The Pope is not the Anti-Christ...

#52
#52
hallowed_hill said:
This guy probably disagrees (1 jn 4:1-6, 2 jn 7)
Click to expand...

Feel free to provide the entire chapters for our edification.

I find it a little incredulous to think that the individuals who sat down at the Synods called by the Papacy would include scripture they thought in any way could be construed to label the Papacy as the Anti-Christ.

Also, just because the book and/or letters are called "John" does not man they were written by any man named "John" much less an Apostle of Jesus. The Johanine Gospel and Letters are some of the youngest documents in the new Testament (only the Petrine Epistles are younger); therefore, the authors certanly never knew Jesus in human form (counter to the implication of your picture).
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
Last edited:
#53
#53
therealUT said:
Also, just because the book and/or letters are called "John" does not man they were written by any man named "John" much less an Apostle of Jesus. The Johanine Gospel and Letters are some of the youngest documents in the new Testament (only the Petrine Epistles are younger); therefore, the authors certanly never knew Jesus in human form (counter to the implication of your picture).
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...
I understand and would expect your attraction to the skeptic's position on scripture and higher criticism. However you should not state as fact things that are FAR from established fact.
 
#54
#54
therealUT said:
"Doctrinally opposing" is fundamentally different from labeling the Papacy the Anti-Christ.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

I do not know who the Anti-Christ might be.

IF the doctrines of biblicists like Baptists are correct then the papacy is "antichrist" (lower case). "Anti" does not mean against in either use. It means "instead of" or "in the place of". Catholics claim the Pope as the "vicar" of Christ. If that doctrine is NOT correct then by definition that system is "antichrist" apostasy.

These ARE technical terms that are not immediately understood by the uninitiated whose only exposure to the concept of Antichrist/antichrist is the Omen or even Left Behind.
 
#55
#55
sjt18 said:
I do not know who the Anti-Christ might be.

IF the doctrines of biblicists like Baptists are correct then the papacy is "antichrist" (lower case). "Anti" does not mean against in either use. It means "instead of" or "in the place of". Catholics claim the Pope as the "vicar" of Christ. If that doctrine is NOT correct then by definition that system is "antichrist" apostasy.

These ARE technical terms that are not immediately understood by the uninitiated whose only exposure to the concept of Antichrist/antichrist is the Omen or even Left Behind.
Click to expand...

The Anti-Christ, as defined, is the embodiment of pure evil. To state that hatred is not attached to such a term would be a farce; if Hitler had been correct in Mein Kampf, then the eradication of the German Jews would hae been a good thing.

Trying to justify such a claim as Bachman's church is making is absolutely ludicrous.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#56
#56
sjt18 said:
I understand and would expect your attraction to the skeptic's position on scripture and higher criticism. However you should not state as fact things that are FAR from established fact.
Click to expand...

There is not a single school of HBC that states otherwise; the RCC, the Anglican Church, and the Eastern Orthodox Church also concede the point. Those who still believe, in opposition to the evidence, that these documents were writen by persons with personal relationships with Jesus are in the fringe minority of Christianity.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#57
#57
therealUT said:
Feel free to provide the entire chapters for our edification.

I find it a little incredulous to think that the individuals who sat down at the Synods called by the Papacy would include scripture they thought in any way could be construed to label the Papacy as the Anti-Christ.

Also, just because the book and/or letters are called "John" does not man they were written by any man named "John" much less an Apostle of Jesus. The Johanine Gospel and Letters are some of the youngest documents in the new Testament (only the Petrine Epistles are younger); therefore, the authors certanly never knew Jesus in human form (counter to the implication of your picture).
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

I think it a bit incredulous to hold up the view of the early councils with regard to the papacy but not apostolic authorship of Johannine literature. The dating of P52 to c. 125 as well as the testimony of Polycarp and Irenaeus certainly supports the plausibility of the author of the gospel or epistles having walked and talked with Jesus of Nazareth. I find the source-critical evidence precarious at best in the debate and, to be honest, don't really see the relevance to the discussion at hand.

Luther and the other Reformers attacked the theology and practices of the Roman church as they had developed over centuries. While I disagree with them on the specifics here (as i'm sure many Lutherans do if they're being honest), my point in referencing 1 and 2 John was that discussions of antichrists in scripture always center on doctrine.

While we're talking fundamental differences, rants from the pulpit are slightly different than trying to catch someone because of a theological point on the fringe of one's denomination. Media-both conservative and liberal-struggles at incorporating theology into the political conversation. These discussions get pretty tiring. Mormon underwear anyone?
 
#58
#58
therealUT said:
The Anti-Christ, as defined, is the embodiment of pure evil.
Click to expand...
As defined by who?

"The" Antichrist according to the escatalogical view held by most conservative evangelicals today is a coming world leader who is actively in league with Satan. He will not appear evil at all. He will appear to solve all sorts of problems for awhile.

An "antichrist" is one who promotes and spreads "another gospel" leading people away from biblical faith in Christ and to a church or false leader/teacher.
To state that hatred is not attached to such a term would be a farce; if Hitler had been correct in Mein Kampf, then the eradication of the German Jews would hae been a good thing.
Click to expand...
I think I gave you too much credit on the topic (not intended as an insult). You do not understand what you are condemning.

You seem to be blaming the church because the unchurched do not understand technical doctrinal terms.

Trying to justify such a claim as Bachman's church is making is absolutely ludicrous.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

We might as well stop now. You seem completely unwilling to even try to understand.

In summary, no... preaching doctrine that hold the Pope "antichrist" or even suggest that the Antichrist might rise through a powerful religious organization like the RCC is NOT hatred toward Catholics generally. It is no less benign than RCC teachings that all others are apostate "strays" who need to come home to the mother church.
 
#59
#59
therealUT said:
The Anti-Christ, as defined, is the embodiment of pure evil. To state that hatred is not attached to such a term would be a farce; if Hitler had been correct in Mein Kampf, then the eradication of the German Jews would hae been a good thing.

Trying to justify such a claim as Bachman's church is making is absolutely ludicrous.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Excellent post. I agree.
 
#60
#60
therealUT said:
There is not a single school of HBC that states otherwise; the RCC, the Anglican Church, and the Eastern Orthodox Church also concede the point. Those who still believe, in opposition to the evidence, that these documents were writen by persons with personal relationships with Jesus are in the fringe minority of Christianity.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Nope. Conservative scholars today are not a "fringe" minority when it comes to textual criticism. They are not only active, mainstream, published, and scholarly in their approach... they agree with pretty much every scholar that existed before the advent of higher criticism about 150 years ago. That movement was NOT from within Christianity but was an adaptation of the increasingly popular "materialistic/modernist" philosophy. Not surprisingly, the mainline churches that adopted the liberalized and revisionist view of Christianity have been in long decline.

You seem to favor Catholic sources. This seems to be a fairly balanced discussion:

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Epistles of Saint John
 
#61
#61
Have you read the link I gave you concerning Black Liberation Theology?

If the worst interpretation of Bachmann's church is reality... it still doesn't approach the pervasive hatred expressed by BLT.
 
#62
#62
SWIL said:
pope-benedict-palpatine-300x174.jpg
Click to expand...
:eek:lol:
 
#63
#63
LawVol13 said:
Excellent post. I agree.
Click to expand...

I disagree, but no surprise I suppose. You said this about my first post I ever made on VN (about the slide in the vandy hoops game):

LawVol13 said:
Yes, it's one of the dumber arguments I've seen on here.
Click to expand...

Must not think much of my reasoning skills, considering some of the arguments I've seen on here. ha.

BTW, since we argued about it, I've talked with several fellow refs on a number of occasions, and every one of them agreed with me. A slide is not a travel. I know it goes against intuition, but since he was dribbling as he fell to the floor and a slide is not a violation, he did not travel. But I digress.
 
#64
#64
sjt18 said:
Nope. Conservative scholars today are not a "fringe" minority when it comes to textual criticism. They are not only active, mainstream, published, and scholarly in their approach... they agree with pretty much every scholar that existed before the advent of higher criticism about 150 years ago. That movement was NOT from within Christianity but was an adaptation of the increasingly popular "materialistic/modernist" philosophy. Not surprisingly, the mainline churches that adopted the liberalized and revisionist view of Christianity have been in long decline.

You seem to favor Catholic sources. This seems to be a fairly balanced discussion:

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Epistles of Saint John
Click to expand...

The site you cited claims the following, when completely boiled down: the origin, from author to time and place, is dubious. The claim made by the author and backed up by Ireaneus, is that the author is John; yet, it is written, most likely, in the last few years of the Century.

So, it is possible that John, a contemporary of Jesus (who was presumably ~30 in 30 AD), lived to be 100. I would place the likelihood of that as highly unlikely; therefore, I, along with most HBC schools (HISTORICAL Biblical Criticism) make the assertion that it was authored by someone else.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#65
#65
therealUT said:
The site you cited claims the following, when completely boiled down: the origin, from author to time and place, is dubious. The claim made by the author and backed up by Ireaneus, is that the author is John; yet, it is written, most likely, in the last few years of the Century.

So, it is possible that John, a contemporary of Jesus (who was presumably ~30 in 30 AD), lived to be 100. I would place the likelihood of that as highly unlikely; therefore, I, along with most HBC schools (HISTORICAL Biblical Criticism) make the assertion that it was authored by someone else.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

IIRC, John was young when he walked with Jesus. If he was say 22 when Christ died around 37 AD then he would have been 85 in 100 AD.

Like I said before, I am not surprised that the skeptic's view or higher criticism appeals to you.
 
#66
#66
Sjt - skeptical of math and science, not of anything the church has told him.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#68
#68
hallowed_hill said:
I disagree, but no surprise I suppose. You said this about my first post I ever made on VN (about the slide in the vandy hoops game):



Must not think much of my reasoning skills, considering some of the arguments I've seen on here. ha.

BTW, since we argued about it, I've talked with several fellow refs on a number of occasions, and every one of them agreed with me. A slide is not a travel. I know it goes against intuition, but since he was dribbling as he fell to the floor and a slide is not a violation, he did not travel. But I digress.
Click to expand...


I think many ref's could be the Anti-Christ.



Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#69
#69
sjt18 said:
IIRC, John was young when he walked with Jesus. If he was say 22 when Christ died around 37 AD then he would have been 85 in 100 AD.

Like I said before, I am not surprised that the skeptic's view or higher criticism appeals to you.
Click to expand...

I am surprsed that one could believe mythology based soley on the apparent authority of unknown ancestors yet reject HBC which is based upon the serious study of ancient history and the history of languages. I have no problem being labeled a "skeptic", afterall, the most brilliant athor I have ever read, T.S. Eliot, states that "skepticism is the highest form of civilization". Keep in mind, Eliot was a devout Anglican apologist.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#72
#72
therealUT said:
I am surprsed that one could believe mythology based soley on the apparent authority of unknown ancestors yet reject HBC which is based upon the serious study of ancient history and the history of languages. Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Do you try to act condescending or are you trying to cover something up by acting so smug? You come off as someone trying to squelch debate because you're afraid to discuss things respectfully.

I have read numerous books on criticism and it is hardly the lopsided intellectual affair that you apparently want to believe in. Just because you have chosen or been indoctrinated into an opinion does not make it a closed matter.
 
#73
#73
sjt18 said:
Do you try to act condescending or are you trying to cover something up by acting so smug? You come off as someone trying to squelch debate because you're afraid to discuss things respectfully.

I have read numerous books on criticism and it is hardly the lopsided intellectual affair that you apparently want to believe in. Just because you have chosen or been indoctrinated into an opinion does not make it a closed matter.
Click to expand...

Ironic, that you are complaining about your SOP.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#74
#74
VOLatile said:
Sjt - skeptical of math and science, not of anything the church has told him.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

So are Bultmann and Schleiermacher math or science? Just want to know which I'm skeptical of as well.

Ironically, You've brought us full circle, though, since Luther's skepticism of a wholly authoritative church is the question at hand. therealUT and others evidently think it hatred. The language seems harsh to our ears, even to a Lutheran like Bachmann. But Tetzel, Eck, and all of Rome's henchmen were certainly a formidable opponent, worthy of the highest criticism. Perhaps if Brian Kelly was springing poor, homeless, uneducated souls from purgatory for a mere donation to the Golden Domers we'd understand a little better.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
Last edited:
#75
#75
Give me a break; Luther could have easily kept his criticism to specific individuals and the Lutheran Church could have followed suit. He did not. He decided to call an entre religion pure evil and such a claim is ludicrous. For those who want to somehow water down this evil by simply stating that the Anti-Christ would be someone who appeared good but was in lague with Satan (pure evil), they need to take a critical look into such a ridiculous statement. Also, I this is how one feels (that the RCC is the Anti-Christ), then at least be strong enough in such faith not to try to watersuch a statement down or disown it due to political convenience.

Bachman is a hack and this is just another instance, in a long series of events, that demonstrates this.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top