The Dunamis Word 2

Icon

Upholding The Light Of Jesus In A Dark World

Christianities Just An Atheist & Skeptics Wet Dream, Noteable Questions & Comments

Comment One:

In a writing such as this I expect questions and observations both for and against my arguments. What I find amazing is “spaghetti-backed” opposition who are afraid to voice their opinion in a forum that would expose their perversion of scripture and utter stupidity (Callin’ it like it is…a lesson taken form J.P. Holding – I now know why). In light of that I thought, I wanted to bring a few of their observations here so that you can be aware of the biblical illiteracy that actually exists in cyberspace.

A person that calls himself “DingoDave” said this:

“I’ve already quoted a Bible passage which proves that ‘heresy’ (read ‘alternate Christianity’) was prevalent even in the very early chuch, but because you seem to have reading comprehension problems I’ll quote it again for you.

1John.4
[1] Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are of God; for many false prophets have gone out into the world.
[2] By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit which confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God,
[3] and every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not of God. This is the spirit of [the] antichrist, of which you heard that it was coming, and now it is in the world already.
[4] Little children, you are of God, and have overcome them; for he who is in you is greater than he who is in the world.
[5] They are of the world, therefore what they say is of the world, and the world listens to them.
[6] We are of God. Whoever knows God listens to us, and he who is not of God does not listen to us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.

This passage states that there were many ‘false prophets’ professing to be Christians, who were teaching early church congregations that Jesus had not really ‘come in the flesh’. This is ‘heresy’, plain and simple. These people were known as ‘Docetists’.”

[Now the part that I find amazing here is that this gentleman refuses to address this issue publicly at this site. He hides behind his atheist friends and associates (moral support) and proceeds to outline what he dogmatically believes that scripture says concerning Gnosticism and alternate Christianities within the early Christian church. He further claims to have been a “former Christian” Although I won’t judge that, I find it very difficult to believe. Lets look at his argument from scripture for a minute shall we?

He quotes 1 John 4:1-6 in the KJV it reads like this: 

  1. Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
  2. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
  3. And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
  4. Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.
  5. They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them.

  6. We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error. 
  7. He says the following about this passage:

 

  1. “Bible passage which proves that ‘heresy’ (read ‘alternate Christianity’) was prevalent even in the very early chuch” (church)
  2. “This passage states that there were many ‘false prophets’ professing to be Christians”
  3. “who were teaching early church congregations that Jesus had not really ‘come in the flesh’.”

Look at the passage verse by verse for a minute:

Verse 1:  [1] Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are of God; for many false prophets have gone out into the world.

1- Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

[It is apparent that the FIRST error the reader makes is that he believes that the phrase “gone out into the world” means to have come from the church. This is what is called an iesegesis of scripture or twisting scripture to say what you want to “believe” it says. This is usually a problem when someone approaches scripture with what is called a presuppositional bias. In the strange world of atheist thought, that presupposition does not necessarily need to have a foundation in truth. Most times, as it is in this case, the presupposition is based on what one already believes BEFORE they examine and in many cases even read the scripture. So this is the first error in scriptural interpretation IF the object is truth.

The historical fact is that prophets were not and exclusive feature of the New Testament or Christian church. Judaism had “prophets” that we observe in the bible as both major and minor prophets. In fact the Lord spoke often regarding “prophets” that he would raise up and place his words in his mouth (Deut. 18:15-22). In the same verse in Deuteronomy there was a penalty against those “prophets” who spoke presumptuously or did not speak the word of the Lord. (v.20) would die.

Even in pagan religions had so called “prophets” and “prophetesses”. Jezebel was known as a “prophetess” of Baal. So, in essence, this verse only recognizes false prophets or teachers teaching things against the gospel message. The scripture does not say that or suggest that those who have “gone out into the world” were a part of the church.]

Verse 2:   [2] By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit which confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God,

2- Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

[This passage simply gives the watchful church member a point of identification of the real gospel truth. Simply put, John instructs the church that anyone who claims to be under a spiritual inspiration that believes or teaches a “physical” and “historical” Jesus as the Messiah (Christ) is accurate or (“of God”). Once again only a radical iesegesis of scripture would allow one to interpret that the church was engaged in confessing “another” Jesus or a Gnostic Christ.]

Verse 3:  [3] and every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not of God. This is the spirit of [the] antichrist, of which you heard that it was coming, and now it is in the world already.

3- And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

[This verse similar to V.2 is instructive and further points out that the spirit of the anti-Christ is already “in the world”. The bible teaches that the church is not Of the world (Jn. 15:19) and that we shouldn’t “love the world” (1 John 2:15-16). The world in this passage is a synonym for the “system” of this world which has its basis in sin. There is no reference that John was saying that the “spirit of the anti-christ’ was “in the church”. Once again to believe that in this case is an iesegesis of scripture.]

Verse 4:  [4] Little children, you are of God, and have overcome them; for he who is in you is greater than he who is in the world.
4-Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

[There could not be a more clear reference from this verse that John was talking to individuals not overcome by the system of this world. He indicates that the people he is talking to have “overcome them” (the world) and have something “greater’ within them than the world. Once again only an isegesis of scripture will facilitate an alternate understanding.]

Verse 5:  [5] They are of the world, therefore what they say is of the world, and the world listens to them.

5-They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them.

[Refer to Verse 4 interpretive]

Verse 6:  [6] We are of God. Whoever knows God listens to us, and he who is not of God does not listen to us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.

6- We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.

[John here is describing the gift of spiritual discernment (1 Cor. 12) and states that we (He and those under his teaching) are of God and those that are also of God can easily hear him and his students and discern between truth and error. Once again, this scripture doesn’t not suggest that there were those in the church in the “spirit of error” aka the “world” in the church. As I have stated only an iesegesis of scripture supports such an argument but it is not even close to what the scripture says]

Let’s revisit “Fido’s” statements to me:

  1. “Bible passage which proves that ‘heresy’ (read ‘alternate Christianity’) was prevalent even in the very early chuch” (church)
  2. [Suffice it to say, there is NO INDICATION, even in the least, that any of these verses say that there were alternate Christianities in the church.]

  3. “This passage states that there were many ‘false prophets’ professing to be Christians”
  4. [Once again, “many false prophets” professing to be Christians” is an iesegesis of the test and not based on anything that the text specifies…Try again.]

  5. “who were teaching early church congregations that Jesus had not really ‘come in the flesh’.”

[Partially true assessment. The false prophets WERE teaching that Jesus had not come in the flesh, but that has nothing to do with what others in the church were teaching in the name of Christianity]

As stated in the article, 

“As you can see whatever evidence that there may be for alternate Christianities is grossly exaggerated if not out right fabricated. But there is no doubt that the church had a mission to the world and existed in a diverse world and often dealt with diverse issues including other religions and religious thoughts arising within the community.”  

Finally, for anyone to conclude that Gnostics were alternate Christians simply because they spoke and taught about Jesus, is another fabrication and revision of history prevalent in the atheist camp. A Gnostic teacher or believer would be no more of a Christian than a Jehovah’s’ Witness, Mormon or Muslim. Although all of these religions have a high Christology just as we find in Gnostic literature, NONE of them are an alternate Christianities partially because they do not hold to essential Christian doctrine.

For the atheist and God hater Biblical illiteracy is not just a job…it truly is an adventure!

Blessed!

Go To our 5 part series on The Deity Of Jesus pre-Nicea.  

Advertisements

10 Responses

  1. DingoDave says:

    Harvey wrote:

    -“Now the part that I find amazing here is that this gentleman refuses to address this issue publicly at this site. He hides behind his atheist friends and associates (moral support)”

    I’m not hiding behind anything Harvey. I just don’t want to have to repeat myself all over again here, when I’ve already made my case over at the ‘Debunking Christianity’ website.

    (PHB~ You have made assertions, many of which have no support of any evidence, but a “case” you haven’t made.)

    By the way, you still haven’t provided a link to that thread, so that your people can read my arguments in their entirety. Why is that?

    (PHB~ I invited you to discuss this here because the thread at Debunking wasn’t even on this topic but you persisted on trying to make a fallacious point. So far as links go does Debunking have one to any of my sites? No. So, what’s the point?)

    -“Finally, for anyone to conclude that Gnostics were alternate Christians simply because they spoke and taught about Jesus, is another fabrication and revision of history prevalent in the atheist camp. A Gnostic teacher or believer would be no more of a Christian than a Jehovah’s’ Witness, Mormon or Muslim. Although all of these religions have a high Christology just as we find in Gnostic literature, NONE of them are an alternate Christianities partially because they do not hold to essential Christian doctrine.”

    Harvey, you’re doing the very thing I accused you of before. You are merely arbitrarily re-defining these alternate Christianities out of existence. What a convenient way for you to get rid of the problem.

    (PHB~ No Dingo. What I’m doing is providing support for my arguments by looking at the evidence and taking that into consideration.)

    Jehovah’s Witnesses most certainly view themselves as being Christians. Mormons also view themselves as being Christians, albeit with further revelations from Joseph Smith. The official name for the Mormon church is ‘The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints’, so for you to arbitrarily re-define these churches as being non-Christian is incredibly dishonest of you.

    (PHB~ It’s statements like that which cause me to doubt whether you ever were a Christian. Neither of these groups are Christian. JW’s don’t believe in the deity of Christ, Mormons believe that Jesus was a created being similar to an angel. In fact he (Jesus) is Lucifer’s “spirit brother” at any rate Jesus is a created being. In order to be a Christian a good place to start is with the deity of Christ. Jesus is the eternal son of God according to scripture (Jn. 1:1)

    That does not mean that either group practices immorality, devil worship or does not do good things. Similar to many atheists their practices are aside from the point. Their beliefs are everything. The point is they do not adhere to essential Christian doctrine. As I said, there’s a high Christology or view of Christ, but that does not make one a Christian. This is just a factual setting forth of the information. No dishonesty as you suggest in any manner)

    You’ve done exactly the same thing with all the other alternate Chrisianities which flourished in the early years of the Christian era. Merely asserting that they weren’t really Christians, does not make the problem go away. All you are doing by following this line of reasoning is burying your head in the sand about the matter.

    (PHB~ Merely asserting that there were “alternate Christianities” pre nicea doesn’t make it so either. You follow the trail of F.C. Bauer who’s hypothesis have been proven false and that Bart Ehrman has done no better in furthering. I have evidence in support of my argument and you have offered no counter evidence but only statements that there were alternates…as you say, sayin’ it doesn’t make it so.)

    The numerous complaints about ‘false teachings’ made by New Testament writers, proves that even in those very early days, there were alternate Christianities being preached to their congregations. If this wasn’t the case, then those authors would have had no reason to complain about it.

    (PHB~ No. Numerous complaints and messages regarding those who taught false doctrines in scripture only prove that the Apostles were doing their job by preaching and teaching the truth. In no way is there a suggestion that false doctrine was being preached in the church. The duty of the preacher was to preach against SIN and false doctrine as they did and as we continue to do today.

    Now, if you really want to make a point you would have brought up the book of Revelation. But since you didn’t I’ll do so. In Revelation Ch. 2 God chastizes the church at Pergamos (2:12) and Thyatira (2:18) because of false doctrines they allow to proliferate. Baalim (v.14) and the Nicolaitans(v.15) and the doctrine of Jezebel(v.20). These doctrines were terrible and egregious, but they did not define Christianity. These doctrines were aimed at the practice of the Saints (God’s people) and not the “faith belief” of the people. This was a polemic problem, not a problem of faith or alternate Christianity.

    Now I will agree that some Christians practice some awful things, similar to some atheists. Need I say more about the travesty of objective rationalism? Anyway, the fact is that those things are far from the questions of who Jesus is or what he came to do or what he did by rising from the grave on the third day. The preachers were preaching so that the congregations could recognize false doctrine and be ready to stand against it as it was encountered. The Church doesn’t live in a vacuum, why should it’s teaching reflect insular views? I preach many things to alert my congregations of the dangers of certain philosophies today, but in no case do I have reason to believe that anyone in our church is involved in certain practices. It’s called preaching the word and being instant in and out of season (2 Tim. 4:2)

    As I mentioned to you on a previous occasion, ‘orthodox’ Chrisitanity wasn’t formalised until the fourth century at the council of Nicea, and as is mentioned in the article I posted about Professor Karen King, “The Nicene Creed is a guard against heresy. Every one of its statements is formulated to oppose other views that were prominent at the time.”

    (PHB ~ Christianity had it’s set of orthodox beliefs BEFORE it was a “Creedal” faith. Ms. King just like Pagels share the same fallacious argument that Christianity was sort of hap-hazard before Nicea. Like I said those are only assertions and do not stand under the evidence.

    “There were compact statements of key, essential Christian beliefs that were widely accepted and used in the first century (e.g., 1 Cor. 15:3–8).” Daniel Hoffman Christian Research Journal, volume 26, number 3 (2003)

    Additionally, what reason would John (The Apostle) have to get out of the bath house that Cerinthus was in? I mean the whole argument was that Cerinthus was teaching “false” doctrine about Christ. We know Cerinthus wasa Gnostic. Secondly, what reason would there have been for Ireaneus to criticize Florinus’s teaching as “not being handed down” and certainly nothing that should be taught in either the world or church. Why and what was that about? It was about a set of common beliefs before a creed was made or given.

    From the evidence it is easy to see that an Orthodox set of beliefs that were recognized as being authentic and indicitive to Christianity and Christians was in place and in operation before Nicea. In addition, the bishops who made it to Nicea had all been through suffering and persecution BECAUSE of those essentials. Many of them were maimed and crippled because they held to the essentials of the faith and confessions through the persecution of Diocletion.

    Further, the writings of Lucian, Celsus and Pliny the Younger all make it clear what the Christians said they believed. None of them took it as being some hap-hazzard set of beliefs or understandings. In Bithynia, Christians were getting slaughtered for what they believed . What they said could either save their life or have them killed.

    This is why neither Bauer’s, Ehrman’s, Pagels, or King’s arguments are convincing. There is nothing other than what they want to believe to make some type of understanding fit in their view of history.)

    And the Biblical canon wasn’t finalised until well afer that.
    As I wrote on the thread at ‘Debunking Christianity’; “The Biblical canon was decided upon by numerous councils of bishops, and took centuries to finalise. In fact it’s STILL not finalised, because various sects of Christianity even to this very day, still have different canons of scripture which they view as being ‘inspired’. Ever heard of the ‘apocryphal’ books of the Bible Harvey?

    (PHB~ Dingo, did you even read page one of the article? I brought up both the New Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha and explained what they were. In addition the point of the article wasn’t to do a detail on why east and West choose the books that they choose other than to point out that both choose the 27 that we have and share in common and God’s word and inspired scripture.)

    Get yourself a copy of a Catholic Bible, or an Eastern Orthodox Bible, or a Coptic Bible, and you’ll see what I mean. But I guess you’d just define those denominations as not being ‘true Christians’, thereby sweeping yet another problem under your rug of denial.”
    Why won’t you admit the obvious Harvey?

    (PHB~ True to your atheist root you fail to mention that the 27 books of the NT are considered the core of NT Christianity. The other books are considered supplements by East and West for various purposes. Besides that discussion was not to do an indepth analysis on why East choose what they choose versus West. What we se as a result is ONE Christianity that arises with the resurrected Jesus as Lord, Savior and King. What’s to deny?)

    Why do you feel so threatened by the fact that there was an astonishing diversity of early Christian creeds and sects? Heck, I even listed some of them out for you. Why do you insist on flying in the face of widely accepted Historical scholarship?

    (PHB~ I’m not threatened, you just don’t offer any proof during the time frame that we’re talking about. Do you feel threatened that you don’t have any evidence to support your assertions? In addition there is no scholar except for radical atheists and skeptics, that support “alternate” versions of Christianity. )

    -“He further claims to have been a “former Christian” Although I won’t judge that, I find it very difficult to believe.”

    I don’t care whether you believe it or not, but I was a Christian up until about twenty two years of age, which was when I first gained access to some skeptical literature, which forced me to re-think my previously held assumptions about the Christian faith. I was formally baptised at around fifteen years of age. But I guess you’ll just accuse me of never having been a ‘real Christian’. That seems to be your prefered tactic for getting rid of inconvenient little facts.

    (No, unlike many believers I believe that one can freely choose to reject salvation. I find it hard to believe that you had any sort of commitment to Christ. You seem to have received skepticism openly and less critically than you received salvation and the bible. Most questions I’ve read that atheist ask are good bible study questions that may take an hour or two of diligent study to answer. You, as others, have made life’s decisions based on questions that should have been asked while you were Christians. At least then you would not have been exposed to the lies and deceit of satan who is a very real influence in both understanding God and all issues of spirituality. What you consider to be light and understanding, I consider to be darkness veiled by flesh and naturalism. satan has always dealt in and peddled conspiracy theories. Look at Eve. Need I say more?)

    -“For the atheist and God hater Biblical illiteracy is not just a job…it truly is an adventure.”

    Atheists by definition cannot be ‘God haters’, any more than they can be ‘Santa-Claus haters’ or ‘fairy haters’. We can’t hate something which does not exist. As the old saying goes; “Blasphemy is a victimless crime”. : )

    ( PHB~ Problem is that you like most atheists do hate God because you intrinsically believe in him, because you know HE’S real. Even in your sleep there is a God consciousness. You’re not unique to humanity. You just live in -denial- especially if you’ve ever known HIM before, and that’s noplace close to Egypt <; )

  2. DingoDave says:

    Harvey Burnett wrote:

    -“PHB~ I invited you to discuss this here because the thread at Debunking wasn’t even on this topic but you persisted on trying to make a fallacious point. So far as links go does Debunking have one to any of my sites? No. So, what’s the point?”

    The point is that you have started a discussion here based on an original discussion over at ‘Debunking Christianity’. If the roles were reversed, I would expect them to supply a link as well. Are you following the example of Robert ‘No Links’ Turkel Harvey?

    (PHB~ Look Dingo The name of the thread on the other sire was “Jeremiah’s Prophecy of the New Covenant” in which you and your atheist pals were trying to say that Jeremiah’s prophecy in Jeremiah 31 had nothing to do with the NT or Jesus. After I DEBUNKED your argument and introduced the atheist ridiculous argument of objective rationalism (which I plan to do a post here as Atheism’s dirty little secret) you started throwing everything on the wall that you could to get a reaction. This topic stuck and I never fully addressed your falacious arguments there…so I opened this thread originally based on a totally different subject….See that’s what I totally disrespect about you in particular. You love to LIE and “infer” that someone has done something wrong (especially a Christian) even though you have no support for what you say. You have the spirit of the devil. He was a Liar from the beginning and you follow his steps. That’s what the conflict is about…when you backslid (left Christ) you really don’t know what took hold of you, but based on your commentary I can see it plainly)

    -“PHB~ No Dingo. What I’m doing is providing support for my arguments by looking at the evidence and taking that into consideration.”

    Rubbish. You are defining what you consider to be ‘true Christianity’, and then excluding anyone else who might disagree with your own narrow definition of what that means.

    (PHB~ If truth has a meaning then definitions are important. Further, aside from the definitions, there are events as I’ve specified and testimonies both secular and non-secular that stae that Christian’s Pre-Nicea had a set and statements of belief that they were known for. To deny that is to only accept the part of the bible that make your case while disregarding everything that goes against what your presupposition is. You can’t have it like that, at least at this site.)

    -“PHB~ It’s statements like that which cause me to doubt whether you ever were a Christian. Neither of these groups are Christian. JW’s don’t believe in the deity of Christ, Mormons believe that Jesus was a created being similar to an angel. In fact he (Jesus) is Lucifer’s “spirit brother” at any rate Jesus is a created being. In order to be a Christian a good place to start is with the deity of Christ. Jesus is the eternal son of God according to scripture (Jn. 1:1)”

    You make my point for me. If every Christian believed exactly the same things, then we wouldn’t have alternate Christianities would we? That’s the whole point of this argument.

    (As I said, those groups ARE NOT CHRISTIAN. They are alternate religions but not Christianities. What’s the argument?)

    -“PHB~ Merely asserting that there were “alternate Christianities” pre nicea doesn’t make it so either. You follow the trail of F.C. Bauer who’s hypothesis have been proven false and that Bart Ehrman has done no better in furthering. I have evidence in support of my argument and you have offered no counter evidence but only statements that there were alternates…as you say, sayin’ it doesn’t make it so.”

    I’ll list them out for you again if you like Harvey. Here is what I wrote during our original discussion over at ‘Debunking Christianity’;
    “You are also ignoring all the other sects which we know existed in the early days of the Christian era; such as the Ebionites, the Nazarenes, the Marcionites, the Arianists, the Montanists, the Donatists, the Novatians, the Paulicians, the Anabaptists, the Nestorians, the Manicheans, the Pelagians, the Adoptionists, the Valentinians, the Docetists, the Modalists, the Monarchianists, the Monophysites, the Subordinationists, the Apollinarianists, the Encratites, the Eutychianists, the Sabellianists, and all the other multitude of various gnostic sects which we know flourished during the early years of the Christian era.”

    (PHB~ since you persist, let’s look at this little fallacious assertion that you seem to think will just tire me out….take a look.

    Out of all the one you name in this list, here are the facts:

    This group was a Jewish Christian group that believed that Christian should follow the law They believed in essential doctrine such as the divinity of Jesus and his physical resurrection. THIS IS NOT AN ALTERNATE CHRISTIANITY:
    Nazarenes

    This group was Christian group that had a different style of worship. No ALTERNATE CHRISTIANITY:
    Montanism was a more pentecostal style teaching that many Christians accepted AD 165-177 Believed in divinity and essentials not understood by others but still Christian.

    This group taught that deserters from the Christian faith were not worthy of acceptance back in. They accepted the divinity of Jesus and the essentials of the faith. The doctrine did not challenge faith only a polemic NO ALTERNATE CHRISTIANITY:
    Anabaptists
    Donatists
    Novatianists

    These groups taught about the nature of Jesus whether trinity or not. They all accepted Jesus as Divine and physical in death and resurrection. The primary question was HOW was he divine DEBATEABLE BUT NO ALTERNATE CHRISTIANITY:
    Sabellianism
    Modalists
    Monarchianists
    Monarchianism
    Adoptionism
    Arianism

    These groups were NOT Christian. Although they taught about Jesus as a man and prophet:
    Ebionites – Were Jewish believers in the mortal Prophet Jesus. They didn’t accept him as divine. They weren’t Christians.

    These were Gnostic NON CHRISTIANS teachings and doctrines:
    Manichaeism
    Valentinianism & Encratites
    Marcionites (Gnostic variation)
    Docetists

    These groups show up TOO LATE historically to be considered a part of the conversation:
    Paulicians 650 and 872
    Nestorianism- (386-451 AD)
    Pelagianism (354-420 AD)
    Eutychianists
    Monophysites

    So 10 out of the 23 groups you mentioned were not ever considered Christian and the rest were debating over Christian issues but yet remain Christian. ONLY 1 group could be considered an ALTERNATE Christianity and they were Jews who believed in the divinity of Jesus but only wanted to keep the law too.

    WHERE’S THE ARGUMENT DINGO? It’s in your head. Just because you, Ehrman, King and Pagles believe this ALTERNATE CHRTISTIANITY garbage DOESN’T MAKE IT SO!)

    I’m not “merely asserting” that there were a multitude of alternate Christianities pre-Nicea. We know for a fact that there were. Just because you say it aint so, doesn’t mean that it wasn’t so.

    -“PHB~ No. Numerous complaints and messages regarding those who taught false doctrines in scripture only prove that the Apostles were doing their job by preaching and teaching the truth. In no way is there a suggestion that false doctrine was being preached in the church. The duty of the preacher was to preach against SIN and false doctrine as they did and as we continue to do today.”

    If these ‘false doctrines’ weren’t being preached to those congregations, then the New Testament writers would have had no need to complain about them would they?

    (PHB~ I preach against homosexuality. We have never had a homosexual preacher preach in our church and we do not have any homosexuals that we know of. I can name many other topics and things…Wrong summation and no evidence in support of your argument. Really make no sense to try to make this fit your belief.)

    -“The preachers were preaching so that the congregations could recognize false doctrine and be ready to stand against it as it was encountered. The Church doesn’t live in a vacuum, why should it’s teaching reflect insular views?”

    Indeed it doesn’t live in a vacuum. That’s the whole point of my argument. There have always been, and probably always will be, varying forms of
    Christianity.

    (PHB~ OK now it’s varying forms of Christianity? We’re talking about alternate Christianity not varying forms. Aren’t we? That’s a subtle change but it’s a change that is not in accord with the conversation. We know about varying forms, but we’re talking about those that believe essentials. Not varying forms)

    This is because the Bible is so (dxxxxx) confusing about what Christians are required to believe in order to be saved.

    (PHB~ No that’s because the sin nature of man will not allow him to yield at times to what God is saying and to HIS word. Has nothing to do with the confusion of God. Now I told ya…we don’t do cussin’ here like we do at DC…OK!)

    Why do you think that there are so many thousands of different sects and denominations of Christianity even today? I don’t understand why you find these things so hard to comprehend Harvey.

    (PHB~ As I said sin nature. Out of all the different Christian denominations, if they are Christian they all hold…Jesus was born of a virgin, Lived a sinless life, was the son of God (God), suffered a physical death on the cross, was physically resurrected 3 days later, and will return for HIS people…These are the essentials of the Christian faith no matter the denomination these are the common threads.)

    -“I preach many things to alert my congregations of the dangers of certain philosophies today, but in no case do I have reason to believe that anyone in our church is involved in certain practices.”

    The point is that the New Testament writers who complained about these things, were specifically complaining that these ‘false teachings’ WERE being taught to their congregations. That’s the whole thrust of my argument. Sheesh!

    (PHB~ As I said, your assertion has been demonstrated to be false. Some of the doctrines you claim that show an “alternate christianity” didn’t even exist until 3rd and 4 th century. Either way, there was no redefinition of the early church. The church was instructed through it’s leadership. If they choose an “alternate Christianity” they left the church and were no longer Christian. You are an example of that…no longer a Christian)

    -“PHB ~ Christianity had it’s set of orthodox beliefs BEFORE it was a “Creedal” faith. Ms. King just like Pagels share the same fallacious argument that Christianity was sort of hap-hazard before Nicea. Like I said those are only assertions and do not stand under the evidence.”

    I’ll pit the opinion of a ‘Harvard Divinity School’ Professor over your opinion any day if you don’t mind Harvey.

    (PHB~ I’m not in a popularity contest and Harvard Professors don’t scare me…they have an openly gay religious professor there too who needs to repent and be saved. Ms. King is not exempt from being wrong as she is. Plus there are countless professors, some of which I mentioned in the article, that totally disagree with her and have as much or better scholarship. I would agree with anyone from Dallas Theological Seminary before I’d agree with her. There are a number of others I could name also.)

    Why would she say it if there wasn’t abundant evidence to support her views.

    (PHB ~ It’s called sin, sensationalism and handling information irresponsibly. I don’t care that she is siding with persons for political and social means. That could have been her honest assessment but I’m sure we’ll see an association with Ehrman, Crossan, Funk, Price and others if we look closely. Another point, why in your world is EVERYONE with a viewpoint against Christianity so credible? That’s because of your presuppositional bias…you believe everything against and nothing in favor of biblical truth and yet you have the NERVE to call me and Christinas delusional…you are a farce!)

    You appear to have very little idea about how things actually operate in universities Harvey. University Professors don’t get to just ‘make things up as they go along’, the way some preachers I know are prone to doing.

    (PHB~ Yea right…I still have that swampland discount today only…$5 off. Besides this thread IS NOT about how university professors do their job.)

    -““There were compact statements of key, essential Christian beliefs that were widely accepted and used in the first century (e.g., 1 Cor. 15:3–8).” Daniel Hoffman Christian Research Journal, volume 26, number 3 (2003)”

    Widely accepted yes. But not universally accepted. The same is true today. How many Jehovah’s witnesses, and Christadelphians, and Mormons are there in the world today? Not to mention all the other wacky pseudo-Christian nutjobs who peddle their ridiculous superstitions to an unsuspecting public.

    (PHB~ You say pseudo-Christian, I simply say NOT CHRISTIAN, that kinda undercuts you argument for them really being Christian now doesn’t it? Universal acceptance is not what we’re talking about, neither are we talking about exact practice and functions in every church. What we are talking about is what we know now and then, that all Christians hold to what is known or described as “Essentials” to the faith. There may be debates on how esentials work but the agreement is still in place that they do. These things are without compromise to the Christian church. Those “essentials” were wide spread and as historians can put the pieces together, in every direction Christianity spread and those “essentials” went with it. Not a problem, certainly not as great of a problem as you and most atheists want Christians to believe. Who’s peddling the ridiculous superstition….Atheists…with their rampant conspiracy theories and revisionist history…That’s the problem eccentric, godless revisionists with no support for their arguments and deceitfulness in their back pocket…That’s you.)

    -“Additionally, what reason would John (The Apostle) have to get out of the bath house that Cerinthus was in? I mean the whole argument was that Cerinthus was teaching “false” doctrine about Christ. We know Cerinthus was a Gnostic. Secondly, what reason would there have been for Ireaneus to criticize Florinus’s teaching as “not being handed down” and certainly nothing that should be taught in either the world or church.”

    Preachers like Cerinthus had large followings Harvey. Goodness only knows how many thousands of followers, people like Cerinthus had in their congregations.

    (PHB~ That wasn’t the reason John left. The reason John left was because of the heretical teaching that Cerinthus offered. He left saying that if God struck the house with lightning he didn’t want to be in there with Ceninthus. ie: “I don’t want to be around you when lightning strikes for your sins.” That was the thought. It had nothing to do with his following.)

    -“From the evidence it is easy to see that an Orthodox set of beliefs that were recognized as being authentic and indicitive to Christianity and Christians was in place and in operation before Nicea.”

    Among certain congregations Harvey, but not nearly all of them. Why do you think it was so difficult for the Catholic church to stamp out these ‘heresies’? It took the Catholic authorities centuries of violent persecution to do so.

    (PHB~ Fantasy Dingo…along with your other conspiracy laden friends. The catholic church set out to unify understanding. The disagreement was not as I’ve demonstrated that varying. Most agreed in the deity of Christ, the only argument was HOW he was deity. Additionally, we know atrocities occurred, but those were the days of atrocities. What you raise is just a novel speculation that atheists promote to get attention…I believe Vox Dei handles much of your type of argument and from what I read rather well.)

    In fact they still haven’t succeeded, because there are still gnostic churches in existence even today. Are you aware that your brand of Christianity is viewed by the Catholic Church as being a heresy even today? The Pope was recently quoted as describing your kind of Protestant Christianity as being in error.

    (PHB~ Oooh yea…them doggone Catholics…I believe I’ll start an insurrection…just say the word Dingo!)

    ‘Protestant churches reacted with dismay to a new declaration approved by Pope Benedict XVI insisting they were mere “ecclesial communities” and their ministers effectively phonies with no right to give communion. [He said], “It is nevertheless difficult to see how the title of ‘Church’ could possibly be attributed to [Protestant communities], given that they do not accept the theological notion of the Church in the Catholic sense and that they lack elements considered essential to the Catholic Church…The Vatican’s statement had fewer misgivings about the Orthodox Church, which had “true sacraments” and a genuine priesthood. But their failure to acknowledge the Pope’s authority meant they suffered from a “defectus”, politely translated from Latin as “a wound”. – Pope Benedict XVI
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/

    (PHB~ Oooh my what will I ever do now?)

    Put that in your pipe and smoke it Harvey. According to the Pope, you are a heretic, and a phony. There is a rich deep irony in that don’t you think? : D

    (PHB~ Yes I’m so ironically hurt and you’re so ironically stupid for even suggesting that what he says has anything to do with the ESSENTIALS OF THE FAITH or what it takes to be a Christian. Catholic bashing is not what we do here. People make all kinds of statements and sometimes sincere people can be sincerely wrong. The difference is with the Christian Love Covers the Multitude of Sin and Fault…God’s got that well under control.)

    -“This is why neither Bauer’s, Ehrman’s, Pagels, or King’s arguments are convincing. There is nothing other than what they want to believe to make some type of understanding fit in their view of history.”

    From everything you’ve written, it appears that it is actually you who is doing so Harvey, not them.

    (PHB~ No. You and your heroes hate Christianity so bad and want to prove it wrong at any cost neither they or you care what you say. So it doesn’t surprise me. Besides you believe in all kinds of historical revisionist theories…just garbage Dingo…just Dingo garbage!)

    -“PHB~ True to your atheist root you fail to mention that the 27 books of the NT are considered the core of NT Christianity. The other books are considered supplements by East and West for various purposes.”

    Then why don’t mainline protestant churches include them in their Bibles? And what about the dozens of other spurious gospels and epistles which were deliberately forged by early Christians in the names of apostles and others, which the church had to actively suppress? Are you conveniently forgetting about them as well?

    (PHB~ Dingo there you go again…the old atheist routine. It’s called the BUCKSHOT argument. When you’ve lost one argument you create a new one within the same thread. The atheists at DC do this rather easily and conveniently when they’ve approached the end of their lies. Dingo, I may have to open another thread to put down your lies in this area also, but we won’t do it here…keep you buckshots to a minimum!)

    -“What we see as a result is ONE Christianity that arises with the resurrected Jesus as Lord, Savior and King. What’s to deny?”

    This one unified Christianity that you continue to speak of, only exists in your own mind Harvey.

    (PHB~ Obviously doesn’t exist in your mind! O r at least what “mind” you have left. All I know is that I can go to any Methodist or Luteran church and hear and discuss the divinity of Christ, his resurrection, his return etc. Our practice may be different but we’re yet Christian. )

    -“PHB~ I’m not threatened, you just don’t offer any proof during the time frame that we’re talking about. Do you feel threatened that you don’t have any evidence to support your assertions? In addition there is no scholar except for radical atheists and skeptics, that support “alternate” versions of Christianity.”

    You appear to be profoundly delusional Harvey. Is Professor King of the Harvard Divinity school a radical atheist? Get real.

    (PHB~ Could be Dingo…Look at Ehrman, Price and Tabor. All agnostics and atheist that are religious studies professors…When it comes to spiritual matters, I don’t believe a sinner like you or them professor or not!)

    -“No, unlike many believers I believe that one can freely choose to reject salvation. I find it hard to believe that you had any sort of commitment to Christ. You seem to have received skepticism openly and less critically than you received salvation and the bible.”

    That’s because skepticism makes far more sense, and is much easier to believe than all the superstitious mumbo-jumbo contained in the Bible and the Christian creeds. Why are you skeptical about every other religion besides Christianity? When you understand that, then you’ll understand why I’m skeptical about your religion. I simply believe in one less god than you do.

    (PHB~ The mumbo-jumbo is from atheists like you and sites like Carrier’s. That’s the garbage that makes the world stink. That’s your world. Now You just expect everyone to accept your garbage because you try to have a hook…”I’m a former Christian” Please! That’s garbage along with your arguments and Christian hatred. What you are is caught in FLESH and carnality. In addition Christianity is objective and evidential that sets it apart from other religions INCLUDING the religion of atheism.)

    -“You, as others, have made life’s decisions based on questions that should have been asked while you were Christians. At least then you would not have been exposed to the lies and deceit of satan who is a very real influence in both understanding God and all issues of spirituality.”

    They were questions I DID ask myself when I was a Christian Harvey. That’s why I refer to myself as an ‘ex-Christian’. Your logic, (or the lack of it), is simply astounding.
    I’ll let you in on another little secret Harvey, I don’t believe in the existance of Satan either.

    (PHB~ I knew and know that and the number one way for satan to control is to get individuals such as you to not believe in him. It’s a complete package. Now are you gonna come back to the argument or just rant because you’re stupid? Which one is it?)

    Read Farrell Till’s excellent article entitled ‘The Wisdom of the World’ for an elaboration of how Christianity immunises it’s followers against asking the hard questions.

    (PHB~ Farrell Till is an idiot like you…you find him so enlightening…go figure you)

    -“What you consider to be light and understanding, I consider to be darkness veiled by flesh and naturalism. satan has always dealt in and peddled conspiracy theories. Look at Eve. Need I say more?”

    Yes that’s right. It’s merely the ‘wisdom of the world’ isn’t it?. : ) Read Till’s article, and let me know what you think. You can find it here.

    http://www.theskepticalreview.com/tsrmag/2front95.html

    By the way, I don’t believe in the Adam and Eve legend either, so it makes that argument irrelevant to me.

    (PHB ~ Ya don’t say. That’s yet another thread now isn’t it?)

    -“PHB~ Problem is that you like most atheists do hate God because you intrinsically believe in him, because you know HE’S real. Even in your sleep there is a God consciousness.”

    I guess you’re right Harvey. How could I have been so blind? Secretly I know that Allah is real, and that Mohammed is his prophet. “Allahu Akbar!”
    I’d better get down to my local mosque right away and repent of my sins. : D

    (PHB~ Yea do that…only when you get there you’ll find that sin isn’t a real big problem in Muslim theology. Peace Dingo. Looking forward to putting down more of your fallacious assertions.)

  3. DingoDave says:

    Dear Harvey,
    Did you receive the follow-up comment I posted yesterday?

    (PHB~ I gotchya posted. I’ll delete the other since it’s only a followup to this one.)

  4. dunamis2 says:

    I want to make an observation here.

    The first is a look at one of the groups that Dingo mentioned.

    Montanism aka Cataphrygians. To correct what I said in the response. They were a more “Prophetic styled” teaching (I said Pentecostal and I correct that) that many Christians accepted AD 165-177 (Second century). As I said, they believed in divinity and essentials not understood by others but were still Christian.

    An interesting point here is that Hippolytus says the following regarding this movement:

    “These persons acknowledge God to be the Father of the universe and creator of all things-similarly with the church-and believe all things the gospel testifies concerning Christ. However they introduce the novelties of certain fasts, feasts, meals of parched food, and meals of radishes.” (c.225, W)5.123.124

    They also seem to have had 2 domineering women in leadership and the people seemed to follow what the women prophesied in addition or equally to what the word of God taught.

    I would consider that a different denomination of Christianity. They seem to have held to essential truths of the NT and gospel accounts regarding Jesus.

    Now I say that because we are not talking about “varying denominations” within Christianity. We are talking about other “ways” to be Christian. Other confessions of faith whereby one was still considered to be a Christian.

    I believe that I have demonstrated that there were not alternately accepted articles of faith or confessionary faith beliefs that were allowable to become Christian even before the Nicean creed. Notwithstanding, as Dingo has pointed out, I’m sure some people with wrong confessions “believed” that they were Christians. I’ve personally heard a Muslim claim that he was a Christian, so that much doesn’t surprise me. However, none of those with alternate confessions operate within the Christian church. Claims are claims but the proof is in what they believe and confess.

    I want to be clear. Alternate Christianities as taught by atheists are not various denominations within Christian circles, or merely various doctrines on Christian issues.

    What they mean by alternate christianities is that each church or organization has a wholesale reinterpretation of the essential doctrine or who Jesus is. Ie: they could believe in a real or mythic Jesus, they could believe in a bodily or spiritual resurrection, they could believe in a docetic savior or a physically human savior…any number of things and yet be considered to be Christian. That was not the case, expecially iduring frist century Christianity when the documents had been written and doctrines set forth within the scriptures themselves.

    The excommunication of certain sects or teaching was just that. Condemnation of the “belief system” as being wrong. In some cases of course the people or persons went along with that excommunication, but the fact remains that early church leaders saw an importance trying to define exactly what scripture said to the best of their ability.

    Those who oppose God would say it should be easy to understand if God spoke it. I say that there are two things involved and at work. 1- a sin nature that has it’s effects on our understanding even after we are saved. We are no longer bound by its power but we are a victim of its influence. 2- I would expect to find it hard at times to grasp concepts from a being inifnately beyond who I am, expecially when sin is factored into the equation.

    Those are my thoughts. I’d be interested in hearing from other Christians regarding these issues also. Thank you.

  5. DingoDave says:

    Pastor Harvey Burnett wrote:

    -”Look Dingo The name of the thread on the other sire was “Jeremiah’s Prophecy of the New Covenant” in which you and your atheist pals were trying to say that Jeremiah’s prophecy in Jeremiah 31 had nothing to do with the NT or Jesus. After I DEBUNKED your argument and introduced the atheist ridiculous argument of objective rationalism (which I plan to do a post here as Atheism’s dirty little secret) you started throwing everything on the wall that you could to get a reaction.”
    You debunked nothing concerning “Jeremiah’s Prophecy of the New Covenant” Harvey, just as you haven’t debunked the existence of alternate Christianities within the early Christian movement.

    (Dingo, I have overwhelmingly provided a proper contextualization for your rash presuppositions and further drawn down your sensationalism to a crawl. You have no basis for your argument and now offer a book thinking that by much words you can either tire me or the reader out with more LIES and unfounded assertions…It won’t work Dingo. Some arguments are better than others and your are just worse, unfounded makes you and your anti-Christ advocate friends feel better but that’s about it.)

    And that thread just naturally wandered off from the original topic for a while, as internet forums often do.

    (PHB~ Keep the record straight you internet liar and anti-Christ advocate, I REPEATEDLY asked you to stay on point in the exchange and said I wasn’t addressing these issues in that forum and deeper, YOU couldn’t stay on topic because your original arguments were BUNK as always. That’s why Robert wrote about 2 books in response to my arguments. None of which I’ve had time to review. I only review your now to get a good laugh on as I get ready for or evening services.)

    PHB~”See that’s what I totally disrespect about you in particular. You love to LIE and “infer” that someone has done something wrong (especially a Christian) even though you have no support for what you say. You have the spirit of the devil. He was a Liar from the beginning and you follow his steps.”

    Reduced to name calling now are you Harvey? I can just FEEL the Christian love oozing out of you. Do I deserve to be burned at the stake for my ‘demon possession’ or would a simple exorcism suffice? : )

    (PHB~ Please Dingo, spare me…From the beginning you repeatedly called me liars, cussed etc because you have no foundation or argument and talk stupid. Dumbo fits you well if I were to call you a name of distinction. Maybe not in your personal life I’m sure, but certainly when it comes to everything Bible…YOUR hatred for everything God and especially Christian comes through. You just love darkness, I’m not here to bring you out, only to state facts…you’re a foregone conclusion.)

    PHB~ “If truth has a meaning then definitions are important. Further, aside from the definitions, there are events as I’ve specified and testimonies both secular and non-secular that stae that Christian’s Pre-Nicea had a set and statements of belief that they were known for. To deny that is to only accept the part of the bible that make your case while disregarding everything that goes against what your presupposition is.”

    I’m not denying that some ‘proto-orthodox’ churches had creeds which somewhat resembled the ‘Nicene Creed’, and never did. What I AM affirming though, is that along with those ‘proto-orthodox’ congregations, there were numerous other UNORTHODOX congregations. And the vast majority of reputable Bible scholars agree with me.

    (PHB~ What is this “vast majority” has there been a poll or census taken that I’m unaware of? Besides “vast majorities” can be vastly wrong and have proven to be so in my lifetime. At either rate I don’t believe that you have “vast majority” support for your argument regarding this anyway…so that’s a non-point)

    PHB~”As I said, those groups ARE NOT CHRISTIAN. They are alternate religions but not Christianities.”
    Try convincing them of that! I’m certain that they would disagree with you. And what gives you the authority to deny them the right to call themselves Christians? Remember that the Pope, the Supreme Pontif of the most popular brand of Christianity on the planet, considers YOU to be a phony and a heretic. A little dose of humility wouldn’t go astray Harvey.

    (PHB~ Now, this is the majority of your argument. “They believe they’re Christian so it must be so”…SO WHAT? What does that mean? Anyone can believe anything, that doesn’t make it so. It’s called fitting the criteria and they do not fit as being Christian according to the WORD that offers a clear statement of faith within the scriptures that was accepted, widespread by all available evidence and repeated through the centuries. These statements were common shreds to all them that called themselves Christian. You don’t like that but SO WHAT? Life isn’t dependent upon what you like or dislike)

    -PHB~ “These groups show up TOO LATE historically to be considered a part of the conversation”:
    Paulicians 650 and 872
    Nestorianism- (386-451 AD)
    Pelagianism (354-420 AD)”
    Eutychianists (c. 400-450).
    Monophysites (c.400-450)
    Concerning the Eutychianists;
    “Eutychianism holds that the human and divine natures of Christ were fused into one new single (mono) nature: his human nature was “dissolved like a drop of honey in the sea”…
    Eutyches’ energy and [the] imprudence with which he asserted his opinions brought him the accusation of heresy in 448, leading to his excommunication in 449.”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monophysitism
    Concerning the Monopysites;
    “In the middle of the fifth century, the church was deeply locked in Christological debates that arose out of the ecumenical councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, and at a time when church and state were integrally mixed, strains within the church necessarily meant strains within the Empire. The debates focused on the hypostatic union — the fusion of the divine and the human natures within the person of Jesus Christ. On the one side were the ‘orthodox’ who insisted that Christ had two sperate natures — human and divine. On the other side were the Monophysites who argued that Christ had but a single nature — composed of the human and the divine, but tending to emphasize the former. The Alexandrian Monophysites were condemned by the Council of Chalcedon, and ultimately separated to become the Egyptian Coptic Orthodox Church.”
    http://www.bethel.edu/~letnie/AfricanChristianity/EgyptMonophysites.html
    and
    http://www.geocities.com/athens/olympus/2961/mono1.htm
    This proves that even by the mid fifth century, Christians were STILL squabbling about what it was that they were supposed to believe. Where is your one unified church Harvey? Even as late as the mid fifth century it still didn’t exist. It’s nothing more than a figment of your wishfull imagination. Why don’t you just give it up and admit it Harvey?
    And why don’t all these different sects qualify as being ‘early’ Christianities? What’s the cut off point?

    (PHB~ NONE of this is even pertinent to the argument, as were were discussing Pre-Nicea that’s 325 AD, “Christianities”. You offer groups after that, so I suppose there’s another conspiracy afoot?)

    PHB~”So 10 out of the 23 groups you mentioned were not ever considered Christian and the rest were debating over Christian issues but yet remain Christian. ONLY 1 group could be considered an ALTERNATE Christianity and they were Jews who believed in the divinity of Jesus but only wanted to keep the law too.”
    What the blazes are you talking about Harvey? They are ALL considered to be alternate Christianities according to most established Bible scholars. Look up just about any textbook or encyclopedia article on the subject.

    (PHB~ Yea Dumbo…keep the fire burin’)

    PHB~ “I preach against homosexuality. We have never had a homosexual preacher preach in our church and we do not have any homosexuals that we know of.”
    Some other churches do! But I guess those churches are not really ‘Christian’ in your eyes, so they wouldn’t count as being ‘alternate Christianities’ would they?
    PHB~ “OK now it’s varying forms of Christianity? We’re talking about alternate Christianity not varying forms. Aren’t we? That’s a subtle change but it’s a change that is not in accord with the conversation. We know about varying forms, but we’re talking about those that believe essentials. Not varying forms”

    What the heck is the difference between ‘variant’ and ‘alternate’ with regard to this discussion Harvey?

    (PHB~ Dingo, a variation of Christianity would be similar to the difference between a Baptist and a Methodist. An Alternate would be similar to a JW and a Lutheral. JW’s may believe themselves to be Christian but it is not so. Whereas both Methodist and Baptists are within Christian belief systems. Got it?)

    And no, we’re NOT talking about only those who believe as you call them ‘the essentials’. More importantly, we are talking about those versions which DIDN’T believe all ‘the essentials’ which would traditionally be classified as ‘orthodox’. You’ve narrowed these definitions down to the point where it’s become absurd, and impractical. I’m not interested in playing semantic word games with you Harvey.

    (PHB~ You’re not interested in getting to the CLEAR point of truth. Truth confuses you. You say that you’re a college professor (I may be wrong but I thought that’s what you said previously) You know as well as I that you just don’t do your job without clear definition of what you’re doing and without accurately relaying information. You also know the more detail the better unless you want associates or students to be confused. YOU want everyone confused so your rout is …”let’s don’t define our terms”…”It’s all semantics” Yea right!

    Hypothetical: You roll through a stop sign 3 days and get pulled over by the police each day. You get 2 warnings and one the third day he offers you a ticket. He say’s, “Why did you continue to roll slowly through the sign even though you knew it said stop?” You respond, “Well there’s really no difference in this case, the street was clear and at that rate there’s no difference between stop and slow down?” The officer reaches over, grabs your head, pulls you out of the window, and commences to beat you over the head with his baton…hen then asks, now what do you want me to do STOP or SLOW DOWN?”

    There is s difference and everything is not simply a semantic and you liar extrordinaire would have the public to believe. I’m not talking about word games, I’m talking about truth.)

    PHB~ “No that’s because the sin nature of man will not allow him to yield at times to what God is saying and to HIS word. Has nothing to do with the confusion of God.”
    Nonsense. It’s because the Bible is confusing to people. How else do you explain all the doctrinal differences between the various Christian sects. For example, are you a Calvinist or an Arminianist? And why do both doctrines exist, if the Bible is so clear about the question of predestination?
    PHB~ “As I said sin nature. Out of all the different Christian denominations, if they are Christian they all hold…Jesus was born of a virgin, Lived a sinless life, was the son of God (God), suffered a physical death on the cross, was physically resurrected 3 days later, and will return for HIS people…These are the essentials of the Christian faith no matter the denomination these are the common threads.”
    Then you’d better hop to it and join the Catholic Church Harvey, because it is one of the oldest versions available, and it is certainly the most popular brand of Christianity in the world today, with over a billion followers worldwide. It also has nearly 2000 years of history and tradition to back it up. Are Catholics ‘real Christians’ Harvey, because they think that your version of Christianity is “wounded”?

    (PHB~ Well I guess I’ll just stop being a Christian then….NOT! Please doesn’t matter to me Dumbo.)

    PHB~”As I said, your assertion has been demonstrated to be false. Some of the doctrines you claim that show an “alternate christianity” didn’t even exist until 3rd and 4 th century. Either way, there was no redefinition of the early church. The church was instructed through it’s leadership. If they choose an “alternate Christianity” they left the church and were no longer Christian.”
    There you go again Harvey, arbitrarily defining these sects out of existence.

    (PHB~ No I’m simply point out facts)

    You simply classify any version of Christianity which isn’t strictly orthodox, as being non-Christian. How very convenient for you! You are cheating Harvey, and being intellectually dishonest

    (PHB~ Only dishonest because you can’t seem to offer a cogent argument to the contrary)

    This is getting very tedious, and I’m rapidly losing interest in debating a dishonest opponent.

    (PHB~ Then you must be looking in the mirror and talking to yourself, becaue you’re the ONLY dishonest debater here)

    And what difference does it make if some of these sects didn’t appear until the 3rd or 4th century? That’s only between 200 – 400 AD! That’s still ‘early Christianity’ in anyone’s book except yours. The one ‘true Church’ which you speak of, turned out to be the Roman Catholic Church. (But only in Western Europe). Catholicism is the version of Christianity which eventually won out over just about all the others, but it took centuries of struggle, and the relentless persecution of heretics inorder to do so. It was the ultimate Christian authority (in western Europe) for over 1000 years. If belonging to the ‘One True Church’ is important to you Harvey, then why are you not a Catholic?

    (PHB~ RANTS, but what does that have to do with what were talking about? We’re talking Alternate Christianities Pre-Nicea. You say they were rampant and in abundance. I say they weren’t although I admitidly say there were differences in understanding and teaching “how Jesus was divine”…Can’t see the point of your observation)

    PHB~ “I’m not in a popularity contest and Harvard Professors don’t scare me…”
    It’s not a popularity contest Harvey, it’s a CREDIBILITY contest.
    PHB~”Ms. King is not exempt from being wrong as she is.”
    No she’s not, but you have yet to convince me that she is. Besides which, you implied in a previous comment that she is a radical atheist. Is she?
    PHB~” I would agree with anyone from Dallas Theological Seminary before I’d agree with her.”
    They are not exempt from being wrong are they Harvey? Or does your skepticism only run one way?

    (PHB~ Besides the fact that you don’t consider any of the thologian’s points from DTS is greater evidence of your bias. Just admit it. you’re not interested in getting to truth or looking at all the evidence ether for or against your position. I examine your fallacious authors and “so called” scholars. They are BUNK like you on most occasions.)

    PHB ~ It’s called sin, sensationalism and handling information irresponsibly. I don’t care that she is siding with persons for political and social means. That could have been her honest assessment but I’m sure we’ll see an association with Ehrman, Crossan, Funk, Price and others if we look closely.”

    “Siding with people for political and social means”? “Sensationalism and handling information irresponsibly”? Do you realise that you have just accused Professor King of academic misconduct?

    (PHB~ Uhhhhhh, well, I’m all choked up)

    These are serious and insulting allegations to be making against a reputable, well credentialled academic who works at a major university, and they come very close to being libelous.

    (PHB~ Now you just have such high morally impecable standards? Wow, I guess we better start taking moral lessons from atheists such as you who have just been so enlightened now that you’ve realized your status as well developed pieces of primordial slime…Get outta here Dumbo…wrong preacher!)

    Be very carefulabout what you accuse people of Harvey. Do you have ANY proof of these allegations, or were you just spouting off without thinking about it first? If you have no proof of what you are alleging, then I strongly urge you to retract them.

    (PHB~ I strongly usge you to drop that bottle of STUPID you been drinking for all these years. It’s starting to wear on you.

    At this point we can see that there is nothing being offered to refute or engage ANY of the arguments. I will proceed to edit the rest of Dumbo’s comments in effort to not waste further time.

    Skip to:

    HB-”Most agreed in the deity of Christ, the only argument was HOW he was deity.”
    Cerinthus didn’t!

    “Contrary to proto-orthodox Christianity, Cerinthus’s school followed the Jewish law, denied that the Supreme God had made the physical world, and denied the divinity of Jesus. In Cerinthus’ interpretation, the Christ came to Jesus at baptism, guided him in his ministry, but left him at the crucifixion.
    Like many early Christians, he taught that Jesus would establish a thousand-year reign of sensuous pleasure after the Second Coming but before the General Resurrection, a view that was defined as heretical at the Council of Nicea. Cerinthus used a version of the gospel of Matthew as scripture.
    Cerinthus taught at a time when Christianity’s relation to Judaism and to Greek philosophy had not yet been clearly defined. In his association with the Jewish law and his modest assessment of Jesus, he was similar to the Ebionites and to other Jewish Christians. In defining the world’s creator as the demiurge, he matched Greek philosophy and anticipated the Gnostics. His description of Christ as a bodiless spirit that dwelled temporarily in the man Jesus matches the Gnosticism of Valentinus.”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerinthus
    Notice that this article also describes Cerinthus as being a Christian, as well as being a proto-Gnostic.

    (PHB~ “Notice how” the articles at Wiki are posted sometimes by non-scholars who do not recognize the difference and contradictions in even some of the material they post. It can be a good refrence but not a technical one if you’re relying on details…SO WHAT Dumbo…you only restate what I already know and have explained clearly. Ceninthus WAS NOT a Christian. He taught doctrine that John the Apostle said was contrary to what was delivered to the Siants….Rant all you want, neither the biblical record or the evidence supports your assertion.)

    PHB~ “Yes I’m so ironically hurt and you’re so ironically stupid for even suggesting that what he says has anything to do with the ESSENTIALS OF THE FAITH or what it takes to be a Christian. Catholic bashing is not what we do here. People make all kinds of statements and sometimes sincere people can be sincerely wrong.”
    Obviously the Pope thinks that you are wrong! He has publically stated that he views you as being a phony clergyman who is unqualified to host a communion service. He also doesn’t think that you or your congregation really have the right to call yourselves a church. And he further stated that he thinks your church is “wounded”. I am not ‘Catholic bashing’, but the Pope is clearly ‘Protestant bashing’. Think about what you have been saying about OTHER Christian denominations when you accuse them of not being ‘real Christians’. And now the leader of the world’s most popular brand of Christianity, has come out and said that he doesn’t think that either you or your congregation constitute a real church. He has all but accused both you and your congregation of being ‘heretics’!
    Don’t you see the deep irony in all of this? Or have you had an irony bypass operation? Oh, and as a humourous little aside, do you happen to know which church department the Pope, headed up before he was elected Pope? It was ‘The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’ (CDF). The CDF is the modern name for what used to be called the “HOLY OFFICE OF THE INQUISITION.”
    So, here we have the ex- ‘Grand Inquisitor’ of the Roman Catholic Church, who is now the ‘Supreme Pontif’, and spiritual leader of over 1.1 Billion Catholics worldwide, all-but declaring both you and your congregation to be heretics. You’ve got to see some humour in that, haven’t you Harvey? Or have you had a humour bypass operation as well?
    Sorry to rub it in, but it cracks me up every time I think about it. : D Why is it that you Christians can’t seem to be able to get along with one another?

    (PHB~ Are you finished now Dingo? I let you have your moment which HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TOPIC and it’s over. OK!)

    PHB~ “Dingo there you go again…the old atheist routine. It’s called the BUCKSHOT argument. When you’ve lost one argument you create a new one within the same thread. The atheists at DC do this rather easily and conveniently when they’ve approached the end of their lies. Dingo, I may have to open another thread to put down your lies in this area also, but we won’t do it here…keep you buckshots to a minimum!”

    The many spurious Gospels, Epistles, Acts of the Apostles, and Forged Letters, which the early Christians pumped out by their thousands, are VERY relevant to this conversation Harvey. These are the very documents which the members of all of those those early alternate Christian communities used as their scriptures. I am NOT a liar for bringing these to your attention Harvey, and I’ll thank you not to call me one for doing so.
    By the way, how’s the fertiliser hunting going? Found anything that’s good for fruit trees yet?

    (PHB~ Dingo, Please try to stay focused…I’ll have to cut once again. I foyu want to argue any alternate books, I guess I’ll have to open another thread. Won’t waste my time with it and you here regarding that.)

    PHB~ “The mumbo-jumbo is from atheists like you and sites like Carrier’s. That’s the garbage that makes the world stink. That’s your world.”
    I happen to respect Carrier’s work Harvey.

    (PHB~ Ya don’t say?)

    His research makes a lot of sense. His doctrinal committee at Columbia University (where he’s currently working on his PHD) don’t think he’s a stinker either, and that’s good enough for me. Sorry Harvey, but you’re out-voted on this one. And somehow I don’t think he’d appreciate you claiming that his work stinks.

    (PHB~ Wow, well guess what…HIS WORK STINKS, and you love it because the world loves it’s own…anti-Christ advocates and all. Sensationalist extrordinaire. But that’s appealing to people such as you and that’s ok)

    Rest of Dingo’s comments edited for anything that’s even close to the topic…There’s none!

    Thanks Dingo I’ll get with you when I finish my last point on Nicea.

  6. DingoDave says:

    So now you’ve taken to editing my posts Harvey? I was responding to points YOU made in the parts that you saw fit to edit. I guess that you’re not used to people disagreeing with you, huh?

    (PHB~ WHat I’m used to is people actually staying on point and arguing the subject at hand, which is something that you don’t do and certainly didn’t do with the ranting in your last post. I won’t allow you to grandstand…that’s all you are, and a-1 grandstander)

    Just keep preaching to the choir Harvey, it’s what you do best. I’m sure your flock will accept just about anything you tell them, but not this little black duck.

    (PHB~ Now what does that mean? Especially “little black duck” part?)

    I refuse to debate any longer with someone who edits his opponent’s posts, so I’m out of here. Have a nice life Harvey.

    (PHB~ I refuse to allow you to grandstand and go totally off topic which is the atheist buckshot themesong when you’ve lost and argument. It’s that simple. I don’t mind opposing points, but I despise grandstanders and you fit the part well. Besides unless you had new information your arguments was refuted and done, all you were doing was picking with me personally, had NOTHING to do with the subject…Get a life Dingo!)

  7. Loveblog says:

    Thanks for visiting my website. Yours is pretty interesting too!

  8. Melvin Jones says:

    I’ve been following you on and off. You’re really getting quite good. Keep up the very good work.

    Of course, I still disagree with you on some things, but hey, I’m enjoying your work.

    Melvin

    PHB ~ Thanks Melvin, and I really do appreciate it. I approached the whole thing wrong initially in my opinion. I realized that this was and is a ministry also. I originally undervalued the opportunity. That realization has led me to more carefully manage both my time and assertions. And I don’t mind the disagreements as long as we don’t go where we went before. Personally I believe we both realize just how complicated and difficult most of this stuff is.

    One thing I am concerned about is the current Pope’s stance and instructions against what he termed “Fundamentalism” I believe that he was talking about Protestantism(sp) in general. It seems that the Catholic Chruch under his direction is taking the stance to call ANYONE who is not subject to them heretics.

    Have you done or do you plan to do any research on this? If so I would like to maybe work along with you. Maybe put together a multipart series addressing this, because according to some of the Pope’s statements all Christians outside of the “Mother Church” would be wrong no matter what we believe or say. I’ve also noticed some scholarly conversions from Evangelicalism to Catholocism. This is disturbing to me also.)

  9. Melvin Jones says:

    By the way, how do you display the comment and inform the person their comment is awaiting moderation?

    Melvin

    (PHB~ In my system, I simply set the account to moderate. It seems to do the rest. now I don’t know if that’s just a feature of this page design or a uniform feature to WordPress. I do remember however, back early on, your site used to let me know that the comment was awaiting moderation also. I used to get the same at GCMwatch too. So I inclined to believe that the feature is there somewhere. I’ll plug around in this today and if I find something specifically I’ll email you what I found. Thanks.)

  10. sandrar says:

    Hi! I was surfing and found your blog post… nice! I love your blog. 🙂 Cheers! Sandra. R.

    PHB~Well sandra, welcome and I hope you return and feel free to post comments often. Don’t forget our primary site at The Dunamis Word. Thanks and God bless.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Help Support The Ministry

Hot Topics

Media & Podcasts

Pastor's Profile

Study Materials

%d bloggers like this: