Fighting Fire

[Fire]

Even an disinterested person can see you can't admit when you're wrong.

Firstly you're off-topic. This is as far as I can see not about the Christian concept of the Trinity, but the Muslimah one... which as shown by various Christians here is wrong in that it states that the Trinity is Father Son and Mom Mary

Secondly, you've already been presented with a virtual chronology of sayings from the time of the Bible through to Nicea

Thirdly you just lied as a post ago you claimed you'd said nothing about Nicea.

Not only that, you make claims that Paul is a liar, with no evidence but your now discredited say-so. so!

This thread is for anyone who has issues with what I post.
The invitation is open for anyone to attempt to prove that I am a liar.

 

[balleballe]

i just want to know what is your religious background.or you are an atheist ,agnostic or mystic.

 

[Chrysostomon]

This thread is for anyone who has issues with what I post.
The invitation is open for anyone to attempt to prove that I am a liar.

I thought you were going to dedicate a post to St. Paul. You made certain allegations about him.

But, anyway...
Post #60 Did Satan Write The Holy Quran?

The father, Son, and Holy sprit and not all one and the same. The doctrine of the trinity is a misunderstood theological theory which was enforced by the council of Nicea.

Someone SWalch or Montaban had challenged you to defend your claims that the Nicean Creed was where the Trinity was 'invented'. You then denied that you had. They posted a lot of stuff about Nicea and asked you to defend it. And you replied...

Post #140 Muslims re-work the Trinity: The ultimate straw-man

I never claimed that the doctrine of the trinity was invented at the Council of Nicea. It has always been an unproven theological theory.

First you're attacking Nicea, then you're not.

You've made an allegation about St. Paul which I wanted you to address. Instead you've laid out a 'challenge' to show where you say one thing, then another.

 

[Chrysostomon]

i just want to know what is your religious background.or you are an atheist ,agnostic or mystic.

I'd like to know why this person believes Judas was one to replace Jesus on the cross; based on some notion that he was a 'shape-shifter'

Where did that come from? What text?

 

[Fire]

i just want to know what is your religious background.or you are an atheist ,agnostic or mystic.

Hi balleballe,

I like the term mystic best of the three choices you supplied.
My background is predominantly Christian, but I do not claim to be a Christian.

 

[Chrysostomon]

Hi balleballe,

I like the term mystic best of the three choices you supplied.
My background is predominantly Christian, but I do not claim to be a Christian.

You sound like a JW

 

[Fire]

I thought you were going to dedicate a post to St. Paul. You made certain allegations about him.

I have posted about Paul on the following thread (Post #481):

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=11051796#post11051796

You've made an allegation about St. Paul which I wanted you to address. Instead you've laid out a 'challenge' to show where you say one thing, then another.

My challenge was for you or anyone else to prove a lie. All I have seen so far is your post of my refusal to address a spurious issue.

The shapeshifter issue is important because it associates the issues of Paul's false account of the fate of Judas to the contradictions surrounding the crucifixion and also the the issue of ritual blood sacrifice.

If you want to raise issues about Paul, please do it on the other thread.

 

[Chrysostomon]

I have posted about Paul on the following thread (Post #481):

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=11051796#post11051796


My challenge was for you or anyone else to prove a lie. All I have seen so far is your post of my refusal to address a spurious issue.

The shapeshifter issue is important because it associates the issues of Paul's false account of the fate of Judas to the contradictions surrounding the crucifixion and also the the issue of ritual blood sacrifice.

If you want to raise issues about Paul, please do it on the other thread.

No, as I showed - you made one statement about Nicea, then denied having raised it.

 

[Chrysostomon]

Note I've replied to your allegation, in part.

You call Paul the Apostle a liar based on a book he didn't write of a speech he didn't make

 

[Fire]

You call Paul the Apostle a liar based on a book he didn't write of a speech he didn't make

No I didn't. I called him a liar for many reasons. My primary reasons are doctrinal rather than textual. The textual reasons are easier to prove than the doctrinal ones if we presume that he wrote Acts.

The doctrinal reasons concern the authority of a Pharisee to interpret the law, and the secular focusof Paul.

you made one statement about Nicea, then denied having raised it.

How do you raise a statement? lol
If you mean that I made a made a statement and then denied making that same statement, can you tell me what the statement was?

 

[S Walch]

Luke wrote acts - Paul didn't.

Proof for this is in Acts itself.

A Call from Macedonia

6 Next Paul and Silas traveled through the area of Phrygia and Galatia, because the Holy Spirit had told them not to go into the province of Asia at that time.
7 Then coming to the borders of Mysia, they headed for the province of Bithynia, but again the Spirit of Jesus did not let them go.
8 So instead, they went on through Mysia to the city of Troas.
9 That night Paul had a vision. He saw a man from Macedonia in northern Greece, pleading with him, "Come over here and help us."
10 So we decided to leave for Macedonia at once, for we could only conclude that God was calling us to preach the Good News there.

Why would Paul write the book refer to himself in the third person and then in Acts 16:10 refer to himself in the first person?

During Acts chapter 16: Luke, the writer of Acts had joined Paul on his journey.

We can therefore conclude that Paul did not write the book of Acts, but Luke did.

 

[Fire]

Luke wrote acts - Paul didn't.

Proof for this is in Acts itself.

There is no evidence of your claim in Acts, let alone proof.
All you have shown as evidence of your claim is your assertion that Luke joined Paul on his journey of Acts 16.
And there is no evidence in Acts 15 to support this assertion either.

So basically you claimed to have proved something without showing any substantive evidence to support your position.

Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; [namely], Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren:
Acts 15:22

And some days after Paul said unto Barnabas, Let us go again and visit our brethren in every city where we have preached the word of the Lord, [and see] how they do.
And Barnabas determined to take with them John, whose surname was Mark.
But Paul thought not good to take him with them, who departed from them from Pamphylia, and went not with them to the work.
And the contention was so sharp between them, that they departed asunder one from the other: and so Barnabas took Mark, and sailed unto Cyprus;
And Paul chose Silas, and departed, being recommended by the brethren unto the grace of God.
Acts 15:36-40

Why would Paul write the book refer to himself in the third person and then in Acts 16:10 refer to himself in the first person?

A good question, but I am sure that the moderators would not approve of my answer. I would be happy to discuss this with you at the following forum:

http://www.silentconfession.com/

 

[tulc]

I'd like to know why this person believes Judas was one to replace Jesus on the cross; based on some notion that he was a 'shape-shifter

Who believes that?
tulc(oddly enough I did just read this on that site Fire gave)

 

[Fire]

Who believes that?

I have mentioned shapeshifting in other posts. I do not believe that Judas was a shapeshifter, rather I believe that his appearance was changed in a manner similar to that of shapeshifting.

 

[tulc]

I do not believe that Judas was a shapeshifter, rather I believe that his appearance was changed in a manner similar to that of shapeshifting.

Umm why would that happen?
tulc(just a little curious)

 

[Fire]

Umm why would that happen?
tulc(just a little curious)

Because it was just. The betrayer suffered the fate of the betrayed, and the righteous one was delivered from evil.

 

[tulc]

Because it was just. The betrayer suffered the fate of the betrayed, and the righteous one was delivered from evil.

Ahh. OK. So the whole sacrifice/resurrection/salvation/return? Not real?
tulc(drinking a great cup of coffee!)

 

[Fire]

Ahh. OK. So the whole sacrifice/resurrection/salvation/return? Not real?
tulc(drinking a great cup of coffee!)

Reality includes the unexpected.

A sacrifice was made which fulfilled the law. Ron Wyatt's work regarding the ark of the covenant establishes this. The resurrection idea is more in keeping with Krishna (Kristna), and Horus the KRST.

Salvation belongs to YHWH. While grace is mentioned in relation to the Word of YHWH, The teaching of the Torah promotes the righteousness which ensures deliverance from evil.

I'm still investigating the theology of the return. All I will say in this regard is that Christians are probably in for a suprise.

 

[tulc]

All I will say in this regard is that Christians are probably in for a suprise.

I'm sure we all will be in for a surprise or two!
tulc(have a pleasant night!)

 

[BarbB]

Aren't werewolves shapeshifters?