights, so I can have a real good laugh at the irony?

Ahh, so will you be defending Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao now?

No, my atheist world view doesn’t suddenly mean I agree with the actions of other atheists…sort of like the fact that you are Roman Catholic doesn’t suddenly mean you agree with some other Roman Catholic.

 

[spirit5er]

I see no reason why we should not consider atheist societies in evaluating whether it is religion or materialism which results in more manmade misery and horror.

If the biblical doctrine of God’s sovereignty be true, then atheist leaders who exterminate innocent people only do so because god wills it.

Furthermore, you could save yourself a lot of keystrokes by simply critiquing my viewpoint. I’m an atheist, and I see no inconsistency in being an atheist and disagreeing with the morality of atheist leaders who cause misery and horror. Have fun proving that such atheists are inconsistent.

You seem to not understand that vision is merely one of the senses.

You seem to assume it’s usefulness just as much as I do. Your point?

When I type on my keyboard, the keys feel and look solid. In reality, the material content is quite small compared to the empty space encompassed by the key. It is an illusion. I’ll type slower for you.

Yeah, electron fields keep the atoms from different objects from touching, so?

The case of Galileo having proved you left the college before class started.

I attended a service academy where attendance was mandatory for the full time.

Unfortunately, you know nothing of Galileo’s case. Read “Galileo’s Mistake” and learn something.

What, a Roman Catholic doesn’t simply cite the Pope’s apology for the great sins of his church, and acknowledge I won this point hands down? This will be the third time I’ve had to remind you that you are a Roman Catholic.

This will be the last time I bicker with you. I am willing to debate you formally (as opposed to bickering) online on any subject you wish that parts Roman Catholics from atheists.

 

[Dauphin]

What, a Roman Catholic doesn’t simply cite the Pope’s apology for the great sins of his church, and acknowledge I won this point hands down? This will be the third time I’ve had to remind you that you are a Roman Catholic.

That’s funny. You clearly haven’t read the Pope’s statement. It’s quite a bit milder and more measured than what you describe.

The current Pope himself has said that the Inquisition acted reasonably given Galileo’s behavior and the level of knowledge available at the time.

Just as the theory of evolution was at one time ridiculed by the scientific community, it has gained wide acceptance with the accumulation of empirical evidence.

 

[spirit5er]

It’s not my intent to prove anyone wrong. In one sense, the Judaizers were correct to insist that nothing of the Law can be abandoned.

No. You’ve got it completely wrong.

The issue is not one of salvation of gentiles per se, but of whether those who have not been integrated into the tribe of Israel through circumcision may be saved.

Yeah, because “gentiles” constitute those who are “uncircumcised”. So what?

The amazed behavior of Peter’s followers is in reaction to the idea that an uncircumcized gentile may receive the Holy Spirit.

First, that by itself would still prove my argument. If John 3:16 was a truth expressed by Jesus early in his career, then Peter would have no reason whatsoever to think only saved Jews could recieve the Holy Spirit.

Second, the conclusion that amazed Peter’s Jewish friends was “God has granted Gentiles repentence that leads to life.”

That is obviously a definition of salvation, not a definition of recieving the Holy Spirit. So their amazement at Gentile salvation is still present.

At it’s core, this is a controvery about whether the prescripts of the Old Law must be applied to the gentiles. It is not a controvery about whether gentiles can be saved.
Is it clear now?

Yes, you avoid the heat of “repentence that leads to life” by choosing to mention the more general “at it’s core”. Forget the “core” and just deal with the biblical data which are the basis for the “core” in the first place.

My argument, gladly, is entirely different. Everything scripture asserts “squares up” perfectly with the idea of Christ as logos. What the apostles wrote and said is perfectly in line with this doctrine.

Christ as Logos does not solve the obvious theological contradiction that Paul and James acknowledged existed between them.

Where is your historical evidence for “confession” in Paul’s first-century context?

“He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.” - John 20: 21-23

How does this “confession” support your theory that Paul confessed to committing specific sins after the Damascus road conversion?

Why do you doubt this? The uncleanliness of feces is something laid down in the old Ritual Law.

So? That ritual law also says God regards human feces as unholy and indecent. So unless you’ve got an argument that Christ’s flesh wasn’t truly human, you are stuck with his body producing something that offends God. The fact that God expressed his opinion in an “old ritual law” doesn’t mean he was just kidding.

If you accept Peter’s own explanation of the vision where God said that, then what God made clean was the Gentiles.

If you look at the vision itself, it involved the cleanliness of animals. The cleanliness of the gentiles was inferred by Peter.

Did your first pope infer here correctly, yes or no?

Absent any biblical proof from you on how Jesus can produce non-defiling feces, this natural function of his body continues to deny his full acceptance with the god of Deuteronomy 23.

That doesn’t make any sense. Feces itself is made “non-defiling” by the abrogation of the prescripts of the Old Law. I haven’t claimed that Jesus produced some new species of feces.

Jesus specifically denied abrogating the law, see Matthew 5:17. Yet you somehow come out at the other end of the cross with an abrogated law!

I’m saying that feces itself has ceased to be defiling by virtue of the fact that God has made it clean, not that Christ’s bodily functions are any different.

Where did God make it clean? Abrogation of the Law? Jesus denied doing that.

Quote:

The “humility” aspect doesn’t help defend the incarnation against charges of inconsistency. For example, in the kenosis of Philippians 2:6, the very idea that the Old Testament “YHWH” would humble himself, is inconsistent with his non-humble character, and God’s character or attitude is not subject to change, Malachi 3:6

This is where the hypostatic union comes into play. Christ’s Divine nature is in no way diminished…

Then what did he “empty himself” of, since before the kenosis, he was nothing BUT “divine nature”?

First, before the kenosis, God was nothing BUT divine nature. Philipians 2:6 says Christ humbled HIMSELF. God humbled HIMSELF. God doesn’t equal “flesh”. SO the humility in the kenosis starts with the divine nature TAKING human flesh, thus the choice to do so occured before he had flesh, and is what indicates humility, and places that humility back before the flesh, so it does indeed conflict with God’s non-humble unchanging character in the Old testament.

Philippians 2:5-7
5 Have this attitude

in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,
7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.

[/QUOTE]

 

[Teflon93]

It’s called your Roman Catholic trust in Genesis 1:1. How often do atheists need to remind you of what you believe?

You are astonishingly ignorant of what Catholics believe, which you seem to think is the same thing Fundamentalists believe regarding the interpretation of Genesis.

BTW, sounds a lot like the Big Bang, doesn’t it? Oh, how the materialists wish the cosmologists would have found evidence for the Big Crunch in the cosmic background radiation data!

I will not play your immature “tit-for-tat” game. If you seriously think you can refute materialism, then accept my challenge to debate it formally or shut up about it.

You don’t know how to debate formally. I’ll let others decide your maturity.

And we know human eyes cannot analyse material objects that closely, because of the scientific method.

LOL! Let’s see this one:

1. Human eyes cannot analyze material objects that closely.
2. [The scientific method involves formulating an hypothesis and accepting or rejecting it based upon repeated observation.]
3. Therefore, the scientific method caused us to realize human eyes cannot analyze material objects that closely.

What a shock that Plato understood this long before the scientific method was defined!

Don’t know much about history…

You have not given any demonstration that this “field of electrial repulsion” is different than the material object it constitutes.

You don’t need scare quotes. What lends to the sensation of solidity has been well understood for a good long while now. It is an illusion, the “material” object itself being comprised chiefly of empty vacuum. In other words, nothing.

Excuse me? Where did I ever claim that materialism has all the answers?

It depends on what you mean by “all the answers”. Not to mention what you mean by “materialism.”

It is common in argument to begin by defining one’s terms, although sometimes those who can’t argue defend themselves by refusing to do so.

Unless you are ignorant of the vast amount of disagreement among cosmologists on what caused the universe or whether it needed a cause at all, your statement is a deliberate misrepresentation.

Nice try, but what cosmologists largely agree upon today (thank you, cosmic background radiation) is that the Big Bang occurred.

No. since I have advanced the exact arguments of Baur that were sufficient to get other real Christian scholars to know what he meant and stimulate debate on his points, the only reason I could find for your constant failure to get the point, is that your ability to grasp the issues is less than scholarly.

Yes, I have no doubt that that is the “only reason you could find”, but I’m in good company because nobody else here seems to understand what your argument is either.

Occam’s Razor, I’d posit the simpler explanation is that you don’t understand that argument well enough to present it yourself. Alternate hypothesis: you don’t understand argumentation.

But I was the first person to suggest dispensing with them, not you.

Was there a prize?

Now, what exactly do you hope to prove by comparing the corruption of atheist institutions with the corruption of the Roman Catholic institution?

What do I prove? Why, that atheists can’t stand to have their own standards applied to their own historical record.

Put another way, name an atheist saint.

Property rights existed in the laws of Hammurabi, which is older than the conservative dates for Moses.

And you believe that the Catholic Church teaches that natural law began with Moses?

Or read anything in a high school world history textbook.

Oh, heavens no! I have a history DEGREE, my friend—do you know how many errors there are in the major high school history textbooks?

from that Roman Catholic faith that you presuppose in all your statements. This probably isn’t the first time atheists have had to remind you of what you believe.

Yes, thank God you’re here!

atheism is lack of belief in god, or the belief that no god exists.

Well, which is it?

It is an abstraction, as all “isms” are, having no reality outside of the mind. But good job not admitting I’d proved your prior argument wrong. I do not believe all abstractions come from God.

1. Atheism is an abstraction.
2. Atheism does not come from God.
3. Therefore, not all abstractions come from God.

Getting the hang of it?

No, my atheist world view doesn’t suddenly mean I agree with the actions of other atheists…sort of like the fact that you are Roman Catholic doesn’t suddenly mean you agree with some other Roman Catholic.

Well, you’re making progress there.

You should stop making such comparisons given the monstrosity atheist regimes proved to be in the 20th century, right?

 

[Teflon93]

If the biblical doctrine of God’s sovereignty be true, then atheist leaders who exterminate innocent people only do so because god wills it.

Funny, but that’s not the Catholic Church’s teaching on theodicy.

You should read the Catechism.

Furthermore, you could save yourself a lot of keystrokes by simply critiquing my viewpoint. I’m an atheist, and I see no inconsistency in being an atheist and disagreeing with the morality of atheist leaders who cause misery and horror. Have fun proving that such atheists are inconsistent.

How is mass murder inconsistent with atheist belief?

What are atheist beliefs?

Here is my argument:

1. Atheists do not believe in God, nor any supernatural power.
2. God forbids murder.
3. God promises the punishment of eternal damnation for murderers.
4. Therefore, atheists lack a major impediment to committing murder.

You seem to assume it’s usefulness just as much as I do. Your point?

Yeah, electron fields keep the atoms from different objects from touching, so?

My point is the same as always: the material world is an illusion of the senses. The universe consists primarily (indeed, almost exlusively) of NOTHING. Empty space.

Put another way, the volume of the universe consists overwhelmingly of vacuum.

“Dust we are, and dust we shall be”.

What, a Roman Catholic doesn’t simply cite the Pope’s apology for the great sins of his church, and acknowledge I won this point hands down? This will be the third time I’ve had to remind you that you are a Roman Catholic.

I’m a Catholic, not a Roman Catholic.

You seem to award yourself points at will. Why not give yourself a million?

I can then award myself a million and one and declare victory.

But a Pope acknowledging sin is certainly not a shock to anyone the least conversant with religion.

When will atheists acknowledge sin, and on what basis?

Pol Pot doesn’t bug you overmuch.

This will be the last time I bicker with you. I am willing to debate you formally (as opposed to bickering) online on any subject you wish that parts Roman Catholics from atheists.

Better learn how to argue first, then.

May I suggest this excellent course? It’s college level, so if you’ve been away from college too long it’ll help shake off that rust:

teach12.com/ttcx/CourseDescLong2.aspx?cid=4294

There—another good deed!

 

[Dauphin]

Then in what sense were the Judaizers wrong? Nothing they said contradicted Jesus.

They were wrong in presuming that adherence to the Law was only possible in adherence to the minute prescripts of the Mosaic Covenant.

In reality, adherence to the Law was to be found in Christ’s own person.

Yeah, because “gentiles” constitute those who are “uncircumcised”. So what?

Precisely. It was believed that only those who were circumcised could be saved. This is a matter of adherence to the Ritual Law, not of the theoretical possibility of salvation for the gentiles. This is the key to understanding the harmony of the gospels in this regard.

First, that by itself would still prove my argument. If John 3:16 was a truth expressed by Jesus early in his career, then Peter would have no reason whatsoever to think only saved Jews could recieve the Holy Spirit.

His mistake may have been in assuming that Christ’s teaching was an addition to the Law - that gentiles would have to conform to the prescripts of the Law in order to be integrated into Israel.

Second, the conclusion that amazed Peter’s Jewish friends was “God has granted Gentiles repentence that leads to life.”

Their amazement consists in the idea that an uncircumcised gentile could receive eternal life.

You have to understand the historical context. At this point, the focus of the Apostles was on the conversion of Israel; the issue of how precisely to convert the gentiles had not been at the fore. Clearly, these early Christians assumed that the salvation of the gentiles could only be done through Israel.

That is, only by adherence to the Mosaic Law could the gentiles be saved.

The idea of gentile salvation, however, was never in question.

Christ as Logos does not solve the obvious theological contradiction that Paul and James acknowledged existed between them.

The contradiction existed in the mode whereby the salvation of the gentiles was to be achieved. It was not the idea that gentile salvation was possible.

How does this “confession” support your theory that Paul confessed to committing specific sins after the Damascus road conversion?

It’s conjecture, really. We don’t have any sources detailing it.

So? That ritual law also says God regards human feces as unholy and indecent. So unless you’ve got an argument that Christ’s flesh wasn’t truly human, you are stuck with his body producing something that offends God. The fact that God expressed his opinion in an “old ritual law” doesn’t mean he was just kidding.

You’re not understanding my point.

In Christ, God made clean what was unclean. The ritual law no longer applies.

Did your first pope infer here correctly, yes or no?

Yes, but the vision also had a much broader scope.

Jesus specifically denied abrogating the law, see Matthew 5:17. Yet you somehow come out at the other end of the cross with an abrogated law!

Yikes! No!

I thought we had made progress! Nothing of the Law is abrogated - its entire substance is fulfilled in Christ’s own person.

It is the prescripts of the Law which are abrogated.

Where did God make it clean? Abrogation of the Law? Jesus denied doing that.

Yes, because He* is* the Law. How can He abrogate Himself? It is the prescripts of the Law which were abrogated.

Then what did he “empty himself” of, since before the kenosis, he was nothing BUT “divine nature”?

The person of Christ came into existence at the incarnation. Before this, there was only the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity. This person had no human nature.

The “humbling of himself” is to be interpreted as a condescension to take on human nature, not as a loss of some part of His Divinity.