Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And I have refuted it from higher sources of academic knowledge. The lexicons do not support liberal scholars and neither does the early church. This leaves 21st century liberal scholars stuck in their bias opinions which has no basis in knowable truth. I mean this issue is well covered here and none of you had any sources besides your progressive scholars who are completely bias and deviate from the lexicons and tradition. So the liberal scholars are outgunned and outmatched. Accept the facts and stop beating the dead horse.
You haven't refuted anything and have shown your own bias and disingenuousness. However, this really doesn't deserve any more time and attention. People can read what I've already posted and make up their own minds. I'm done here.
You haven't refuted anything and have shown your own bias and disingenuousness. However, this really doesn't deserve any more time and attention. People can read what I've already posted and make up their own minds. I'm done here.
No, I have not shown my own bias. I've remained faithful to the word of God without deviating from the polity of ecclesiastical authority which all priests of God must obey. For God is the one who gives authority and a priest or scholar etc has no authority apart from the polity assigned to him from God. Therefore, when there are certain individuals unfaithful to God their ministry is null and void and nothing they say has any weight in the Christian faith. So in order to have any form of authority a Christian leader, whether a priest or scholar etc., must be obedient to God. The priests must have respect for the polity of the church. This means not making things up that find no support in Scripture or the faithful polity of the church which goes back 2000 years. There is an unbroken chain of authority with no gaps in the ecclesiastical linage and this is how we know what we believe. The only time modern interpretations are acceptable is, generally speaking, end time prophecy or anything beyond the grasp of understanding of the early church. The shape of the earth was a basic doctrine as I have proven here by quoting from the most ancient of church fathers. Then we have the lexicons who don't agree with the strange fire coming from Seely and others. So this attempt to hijack ecclesiastical authority isn't worth the struggle since we already know what 2000 years of theology has taught us on the matter and even our most reputable modern scholars of today still know that the Bible teaches globe earth. You will be hard pressed to find many ministers who teach otherwise. All you'll find is a few anarchists who are trying to hijack ecclesiastical authority which is reserved for God only and those who are obedient to God.
No, I have not shown my own bias. I've remained faithful to the word of God without deviating from the polity of ecclesiastical authority which all priests of God must obey. For God is the one who gives authority and a priest or scholar etc has no authority apart from the polity assigned to him from God. Therefore, when there are certain individuals unfaithful to God their ministry is null and void and nothing they say has any weight in the Christian faith. So in order to have any form of authority a Christian leader, whether a priest or scholar etc., must be obedient to God. The priests must have respect for the polity of the church. This means not making things up that find no support in Scripture or the faithful polity of the church which goes back 2000 years. There is an unbroken chain of authority with no gaps in the ecclesiastical linage and this is how we know what we believe. The only time modern interpretations are acceptable is, generally speaking, end time prophecy or anything beyond the grasp of understanding of the early church. The shape of the earth was a basic doctrine as I have proven here by quoting from the most ancient of church fathers. Then we have the lexicons who don't agree with the strange fire coming from Seely and others. So this attempt to hijack ecclesiastical authority isn't worth the struggle since we already know what 2000 years of theology has taught us on the matter and even our most reputable modern scholars of today still know that the Bible teaches globe earth. You will be hard pressed to find many ministers who teach otherwise. All you'll find is a few anarchists who are trying to hijack ecclesiastical authority which is reserved for God only and those who are obedient to God.
So you are saying a 21st liberal scholar has all authority over 2000 years of ecclesiastical knowledge? Please feel free to explain this.
06-20-2018, 12:38 PM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ploughboy
You still don't get it yet. Mike Heiser is NOT an authority. I have more authority than he does! Mike Heiser is not approved by Jesus or His Apostles and all doctrine must be Jesus/Apostle Approved. What does this mean? It means that Mike Heiser has to follow a chain of authority going back to Christ. He cannot disagree with either Christ or His Apostles.
Sorry, but we already have shown YOU why it is YOU who do not get it - a number of times now. Your asinine standards of Jesus approval is arbitrary and useless not to mention subjective. If we were to believe everything all church fathers believed you would be living in a contradiction - as you noted yourself when I posted quotes of them believing in a solid expanse.
You are quite repetitive and frankly boring and have nothing new.
You lost! And anyone reading this thread for posterity will see that!
Sorry, but we already have shown YOU why it is YOU who do not get it - a number of times now. Your asinine standards of Jesus approval is arbitrary and useless not to mention subjective. If we were to believe everything all church fathers believed you would be living in a contradiction - as you noted yourself when I posted quotes of them believing in a solid expanse.
You are quite repetitive and frankly boring and have nothing new.
You lost! And anyone reading this thread for posterity will see that!
So you support corruption in the church, is that what you're saying? You think Scripture can be written to fit your unholy standards? I suppose you would have supported the Nazi takeover of German churches? If you study the Nazi infiltration and takeover of the German churches it happened exactly like this. It began with liberal scholars pushing heresies. Sure. there were some smart German conservative scholars who did a fine job refuting the Nazi intrusion on theology. But fascism does not accept refutations and uses political might to push change. So when you push liberal scholars, who are merely infiltrating the church, you are saying perhaps we should repeat Nazi Germany. This is why theology is strictly a conservative disciple. Change is not allowed. Preservation is what matters.
As far as the early church fathers go. The shape of the earth is basic doctrine. There was nothing touch about it. Neither Josephus or Clement of Rome ever dropped a hint about solid sky and their authority on the matter trumps those after them. In fact, Clement of Rome seemed pretty clear to me that the sky was not solid. Also, There is no Greek or Latin equivalent for the Hebrew word râqîyaʻ. The word translates expanse which the strong's is very clear to say does not mean solid sky. Had I been allowed to post articles from creationists on the matter you would know this. But seems like everything I posted becomes subject of moderator attacks. The pagans believed that the sky was solid and so they did not have a word that could accommodate the Hebrew râqîyaʻ. The Latin firmament does not carry the same meaning as râqîyaʻ. So naturally the church fathers would struggle with this word. Though Josephus shows no sign of flat earth or solid sky. So when it comes to the church fathers they are not Scripture and you need to apply sound reason to how you go about analyzing their words.
Lastly. My first phase of destroying flat earth lies is to establish the shape of the earth as the Bible actually says. There are two more phases of this refutation I haven't even started on yet.
So you support corruption in the church, is that what you're saying? You think Scripture can be written to fit your unholy standards? I suppose you would have supported the Nazi takeover of German churches? If you study the Nazi infiltration and takeover of the German churches it happened exactly like this. It began with liberal scholars pushing heresies. Sure. there were some smart German conservative scholars who did a fine job refuting the Nazi intrusion on theology. But fascism does not accept refutations and uses political might to push change. So when you push liberal scholars, who are merely infiltrating the church, you are saying perhaps we should repeat Nazi Germany. This is why theology is strictly a conservative disciple. Change is not allowed. Preservation is what matters.
As far as the early church fathers go. The shape of the earth is basic doctrine. There was nothing touch about it. Neither Josephus or Clement of Rome ever dropped a hint about solid sky and their authority on the matter trumps those after them. In fact, Clement of Rome seemed pretty clear to me that the sky was not solid. Also, There is no Greek or Latin equivalent for the Hebrew word râqîyaʻ. The word translates expanse which the strong's is very clear to say does not mean solid sky. Had I been allowed to post articles from creationists on the matter you would know this. But seems like everything I posted becomes subject of moderator attacks. The pagans believed that the sky was solid and so they did not have a word that could accommodate the Hebrew râqîyaʻ. The Latin firmament does not carry the same meaning as râqîyaʻ. So naturally the church fathers would struggle with this word. Though Josephus shows no sign of flat earth or solid sky. So when it comes to the church fathers they are not Scripture and you need to apply sound reason to how you go about analyzing their words.
Lastly. My first phase of destroying flat earth lies is to establish the shape of the earth as the Bible actually says. There are two more phases of this refutation I haven't even started on yet.
You must have a very uninteresting life. I feel sorry for you.
You've been shown time and again, from the Bible itself, that the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) contains language which reflects the ancient Hebrew belief in a flat earth, supported by pillars, with a solid dome firmament that has windows which open to allow it to rain.
The bible never supports a flat earth, people are reading things they don't understand, it's the same way of Evolution. People don't want the bible to teach evolution but the bible in no way contradicts evolution, it shows a struggle where we are to overcome the nature of a beast, but if you are a Christian who wants to take everything literal, then you will defy any common sense about anything at all over your own opinion.
The bible never supports a flat earth, people are reading things they don't understand, it's the same way of Evolution. People don't want the bible to teach evolution but the bible in no way contradicts evolution, it shows a struggle where we are to overcome the nature of a beast, but if you are a Christian who wants to take everything literal, then you will defy any common sense about anything at all over your own opinion.
I agree with you over the flat earth subject but the Bible is so clear about God's act of creation. Jesus quoted from Genesis chapters 1, 2, & 6--9 as literal history. The Apostles were also very abundantly clear on the issue. Romans 1:18-32 is a prophecy about how evolution theory will be responsible for what will bring on God's wrath in the end. This could be seen in how atheists have all but converted to Islam which is going to lead to the collapse of modern civilization. Moral relativism comes with the evolution package and this also contradicts Scripture.
Last but not least. What is the 5th word? Fill in the blank:
"In the beginning God _____ the heavens and the earth."
What is the 5th word?
06-20-2018, 01:46 PM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ploughboy
So you support corruption in the church, is that what you're saying? You think Scripture can be written to fit your unholy standards? I suppose you would have supported the Nazi takeover of German churches? If you study the Nazi infiltration and takeover of the German churches it happened exactly like this. It began with liberal scholars pushing heresies. Sure. there were some smart German conservative scholars who did a fine job refuting the Nazi intrusion on theology. But fascism does not accept refutations and uses political might to push change. So when you push liberal scholars, who are merely infiltrating the church, you are saying perhaps we should repeat Nazi Germany. This is why theology is strictly a conservative disciple. Change is not allowed. Preservation is what matters.
As far as the early church fathers go. The shape of the earth is basic doctrine. There was nothing touch about it. Neither Josephus or Clement of Rome ever dropped a hint about solid sky and their authority on the matter trumps those after them. In fact, Clement of Rome seemed pretty clear to me that the sky was not solid. Also, There is no Greek or Latin equivalent for the Hebrew word râqîyaʻ. The word translates expanse which the strong's is very clear to say does not mean solid sky. Had I been allowed to post articles from creationists on the matter you would know this. But seems like everything I posted becomes subject of moderator attacks. The pagans believed that the sky was solid and so they did not have a word that could accommodate the Hebrew râqîyaʻ. The Latin firmament does not carry the same meaning as râqîyaʻ. So naturally the church fathers would struggle with this word. Though Josephus shows no sign of flat earth or solid sky. So when it comes to the church fathers they are not Scripture and you need to apply sound reason to how you go about analyzing their words.
Lastly. My first phase of destroying flat earth lies is to establish the shape of the earth as the Bible actually says. There are two more phases of this refutation I haven't even started on yet.
Thanks for your asinine twisted thinking and ridiculous inferences. Not only will people reading this thread see how wrong and arrogant you are but they will have a good laugh as well.
Also, you seem to be wholly unaware of the changes in textual transmission - there is no 100% preservation.
And the church fathers were already dealt with.
You are just repeating yourself! Blah, blah blah!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
