|
Post by Dave on May 10, 2022 8:21:48 GMT -5
D"NOT WHAT I ASKED OF YOU R" Oh I am sorry but you did list a huge pile of videos, what was I supposed to watch? How about placing one video at a time and let's discuss that. One you are happy to support.
Always your first step – avoid – deny – make an excuse
Correction – I asked you to watch 2 – weeks ago One at a time Your failure to participate is unwelcome
You will discuss what real Jewish theology was like before Christ Because I tire of you misrepresenting Judaism as something in error Yet – you have no idea what it is you speak against – YOU CHOSE IGNMORANCE – go for it Believe your lies – lies always leads to revelation (and just so you don’t misunderstand – I am being both facetious and sarcastic)
I will go first. youtu.be/enk9sU5WLY0 I suggest you watch this
Always your first step – avoid – deny – make an excuse Then you attempt to change the subject
I will ask why you are so afraid to learn that Ezk 28 has nothing to do with Jewish demonology? But you won’t answer
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2022 5:35:08 GMT -5
Greetings Sorry for placing this here on this thread, For year or so you asked me for proof people understood Ezek 28 and Satan, NOT influenced by Catholic Edit. I gave you 2 sources (1) ancient Chinese (2) Waldensians who wrote before 300 AD. Now I present the works of Theophilus, Ad Autolycum 2(17), AD c. 180. He wrote this at least 200 years before Catholics got strong enough to influence anybody. I was reading Creation magazine issue 3 of 36, 2014, and found this statement TITLE: 2nd Century Church Fathers: God will make lions vegetarian againby Benno Zuiddam I quote" The church father Theophilus of Antioch had similar views on the subject of animal suffering and the ultimate restoration of all things in a perfect state. From ancient sources we know that he became Bishop of Antioch (Syria) in the eighth year of the reign of Marcus Aurelius (c. AD 168). He states that nothing was created evil or venomous by God:
“ And the animals are named wild beasts, from their being hunted, not as if they had been made evil or venomous from the first—for nothing was made evil by God, but all things good, yea, very good,—but the sin in which man was concerned brought evil upon them …. When, therefore, man again shall have made his way back to his natural condition, and no longer does evil, those also shall be restored to their original gentleness.”2 2. Theophilus, Ad Autolycum 2(17), AD c. 180. Ante Nicene Fathers, volume 2, Fathers of the Second Century: Hermas, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, and Clement of Alexandria. Online: ccel.org. For Theophilus, wild beasts were a consequence of mankind’s fall into sin. Indeed, the Greek word for beast (θηρία/thēria) is derived from “being hunted”. He takes care to explicitly state that animals were not created violent or even venomous. The church father specifically uses a Greek word (κακὰ/kaka) that can be translated as ‘bad’ or ‘evil’. It was the sin of man that brought this evil on the animal world and caused their nature to become bad. Theophilus also believed that with the redemption of man in the fullness of time, the evil consequences of the Fall for the animal world will be undone as well.
Because the early Christians believed God’s message about Paradise and a good creation, they trusted him for the future of this world, for humans and animals alike. Their expectations of God’s coming kingdom may inspire Christians today to trust that God really is good. He will ultimately do justice to all His creatures.I checked to source document ccel.org/ccel/theophilus/autolycus_ii/anf02.iv.ii.ii.xvii.htmlI quote" And on the sixth day, God having made the quadrupeds, and wild beasts, and the land reptiles, pronounced no blessing upon them, reserving His blessing for man, whom He was about to create on the sixth day. The quadrupeds, too, and wild beasts, were made for a type of some men, who neither know nor worship God, but mind earthly things, and repent not. For those who turn from their iniquities and live righteously, in spirit fly upwards like birds, and mind the things that are above, and are well-pleasing to the will of God. But those who do not know nor worship God, are like birds which have wings, but cannot fly nor soar to the high things of God. Thus, too, though such persons are called men, yet being pressed down with sins, they mind grovelling and earthly things. And the animals are named wild beasts [θηρία], from their being hunted [θηρεύεσθαι], not as if they had been made evil or venomous from the first—for nothing was made evil by God, 587 --------------------------------- 587 [Note the solid truth that God is not the author of evil, and the probable suggestion that all nature sympathized with man’s transgression. Rom. viii. 22.] --------------------------------- but all things good, yea, very good,—but the sin in which man was concerned brought evil upon them. For when man transgressed, they also transgressed with him. For as, if the master of the house himself acts rightly, the domestics also of necessity conduct themselves well; but if the master sins, the servants also sin with him; so in like manner it came to pass, that in the case of man’s sin, he being master, all that was subject to him sinned with him. When, therefore, man again shall have made his way back to his natural condition, and no longer does evil, those also shall be restored to their original gentleness. I also quote regarding the soul of man ccel.org/ccel/theophilus/autolycus_ii/anf02.iv.ii.ii.xxiv.htmlFor man had been made a middle nature, neither wholly mortal, nor altogether immortal, but capable of either; so also the place, Paradise, was made in respect of beauty intermediate between earth and heaven. ccel.org/ccel/theophilus/autolycus_ii/anf02.iv.ii.ii.xxvii.htmlBut some one will say to us, Was man made by nature mortal? Certainly not. Was he, then, immortal? Neither do we affirm this. But one will say, Was he, then, nothing? Not even this hits the mark. He was by nature neither mortal nor immortal. For if He had made him immortal from the beginning, He would have made him God. Again, if He had made him mortal, God would seem to be the cause of his death. Neither, then, immortal nor yet mortal did He make him, but, as we have said above, capable of both; so that if he should incline to the things of immortality, keeping the commandment of God, he should receive as reward from Him immortality, and should become God; but if, on the other hand, he should turn to the things of death, disobeying God, he should himself be the cause of death to himself. ccel.org/ccel/theophilus/autolycus_ii/anf02.iv.ii.ii.xxviii.htmlThis Eve, on account of her having been in the beginning deceived by the serpent, and become the author of sin, the wicked demon, who also is called Satan, who then spoke to her through the serpent, and who works even to this day in those men that are possessed by him, invokes as Eve.606 And he is called “demon” and “dragon,” on account of his [ἀποδεδρακέναι] revolting from God. For at first he was an angel. And concerning his history there is a great deal to be said; wherefore I at present omit the relation of it, for I have also given an account of him in another place.I rest my case Dave. This was written around 186 AD, long before the Catholics influence took hold. I also note they understood Satan, as opposing God I also note they had a correct understanding of the soul of humans. Shalom
|
|
|
Post by Dave on May 11, 2022 6:24:00 GMT -5
For year or so you asked me for proof people understood Ezek 28 and Satan, NOT influenced by Catholic Edit.
I gave you 2 sources (1) ancient Chinese Yes – the ancient Chinese recorded Jewish scripture The serpent was in the Garden – no one denies this (2) Waldensians who wrote before 300 AD. Latin Vulgate written by St Jerome 104AD – 100% Catholic!
Now I present the works of Theophilus, Ad Autolycum 2(17), AD c. 180. He wrote this at least 200 years before Catholics got strong enough to influence anybody. He is a founding father of the Catholic Church He is famous for writing against heresy – specifically Marcionism.
I rest my case Dave. This was written around 186 AD, long before the Catholics influence took hold. Iranians began the Roman Index in 180 AD
I also note they understood Satan, as opposing God And they are all fathers of the Catholic Church
You sure believe in your satan god – all you do is defend is right to have authority Fallen Angels is not Jewish theology – does not matter how much you deny it Fallen Angels is not Jewish theology – it is a Catholic invention
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2022 16:15:15 GMT -5
D"Iranians began the Roman Index in 180 AD R" That's it, that is your discussion from my discussion.
I spent hours reading proof source documents and you claim that the Iranians began the Roman Index in 180 AD, source of your proof please?
And what has this got to do with the faithfulness of Theophilus, Ad Autolycum 2(17), AD c. 180. Ante Nicene Fathers?
Like saying my faith comes from Jeff Benner because I support SOME of his ideas or like saying my faith comes from the Catholics because they lived before me?
Who wrote the Bible ? Jewish inspired prophets did, Moses did first, in Ancient Hebrew I might add, not the modern Hebrew we assume to understand and its grammar, but a language that is now dead. So we can make assumptions of the modern Hebrew to the ancient Hebrew.
So where is your proof? Evidence please, original source documents too
Shalom
|
|
|
Post by Dave on May 12, 2022 0:02:41 GMT -5
I spent hours reading proof source documents and you claim that the Iranians began the Roman Index in 180 AD, source of your proof please?It is common knowledge – to all students of church history(wiki) Against Heresies, sometimes referred to by its Latin title Adversus Haereses, is a work of Christian theology written in Greek about the year 180 by Irenaeus, the bishop of Lugdunum And what has this got to do with the faithfulness of Theophilus, Ad AutolycumIt is common knowledge – to all students of church history Theophilus – also wrote against heresies - meaning = thought police – just like Irenaeus(google) “Theophilus, sixth bishop of the church of Antioch, in the reign of the emperor Marcus Antoninus Verus composed a book Against Marcion, .. PS – Theophilus was a founding Catholic Father It is common knowledge – to all students of church historywww.newadvent.org/utility/search.htm?safe=active&cx=000299817191393086628%3Aifmbhlr-8x0&q=Theophilus+of+Antioch&sa=Search&cof=FORID%3A9Yes – organized persecution of the First Christians and anyone they called pagan The work of a Christian? – or the work of a Catholic?As for the Waldensians – their Bible was the Latin Vulgate – authored by Catholic St Jerome So where is your proof? Evidence please, original source documents tooThe argument is –Fallen Angel doctrine - did not exist until Catholic invented it My request to you is you give me a pre-Roman evidenceSo you quote the Founding Fathers of the Roman Catholic ChurchSo where is your proof?Proof you have no idea of church historyEvidence please, original source documents too Still waiting for a pre-Roman evidence
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2022 3:43:23 GMT -5
Greetings Dave, you pose a difficult thing than
I quote from this person, who presents the problem nicely "
Posted on August 11, 2010 by John Oakeswrote in Church History, General, History.
Question:
Catholicsm is a tradition which has been passed for a long time. Where was its origin and the approximately when did it begin?
Answer:
I will assume you are talking about the Roman Catholic Church. There is also the Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church and the Coptic Catholic Church. These names are in a sense oxymorons, since the word catholic means universal. By definition, there cannot be more than one universal church.
In any case, the Roman Catholic Church traces its beginning back to the original church which was established at Pentecost in AD 30. Christians started the church in Rome almost certainly by AD 50. Paul visited the well-established church in AD 63. The Roman Catholic Church can trace its roots all the way back to the original Christian church in Rome.
This fact may be confusing to you, because you are probably aware that the Roman Catholic Church today is very far from holding to biblical Christianity, with its popes, vestments, sacraments, incense, celibate priests, nuns, church calendar and much more. The Roman Catholic Church is clearly a very corrputed version of Christianity. Nevertheless, it is a historical fact that the church in Rome can literally trace its roots in a more or less uninterrupted line to the time of the apostles. Of course, Catholics, like Orthodox Christians, are very proud of their historical roots. My suggestion is that you not argue with this claim because it is true. The Episcopalian, Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, Pentecostal and other denominations cannot claim what the Roman Church can claim historically. Of course, genaeology does not equal truth and the fact that a particular group cannot trace its history back to Pentecost does not mean that they are not true Christians, but the facts of history are the facts of history.
Having said that, you should not be intimidated by the facts of history. The facts of history show that gradually, over several hundred years, the early church, and especially the church in Rome added many man-made traditions to the simple truth of Christianity. By the third century, they were baptizing babies and worshipping at the graves of "saints." By the fifth century the Catholic Church accepted Original Sin and Transubstantiation. Eventually, the Catholic Church invented false teachings and practices such as the Immaculate Conception of Mary, Purgatory, indulgences, celibate priests papal infallibility and the like. Some of these are unbiblical traditions, others are false doctrines. What you should do is try to find a church which is strongly committed to biblical Christianity and is willing to put biblical principles into practice.
So one could argue Catholics influenced the early church as soon as it got started in AD 55.
Shalom
|
|
|
Post by Dave on May 12, 2022 12:38:28 GMT -5
Answer here: I quote from this person, who presents the problem nicely Posted on August 11, 2010 by John Oakeswrote in Church History, General, History. General Church HistoryPS - for everyone who cannot navigate this forum You can click on the date stamp quote author=" Dave" source="/post/7748/thread" timestamp="1652376780" Or you could look at the main menue for "Gospel vrs the Church"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2022 15:46:14 GMT -5
D"Still waiting for a pre-Roman evidence
R" Would you accept the writing/witness of the Essenes?
DO we have any source books about the Essenes, who they are and what they believed in?
The Essenes copied scrolls all the time, and the OT contains all the books we have in the common received scrolls, except Ester.
DO you know any documents about what they believed in?
Shalom
|
|
|
Post by Dave on May 12, 2022 21:32:49 GMT -5
R" Would you accept the writing/witness of the Essenes? It is evidence of First century though DO we have any source books about the Essenes, who they are and what they believed in?
Some people would suggest
The Essenes copied scrolls all the time, and the OT contains all the books we have in the common received scrolls, except Ester. You offer incorrect information
What books of the Bible are found in the Dead Sea scrolls? The various scroll fragments record parts of the books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Samuel, Ruth, Kings, Micah, Nehemiah, Jeremiah, Joel, Joshua, Judges, Proverbs, Numbers, Psalms, Ezekiel and Jonah.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2022 5:07:08 GMT -5
Nice books Dave, but I need one I can read online....
I will get back to you on this thread, after I do some research Shalom
|
|