Jerusalem Patriarchs denounce Christian Zionism

8,290 Views | 237 Replies | Last: 4 days ago by Zobel
CrackerJackAg
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Silent For Too Long • 3:51p, 1/25/26
AG
Silent For Too Long said:
The fact that you still won't admit what you did was wrong says all I need to know about your character. Your childish rhetoric only cements that opinion.

Something about a tree and the fruit it produces comes to mind.


Shrug
Reply Quote
1
Silent For Too Long
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Zobel • 3:54p, 1/25/26
Zobel said:
My friend, I think we've pretty clearly arrived at the end of the beneficial portion of this discussion.

Just to be clear, though, any time you address a person making an argument - for example, as you did here, here, here, and here - that's an ad hom. To be very specific, the argument in the last link, which is the form of:

"what you're saying about people having blood on their hands is invalid because I think your tradition also has blood on its hands" is textbook tu quoque.

I'm pretty sure I thoroughly understand all the vocabulary I've used here, and not only have I engaged with your discussion about the Samaritans in good faith and at length, I'm pretty sure I'm representing you in your own words. You certainly haven't backed off of any of your statements.

And, for the record, calling me a liar is definitely an ad hom.

I defend my faith the way I have here - which is appealing to my Faith, its teachings, the Holy Scriptures, and rooting all of that in a Christological framework. I am honestly not sure how to charitably describe what you're doing here, other than schoolmarming others about their choice in language and calling everyone prideful liars.

Shrug.


I explicitly said that I wasn't saying Samaritans had the True Faith, and you kept lying and saying I did.

I'm not calling you a liar as a form of argument. I'm calling you a liar because you lied.
Reply Quote
Zobel
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Silent For Too Long • 4:00p, 1/25/26
AG
bud. this is all you.

Quote:
The Abrahamic convenat is preserved with the Samaritans

The Samaritans have faithfully lived by The Torah for over 3,000 years. YHWH sees that.

The Samaritan Torah is probably the closest to the original.

Samaritans are THE ORIGINAL "CHURCH" who stayed faithful to THE ORIGINAL Theology.

The Samaritans are the living descendants of the original Torah tradition. They are, in a the realist sense, the most orthodox followers of YHWH on earth.

They have remained Orthodox to the Original Theology.


I have explained how these taken together are an identical claim in essence to "the samaritans are the true faithful people of God" here.

But you do you.
Reply Quote
Silent For Too Long
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Zobel • 4:03p, 1/25/26
And I have explained to you that I'm not using the words original to mean true.

Just, you know, the actual definition of the word original.
Meaning first.
Reply Quote
Silent For Too Long
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Zobel • 4:07p, 1/25/26
Also, you can't shield yourself from hypocrisy by screaming tu quoquo.

If you are using thousands of deaths to invalidate the Dispensationlist position, then that same logic could be used to invalidate virtually ALL faith traditions.
Reply Quote
Silent For Too Long
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Zobel • 4:12p, 1/25/26
Zobel, I actually have a lot of respect for you and you've mostly stuck to the high road and done an admirable job explaining your position.

CJ has consistently been an immature jackass.

I would love to hear more from you, though, as I truly appreciate you taking the time you have to explain your faith.
Reply Quote
Zobel
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Silent For Too Long • 4:17p, 1/25/26
AG
In a revelatory religion, original and true are fundamentally identical by necessity. The only way this can't be the case is if the thing being revealed changes. Since God does not change, no subsequent revelation can invalidate a previous one. One must be false. Where two extant faith traditions are mutually incompatible, only one can be true. The true one cannot post-date the "original" unless the so-called "original" is unrelated. Therefore if the Samaritan faith is "original" and false then in no way can a subsequent derivation of it be true in any sense of the word. Since the Torah is true, the Samaritan Torah is not, therefore it cannot be original. QED.

Further.

The scriptures - the Torah and the prophets - speak of Christ (Luke 24:44, John 5:39, Acts 3:18, Acts 13:29, Romans 15:4, John 1:45, Acts 26:22-23, 1 Peter 1:1-12, Romans 1:2, Acts 17:2-3, Matthew 26:56, John 20:9, Acts 28:23).

They do not worship Christ.

Therefore whatever theology they have is flawed

Therefore it cannot be the original revelation of God to Man, because Christ is God.

QED.

Working the other direction -

The Abrahamic covenant is culminated in the singular seed of Christ. Only those who are in Christ may inherit the promises of Abraham (Galatians 3:7-9, 16-18, 29, 4:28 Romans 4:13, 9:7-8; Ephesians 3:6, Acts 3:25, 1 Cor 3:23)

The Torah requires ritual activities for faithful living, and part of this is explicitly requiring a singular location for sacrifice. Their Torah requires this to be done at Mt Gerazim and is fundamentally incompatible with the Torah of the Judaeans - the faithful portion of Israel preserved to produce the Messiah. Therefore it is not true that they have lived faithfully by the (true) Torah.

They do not worship Christ, therefore they are not the people of God, therefore they are not the original Church (which means nothing more than the assembled people of God)

Their theology is incorrect, and appears at a distinct point in time; where it materially differs (i.e., worship at Mt Gerazim vs Jerusalem) we know it was altered AFTER the Torah was handed down, therefore it was false; therefore their theology is not ORIGINAL in any sense of the word whatever (true or first)

Therefore they are not the living descendents of the original Torah tradition.

Again as they do not follow Jesus Christ who is Yahweh there is no sense (realest or otherwise) where they can be said to be followers of Yahweh, orthodox or otherwise.

You may not necessarily endorse the problematic nature of your statements, taken together. That's fine. But taken together, they do mean things you may not intend. My pointing that out doesn't make me a liar.
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
Zobel
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Silent For Too Long • 4:25p, 1/25/26
AG
Silent For Too Long said:
Also, you can't shield yourself from hypocrisy by screaming tu quoquo.

If you are using thousands of deaths to invalidate the Dispensationlist position, then that same logic could be used to invalidate virtually ALL faith traditions.

I know you don't realize the law of maximum irony is at play here, but this is like... the quintessence of tu quoque, for precisely the reason you seem to think it isn't. Here's why - since we're all in the spirit of learning.

Let's say you're totally correct, and the hypocrisy precludes critique. Does that make any particular religion correct for causing those deaths? Does it change the moral nature of the deaths, or excuse them?

If a person with blood on their hands correctly identifies a second person as a murderer, does the first person's blatant hypocrisy make the second murderer innocent? Of course not.

Therefore the fact that you bring up alleged other wrongs is tu quoque, and this is a logical fallacy because even if true it has no bearing whatever on the question at hand, which is - does dispensationalism as a teaching bear guilt for thousands of deaths? The answer is manifestly yes, regardless of how we feel about the RCC, or the Orthodox, or Muslims, or Jews. It is irrelevant, which is why it's a logical fallacy.

The fact that you think me pointing this out is some kind of indictment of me, personally, as a hypocrite is even better because now we have like a meta-fallacy structure where you allege my hypocrisy (ad hom) is invalid defense against accusations of hypocrisy (ad hom). This is all ad hom, like fractally.
Reply Quote
2
Silent For Too Long
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Zobel • 4:42p, 1/25/26
I think there is a very good chance that the original Torah did say Mount Gerizim. The textual criticism that backs this up is beyond the scope of this thread, but the arguments are out there if you care to research them.

The point of bringing up the Samaritans isn't that I think they are right, only to point put that they don't think they have done anything wrong. They have faithfully maintained the oldest understanding of The Torah, in their eyes.

You think YHWH has rejected them for getting things wrong. I don't, necessarily, because every faith tradition gets some things wrong. The case against the Deuterocanon as authoritative scripture is a very strong one. For instance. However, I don't think that the RCC/EO insistence on including it means YHWH rejects them, either.

I reject the notion that any man is in position to define what is or isn't The Church or Isreal. God alone is that judge.
Reply Quote
2 edits
Silent For Too Long
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Zobel • 4:50p, 1/25/26
I never said it was "an indictment against you." I do think it would be accurate to say that if you think Dispensationalist philosophy leads to peope dying but have no problem with the millions of deaths in the hands of both the RCC and the EO, you are being a hypocrite.

Also, you seem to be missing the fallacious reasoning in the assumption that "leading to deaths" means the theology itself is wrong. Christ himself knew Christianity would lead to deaths.

Quote:
"Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. 36 And a person's enemies will be those of his own household.


So, even granting the Dispensationalism "leads to deaths"...so what? What's your point?
Reply Quote
Zobel
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:05p, 1/25/26
AG
You can't go a single post without calling me a hypocrite even if we all agree it's irrelevant.

Take it easy bud.
Reply Quote
Silent For Too Long
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Zobel • 5:11p, 1/25/26
Also, since you keep using the words ad hominem incorrectly, I feel the need to clarify this.

When someone is being an *******, and you call them an *******, that's not an ad hominem. It's accurately describing reality. Now, if you say "no one should listen to you because you are an *******," that would be an ad hominem.

CJ describing all Protestant Dispensationalists as "ignorant ******s" was a textbook ad hominem. Me describing his rude and immature behavior as rude, filled with hubris, or immature is merely accurately describing reality. I'm not using it as a form of argumentation or to invalidate his arguments, I'm saying it because it just happens to be true.
Reply Quote
1 edit
Silent For Too Long
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Zobel • 5:17p, 1/25/26
Zobel said:
You can't go a single post without calling me a hypocrite even if we all agree it's irrelevant.

Take it easy bud.


It was a conditional statement. Read more closely.

"If you have a problem when one group does something, but don't have a problem when your group does it, you are being a hypocrite. "

By definition.

Or, if you prefer:
Quote:

And why do you look at the speck in your brother's eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye?


OMG JESUS! TU QUOQUE!
Reply Quote
Severian the Torturer
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Silent For Too Long • 5:25p, 1/25/26
Silent For Too Long said:
Zobel said:
You can't go a single post without calling me a hypocrite even if we all agree it's irrelevant.

Take it easy bud.


It was a conditional statement. Read more closely.

"If you have a problem when one group does something, but don't have a problem when your group does it, you are being a hypocrite. "

By definition.

Or, if you prefer:
Quote:

And why do you look at the speck in your brother's eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye?


OMG JESUS! TU QUOQUE!


Bro, taking the Lord's name in vain is inexcusable.
Reply Quote
3
Zobel
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Silent For Too Long • 5:30p, 1/25/26
AG

Quote:
The point of bringing up the Samaritans isn't that I think they are right, only to point put that they don't think they have done anything wrong. They have faithfully maintained the oldest understanding of The Torah, in their eyes.

So what? Everyone may rationalize what they do, or do it with sincerity. They reject and continue to reject Yahweh.

Quote:
every faith tradition gets some things wrong

That's just, like, your opinion man. That's not what the scriptures say.

Quote:
I reject the notion that any man is in position to define what is or isn't The Church or Isreal. God alone is that judge.

This also isn't in the scripture, because the scripture tells us what is and isn't the Church. Being outside of the Church is not an indictment of a person's soul, and identifying someone outside of Church, or a false Israel, isn't the same as judging them. I already pointed this out once.

Nevertheless, it is absolutely possible to affirm what is the Church. Your stance makes that impossible, because by definition drawing a line puts some in and some out. So, if we take your approach, we're reduced to a kind of Christian solipsism where no one can know the church, or the truth, and is guaranteed to be in error, so even the Samaritans are ok in some ways because, hey, we're all wrong sometimes. This is a disturbing thing, to me. I just say I reject this out of hand in favor of affirming we have strong positive claims about our faith, and can use them as criteria.

And, armed with the faith, the historic and unbroken teaching of the church, and the scriptures, we can say - the Samaritans were false. If their version of the Torah is correct then Judah was in abject sin and at no point was the worship of David (for example) God-pleasing. The Lord was wrong when He spoke to St Photini. We can similarly say that those who have rejected Jesus Christ as King have been faithless to the heir, and are cut off, and will not inherit. So we can properly relate to them as outside the Church, the people of God, and in need of repentance. This is critically important!

Unlike the dispensationalists who imagine some kind of hereditary or ritual or Torah-keeping path to salvation other than Christ. This is a blatant attack on the scripture, and is wrong, and a false teaching, and blocks the way of salvation. It should be rejected as such. The fact that it results in temporal war and bloodshed is ON TOP of this.
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
Zobel
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:05p, 1/25/26
AG
One last thing, and my last comment on this thread.

This kind of "all faiths have problems" thing is taught presented as a kind of posture of humiltiy. But it itself is as much of a substantive faith-claim as "the Church is infallible". There's no neutral ground here.

The problem is, as a teaching, it carries a serious problem, and is incredibly prideful, because it presumes authority over all traditions simultaneously. To be able to affirm that every tradition is deficient is to place yourself (implicitly or explicitly) above them as evaluator. That's the exact opposite of humility because it is radical universal judgment. It is taught to people who would otherwise never take such pride upon themselves - again, I'm not calling those who hold prideful, because they were taught this - and it truly is damaging in that regard. But the structure of the claim is unavoidably prideful.

Even more, it also impinges on a question of the Character of God. It poses that He is unwilling, or unable to preserve an infallible church, or that He has no reason to do so. Both undermine the coherence of the person of God and the nature of the God presented to us in the Scriptures, nevermind the faithfulness displayed in the promises and covenants.

But there's also the damage of the anthropological effect. Because of the nature of this claim, it prevents people from engaging ANY belief, faith, or practice with humility, because it locates final authority in the individual. That means that inherent to this belief is a universal personal authority to evaluate, judge, and decide between any faith, or any faith claim. It's inherent to the belief, inescapable and permanent. So this is the antithesis of humility, but radical autonomy.

This is incredibly damaging to people, because this prevents even the possibility of obedience and growth. Humility requires submission, obedience requires an external authority. Appeals to "God alone" don't resolve this because we're not presented an unmediated face-to-face God as the rule, only the notable exception. We instead are given each other to submit to and practice because, as the Lord teaches, how we interact with each other is how we interact with Him, as each is in His Image.

The Christian life is by contrast explicitly one of submission, formation, and transformation. We are shaped in relationship to our community, with its inherent hierarchy, and that can't happen if we are able to stand above something in perpetual evaluation. A teaching that structurally prevents this kills humility, and killing humility kills obedience. Killing obedience precludes faithfulness.

This idea is so corrosive and it leads to people being so confused. I'm not picking on anyone in this thread, but the effects are clear. It should be rejected! It leaves people cut off from the means which God gave us to attain to transformation to His likeness and to grow to the full measure of His stature.
Reply Quote
4
1 edit
Silent For Too Long
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Severian the Torturer • 6:48p, 1/25/26
That's not taking the Lord's name in vain. Don't be ridiculous.
Reply Quote
Severian the Torturer
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Silent For Too Long • 6:52p, 1/25/26
Silent For Too Long said:
That's not taking the Lord's name in vain. Don't be ridiculous.


That is absolutely taking the Lord's name in vain
Reply Quote
3
Silent For Too Long
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Zobel • 6:57p, 1/25/26
I think The Holy Spirit is the ever present authority available to all who open themselves up to it.

I think faith traditions all provide many of the strengths that you layout, however I reject the notion that any of them are explicitly authoritative. That very thinking has lead to countless abominations.

The Pharisees and Saducees both presented themselves as authoritative and Christ explicitly rejected both. You keep appealing to scripture but you seem to be missing the forest through the trees.

I think the tribalism demonstrated on this very thread proves my point. You kept screaming Ad Hom at me but refused to call out your fellow tribesman for calling other Christians ******s. You are so bound by tribal loyalty you won't even call out a brother for doing something that is objectively wrong.
Reply Quote
Silent For Too Long
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Severian the Torturer • 7:02p, 1/25/26
Severian the Torturer said:
Silent For Too Long said:
That's not taking the Lord's name in vain. Don't be ridiculous.


That is absolutely taking the Lord's name in vain


God is wise enough to understand sarcasm, even if you lack the capacity to do so.
Reply Quote
light_bulb
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Silent For Too Long • 7:05p, 1/25/26
AG
Silent For Too Long said:
Severian the Torturer said:
Silent For Too Long said:
That's not taking the Lord's name in vain. Don't be ridiculous.


That is absolutely taking the Lord's name in vain


God is wise enough to understand sarcasm, even if you lack the capacity to do so.
Reply Quote
1
Severian the Torturer
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Silent For Too Long • 7:07p, 1/25/26
Silent For Too Long said:
Severian the Torturer said:
Silent For Too Long said:
That's not taking the Lord's name in vain. Don't be ridiculous.


That is absolutely taking the Lord's name in vain


God is wise enough to understand sarcasm, even if you lack the capacity to do so.


Using his name to sarcastically make a point is the epitome of taking his name in vain.


Reply Quote
4
light_bulb
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to light_bulb • 7:14p, 1/25/26
AG
light_bulb said:
Silent For Too Long said:
Severian the Torturer said:
Silent For Too Long said:
That's not taking the Lord's name in vain. Don't be ridiculous.


That is absolutely taking the Lord's name in vain


God is wise enough to understand sarcasm, even if you lack the capacity to do so.


Probably would be best…. to exit the stage and re-evaluate
Reply Quote
1
Silent For Too Long
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Severian the Torturer • 7:14p, 1/25/26
Unfortunately I don't to submit to the authoritative nature of your block box with text in it.
Reply Quote
light_bulb
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Silent For Too Long • 7:26p, 1/25/26
AG
Silent For Too Long said:
Unfortunately I don't to submit to the authoritative nature of your block box with text in it.


So you don't submit to the God you claim to believe in… congrats.
Reply Quote
2
Silent For Too Long
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to light_bulb • 7:39p, 1/25/26
I really don't believe the common expression of exasperation, abbreviated, is taking the Lord's name in vein. That's simply not how I interpret that text.

Some would consider spelling out the name of YHWH as Zobel has done repeatedly to be extremely blasphemous, but none of you blinked an eye when he did it.

However, if that truly offends people, I'm sorry. I should have considered my audience and moderated my speech accordingly. It was thoughtless of me to do so.
Reply Quote
2
light_bulb
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Silent For Too Long • 7:45p, 1/25/26
AG
Silent For Too Long said:
I really don't believe the common expression of exasperation, abbreviated, is taking the Lord's name in vein. That's simply not how I interpret that text.

Some would consider spelling out the name of YHWH as Zobel has done repeatedly to be extremely blasphemous, but none of you blinked an eye when he did it.

However, if that truly offends people, I'm sorry. I should have considered my audience and moderated my speech accordingly. It was thoughtless of me to do so.


There's nothing offensive to me, I'm just reveling in the hilarity of the outright hypocrisy you exhibit that you are so quickly to accuse others of.
Reply Quote
1
Silent For Too Long
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to light_bulb • 7:52p, 1/25/26
You're right. I was being foolish. I'm sorry.
Reply Quote
CrackerJackAg
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Silent For Too Long • 8:44p, 1/25/26
AG
Silent For Too Long said:
Severian the Torturer said:
Silent For Too Long said:
That's not taking the Lord's name in vain. Don't be ridiculous.


That is absolutely taking the Lord's name in vain


God is wise enough to understand sarcasm, even if you lack the capacity to do so.


How are you guys still talking to this guy? He can't be real. He has to be messing with you.
Reply Quote
1
3 edits
AggieRain
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:01p, 1/25/26
AG
Zobel and Silent are two of my favorite posters. Watching them clash is surreal to say the least....
Reply Quote
Silent For Too Long
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to AggieRain • 9:15p, 1/25/26
AggieRain said:
Zobel and Silent are two of my favorite posters. Watching them clash is surreal to say the least....


I have tremendous respect for Zobel and thinks he does a wonderful job of articulating his arguments. I just want to make that clear, despite my disagreements here.
Reply Quote
1
BusterAg
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Severian the Torturer • 12:15p, 1/27/26
AG
Severian the Torturer said:
Silent For Too Long said:
CrackerJackAg said:
Gross.

American/Western Protestant Dispensationalist are the absolute worst and the single most ignorant people on the planet. Basically the same as a backward goat loving weirdo in Afghanistan just in a richer country.

I would rather try to find common ground with a Buddhist or Zoroastrian. At least those people aren't ******ed.

If you agree with Mike Huckabee you are a heretic and I don't believe you are Christian. You follow a different religion all together.


This is really a terrible thing to say about fellow members of the Body of Christ and you should be ashamed of yourself.

Just an ugly and disgraceful post.


To be quite honest, many of us in the Apostolic churches don't consider Protestants to be a part of the Body of Christ.

It's nothing personal, Christ just established the Church as his Body, and the Church is made up of the descendants of the Apostles and their flock, as per Christ.



Well, the Mormon's think the same thing about me, and I still generally really like Mormons, so it's all good.
Reply Quote
1
Maximus of Tejas
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Silent For Too Long • 1:01p, 1/27/26
Silent For Too Long said:
I think The Holy Spirit is the ever present authority available to all who open themselves up to it.

I think faith traditions all provide many of the strengths that you layout, however I reject the notion that any of them are explicitly authoritative. That very thinking has lead to countless abominations.

The Pharisees and Saducees both presented themselves as authoritative and Christ explicitly rejected both. You keep appealing to scripture but you seem to be missing the forest through the trees.

I think the tribalism demonstrated on this very thread proves my point. You kept screaming Ad Hom at me but refused to call out your fellow tribesman for calling other Christians ******s. You are so bound by tribal loyalty you won't even call out a brother for doing something that is objectively wrong.
They were specifically given that authority from Christ and Christ said to do what the Pharisees and scribes say. Christ rejected the Pharisees because they were hypocrites, it had absolutely nothing to do with their teachings and authority.

Your lack of authority is just pride.
Reply Quote
1
CrackerJackAg
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to KentK93 • 7:48p, 1/27/26
AG
KentK93 said:
After reading several back & forth on this thread I really think Bishop Barons homily is really on point.



Here are the scriptures for the day:


I can't say I really agree with this guy

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DT_lHAuEcal/?igsh=YnR2ZnZqcm8xOTd6
Reply Quote
Silent For Too Long
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Maximus of Tejas • 5:10a, 1/28/26
Quote:
Your lack of authority is just pride.


Because I recognize the unassailable fact that no human being, including myself, has the authority of God, that makes me prideful?

Hmm. It seems to me the people claiming they speak for God are the ones struggling with pride.
Reply Quote
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.