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

  • With that being said:

    Peter did have a special role in the early Church:

    The New Testament contains five different metaphors for the foundation of the Church (Matt. 16:18, 1 Cor. 3:11, Eph. 2:20, 1 Pet. 2:5–6, Rev. 21:14). One metaphor that has been disputed is Jesus Christ’s calling the apostle Peter "rock": "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18).
    Some have tried to argue that Jesus did not mean that his Church would be built on Peter but on something else.

    Some (eg., Bullinger in the Companion Bible) argue that in this passage there is a minor difference between the Greek term for Peter (Petros) and the term for rock (petra), yet they ignore the obvious explanation: petra, a feminine noun, has simply been modifed to have a masculine ending, since one would not refer to a man (Peter) as feminine. The change in the gender is purely for stylistic reasons.


    These critics also neglect the fact that Jesus spoke Aramaic, and, as John 1:42 tells us, in everyday life he actually referred to Peter as Kepha or Cephas (depending on how it is transliterated). It is that term which is then translated into Greek as petros. Thus, what Jesus actually said to Peter in Aramaic was: "You are Kepha and on this very kepha I will build my Church."
    The Church Fathers, those Christians closest to the apostles in time, culture, and theological background, clearly understood that Jesus promised to build the Church on Peter, as the following passages show.

    http://www.catholic.com/tracts/origins-of-peter-as-pope

    Comment


    • Smyrna -- The only thing you’ve proved by linking to the CB Refugee Camp forum is that you were banned from the site by Stage Director, and yet you’ve tried to force your way into the “restricted” parts through various methods. That’s pretty unscrupulous, man. We all know what an unethical troll you are, how you phished your way into Franklin’s forum by pretending to be a YUKU administrator where you looked for an obtained private information about users. Thanks for reminding us what a dishonorable underhanded snake you are.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by dodge View Post
        Smyrna -- The only thing you’ve proved by linking to the CB Refugee Camp forum is that you were banned from the site by Stage Director, and yet you’ve tried to force your way into the “restricted” parts through various methods. That’s pretty unscrupulous, man. We all know what an unethical troll you are, how you phished your way into Franklin’s forum by pretending to be a YUKU administrator where you looked for an obtained private information about users. Thanks for reminding us what a dishonorable underhanded snake you are.
        There are no ethics in war, that's a liberal idea. It's one reason they're going crazy now over the US soldiers p'ing on the corpses of Taliban members. I say they should have been given beer so they could keep doing it. That idiocy also manifests in ideas of giving terrorists Miranda rights or trying them in civilian courts.

        By the way, would you say posting a photo of an SC student in a forum with out of control SC haters who know who that student is, is ethical?


        "Thanks for reminding us what a dishonorable underhanded snake you are" has been reported.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by smyrna View Post

          You are really being a funny guy today Frankie, first you say Christians do not accept Christ as their savior,

          Smyrna, here's what Franklin said, and I'll even explain it in context what he meant. Then if he wishes, he can then tell me if I understood him correctly. I take it that you're referring to this?

          Originally posted by jeff_franklin View Post
          Real Christianity is those who do not accept Christ as their Savior go to judgement for they did not allow Christ's sacrifice to wash away, erase their sins.
          What Franklin is saying is this...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...that equals real Christianity. Somehow you misunderstood that to mean that he meant real Christians do not accept Christ as their Savior, when he never said that at all.

          BTW, I haven't read past this post as of yet, so maybe this has already been ironed out. But if not, this is my 2 cents worth.

          Comment


          • By the way Dodge:

            You know I was thinking: did you happen to read the exceprt about Apostolic succession? The part where it says:

            "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)

            You see that sentence in blue? It kind of reminds me of a restricted knowledge, like what you find in many cults. Why does CBRC have a restricted area? The old CB site had one too. FactNet doesn't have one. Frankie's site has one.

            The SC website doesn't have one. So who is more cultish or Gnostic-like? Just an observation.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by oneway View Post
              Smyrna, here's what Franklin said, and I'll even explain it in context what he meant. Then if he wishes, he can then tell me if I understood him correctly. I take it that you're referring to this?



              What Franklin is saying is this...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...that equals real Christianity. Somehow you misunderstood that to mean that he meant real Christians do not accept Christ as their Savior, when he never said that at all.

              BTW, I haven't read past this post as of yet, so maybe this has already been ironed out. But if not, this is my 2 cents worth.
              It is ironed out Oneway, except 1, I don't know how that relates to SC's alleged antisemitism, SC is a Christian Church, and Franklin also said that Cain's mark was a death sentence, which he tried to squiggle out of by claiming a comma saved him form the embarrassment of being so blatantly wrong. It's all in the context, not some comma.

              He was saying Murray was giving Jews the mark of Cain, which was a death sentence, otherwise there was no reason to make mention of the mark of Cain.

              Comment


              • Hey what happened to this topic? :

                "I believe history has proven that extreme hate and prejudice towards Jews has led to their being physically harmed. It's probably less likely today in the US, but that doesn't mean they aren't harmed in other ways. The word "slander" comes to mind, not to mention there are other nations who don't believe they have right to exist. Anti-semitism disguised (thinly) as Christianity only feeds the hate. m.o." - Stage Director

                Smyrna's reply:

                "I believe that history also records hatred of Jews(and violence) aimed against Christians )and non-Jews in general (called "goyim" or as some of my Jewish friends have called their non-Jewish friends "goys") was strongly specified in the Talmud. So naturally there would be animosity between the two, though for some reason, probably the reverberations of the Holocaust, the emphasis is laid upon antisemitism only.

                http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8213.html


                "In Reckless Rites, Elliott Horowitz (eg, who is a Jew, by the way)takes a new and forthright look at both the history of Jewish violence since late antiquity and the ways in which generations of historians have grappled with that history. In the process, he has written the most wide-ranging book on Jewish violence in any language, and the first to fully acknowledge and address the actual anti-Christian practices that became part of the playful, theatrical violence of the Jewish festival of Purim.....Reckless Rites reassesses the historical interpretation of Jewish violence--from the alleged massacre of thousands of Christians in seventh-century Jerusalem to later medieval attacks on Christian symbols such as the crucifix, transgressions that were often committed in full knowledge that their likely consequence would be death."

                Comment


                • Who Murray does identify as the "Kenites", no matter how few, puts the Mark of Cain, a death sentence on every Jew who worships in a Synagogue.
                  What Murray does is puts the Mark of Cain, the first murderer, on the Jews as supposed descendent's of Cain. Murray identifies the Ashkenazim, Sephardi, Khazar Jews, 95% of those who worship in synagogues. Murray goes further and claims (like Klansman Wesley Swift, Klansman Thomas Robb, Neo Nazi Richard Butler, Aryan Nations) that these Jews are Satan's literal children.

                  The over 1 billion Muslims in the world do not believe, nor do Christians or Jews, that Eve had sex with Satan and that Cain is the son of Satan and his physical children are the Jews, but the hatred of the Jews in the Muslim nations is strong enough to wipe Israel off the map and kill all of it's Jewish citizens.

                  Arnold Murray on the airwaves, his "students" on the Internet preaching that Eve had sex with Satan and that Cain is the son of Satan and his physical children are Zionists, the Jews in Israel, is certainly fanning the flames of antisemitism, Islamo fascist terrorism and Neo Nazi antisemitic propaganda that can and will lead to further violence against the Jewish people.

                  Murray and his followers are not just some benign Christian Church studying the Bible. They are twisting the Bible into a dangerous way to slander and endanger the lives of the Jews.

                  Chronologically in the Bible Cain lived 6,000 years ago. God put the mark of Cain on Cain to warn other children of Adam and Eve not to harm, kill Cain. Do you think a Islamo fascist terrorist, a Neo Nazi terrorist, Klansman is going to stop to think that

                  "Oh wait, God said not to harm Cain... was God warning us not to harm, kill Cain's children, descendants also??? Hmmm? NAW!!!!!"

                  Are they going to stop to discern which Jews are Cain's, Satan's children are versus which ones are not? Naw!!!!!!

                  There is no defense for this dangerous, inflammatory hate speech Murray spews against the Jews!

                  Comment


                  • Hey what happened to this topic? :

                    "I believe history has proven that extreme hate and prejudice towards Jews has led to their being physically harmed. It's probably less likely today in the US, but that doesn't mean they aren't harmed in other ways. The word "slander" comes to mind, not to mention there are other nations who don't believe they have right to exist. Anti-semitism disguised (thinly) as Christianity only feeds the hate. m.o." - Stage Director

                    Smyrna's reply:

                    "I believe that history also records hatred of Jews(and violence) aimed against Christians )and non-Jews in general (called "goyim" or as some of my Jewish friends have called their non-Jewish friends "goys") was strongly specified in the Talmud. So naturally there would be animosity between the two, though for some reason, probably the reverberations of the Holocaust, the emphasis is laid upon antisemitism only.
                    The wrongs that some Jews may have inflicted on goyim in no way justifies the 2000 years of persecution culminating in the Holocaust. You keep responding as if there is justification.

                    Comment


                    • Smyrna -- You rationalized your behavior (breaking into forums where you were banned and accessing someone’s private information pretending to be a YUKI administrator) as being acts of war, and therefore allowed; and compared it to what a group of Marines did in Afghanistan when they urinated on the corpses of three dead Muslims. You even said that they should have been given beer so that they could keep doing it. Wow!

                      How do you think the Muslim world perceives this desecration of Muslim corpses? Don’t you think they could use those images for recruitment purposes, and lead to the kind of hatred for Americans that could stimulate even more suicide bombings? The President of Afghanistan called the incident “inhuman,” and the Afghani government is deeply disturbed by the video; and the USMC said that this type of behavior is “not consistent with our core values and are not indicative of the character of the Marines in our Corps.”

                      The Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, doesn’t, thankfully, share your views. He made a statement that the guilty parties will be punished to the full extent allowed by the Uniform Code of Military Justice and by American laws. You’re wrong, Smyrna, there are ethics involved in fighting a war; and that’s not, as you claimed, a “liberal idea.” Your defense of such dishonorable behavior reflects on your moral character.

                      How would you feel if it were reversed, and there was video of Taliban soldiers defecating on the dead bodies of American Marines? Would you just shrug your shoulders and say, “Oh well, there are no rules to war so that’s allowed?” Comparing your trespass into a website where you were banned, using sneaky subterfuge by passing yourself off as a forum administrator in order to get private information from a member, to an “act of war;” and using the example of Marines defiling the corpses of dead Muslims as an example is beyond my comprehension of what morality you think you have. You frighten me, Smyrna; and I can only imagine what you’re capable of under certain circumstances.

                      Comment


                      • You really don't understand Apostolic Succession. It's not limited to the Popes:
                        I probably don't. I understand that one cannot inherit their place within the body of Christ from another man.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by jeff_franklin View Post
                          What Murray does is puts the Mark of Cain, the first murderer, on the Jews as supposed descendent's of Cain. Murray identifies the Ashkenazim, Sephardi, Khazar Jews, 95% of those who worship in synagogues. Murray goes further and claims (like Klansman Wesley Swift, Klansman Thomas Robb, Neo Nazi Richard Butler, Aryan Nations) that these Jews are Satan's literal children.

                          The over 1 billion Muslims in the world do not believe, nor do Christians or Jews, that Eve had sex with Satan and that Cain is the son of Satan and his physical children are the Jews, but the hatred of the Jews in the Muslim nations is strong enough to wipe Israel off the map and kill all of it's Jewish citizens.

                          Arnold Murray on the airwaves, his "students" on the Internet preaching that Eve had sex with Satan and that Cain is the son of Satan and his physical children are Zionists, the Jews in Israel, is certainly fanning the flames of antisemitism, Islamo fascist terrorism and Neo Nazi antisemitic propaganda that can and will lead to further violence against the Jewish people.

                          Murray and his followers are not just some benign Christian Church studying the Bible. They are twisting the Bible into a dangerous way to slander and endanger the lives of the Jews.

                          Chronologically in the Bible Cain lived 6,000 years ago. God put the mark of Cain on Cain to warn other children of Adam and Eve not to harm, kill Cain. Do you think a Islamo fascist terrorist, a Neo Nazi terrorist, Klansman is going to stop to think that

                          "Oh wait, God said not to harm Cain... was God warning us not to harm, kill Cain's children, descendants also??? Hmmm? NAW!!!!!"

                          Are they going to stop to discern which Jews are Cain's, Satan's children are versus which ones are not? Naw!!!!!!

                          There is no defense for this dangerous, inflammatory hate speech Murray spews against the Jews!
                          Okay, one more time:

                          Your opinion isn't shared by the ADL or SPLC, who don't list the SC as antisemitic or racist. So your protests as well as those who parrot them on the Internet make barely a collective whimper in comparison.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by stage director View Post
                            The wrongs that some Jews may have inflicted on goyim in no way justifies the 2000 years of persecution culminating in the Holocaust. You keep responding as if there is justification.
                            No, I'm responding to the curious stance of self declared Christians, who seem more concerned with antisemitism then Christian persecution. I don't see you or Frankie protesting against persecution of Christians all over the world. You have zero to say about the extreme anti-Christian material in the Talmud, other than to rant and rave that Murray thinks the Talmud is garbage, as it may be noted, so do a notable amount of Jews.

                            And I wouldn't consider it "a few Jews" who celebrate Purim by desecrating Christian symbols, as the author of the book (a Jew himself) exposed in: Reckless Rites: Purim and the Legacy of Jewish Violence

                            That celebration has been going on for almost as long as Christianity itself has. And if anyone has shown Jewish persecution over the Crucifixion of Christ is wrong, it's Murray, who has always taught the Jewish priesthood during Christ's time was infiltrated by the Kenites, who aren't Jews, and his explanation of the parable of the Wheat and Tares, where he notes always Christ's order to not harm even the Tares, and let the angels gather them up at the end of the age.

                            Christians are undergoing much persecution in the world, it's been going on since the inception of the Church, yet I haven't seen you or Franklin address it. I think the Jews can take care of themselves, after all, they do have the ADL and JDL, among other ways.

                            http://www.christianpersecution.info/china.phpDenver

                            Quarterback Tim Tebow is being attacked daily in the liberal media because of his openly Christian beliefs.

                            Christians are being persecuted even in the Holy land, and in the US by liberals, many of whom are athiests.

                            Former AR. Governor Mike Huckabee sadly declared the US a "post-Christian nation" in a recent interview.

                            But here's Franklin and Stage Director, who you'd think were Jewish themselves, with their obsession over antisemitism, even proclaiming it as existing where it doesn't even exist.
                            Last edited by smyrna; 01-13-2012, 06:01 AM.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by stage director View Post
                              I probably don't. I understand that one cannot inherit their place within the body of Christ from another man.
                              I guess you missed reading I & II Timothy, as well as ignoring the proper interpretation of Matthew 16:18, which was already posted here.

                              Paul's letters titled I & II Timothy explains the ordination of Bishops, and what is expected of them. Paul ordained Timothy in the Apostolic succession.

                              You also ignore the Old Testament, where in Judaism, there was a similar succession in the High priesthood:

                              The High Priest (Heb. כהן גדול kohen gadol) was the chief religious official of Israelite religion and of classical Judaism from the rise of the Israelite nation until the destruction of the Second Temple of Jerusalem. The high priests belonged to the Jewish priestly families that trace their paternal line back to Aaron, the first high priest and elder brother of Moses.

                              Aaron, though he is but rarely called "the great priest," being generally simply designated as "ha-kohen" (the priest), was the first incumbent of the office, to which he was appointed by God (Book of Exodus 28:1-2; 29:4-5

                              In that same tradition, we find in the story of Elijah's translation to heaven, his son Elisha "took the mantle" of his father.

                              So all these sources, Biblical and otherwise, must be wrong for you to be right. I think I'll stick with the Bible.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by dodge View Post
                                Smyrna -- You rationalized your behavior (breaking into forums where you were banned and accessing someone’s private information pretending to be a YUKI administrator) as being acts of war, and therefore allowed; and compared it to what a group of Marines did in Afghanistan when they urinated on the corpses of three dead Muslims. You even said that they should have been given beer so that they could keep doing it. Wow!

                                How do you think the Muslim world perceives this desecration of Muslim corpses? Don’t you think they could use those images for recruitment purposes, and lead to the kind of hatred for Americans that could stimulate even more suicide bombings? The President of Afghanistan called the incident “inhuman,” and the Afghani government is deeply disturbed by the video; and the USMC said that this type of behavior is “not consistent with our core values and are not indicative of the character of the Marines in our Corps.”

                                The Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, doesn’t, thankfully, share your views. He made a statement that the guilty parties will be punished to the full extent allowed by the Uniform Code of Military Justice and by American laws. You’re wrong, Smyrna, there are ethics involved in fighting a war; and that’s not, as you claimed, a “liberal idea.” Your defense of such dishonorable behavior reflects on your moral character.

                                How would you feel if it were reversed, and there was video of Taliban soldiers defecating on the dead bodies of American Marines? Would you just shrug your shoulders and say, “Oh well, there are no rules to war so that’s allowed?” Comparing your trespass into a website where you were banned, using sneaky subterfuge by passing yourself off as a forum administrator in order to get private information from a member, to an “act of war;” and using the example of Marines defiling the corpses of dead Muslims as an example is beyond my comprehension of what morality you think you have. You frighten me, Smyrna; and I can only imagine what you’re capable of under certain circumstances.
                                "How do you think the Muslim world perceives this desecration of Muslim corpses?"

                                I could care less, since Muslims produced the corpses of nearly three thousand American citizens, thousands more during the Muslim war against "Infidels" including their own fellow Muslims, cutting the head off of an American civilian they kidnapped and videotaping it, and many other atrocities.

                                "How would you feel if it were reversed, and there was video of Taliban soldiers defecating on the dead bodies of American Marines?" I feel the same way as I do now, considering what I just described above.

                                And by the way, you need to sharpen your reading comprehension. I never compared those things with what I did at YUKU. What I did is trivial if I were to compare them. What I did compare was the liberal outrage over the urinating of US soldiers on Taliban corpses, with other actions by liberals who appear way more concerned with how we treat our enemies than acts of war perpetrated upon Americans, both in the military and innocent civilians.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X