|
Post by eternal on Apr 7, 2006 17:32:24 GMT -5
3) Was Martin Luther Anti-Semitic? Racist?Thats not even to be entertained, of course not. That is a misinterpretation of His works by misquotes of not taking his assertions in context. I beg to differ. My reading of Martin Luther has been very antisemetic, and flamed much more as a result of his writting. Could you provide one quote? Just one? I have plenty of him dismissing Revelation in an even more concerning way than the book of James. In fact he said there was not a trace of the Holy Ghost in it. He said similar things for other books. He said he was such an enemy to the book of Esther, that he wished it did not exist, and was to him like 2nd Esdras. And that Jude and Hebrews should not be in the bible, because they were not "God's Word. Could you demonstrate where he ever changed his mind on this? peace.
|
|
|
Post by gertzadik on Apr 12, 2006 10:36:44 GMT -5
Thank you for answering ...
To make it easier, I will split this into 2 sections. 1) Catholicism & Constantine and 2) Martin Luther.
1) Catholicism & Constatine ...
I dont believe you can take Catholicism any earlier than Constantine. You stated that Catholicism was the "true church" before pagan influence. There are major problems with that.
What does Universalism mean? The same thing it does today. What do Universalist Churches believe? It is Universal because all things can be tied into it. Pagan dieties can put on a new name and "reform" into "christianity." We see a pattern here ...
Can you honestly deny that Sun Worship was incorperated into Catholicism? In 321 Constantine switched the Sabbath to Sun-day. Coincidence?
You stated that Constantine never had a relgion. I would do some research on his relationship with Sun Worship. He converted to Catholicism because his father "prospered" while heathens did not ...
"My father revered the Christian God, and uniformly prospered. while the emperors who worshiped the heathen gods, died a miserable death; therefore, that I may enjoy a happy life and reign I will imitate the example of my father, and join myself to the cause of the Christians, who are growing daily, while the heathen are diminishing."
Also, he had refered to "jesus" as the god of war. How do you think the cross became such a universal signal? Because his soldiers bore this sign. Because his was victorious he would have busts of him and jesus in the same way. He called for worship of himself many times.
But enough about Constantine and his Universalism. We could go on & on, but I will stop there. Let me know if you want more examples and citations ...
As for the Council of Nicea--
Why in the 1st Centruy did we have hundreds of thousands of Hebrews accepting Y'shua as Messiah, yet not one member of this counsil was Hebrew? In 300 AD there were plenty of Messianic Hebrews who called themselves N'tzatim.
The N'tzarim and Universalists were at odds, yet the N'tzarim were a group found in Scripture (Acts 24:5 translated the Word "nazarenes"). Most "church fathers" condemned thsi group as heretics giving them severe persecution ...
"More Christians were killed (by other Christians!) in the first century after the Council of Nicea than had been killed by pagans in the century before Nicea."
This set a precedent for Martin Luhter, which we'll get into later ...
There is no way Constantine of his counsil could be lead by the Holy Spirit of Yah. It banned the practice of Sabbath and any Hebrew Festival. Check some more on the character of Constanine & the fruit of this counsil ...
"Constantine, only one year after convening the Council of Nicea, had his own son (Crispus) put to death. Later he suffocated Fausta (his wife) in an overheated bath. Then he had his sister's son flogged to death and her husband strangled. (1) It was also during the reign of Constantine that the cross became a sacred symbol in Christianity, just as it had been in pagan religions.(2) Throughout his reign, Constantine treated the bishops as political aides. He agreed to enforce whatever opinion the majority of the bishops formulated."
I will stop right here due to the length. A little bit later I will comment on Martin Luther, aight?
shalom aleychem
|
|
|
Post by DoGMaTiX on Apr 12, 2006 12:39:44 GMT -5
Thank you for answering ... To make it easier, I will split this into 2 sections. 1) Catholicism & Constantine and 2) Martin Luther. 1) Catholicism & Constatine ... I dont believe you can take Catholicism any earlier than Constantine. You stated that Catholicism was the "true church" before pagan influence. There are major problems with that. What does Universalism mean? The same thing it does today. What do Universalist Churches believe? It is Universal because all things can be tied into it. Pagan dieties can put on a new name and "reform" into "christianity." We see a pattern here ... Can you honestly deny that Sun Worship was incorperated into Catholicism? In 321 Constantine switched the Sabbath to Sun-day. Coincidence? You stated that Constantine never had a relgion. I would do some research on his relationship with Sun Worship. He converted to Catholicism because his father "prospered" while heathens did not ... "My father revered the Christian God, and uniformly prospered. while the emperors who worshiped the heathen gods, died a miserable death; therefore, that I may enjoy a happy life and reign I will imitate the example of my father, and join myself to the cause of the Christians, who are growing daily, while the heathen are diminishing."Also, he had refered to "jesus" as the god of war. How do you think the cross became such a universal signal? Because his soldiers bore this sign. Because his was victorious he would have busts of him and jesus in the same way. He called for worship of himself many times. But enough about Constantine and his Universalism. We could go on & on, but I will stop there. Let me know if you want more examples and citations ... As for the Council of Nicea-- Why in the 1st Centruy did we have hundreds of thousands of Hebrews accepting Y'shua as Messiah, yet not one member of this counsil was Hebrew? In 300 AD there were plenty of Messianic Hebrews who called themselves N'tzatim. The N'tzarim and Universalists were at odds, yet the N'tzarim were a group found in Scripture (Acts 24:5 translated the Word "nazarenes"). Most "church fathers" condemned thsi group as heretics giving them severe persecution ... "More Christians were killed (by other Christians!) in the first century after the Council of Nicea than had been killed by pagans in the century before Nicea."This set a precedent for Martin Luhter, which we'll get into later ... There is no way Constantine of his counsil could be lead by the Holy Spirit of Yah. It banned the practice of Sabbath and any Hebrew Festival. Check some more on the character of Constanine & the fruit of this counsil ... "Constantine, only one year after convening the Council of Nicea, had his own son (Crispus) put to death. Later he suffocated Fausta (his wife) in an overheated bath. Then he had his sister's son flogged to death and her husband strangled. (1) It was also during the reign of Constantine that the cross became a sacred symbol in Christianity, just as it had been in pagan religions.(2) Throughout his reign, Constantine treated the bishops as political aides. He agreed to enforce whatever opinion the majority of the bishops formulated."I will stop right here due to the length. A little bit later I will comment on Martin Luther, aight? shalom aleychem Whattup I appreciate your response but you have to produce proof of your claims, your just stating things without evidence.
|
|
|
Post by king neb on Apr 12, 2006 14:42:30 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by eternal on Apr 12, 2006 15:26:32 GMT -5
Yeah I have read that before. It's not very good.
|
|
|
Post by DoGMaTiX on Apr 12, 2006 16:09:12 GMT -5
Yeah I have read that before. It's not very good. of course
|
|
|
Post by DoGMaTiX on Apr 12, 2006 16:10:03 GMT -5
thanx neb
|
|
|
Post by eternal on Apr 12, 2006 16:48:56 GMT -5
Yeah I have read that before. It's not very good. of course What does that mean? Have you read it? I think it tackles a lot of strawmen, and misconstrues points quite often. As I said, I have read it...have you? But please tell me what you mean by, "of course "
|
|
|
Post by DoGMaTiX on Apr 13, 2006 9:13:20 GMT -5
of course What does that mean? Have you read it? I think it tackles a lot of strawmen, and misconstrues points quite often. As I said, I have read it...have you? But please tell me what you mean by, "of course " naw man, what do you mean? mere assertions. point out the strawmen with proof and the miscontrues. seems to me that you just don't like Luther and will not accept any reasonable defenses of him, but whatever we know the truth like it or not
|
|
|
Post by eternal on Apr 13, 2006 10:20:36 GMT -5
What does that mean? Have you read it? I think it tackles a lot of strawmen, and misconstrues points quite often. As I said, I have read it...have you? But please tell me what you mean by, "of course " naw man, what do you mean? mere assertions. point out the strawmen with proof and the miscontrues. seems to me that you just don't like Luther and will not accept any reasonable defenses of him, but whatever we know the truth like it or not Actually I like Martin Luther a whole lot. Whatever gave you the impression that I don't? That I refuse to cover up his errors and rough spots? I am not a cronie. I don't feel the need to deify every person I enjoy reading or admire. I feel free within myself to disagree with folks from time to time without the obligation of covering or excusing away their rough spots. I doubt you have even read the piece. But on HHZ I spent a lot of time going through that and showing what was true. It is very long. And I don't want to do it again. He edited some of his prefaces, but it did not eliminate 1) a still harsh tone 2) that he said even harsher in the first place. I don't even have a problem with that. It's only our super dogmatic world of fundamentalism that rejects what theologians have been doing for over a 1000 years before hand. Martin Luther was no different than all the church folk before him who disputed over the cannon and the worthiness of each book. Also the article deals with "problems" that I have never even heard people use. Lastly Luther was very antisemetic, Jew this, Jew that and its just something that we got to deal with. Jonathan Edwards bought and sold slaves, and justified it. John Wesley was so involved in the church that he did not manage his own household very well. Good people do rotten things. It's ok to admit that.
|
|
|
Post by DoGMaTiX on Apr 13, 2006 10:49:33 GMT -5
naw man, what do you mean? mere assertions. point out the strawmen with proof and the miscontrues. seems to me that you just don't like Luther and will not accept any reasonable defenses of him, but whatever we know the truth like it or not Actually I like Martin Luther a whole lot. Whatever gave you the impression that I don't? That I refuse to cover up his errors and rough spots? I am not a cronie. I don't feel the need to deify every person I enjoy reading or admire. I feel free within myself to disagree with folks from time to time without the obligation of covering or excusing away their rough spots. I doubt you have even read the piece. But on HHZ I spent a lot of time going through that and showing what was true. It is very long. And I don't want to do it again. He edited some of his prefaces, but it did not eliminate 1) a still harsh tone 2) that he said even harsher in the first place. I don't even have a problem with that. It's only our super dogmatic world of fundamentalism that rejects what theologians have been doing for over a 1000 years before hand. Martin Luther was no different than all the church folk before him who disputed over the cannon and the worthiness of each book. Also the article deals with "problems" that I have never even heard people use. Lastly Luther was very antisemetic, Jew this, Jew that and its just something that we got to deal with. Jonathan Edwards bought and sold slaves, and justified it. John Wesley was so involved in the church that he did not manage his own household very well. Good people do rotten things. It's ok to admit that. ok
|
|
|
Post by eternal on Apr 14, 2006 12:26:58 GMT -5
Have you at least read the article? Or is it just existing good enough for you?
I got the impression you wanted me to refute an article you hadn't even read.
|
|
|
Post by gertzadik on Apr 14, 2006 13:34:04 GMT -5
DOG--
Lets stick w/ the subject @ hand here. What specifically needs to be cited?
The fact that Catholicism means Universalism?
You stated yourself there was pagan influences. Do you have a problem that I dated pagan influence in 321 AD?
The fact that Catholicism from day 1 has been a Universalist Church?
Sun Worship, Sun-day ... Do I really need to cite this? Why else was Sun-day the new Sabbath?
The facts of Constantine's Character? Sun Worship, Pagan Influence, turning to Universalism ... ?
Well, if you would like them I will need more time. But, in the mean time I can hit you off with some quotes from credible sources that I know from the top of my head. These will cover most of what I said ...
Before Constantine went into battle he considered what power to honor and rely on for protection. He contemplated weather to choose multiple deities or to fight in the name of the single, God Almighty. In this account, the leader chose to pursue God and prayed for his assistance. At broad daylight he claimed to witness a magnificent and radiant figure of a cross above the sun. Above the sign was the inscription In hoc signo vinces "by this sign conquer". The next morning he had his army paint their shields and carry this "sign" that he had seen early into battle. He was confident that Christ would deliver him. This sign was made using the Greek letters chi "X" and rho "P" as an abbreviation for Christos, meaning Christ. In 312, Constantine met his opponent in battle at Red Rocks, nine miles north of Rome, surrounded by large hills and the Tiber River. Constantine's force sent Maxentius and his army fleeing to the single Milvian Bridge across the Tiber River where Maxentius drowned. (Eusebius)
Concerning Sun Worship ...
Constantine's law of…321 [C.E] uniting Christians and pagans in the observance of the "venerable day of the sun" It is to be noted that this official solar worship, the final form of paganism in the empire…, was not the traditional Roman-Greek religion of Jupiter, Apollo, Venus, and the other Olympian deities. It was a product of the mingling Hellenistic-Oriental elements, exemplified in Aurelian's establishment of Eastern Sun worship at Rome as the official religion of the empire, and in his new temple enshrining Syrian statutes statues of Bel and the sun…. Thus at last Bel, the god of Babylon, came into the official imperial temple of Rome, the center of the imperial religion. It was this late Roman-Oriental worship of one supreme god, symbolized by the sun and absorbing lesser divinities as subordinates or manifestations of the universal deity, that competed with young Christianity. This was the Roman religion that went down in defeat but infiltrated and colored the victorious church with its own elements, some of which can be seen to this day. ( Frederick H. Cramer, Astrology in Roman Law and Politics)
Why do pictures of Jesus have a light circle around his head ... or a halo ... because it is Sun Worship. They meet on Sun-day ... have Sungod references in paintings ... its really not that hard to make a connection.
I will have more soon when I have more time, but in what I listed here-- Is it really that hard to make a connection? Is all this "Sun" references just a coincidence? And remember, this is one of many many examples ...
I would be more specific in what needs to be cited. We can do this though, aight ?
peace
|
|
|
Post by DoGMaTiX on Apr 14, 2006 13:59:43 GMT -5
Have you at least read the article? Or is it just existing good enough for you? I got the impression you wanted me to refute an article you hadn't even read. What in da world are you bumpin da gumz on man? Who said I didn't read it? so according to you, if I have read it I will agree with you or something? what is your point dog? sheeesh
|
|
|
Post by DoGMaTiX on Apr 14, 2006 14:04:12 GMT -5
DOG-- Lets stick w/ the subject @ hand here. What specifically needs to be cited? The fact that Catholicism means Universalism?You stated yourself there was pagan influences. Do you have a problem that I dated pagan influence in 321 AD? The fact that Catholicism from day 1 has been a Universalist Church?Sun Worship, Sun-day ... Do I really need to cite this? Why else was Sun-day the new Sabbath? The facts of Constantine's Character? Sun Worship, Pagan Influence, turning to Universalism ... ?Well, if you would like them I will need more time. But, in the mean time I can hit you off with some quotes from credible sources that I know from the top of my head. These will cover most of what I said ... B efore Constantine went into battle he considered what power to honor and rely on for protection. He contemplated weather to choose multiple deities or to fight in the name of the single, God Almighty. In this account, the leader chose to pursue God and prayed for his assistance. At broad daylight he claimed to witness a magnificent and radiant figure of a cross above the sun. Above the sign was the inscription In hoc signo vinces "by this sign conquer". The next morning he had his army paint their shields and carry this "sign" that he had seen early into battle. He was confident that Christ would deliver him. This sign was made using the Greek letters chi "X" and rho "P" as an abbreviation for Christos, meaning Christ. In 312, Constantine met his opponent in battle at Red Rocks, nine miles north of Rome, surrounded by large hills and the Tiber River. Constantine's force sent Maxentius and his army fleeing to the single Milvian Bridge across the Tiber River where Maxentius drowned. (Eusebius)Concerning Sun Worship ...Constantine's law of…321 [C.E] uniting Christians and pagans in the observance of the "venerable day of the sun" It is to be noted that this official solar worship, the final form of paganism in the empire…, was not the traditional Roman-Greek religion of Jupiter, Apollo, Venus, and the other Olympian deities. It was a product of the mingling Hellenistic-Oriental elements, exemplified in Aurelian's establishment of Eastern Sun worship at Rome as the official religion of the empire, and in his new temple enshrining Syrian statutes statues of Bel and the sun…. Thus at last Bel, the god of Babylon, came into the official imperial temple of Rome, the center of the imperial religion. It was this late Roman-Oriental worship of one supreme god, symbolized by the sun and absorbing lesser divinities as subordinates or manifestations of the universal deity, that competed with young Christianity. This was the Roman religion that went down in defeat but infiltrated and colored the victorious church with its own elements, some of which can be seen to this day. ( Frederick H. Cramer, Astrology in Roman Law and Politics)Why do pictures of Jesus have a light circle around his head ... or a halo ... because it is Sun Worship. They meet on Sun-day ... have Sungod references in paintings ... its really not that hard to make a connection. I will have more soon when I have more time, but in what I listed here-- Is it really that hard to make a connection? Is all this "Sun" references just a coincidence? And remember, this is one of many many examples ... I would be more specific in what needs to be cited. We can do this though, aight ? peace LOL, so this is about the sabbath. Who cares what day we worship, I am in Christ and in the sabbath rest everyday. com'on bro thats basic bible doctrine. I am not wasting my time with the whole Constantine strawman, do some more historical studies ;D
|
|
|
Post by eternal on Apr 14, 2006 14:09:04 GMT -5
Have you at least read the article? Or is it just existing good enough for you? I got the impression you wanted me to refute an article you hadn't even read. What in da world are you bumpin da gumz on man? Who said I didn't read it? so according to you, if I have read it I will agree with you or something? what is your point dog? sheeesh Had you read the article when you was telling me I only disagreed with it since I "just don't like Luther and will not accept any reasonable defenses of him, but whatever we know the truth like it or not ?"Well, had you? Or were you just "bumpin da gumz?" The way it looks to me, is that you got excited that someone had an article deffending him, and then was "bumpin da gumz" on me to prove it wrong, without you even having read it yet. If that is the case, why would all the effort be on me, and none on you? That is the way it seems on these kinds of boards. When people debate HHH, they require him to type millions of pages, and offer nothing but one liner zingers. Same with Neb. Often times with me as well. I'd rather not run in that circle with you. So I was asking you if that was the case. Would I be continuing that trend again? Of arguing against an article you had not even read yet? You may have read it since then, I don't know. I just want to know if you had read it at the time you were "bumpin da gumz?" And shoot, have you even read it since then? Or you still "bumpin da gumz?"
|
|
|
Post by DoGMaTiX on Apr 14, 2006 15:09:38 GMT -5
What in da world are you bumpin da gumz on man? Who said I didn't read it? so according to you, if I have read it I will agree with you or something? what is your point dog? sheeesh Had you read the article when you was telling me I only disagreed with it since I "just don't like Luther and will not accept any reasonable defenses of him, but whatever we know the truth like it or not ?"Well, had you? Or were you just "bumpin da gumz?" The way it looks to me, is that you got excited that someone had an article deffending him, and then was "bumpin da gumz" on me to prove it wrong, without you even having read it yet. If that is the case, why would all the effort be on me, and none on you? That is the way it seems on these kinds of boards. When people debate HHH, they require him to type millions of pages, and offer nothing but one liner zingers. Same with Neb. Often times with me as well. I'd rather not run in that circle with you. So I was asking you if that was the case. Would I be continuing that trend again? Of arguing against an article you had not even read yet? You may have read it since then, I don't know. I just want to know if you had read it at the time you were "bumpin da gumz?" And shoot, have you even read it since then? Or you still "bumpin da gumz?" wow your are very speculative, yes I beeeeen read it but forgot about it being it was like yrs ago, let it go bro stop bumpin da gumz ;D I disagree with you but its not the end of the age lol
|
|
|
Post by eternal on Apr 14, 2006 15:17:02 GMT -5
Huh, Ok. When you said, Yeah I have read that before. It's not very good. of course and What does that mean? Have you read it? I think it tackles a lot of strawmen, and misconstrues points quite often. As I said, I have read it...have you? But please tell me what you mean by, "of course " naw man, what do you mean? mere assertions. point out the strawmen with proof and the miscontrues. seems to me that you just don't like Luther and will not accept any reasonable defenses of him, but whatever we know the truth like it or not Looked to me you was taking shots, and being "very speculative." Ya feel me? You can disagree with me all you want, I just don't like some of the side comments that you come with. PS, the article was written in August of 2004. That was hardly "like yrs ago." It wasn't even two. You must have meant "months ago." (now I'm just being a jerk ;D stay strong!) peace.
|
|
|
Post by DoGMaTiX on Apr 14, 2006 15:30:55 GMT -5
Huh, Ok. When you said, of course and naw man, what do you mean? mere assertions. point out the strawmen with proof and the miscontrues. seems to me that you just don't like Luther and will not accept any reasonable defenses of him, but whatever we know the truth like it or not Looked to me you was taking shots, and being "very speculative." Ya feel me? You can disagree with me all you want, I just don't like some of the side comments that you come with. PS, the article was written in August of 2004. That was hardly "like yrs ago." It wasn't even two. You must have meant "months ago." (now I'm just being a jerk ;D stay strong!) peace. grace and peace
|
|
|
Post by eternal on Apr 14, 2006 15:33:15 GMT -5
Huh, Ok. When you said, and Looked to me you was taking shots, and being "very speculative." Ya feel me? You can disagree with me all you want, I just don't like some of the side comments that you come with. PS, the article was written in August of 2004. That was hardly "like yrs ago." It wasn't even two. You must have meant "months ago." (now I'm just being a jerk ;D stay strong!) peace. grace and peace May God be with you.
|
|