Quote Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh View Post
Synopsis of Empire's post.

1) Jesus was not divine, but a human prophet after the manner of Buddha or Zoroaster.

2) The Catholic Church, during medieval times, distorted the message of Jesus for its own political ends, assigning meanings to his teachings that Christ would not have assigned and establishing doctrines and practices designed to promote and spread their power more than any faith effort.

3) (conjecture on my part) Since Jesus was a prophet and not divine, the Western Church is predicated on a lie and therefore invalid, however well or poorly intentioned.

4) Real geo-political power is in the hands of a quiet conspiracy/secret society comprised of Zionists (not all Jews, but those advocating an "Imperialist" Jewish agenda) and Free-Masons (that well-known secret society with so many "leading lights" among its membership).

5) Modern power has shifted from the theocratic imperialism (medieval church as controlled by #4 above) through nationalism/capitalism (still under #4 above, even in the "democratic" USA where it was better hidden) to the modern version of cultural imperialism (still controlled by #4 above and operating on an even more pervasive, albeit less militaristic, model of dominance).


So, TR and Siggy, he isn't so much arguing a point with either of you as he is attacking the basic given that Jesus is divine. Doesn't matter how elegant your arguments if the opponent can assert that your basic given premise is wrong. The arguments become moot.

the claim of church changing doctrine or creating jesus divinity is easily shown false. I wrote alittle on it in my op, this applies to pre 400 ad and earlier let alone middle ages.

Church change doctrine/edit bible?

we have manuscript evidence from before any of the councils so if they had changed any doctrine we would have known about it.
http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2011...testament.html
the above link to video also shows the impossibility of any one group or council changing the NT documents.

We have manuscripts from different time/places that give evidence to the original as they all agree. How do muitple lines of manuscripts differ in country of orgigin/time agree on text if edited over time?


If the catholic church changed doctrine in 4th century , why not add or subistute doctrine to fit theology/church systems? Contradicts bible in many issues the church does?.

All the NT except 11 verses could be reconstructed from the writings of the Fathers
Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix,#A General Introduction to the Bible, Ch. 24. Moody, Chicago, Revised and Expanded 1986.
#"virtually the entire New Testament could be reproduced from citations contained in the works of the early church fathers. There are some thirty-two thousand citations in the writings of the Fathers prior to the Council of Nicea (325)" (Moreland,#Scaling the Secular City, p. 136).


Quote Originally Posted by Sigurd View Post
Baseless claims. Argumentum ad ignorantiam.


Compared to denominical Christians, I am considered very objective. And I am an Agnostic, not a Mormon. I do have Mormon friends as I have Evangelical friends and even JW friends. An old friend of mine, a 70 year old JW woman from Glasgow, taught me near all I know about Egyptology.
And nice Argumentum ad Hominem by the way... I often do press born agains in debate so they show their true un-christian intolerant selves. Not all - I shall not generalize, but many do show their true colors.

You trying to tell me what the Bible says on these issues is... kinda contradictory of what you try to tell us not to do - to listen to what other people's interpretations are. I think you are indeed heavily influenced by what evangelical preachers write about e.g. the Mormons. Those preachers are today's Caiaphas, Ananias and the Sanhedrin. Judge ye by their fruits.

true baseless claim, supported by references,but as i said i dont care to argue if mormons are christian on this thread. I showed a few places where bible says no but we clearly have diffident authorities.


It was not attack on you,but your denial and bigotry against certain people references. That was directly related to your response. You claim to be objective, your last post shows otherwise.

you than say this
"I often do press born agains in debate so they show their true un-christian intolerant selves. Not all - I shall not generalize, but many do show their true colors."


yet you show how bigited you are by your post and intolerant of what you call born again christian. How is showing bionically and referencing debates intolerant? I am in no way intolerant of mormons, i do however as a christian object to the claim they have the truth or jospeh smith was a prophet. Otherwise i would be what you would call a bigoted mormon as i would think they are true.


i agree fully, that is why i only use bible for reasons not my opinions. Those debates you will not see opinions but biblical text used to make points. people just say that is your intepritation when the bible is clear on something they dont want to hear often.