Christian Discussion Thread V

[Efraim-Judah]

So, God's words have been influenced by paganism. Well, you can say paganism developed from the time of the Original Sin.

I'd advise you not to engage with Efraim. You're arguing with a doorknob.

Well sir, I may be a doorknob, but at least I get you somewhere!!!!

[Tarsonis Survivors]

I'd advise you not to engage with Efraim. You're arguing with a doorknob.

Well sir, I may be a doorknob, but at least I get you somewhere!!!!

It's a colloquial saying "arguing with a doorknob and expecting it to turn". Means it's a pointless argument. It's not a flame.

[Jochistan]

I'd advise you not to engage with Efraim. You're arguing with a doorknob.

Well sir, I may be a doorknob, but at least I get you somewhere!!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0mstGBP37c

[Efraim-Judah]

Well sir, I may be a doorknob, but at least I get you somewhere!!!!

It's a colloquial saying "arguing with a doorknob and expecting it to turn". Means it's a pointless argument. It's not a flame.

That was meant to be banterous.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

It's a colloquial saying "arguing with a doorknob and expecting it to turn". Means it's a pointless argument. It's not a flame.

That was meant to be banterous.

I'd rather banter over doctrine but we both know you come up short on that front.

Ephesians 2:15, effy. You'll never beat it

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Let's be clear: Homosexual intercourse is a sin, in the same way that heterosexual intercourse is a sin in the case of pre-marital sex or extra-marital sex.

Being gay is not a sin.

So? how does saying, "you are who you are, just don't fuckin' do it" make it sting any less?

That's a fundamental charge of Christianityband Judaism: you're sinful by nature, don't sin.

[Efraim-Judah]

That was meant to be banterous.

I'd rather banter over doctrine but we both know you come up short on that front.

Ephesians 2:15, effy. You'll never beat it

Paul says the dividing wall is a wall of hostility. The Greek word for hostility is ἔχθραν (echthran). It is used in the Septuagint in Genesis 3:15, when God says there will be enmity, or hostility, between the offspring of the serpent and the offspring of the woman. In Ephesians, the Gentiles were called the children (i.e. offspring) of Satan, whereas those who are part of God's kingdom are children (offspring) of God. All the way back to Genesis three, there has been hostility between those who are of God's kingdom and those who are not. And ultimately, there is hostility between those who are not God's children and God himself. Thus in Romans 8:7, Paul can say that those whose minds are set on gratifying the flesh have hostility (echthra) towards God. In James 4:4, James says that friendship with the world (i.e. Satan's kingdom) is hostility (echthra) with God.
The dividing wall of hostility is a wall of division, division that has existed between two kingdoms, that still exists between these two kingdoms until Satan's rule is ultimately destroyed (Revelation 11:15). So if the hostility between the two kingdoms still exists, how is it that Christ destroyed the wall of hostility in his flesh?
Paul is addressing Gentiles in the flesh who have aligned themselves with the one true God. They have forsaken any prior allegiances to the rulers and authorities.As previous members of Satan's kingdom, they used to be against those who were a part of God's kingdom, those who “were near,” and vice versa. But now, there is no longer a wall of hostility between them. Why? Because the Gentiles who have been united with Christ are now friends of God, part of his kingdom, and enemies of the kingdom to which they once belonged.
It's not that hostility no longer exists between the two kingdoms. It is rather that hostility no longer exists between believers who have been united in Christ, whether they are Gentiles in the flesh or Jews in the flesh. They are all spiritually children of the God of Israel.

Many Christians interpret the dividing wall of Ephesians two as the Mosaic Law, believing that it has created division between Jews and Gentiles. We have shown that this is a misunderstanding based on a gross misrepresentation of the Torah. Such an interpretation has major flaws: it is inconsistent with the Torah itself, with the words of Jesus, and with the words of Paul in other letters. Further, it does not consider varying uses of the Greek words used in Ephesians two for “law” and “commandments,” and is not compatible with the normal understanding of the Greek word for “ordinances” (dogma), which does not refer to God's laws but rather human edicts and decrees.
Since the dividing wall is clearly not the Torah, what is it? The context of Ephesians paints the picture of two kingdoms, one ruled by Satan, the other by God. Paul's message is that Gentiles who have accepted Jesus as their Messiah no longer belong to Satan's kingdom, but rather to God's. We must understand the dividing wall in this context. Since the fall of man, hostility has existed between the offspring of Satan (citizens of his kingdom) and the offspring of God (citizens of God's kingdom). When Gentiles in the flesh become spiritual children of God, this hostility is removed because their citizenship has been transferred to God's kingdom. They are no longer against God's children but rather included and united with them. Christ broke down the dividing wall.


This comes from "Case For Torah" A Hebrew Roots Website

[Tarsonis Survivors]

I'd rather banter over doctrine but we both know you come up short on that front.

Ephesians 2:15, effy. You'll never beat it

Paul says the dividing wall is a wall of hostility. The Greek word for hostility is ἔχθραν (echthran). It is used in the Septuagint in Genesis 3:15, when God says there will be enmity, or hostility, between the offspring of the serpent and the offspring of the woman. In Ephesians, the Gentiles were called the children (i.e. offspring) of Satan, whereas those who are part of God's kingdom are children (offspring) of God. All the way back to Genesis three, there has been hostility between those who are of God's kingdom and those who are not. And ultimately, there is hostility between those who are not God's children and God himself. Thus in Romans 8:7, Paul can say that those whose minds are set on gratifying the flesh have hostility (echthra) towards God. In James 4:4, James says that friendship with the world (i.e. Satan's kingdom) is hostility (echthra) with God.
The dividing wall of hostility is a wall of division, division that has existed between two kingdoms, that still exists between these two kingdoms until Satan's rule is ultimately destroyed (Revelation 11:15). So if the hostility between the two kingdoms still exists, how is it that Christ destroyed the wall of hostility in his flesh?
Paul is addressing Gentiles in the flesh who have aligned themselves with the one true God. They have forsaken any prior allegiances to the rulers and authorities. As previous members of Satan's kingdom, they used to be against those who were a part of God's kingdom, those who “were near,” and vice versa. But now, there is no longer a wall of hostility between them. Why? Because the Gentiles who have been united with Christ are now friends of God, part of his kingdom, and enemies of the kingdom to which they once belonged.
It's not that hostility no longer exists between the two kingdoms. It is rather that hostility no longer exists between believers who have been united in Christ, whether they are Gentiles in the flesh or Jews in the flesh. They are all spiritually children of the God of Israel.

Many Christians interpret the dividing wall of Ephesians two as the Mosaic Law, believing that it has created division between Jews and Gentiles. We have shown that this is a misunderstanding based on a gross misrepresentation of the Torah. Such an interpretation has major flaws: it is inconsistent with the Torah itself, with the words of Jesus, and with the words of Paul in other letters. Further, it does not consider varying uses of the Greek words used in Ephesians two for “law” and “commandments,” and is not compatible with the normal understanding of the Greek word for “ordinances” (dogma), which does not refer to God's laws but rather human edicts and decrees.
Since the dividing wall is clearly not the Torah, what is it? The context of Ephesians paints the picture of two kingdoms, one ruled by Satan, the other by God. Paul's message is that Gentiles who have accepted Jesus as their Messiah no longer belong to Satan's kingdom, but rather to God's. We must understand the dividing wall in this context. Since the fall of man, hostility has existed between the offspring of Satan (citizens of his kingdom) and the offspring of God (citizens of God's kingdom). When Gentiles in the flesh become spiritual children of God, this hostility is removed because their citizenship has been transferred to God's kingdom. They are no longer against God's children but rather included and united with them. Christ broke down the dividing wall.


This comes from "Case For Torah" A Hebrew Roots Website

Except that's a respond to 2:14, not 2:15.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Your only argument against 2000 years of Christian interpretation, is a flimsy argument on pedantry. It doesn't work.

[Efraim-Judah]

Paul says the dividing wall is a wall of hostility. The Greek word for hostility is ἔχθραν (echthran). It is used in the Septuagint in Genesis 3:15, when God says there will be enmity, or hostility, between the offspring of the serpent and the offspring of the woman. In Ephesians, the Gentiles were called the children (i.e. offspring) of Satan, whereas those who are part of God's kingdom are children (offspring) of God. All the way back to Genesis three, there has been hostility between those who are of God's kingdom and those who are not. And ultimately, there is hostility between those who are not God's children and God himself. Thus in Romans 8:7, Paul can say that those whose minds are set on gratifying the flesh have hostility (echthra) towards God. In James 4:4, James says that friendship with the world (i.e. Satan's kingdom) is hostility (echthra) with God.
The dividing wall of hostility is a wall of division, division that has existed between two kingdoms, that still exists between these two kingdoms until Satan's rule is ultimately destroyed (Revelation 11:15). So if the hostility between the two kingdoms still exists, how is it that Christ destroyed the wall of hostility in his flesh?
Paul is addressing Gentiles in the flesh who have aligned themselves with the one true God. They have forsaken any prior allegiances to the rulers and authorities. As previous members of Satan's kingdom, they used to be against those who were a part of God's kingdom, those who “were near,” and vice versa. But now, there is no longer a wall of hostility between them. Why? Because the Gentiles who have been united with Christ are now friends of God, part of his kingdom, and enemies of the kingdom to which they once belonged.
It's not that hostility no longer exists between the two kingdoms. It is rather that hostility no longer exists between believers who have been united in Christ, whether they are Gentiles in the flesh or Jews in the flesh. They are all spiritually children of the God of Israel.

Many Christians interpret the dividing wall of Ephesians two as the Mosaic Law, believing that it has created division between Jews and Gentiles. We have shown that this is a misunderstanding based on a gross misrepresentation of the Torah. Such an interpretation has major flaws: it is inconsistent with the Torah itself, with the words of Jesus, and with the words of Paul in other letters. Further, it does not consider varying uses of the Greek words used in Ephesians two for “law” and “commandments,” and is not compatible with the normal understanding of the Greek word for “ordinances” (dogma), which does not refer to God's laws but rather human edicts and decrees.
Since the dividing wall is clearly not the Torah, what is it? The context of Ephesians paints the picture of two kingdoms, one ruled by Satan, the other by God. Paul's message is that Gentiles who have accepted Jesus as their Messiah no longer belong to Satan's kingdom, but rather to God's. We must understand the dividing wall in this context. Since the fall of man, hostility has existed between the offspring of Satan (citizens of his kingdom) and the offspring of God (citizens of God's kingdom). When Gentiles in the flesh become spiritual children of God, this hostility is removed because their citizenship has been transferred to God's kingdom. They are no longer against God's children but rather included and united with them. Christ broke down the dividing wall.


This comes from "Case For Torah" A Hebrew Roots Website

Except that's a respond to 2:14, not 2:15.

You say "in ordinances" (ἐν δόγμασι, doctrines) denotes the means by which the Law was abolished - by means of doctrines, i.e. the doctrines of Christianity. But New Testament δόγμα is not equal to "doctrine."

[Efraim-Judah]

Your only argument against 2000 years of Christian interpretation, is a flimsy argument on pedantry. It doesn't work.

You can take your 1700 years of Roman Paganism and move aside. ^_^

[Idzequitch]

Your only argument against 2000 years of Christian interpretation, is a flimsy argument on pedantry. It doesn't work.

You can take your 1700 years of Roman Paganism and move aside. ^_^

You keep using that word, but I've yet to see you give one good reason why "paganism" could even possibly be used to describe Christianity.

[Efraim-Judah]

You can take your 1700 years of Roman Paganism and move aside. ^_^

You keep using that word, but I've yet to see you give one good reason why "paganism" could even possibly be used to describe Christianity.

The Trinity is a great place to start, Along with your festivals and teachings.

[Gim]

You keep using that word, but I've yet to see you give one good reason why "paganism" could even possibly be used to describe Christianity.

The Trinity is a great place to start, Along with your festivals and teachings.

[Idzequitch]

You keep using that word, but I've yet to see you give one good reason why "paganism" could even possibly be used to describe Christianity.

The Trinity is a great place to start, Along with your festivals and teachings.

So if I understand you correctly, a God who manifests Himself in more than one way must necessarily be pagan? Is that it?

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Your only argument against 2000 years of Christian interpretation, is a flimsy argument on pedantry. It doesn't work.

You can take your 1700 years of Roman Paganism and move aside. ^_^

You don't understand, your argument that you posted hangs on one argument: pedantry. Word choice. It appeals to the Septuagint usage of Greek word. But what it fails to account for is that the Septuagint predate the NT by 300 years. The amount of language evolution that occurs in 300 years makes that argument flimsy at best. The best answer we have is actually to turn to other Koine documents of the period.


setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace,


The Greek word used in this verse, is used in the NT to refer to the Law of Moses.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/le ... 3551&t=KJV

The argument you plagiarized, is unsound. You're wrong.

[Gim]

The Trinity is a great place to start, Along with your festivals and teachings.

So if I understand you correctly, a God who manifests Himself in more than one way must necessarily be pagan? Is that it?

Also, I'm pretty sure the Bible talks against the Romans, meaning the Bible could not have been influenced by Roman Paganism.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

So if I understand you correctly, a God who manifests Himself in more than one way must necessarily be pagan? Is that it?

Also, I'm pretty sure the Bible talks against the Romans, meaning the Bible could not have been influenced by Roman Paganism.

You don't seem to understand how religions work.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Yep Effy runs away after being refuted yet again.

[Idzequitch]

So if I understand you correctly, a God who manifests Himself in more than one way must necessarily be pagan? Is that it?

Also, I'm pretty sure the Bible talks against the Romans, meaning the Bible could not have been influenced by Roman Paganism.

Well, that's not necessarily true either. Whether the Bible approved of Romans or not, it was written in a Roman-dominated culture. And as it happens, Romans were not immune to conversion to Christianity either (See Acts 10). Heck, the Bible even contains an epistle to the church in Rome. No, Rome must have had some influence.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Also, I'm pretty sure the Bible talks against the Romans, meaning the Bible could not have been influenced by Roman Paganism.

Well, that's not necessarily true either. Whether the Bible approved of Romans or not, it was written in a Roman-dominated culture. And as it happens, Romans were not immune to conversion to Christianity either (See Acts 10). Heck, the Bible even contains an epistle to the church in Rome. No, Rome must have had some influence.

Never mind the effect of Roman Emperors on the formation of the Church

[Gim]

Also, I'm pretty sure the Bible talks against the Romans, meaning the Bible could not have been influenced by Roman Paganism.

Well, that's not necessarily true either. Whether the Bible approved of Romans or not, it was written in a Roman-dominated culture. And as it happens, Romans were not immune to conversion to Christianity either (See Acts 10). Heck, the Bible even contains an epistle to the church in Rome. No, Rome must have had some influence.

I'm just referring to the fact that paganism there has no influence on the Bible and that the Bible is against the pagan, Roman bureaucracy that persecutes Christians.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Well, that's not necessarily true either. Whether the Bible approved of Romans or not, it was written in a Roman-dominated culture. And as it happens, Romans were not immune to conversion to Christianity either (See Acts 10). Heck, the Bible even contains an epistle to the church in Rome. No, Rome must have had some influence.

I'm just referring to the fact that paganism there has no influence on the Bible and that the Bible is against the pagan, Roman bureaucracy that persecutes Christians.

You use the word fact pretty loosely

[Idzequitch]

Well, that's not necessarily true either. Whether the Bible approved of Romans or not, it was written in a Roman-dominated culture. And as it happens, Romans were not immune to conversion to Christianity either (See Acts 10). Heck, the Bible even contains an epistle to the church in Rome. No, Rome must have had some influence.

I'm just referring to the fact that paganism there has no influence on the Bible and that the Bible is against the pagan, Roman bureaucracy that persecutes Christians.

Except it could. When Catholics brought the Gospel to the Pueblo Indians in New Mexico, they combined the Catholics' teachings with their own religion. When two things exist in the same place at the same time, they tend to have an effect on one another. Roman paganism coincided with Christianity a lot longer than the Pueblo religion did, so it would have had an even greater effect. Read the Corinthian letters sometime. Paul literally addresses the fact that the Corinthian church was mixing paganism with Christianity. This, of course, is not the Christianity that we have inherited, but to assert that paganism could not effect the Christian faith is naive. The Bible literally says it did.

[Jochistan]

Well, that's not necessarily true either. Whether the Bible approved of Romans or not, it was written in a Roman-dominated culture. And as it happens, Romans were not immune to conversion to Christianity either (See Acts 10). Heck, the Bible even contains an epistle to the church in Rome. No, Rome must have had some influence.

I'm just referring to the fact that paganism there has no influence on the Bible and that the Bible is against the pagan, Roman bureaucracy that persecutes Christians.

Not on the Bible perhaps. But a lot of the religious practices do have pagan roots. (like moving Christmas to coincide with the winter solstice, a lot of the stylistics surrounding high ranking members of the clergy)

Although it really varies from culture to culture.