Kabowd Posted June 8, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 112 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 3,489 Content Per Day: 0.48 Reputation: 13 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/28/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted June 8, 2006 To quote from you: you have seriously weaken you credibility . . . maybe not as a professor, but certainly as a teacher of the things of God. rather you are blameworthy of misrepresentation . . . are you a Democrat? I think I just covered how groundless your statement is, but I hear if you say a lie long enough it becomes truth to some people. noidea.gif I have said what I said and stand by it. A professor, or a teacher of the things of God should lead people down the path of understand, not just simply tell them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlindSeeker Posted June 8, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 69 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 4,038 Content Per Day: 0.52 Reputation: 425 Days Won: 5 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted June 8, 2006 Just being totally honest here, this shows an attitude of pride . . . Actually, you re just be emotionally opinionated and not following or addressing the facts . . . that a root of pride as well. Concerning who deviated the thread from the OP of godliness and patriotism - apothanein kerdos did when he started accusing others of taking things out of context and not responding to his post (when in fact we did not take things out of context and in deed did respond to him . . . just not in agreement). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kabowd Posted June 8, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 112 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 3,489 Content Per Day: 0.48 Reputation: 13 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/28/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted June 8, 2006 Just being totally honest here, this shows an attitude of pride . . . Actually, you re just be emotionally opinionated and not following or addressing the facts How so? How was my post "emotionallly opinionated", and what does that even mean? . . . that a root of pride as well. So, you don't deny you were prideful, instead accuse me of being prideful as well. Now that we have that established, what facts did I not address? If you want me to get involved in the argument between you and AK, no thanks. Don't attempt to drag me in it. I won't participate. You're refusal to accept my admonishment is evidence enough that any discourse with you will be in vain. Concerning who deviated the thread from the OP of godliness and patriotism - apothanein kerdos did when he started accusing others of taking things out of context and not responding to his post (when in fact we did not take things out of context and in deed did respond to him . . . just not in agreement). Your entire post did nothing but point fingers at someone else. Maybe a break from the boards and an honest look in the mirror would be some time well spent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apothanein kerdos Posted June 8, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 331 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 8,713 Content Per Day: 1.21 Reputation: 21 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/28/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted June 8, 2006 You guys go ahead and pat each other on the back and continue your mutual admiration party. I've got some more one liners I need to research and put hours of work into. Mate, how is that conductive in a positive manner? Concerning who deviated the thread from the OP of godliness and patriotism - apothanein kerdos did when he started accusing others of taking things out of context and not responding to his post (when in fact we did not take things out of context and in deed did respond to him . . . just not in agreement). I said you were ignoring the context of what I was saying about the topic...how does that deviate from the topic when it's directly related to it? C'mon, this isn't about who did what first, that isn't what the post was about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricH Posted June 8, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 366 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 10,933 Content Per Day: 1.57 Reputation: 212 Days Won: 1 Joined: 04/21/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted June 8, 2006 Gang, I just removed a selection of posts that got out of hand. Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smalcald Posted June 8, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 32 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 5,258 Content Per Day: 0.76 Reputation: 42 Days Won: 3 Joined: 06/16/2005 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/22/1960 Share Posted June 8, 2006 Hi Apo, I don't have time to sort everything out. But I wanted you to address one thing for me or at least clear up something. I had mentioned earlier about the passages in Acts, which clearly portrayed the first Christian Churches as both living communally and having joint ownership of property. You responded that this was very historically inaccurate. Why do you say that, given the very clear versus we have from Acts and from some of Paul's writings with regard to these congregations? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apothanein kerdos Posted June 8, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 331 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 8,713 Content Per Day: 1.21 Reputation: 21 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/28/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted June 8, 2006 Hi Apo, I don't have time to sort everything out. But I wanted you to address one thing for me or at least clear up something. I had mentioned earlier about the passages in Acts, which clearly portrayed the first Christian Churches as both living communally and having joint ownership of property. You responded that this was very historically inaccurate. Why do you say that, given the very clear versus we have from Acts and from some of Paul's writings with regard to these congregations? Well I guess it would be more proper to say that it's accurate in some ways but inaccurate in others. They did not live communally as a seperated group. It is true that when one Christian lost his posessions he would go live at another's house. HOwever, they did not all buy houses and live in them together. Instead, they would bring what posessions and money the could and offer it to the disciples who would then deligate where those posessions went. This is not communal living at all, it is merely bringing private property and making it available to others. We know from Acts that certain members had their own houses where people would meet, not live. This does not indicate communal living but instead a willingness to help out. Secondly, they did not live as a seperated group of people. If we look back to my post: In fact, we know from a 4th century account from Emperor Julian (who was the last Emperor to persecute Christians) that Christians were involved in their own, in helping the Jews, and in helping the Pagans: "Atheism (The Christian faith, because they denied the existence of Pagan gods) has been specially advanced through the loving service rendered to strangers, and through their care for the burial of the dead. It is a scandal that there is not a single Jew who is a beggar, and that the godless Galileans care not only for their own poor but for ours as well; while those who belong to us look in vain for the help that we should render them." The problem is if they were a seperated group they would have been unable to do these things. I even pulled some analysis from Paul: Even when we examine the writings of Paul we find: For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I may win more. To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law; to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, so that I might win those who are without law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak; I have become all things to all men, so that I may by all means save some. I do all things for the sake of the gospel, so that I may become a fellow partaker of it. 1 Corinthians 9:19-23 Paul is stating that he becomes all things to all men. This does not mean he adopts these people's ethics, but it means he engages them on their level. This means that Paul is stating that in order to properly bring someone to Christ, we must meet them at their level, i.e. be involved in their culture. This does not mean we take on the ethics of the culture. 1 John 1:15 even deals with this, that we are not to "love" the world. Well "love" and "world" in this context is refering to adopting the morals of the world. We are not to do this. We are, however, to be amongst the world (physically) sharing the Gospel. Does that make sense? Now, it is true that at times they had to seperate themselves ontologically. Before I go on, let me define that: Someone brought to my attention that this might be the problem, I am using the word "ontology" without really providing a definition for it. There are multiple definitions so it could provide some confusion. When I refer to ontology, I am refering to the nature of reality. In other words, the office of president is an ontological position, it is a place in reality in which we can exist. A president who holds this office that then signs a bill allowing for wide spread and mandatory abortion...this is no longer an ontological issue. It was not the position that caused this, it was the ethics that caused this...is this making any sense? One of my downfalls is I have a hard time really explaining this concept, the division between physical and ethical. Anyway, there are times that because the Christians did not want to be ethically like the world, they had to physically seperate themselves from the world. In other words, they could not attend certain fests not because they hated uneblievers or wanted to be ontologically seperate, but because to attend would inherently violate the ethical. Think of it this way, a lost friend of yours invites you to a strip club. This is one place where you cannot enter it physicall but avoid the ethics. The two are the same, the ethics developed this physical place, and therefore you cannot enter it. It is different, however, with other positions. A political office isn't necessarily an evil thing...it is merely something to be occupied. It is the ethics that matter, not the physical occupation in this case. This is what the early church did. It would not seperate itself from the physical/ontological world (in fact, those that did were Gnostics ironically enough) but isntead from the ethical world. This did cause physical seperation at times, but this was not what they sought after. Acts does not teach us that they were a seperate community at all, in fact, it teaches us the opposite. It teaches us that htey took care of their own AND the lost...there are not verses that speak of an ontological seperation unless ethical reasons were involved. My challenge to you would be to bring them up, showing that seperation occured without any ethical reasons behind it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PANX Posted June 8, 2006 Share Posted June 8, 2006 Well I'm not sure about patriotic.....but we are supposed to take care of things I think. There are times I don't though, so I'm not sure. Does The Bibly actually talk about patriotism? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smalcald Posted June 8, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 32 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 5,258 Content Per Day: 0.76 Reputation: 42 Days Won: 3 Joined: 06/16/2005 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/22/1960 Share Posted June 8, 2006 Apo, we have some areas of agreement on this topic. For example I think that if we separate AND isolate then we can no longer spread the Gospel or show our light to people as an example, this is a problem. But I want to look at Acts 4 and 6 for a minute. 31 And when they had prayed, the place where they were assembled together was shaken; and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and they spoke the word of God with boldness.32 Now the multitude of those who believed were of one heart and one soul; neither did anyone say that any of the things he possessed was his own, but they had all things in common. 33 And with great power the apostles gave witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And great grace was upon them all. 34 Nor was there anyone among them who lacked; for all who were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of the things that were sold, 35 and laid them at the apostles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apothanein kerdos Posted June 8, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 331 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 8,713 Content Per Day: 1.21 Reputation: 21 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/28/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted June 8, 2006 But I want to look at Acts 4 and 6 for a minute. 31 And when they had prayed, the place where they were assembled together was shaken; and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and they spoke the word of God with boldness.32 Now the multitude of those who believed were of one heart and one soul; neither did anyone say that any of the things he possessed was his own, but they had all things in common. 33 And with great power the apostles gave witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And great grace was upon them all. 34 Nor was there anyone among them who lacked; for all who were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of the things that were sold, 35 and laid them at the apostles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts