Announcement Announcement Module
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Why I think SC doctrine is racist/anti-semite Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse
X
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Really? I'm surprised you're not Catholic then. After all, Peter passed those keys, (which he was given authority to do) to his successor, and Apostolic Succession was established. The first Apostles shared that authority, but their successors had to be approved by the original body which has moved through history.
    I don't believe any human can pass those keys to another. Apostolic Succession is a man-made concept. In the first place, one man cannot know another man's heart. In the second, only God can give the authority to act and speak for him.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by jeff_franklin View Post
      I do judge, discern Murray's false teachings which the Bible instructs all of us to do.

      As to Murray's followers that is strictly up to God to do.
      That's mighty arrogant of you Frankie. So you say you can "judge, discern" SC students, but they can't discern you.

      There's something missing in your line of thinking Frankie. Based upon your theological views expressed today so far, I'd say you are hardly qualified to be discerning anyone.

      You say the mark of Cain is a death sentence? Really?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by stage director View Post
        I don't believe any human can pass those keys to another. Apostolic Succession is a man-made concept. In the first place, one man cannot know another man's heart. In the second, only God can give the authority to act and speak for him.
        You are basing that judgment up[on your own speculation. What isn't speculation is that Jesus gave Peter the "keys to the Kingdom" and "whatsoever you shall bind or loose....." 'whatsoever' isn't limited to what you say he can or couldn't do.

        "In the second, only God can give the authority to act and speak for him."

        And that through Christ, He did, when He gave Peter that authority to do so.
        Last edited by smyrna; 01-12-2012, 05:22 PM.

        Comment


        • Smyrna -- What you think is irrelevant is irrelevant. In my opinion this whole Chinese/sea creature thing is irrelevant. The FACT is that Arnold Murray connected fish with the Chinese in an enigmatic way. What he meant is open to interpretation, and even Murray said he wasn‘t interested in debating it. Your continual rehashing of this absurd and meaningless subject of the Chinese and sea creatures/fish and what adjective SD used is beyond ludicrous. What you do is latch onto certain talking points like a pit bull, and shake it until it falls to pieces in an unrecognizable pile; and then pick it up again to see if there’s any life left in it. It’s just the way you are, and what you do.

          Having said that, I don’t think that Arnold Murray or the students of Shepherd’s Chapel are anti-Semitic. They’re just a relatively small group of self-described Christians studying the Bible the way they want, as is their right. I think that Franklin is a deluded obsessive troll who actually believes that he’s on a mission to save Jews from neo-Nazi racists like some shining knight in Christian armor; but his comparisons of the teachings of Arnold Murray with Hitler and extreme white supremacists have no basis in reality. I don’t say these things as ad hominem; but based on more than six years of communicating with Franklin in these threads at FactNet and elsewhere. If need be I will defend my opinion that Franklin is a troll by definition, that he is obsessed to the point of pathology, and that his views can be considered deluded.

          There may be some who call themselves students of Shepherd’s Chapel who are racist in their beliefs; but this could be said of any group or organization whether it be religious or secular. I’ve been involved in this SC/AM debate long enough to know what I’m talking about; and I am without doubt that none of those who consider Arnold Murray as their pastor here at FactNet are racists or believe that Jews are the Spawn of Satan. Some of them are very annoying in their aggressive debate styles; but that has nothing to do with what is being taught by the man named Arnold Murray in his television ministry and how his students or critics interpret it.

          The only thing that’s happening in these threads is a continuous personality clash between a few members who just won’t let any of this go because, in my opinion, they just like to argue and win. It reminds me of the Monty Python “argument sketch,” where a man walks into an office looking to have an argument.

          http://www.montypython.net/scripts/argument.php

          You people are argument junkies.

          Comment


          • Real Christianity is those who do not accept Christ as their Savior go to judgment for they did not allow Christ's sacrifice to wash away, erase their sins. How God judges that soul and how God determines how that soul spends eternity is up to God, not any human. I think you know that distinction also.

            Believers in Christ as their Lord and Savior bypass judgment which all of them would not want to face.
            I was writing to an Atheist above. You purposely twisted my words to mean something different as you so with God's word.

            Real Christianity is ALSO those who DO sincerely (God knowing their hearts) accept Christ as their Savior are not judged, escape judgment for they DID allow Christ's sacrifice to wash away, erase their sins. That IS Christianity and fulfillment of God's promise to all humanity. John 3:16.

            Comment


            • Maybe this will get through to dodge:

              The HUMANIST TEN COMMANDMENTS

              1. Mental contamination is the root of all evil. All children are born pure and unpolluted. It is a sin to fill their minds with ideas of racial, national, religious or gender superiority. History and religion should be taught in schools from a world perspective, everyone's point of view being considered, and no one's point of view being elevated above that of others.

              2. Thou shalt not ill treat children, neither physically nor mentally. Do nothing to instill feelings of guilt or inferiority in the mind of a child. Children are beautiful and defenceless. It is the lowest form of cowardice and the gravest sin of all to harm a child in any way. Love children above all else. Care for them as though your own life depended upon their happiness.

              3. Do nothing unto others that you would not like done unto you, (courtesy the Buddha).

              4. Go out of your way to befriend people of different races. Learn from them. Seek ways to build bridges, not chasms, and meet in the middle.

              5. Care for your planet. It is the only one you have and the only one you are likely to have. Do nothing to the environment that you would refrain from doing in your own home.

              6. Kindness, consideration and care are the three golden rules. When faced with the choice between two evils, and no third choice is available, choose the lesser of the two evils based on which is the kinder.

              7. Treat animals as though they are your relatives, for in reality, they are.

              8. Accumulate only so much wealth as can be reasonably used for your immediate needs and enjoyment. Do not horde wealth while others go hungry and homeless. Nothing raises the self esteem more than knowing that you are a valuable member of the human race, a person who makes a difference.

              9. Be courageous. Speak out against prejudice and cruelty. To remain silent while harm to others is being planned or is occurring is to condone and countenance evil. Contribute your energies to a kinder, more intelligent, more humane world.

              10. Take nothing at face value. Question everything.

              Comment


              • If not that maybe this written by a Marxist Atheist:

                Marxist Humanist Initiative: Beware of Left Anti-Semitism

                Beware of Left Anti-Semitism: Jew-Hatred Appears in Conspiracy Theories, Anti-Americanism, Lesser-Evilism, and Single-Issue Thinking

                By Marxist Humanist Initiative


                We are compelled to denounce the ancient practice of blaming Jewish people for the world’s ills, because anti-Semitism (as prejudice and discrimination against Jews is commonly called) has been rearing its ugly head—within the U.S. Left. The incident we just experienced began August 29, when the administrator of a feminist email list sent around a virulently anti-Semitic video which, in the process of supporting ousted Libyan dictator Muammar el-Qaddafi, blamed global poverty and injustice on the Rothschild banking family. Only a few of the 100 people on the email list responded, even after we immediately pointed out and denounced the content of the video. Then we were shocked again by the tepid nature of some of the responses.


                For centuries, racism against Jews has been integral to the cultures of Europe, many Muslim-majority countries, and the Americas. It waxes and wanes, but is especially strong in times of economic woes, for which Jews are always a convenient scapegoat. They are “outsiders” to the dominant religions, nationalities, and ethnic groups; Jewish merchants make visible targets; and Jewish “cosmopolitans” are portrayed as the agents of capitalism and modernity. For the same reasons, anti-Semitism has been a mainstay of conspiracy theories for centuries––conspiracies in which Jews secretly run the world.

                Throughout the racist history of the U.S., Jews have been associated with Afro-Americans and gays for attack. Today, common misconceptions persist that all Jews are rich and that they control the U.S. media and Hollywood. However, overt anti-Semitism is seen infrequently outside the racist Right, at least as compared to the number of physical attacks on Jews and synagogues that occur regularly in France, Germany, Argentina, and elsewhere. And we do not expect the Left to find it acceptable. (For information about Left anti-Semitism today, see http://leftantisemitism.wordpress.com/ and the sources listed there, including http://contested-terrain.net/).

                We are well aware that the Left can turn into the Right, as happened in Nazi Germany, and that racism, including anti-Semitism, flourishes in times like these. We urge the Left to expose and oppose anti-Semitism, along with all forms of racism and xenophobia, and to root them out of Left thought, along with the theories that support them.

                http://contested-terrain.net/marxist...anti-semitism/

                Comment


                • Romans 16:17
                  "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them."

                  Matthew 7:15
                  "Beware of false prophets which come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly they are ravening wolves."

                  2 Timothy 4:2-5
                  "Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry."

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by dodge View Post
                    Smyrna -- What you think is irrelevant is irrelevant. In my opinion this whole Chinese/sea creature thing is irrelevant. The FACT is that Arnold Murray connected fish with the Chinese in an enigmatic way. What he meant is open to interpretation, and even Murray said he wasn‘t interested in debating it. Your continual rehashing of this absurd and meaningless subject of the Chinese and sea creatures/fish and what adjective SD used is beyond ludicrous. What you do is latch onto certain talking points like a pit bull, and shake it until it falls to pieces in an unrecognizable pile; and then pick it up again to see if there’s any life left in it. It’s just the way you are, and what you do.

                    Having said that, I don’t think that Arnold Murray or the students of Shepherd’s Chapel are anti-Semitic. They’re just a relatively small group of self-described Christians studying the Bible the way they want, as is their right. I think that Franklin is a deluded obsessive troll who actually believes that he’s on a mission to save Jews from neo-Nazi racists like some shining knight in Christian armor; but his comparisons of the teachings of Arnold Murray with Hitler and extreme white supremacists have no basis in reality. I don’t say these things as ad hominem; but based on more than six years of communicating with Franklin in these threads at FactNet and elsewhere. If need be I will defend my opinion that Franklin is a troll by definition, that he is obsessed to the point of pathology, and that his views can be considered deluded.

                    There may be some who call themselves students of Shepherd’s Chapel who are racist in their beliefs; but this could be said of any group or organization whether it be religious or secular. I’ve been involved in this SC/AM debate long enough to know what I’m talking about; and I am without doubt that none of those who consider Arnold Murray as their pastor here at FactNet are racists or believe that Jews are the Spawn of Satan. Some of them are very annoying in their aggressive debate styles; but that has nothing to do with what is being taught by the man named Arnold Murray in his television ministry and how his students or critics interpret it.

                    The only thing that’s happening in these threads is a continuous personality clash between a few members who just won’t let any of this go because, in my opinion, they just like to argue and win. It reminds me of the Monty Python “argument sketch,” where a man walks into an office looking to have an argument.

                    http://www.montypython.net/scripts/argument.php

                    You people are argument junkies.
                    "You people are argument junkies". Takes one to know one Dodge. You admitted it yourself. But hey so are lawyers.

                    Funny you chimed in to that topic Dodge, I just mistakenly wrote a post which was a reply to Josh, thinking it was a new post. But it contain a few points that serve to show my issue with Stage Director's accusation, which is she changed her story. I'll post it here shortly. As for your comment about it, Murry's opinion about the Chinese isn't "enigmatic" at all. He could have worded it better, but he did a good enough job to communicate to the students what I have described below:

                    Originally posted by Josh125 View Post
                    Smyrna, the idea of limiting the topics for debate in this “Rational Discussion About Shepherds Chapel” thread was to encourage some focus instead of it devolving into a chaotic free-for-all with nothing specific to latch onto in terms of subject matter.

                    You seem to be now focusing on what you believe to have been “out and out lies” by “SC detractors,” and mention the whole Chinese as sea creature debate from years ago.

                    If you’re going to rehash this “sea creature” thing, we’re going to have to look at the original quote by Arnold Murray in the recording that Stage Director presented. Murray was describing “God restoring the Earth,” and letting the waters bring forth abundantly the living creatures. Murray pauses and says that although he doesn’t teach the things he’s about to say, and isn’t interested in debating it, he felt a need to draw it to the attention of his students “in passing.” He goes on to talk about Chinese history and how it goes back “a lot further than our history,” and how it records a “great flood” that went over Mt. Arafat “in the dynasties of that time,” that “they are a people that grow their wheat from the water, called rice,” that “they live from the water,” and that he’s only mentioning this in passing that “you might not should consider this a fish real soon.” (2:28 minutes into the recording)

                    http://www.archive.org/details/Gen1Chinese

                    Why do you think that Murray felt a need to talk about how the Chinese were associated with water, and what do you think “you might not should consider this a fish real soon” means? It’s at the heart of your issues with Stage Director concerning the Chinese and the sea. Stage Director seems to have interpreted this as Murray saying that the Chinese evolved from the “abundant creatures” that God brought forth “from the waters.” Sea “creatures,” sea “animals,” what’s the difference? Is Stage Director lying, or is this only her opinion? The quote by Murray is enigmatic and open to anyone's interpretation.

                    Since this subject concerns Arnold Murray and his teachings, I suppose it’s relevant to this thread.
                    Josh,

                    My intention in bringing this issue up isn't to "rehash it". FYI NO SC student believes Murray teaches the Chinese evolved from sea creatures. For a teacher with years of experience to fail to reach thousands of his students with such an important point, while Stage Director runs around claiming she is the only person who "knows" what he really meant is simply silly.

                    Stage Director knows Murray is totally against the theory of evolution. That I made mention of that point each time the topic came up, a point she ignored, supports my argument that she willingly accused him of something he wouldn't ever teach. It also offered her ample opportunities to make her position clear, yet she never said, "I meant to say with sea creatures or animals" until at least a couple of years after her original accusation.

                    Secondly, even his original lecture makes it clear he wasn't "teaching" in his comments on the Chinese. So for Stage Director to even use the word "teach" regarding his in passing opinion is deliberately misleading.

                    My third point is that I searched and found at least one post where she claimed he taught the Chinese came
                    from sea animals, others where she supported that argument, and contrasted it with a relatively recent post where she now claims he was saying the Chinese were created with sea animals.

                    Please keep in mind the reason this is even an issue is her determination to paint Murray as a racist. This too is dishonest, because the evidence he is not a racist is very evident. There are non-whites seen in the video of SC students at one of the yearly Passover meetings. There is his denial of teaching racism on his website. There is no mention of the SC on any published lists of hate groups by either the SPLC or ADL, perhaps the two leading organizations that track hate groups.

                    And finally, I remember mentioning in a recent post in reply to you Josh, that Murray's opinion isn't as far fetched as assumed, if one knows about:

                    1. The Documentary Hypothesis, which could support chronological and other textual inaccuracies such as omissions.
                    2. As Murray noted, Chinese history goes back much earlier than other cultures, (which would be a great trick for a fish, to record its own evolution into a human race)*
                    3. Anthropological research which suggests that proto-humans such as Homo Erectus appear to have the same racial traits as the later humans, a point I have noted here at FactNet at least twice. (which detractors ignored of course)

                    Finally, what the vast majority of students understand of Murray's comments is that the Chinese may have been alluded to in the ancient texts (i.e. 'mauscripts') due to their long time association with the sea and rice farming. Even today, Chinese typically eat 400 lbs. of seafood per capita, a claim made on a recent Food Network program.

                    *My own note: Some say Egyptian history goes back many thousands, even millions of years, but most researchers believe it is a false, embellished history and I agree.

                    Final comment: This morning on the SC program, Murray commented during the Q & A session during his teaching of the Letter to the Romans, that behind the US and Canada the Chinese are his biggest audience. I doubt that would be the case if they all thought he taught they all evolved from fish!

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by jeff_franklin View Post
                      I was writing to an Atheist above. You purposely twisted my words to mean something different as you so with God's word.

                      Real Christianity is ALSO those who DO sincerely (God knowing their hearts) accept Christ as their Savior are not judged, escape judgment for they DID allow Christ's sacrifice to wash away, erase their sins. That IS Christianity and fulfillment of God's promise to all humanity. John 3:16.
                      Thanks for the clarification Frankie. But you failed to mention that you also claimed that the mark of Cain was a "death sentence." That is wrong, he was given that mark so no one would kill him. That is a huge gaffe frankie, plus, you also ignored that you claimed you can "discern" SC students but SCers cannot discern you.

                      But you know what, that's okay, because I kind of like the way Dodge discerned you! LOL!

                      Comment


                      • By the way Dodge,

                        Though I suppose we can all make a case against each other as being trolls, I do agree that Franklin's activities here are much more consistent with the definition of a troll and/or flamer.

                        My question is, that knowing this, I really wonder how he's escaped being mentioned on CBRC's "Troll Talk" thread. Actually, I don't wonder, because it's just a thinly veiled Smyrna Fan Page.

                        By the way, they have a new one:

                        http://cbrefugeecamp.yuku.com/topic/1537/Smyrna

                        They love me! OH, and Stage Director, I didn't have to use a proxy to view it.

                        Oh, and since it is part of the "Won't stay banned" thread, does that mean I'm invited? What an "enigmatic" title!

                        Comment


                        • Where did I say the Mark of Cain was a death sentence? Two different comments separated by a comma. You purposely paraphrased it to fabricate a supposed gaffe of mine where none existed. No where did I say that SCers can not discern me. Another out of thin air fabrication of yous. Though by believing in the false serpent seed myth, discernment is not an SCers' strong suit. Dodge violated forum rules by flaming and insulting me.

                          Comment


                          • What isn't speculation is that Jesus gave Peter the "keys to the Kingdom" and "whatsoever you shall bind or loose....."
                            It definitely is.

                            Mat 16:15-18
                            15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
                            16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
                            17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
                            18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter (petros: a fragment, pebble), and upon this rock (petra: the living rock) I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

                            The rock that the church was built upon is not Peter, but Peter's confession: "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God."

                            Nowhere in the NT is it implied by the disciples that Peter was above them or was in any way the single head of the church. Instead it's made clear that Christ is it's head. The church is built upon him.

                            Edited to add: Yes, the disciples were given this authority, but not Peter all by himself or above them.
                            Last edited by stage director; 01-12-2012, 07:51 PM.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by jeff_franklin View Post
                              Where did I say the Mark of Cain was a death sentence? Two different comments separated by a comma. You purposely paraphrased it to fabricate a supposed gaffe of mine where none existed. No where did I say that SCers can not discern me. Another out of thin air fabrication of yous. Though by believing in the false serpent seed myth, discernment is not an SCers' strong suit. Dodge violated forum rules by flaming and insulting me.
                              Frankie, there isn't a comma big enough to separate your comment about the Mark of Cain and this alleged death sentence you say Murray places of Jews. Talk about fabrication!

                              And this is what you said about yourself and SC students:

                              "I do judge, discern Murray's false teachings which the Bible instructs all of us to do.

                              As to Murray's followers that is strictly up to God to do."

                              So this apparently means you can discern Murry's teachings, but SCers can't?

                              Finally, I find it highly amusing you come here and flame and troll SC people on a daily basis, and then complain about Dodge. You already were banned for comparing SCers to Nazis, yet you still do it. That you may claim it's just your opinion is a cop out, because what if my opinion is someone is a moron? Do you think I'd get away with it?

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by stage director View Post
                                It definitely is.

                                Mat 16:15-18
                                15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
                                16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
                                17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
                                18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter (petros: a fragment, pebble), and upon this rock (petra: the living rock) I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

                                The rock that the church was built upon is not Peter, but Peter's confession: "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God."

                                Nowhere in the NT is it implied by the disciples that Peter was above them or was in any way the single head of the church. Instead it's made clear that Christ is it's head. The church is built upon him.

                                Edited to add: Yes, the disciples were given this authority, but not Peter all by himself or above them.
                                You really don't understand Apostolic Succession. It's not limited to the Popes:

                                The first Christians had no doubts about how to determine which was the true Church and which doctrines the true teachings of Christ. The test was simple: Just trace the apostolic succession of the claimants.
                                Apostolic succession is the line of bishops stretching back to the apostles. All over the world, all Catholic bishops are part of a lineage that goes back to the time of the apostles, something that is impossible in Protestant denominations (most of which do not even claim to have bishops).

                                The role of apostolic succession in preserving true doctrine is illustrated in the Bible. To make sure that the apostles’ teachings would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, "[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first three generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, and the generation Timothy will teach.


                                The Church Fathers, who were links in that chain of succession, regularly appealed to apostolic succession as a test for whether Catholics or heretics had correct doctrine. This was necessary because heretics simply put their own interpretations, even bizarre ones, on Scripture. Clearly, something other than Scripture had to be used as an ultimate test of doctrine in these cases.


                                Thus the early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly, a Protestant, writes, "[W]here in practice was [the] apostolic testimony or tradition to be found? . . . The most obvious answer was that the apostles had committed it orally to the Church, where it had been handed down from generation to generation. . . . Unlike the alleged secret tradition of the Gnostics, it was entirely public and open, having been entrusted by the apostles to their successors, and by these in turn to those who followed them, and was visible in the Church for all who cared to look for it" (Early Christian Doctrines, 37).



                                http://www.catholic.com/tracts/apostolic-succession

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X