A Cesspool of Heresy, False Teachers, Radicals, and Lunatics
Comments
-
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@C_M_ said:
The "user in question" did a whole lot of name-calling, unnecessarily. How could one take him seriously with this behavior? I guess he's like the fable, "the boy who cried wolf." Now, his good, is evil spoken of.You don't have the whole story. Your review of David and his postings are limited, at best. The "user in question" said he put-up with the "Cesspool of Heresy, False Teachers, Radicals, and Lunatics" for years. If it were not weakness, it is definitely immaturity. The "user in question" disingenuous to correct. He seems to be more inclined to finger-point, shame, and blame. It would have been nice to speak to him than to talk about him.
Do you know David? Don't trouble yourself to defend him or his actions. Is this your mission here or to raise the standards of CD? CM
Name calling? If it is like the supposed name calling in this thread I don't see a problem with that, after all, Jesus did the same thing. Was it more than that?
I'm not trying to defend, or not defend him. I'm trying to understand what happened and get a feel for the dynamics of this board. If we understand what went wrong we can make this place better.
It seems that there is a lack of any type of moderation on this site as opposed to other sites that I have been part of in the past. Moderation mitigates a lot of these problems. I understand some here, I believe @Dave_L have lauded the fact that there is little to no moderation, but it sounds like things can get a bit out of hand.
So yes, my overall mission is to raise the bar. Am I wrong in my assessment?
@Dave_L said:
As I pointed out earlier, those who oppose the truth need most to hear it. And getting rid of heretics is a church function. Not for the mission field.Is this forum a mission field though or is it supposed to be Christians discussing theology, current events, etc?
How can it not be a mission field? If it reaches the entire planet for Christ?
I'm asking about the purpose of this site.
Jan is a missionary. I assume it is part of his outreach. I know I feel honored being able to have a voice for Christ that potentially reaches the entire world.
I don't see anywhere where that is a goal of this site. From what I have gathered it was to replace another version of the site that no longer exists, not for mission outreach.
-
Thanks for bringing the thread to my attention. I'm sory for not reacting earlier. I have a legal dispute going on, and will have a minor surgery this week, so I've not had the time to follow everything in detail, much less to contribute anything.
So there are calls to "purge the heretics and false teachers" based on a number of passages. Even more passages could be added to that such as 2 John 1:10. Understanding these passages right is a serious matter. As the admin, I don't want to be disobedient to God.
Well, then, let's examine how Jesus was dealing with false teachers, which should be the prime example. Clearly, he used to engage in the discussion rather than calling out to purge them from the congregation (or synagogue). He tried to win them over, and even more, tried to win the listeners over through the discussions with the false teachers.
So what About the other passages? As it was said before, they're meant in the curch context. Don't allow false teachers to preach. Don't endorse them. But don't purge them from places of public discussion (places such as the areopagus in ancient times, and online forums such as this one in modern times).
In fact, if we discuss a topic like the divinity of Christ, without having proponents of both positions, in all likelihood, we'd do nothing but tearing down strawmen.
I'm very sad to see David leave. It's a high price for maintaining a "free speech zone".
-
@reformed said:
I don't see anywhere where that is a goal of this site. From what I have gathered it was to replace another version of the site that no longer exists, not for mission outreach.
I agree with you, reformed. According to the forums' introductory thread, Christiandiscourse.net is...
"...your go-to place for respectful online theological discussion. Feel free to pose Bible questions, spark theological discourse, and connect with people all over the world who are passionate about the Word.
"Christian Discussion is a hub for biblical learning, growth, and community. Please keep your questions and comments respectful and polite. Treat others in this forum like you would treat your neighbor at church—don’t be afraid to voice your opinion, but do it with love and kindness."
I see nothing there about the forums' being a mission field.
As for your earlier question about the name calling, I don't think it's useful or helpful to do an autopsy on the posts of a person formerly active in these threads, but in my view, the OP in this thread offers evidence of the kind of name-calling that's uncalled for among Christians writ large, let alone in online discussion forums. To wit, David there referred to
- the "lunacy" (a theological term?) and "heresy" of these forums"
- to those who "deny Christ with every fiber of their being," (how might he have known about the fibers of my being?)
- to the "false teachers" and "wolves in sheep's clothing" who are "evil" "vipers" who should be "rebuked" and "trampled"
- to the "foolish" who "hate the church" (proof?)
- to the "radicals who have ideas that are crazy and unfounded" ("crazy" is another theological term?)
- and finally, to the "lunatics who live in a fantasy world and have no grasp on what is real and what is not" ("lunatics"? Seriously?)
If one were determined to justify such name calling in an online discussion forum, I suppose one could for a small number of those names. But not all of them; not even most of them.
-
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@C_M_ said:
The "user in question" did a whole lot of name-calling, unnecessarily. How could one take him seriously with this behavior? I guess he's like the fable, "the boy who cried wolf." Now, his good, is evil spoken of.You don't have the whole story. Your review of David and his postings are limited, at best. The "user in question" said he put-up with the "Cesspool of Heresy, False Teachers, Radicals, and Lunatics" for years. If it were not weakness, it is definitely immaturity. The "user in question" disingenuous to correct. He seems to be more inclined to finger-point, shame, and blame. It would have been nice to speak to him than to talk about him.
Do you know David? Don't trouble yourself to defend him or his actions. Is this your mission here or to raise the standards of CD? CM
Name calling? If it is like the supposed name calling in this thread I don't see a problem with that, after all, Jesus did the same thing. Was it more than that?
I'm not trying to defend, or not defend him. I'm trying to understand what happened and get a feel for the dynamics of this board. If we understand what went wrong we can make this place better.
It seems that there is a lack of any type of moderation on this site as opposed to other sites that I have been part of in the past. Moderation mitigates a lot of these problems. I understand some here, I believe @Dave_L have lauded the fact that there is little to no moderation, but it sounds like things can get a bit out of hand.
So yes, my overall mission is to raise the bar. Am I wrong in my assessment?
@Dave_L said:
As I pointed out earlier, those who oppose the truth need most to hear it. And getting rid of heretics is a church function. Not for the mission field.Is this forum a mission field though or is it supposed to be Christians discussing theology, current events, etc?
How can it not be a mission field? If it reaches the entire planet for Christ?
I'm asking about the purpose of this site.
Jan is a missionary. I assume it is part of his outreach. I know I feel honored being able to have a voice for Christ that potentially reaches the entire world.
I don't see anywhere where that is a goal of this site. From what I have gathered it was to replace another version of the site that no longer exists, not for mission outreach.
Isn't it more about your goal. My goal is to share what the Lord has taught me. And thankfully, we have free speech on this board like no other I'm aware of.
-
Ok, enough. David did what he wanted (break as much china on his way out of the CD door) and got what he wanted after his departure (attention/confusion/imposing changes).
Let's keep in mind the what CD-II to be:
@Bill_Coley said:
"...your go-to place for respectful online theological discussion. Feel free to pose Bible questions, spark theological discourse, and connect with people all over the world who are passionate about the Word.I thought otherwise, but appreciated the reminder of what CD-II is all about. CM
-
After being here a month or so, I definitely see the trends the OP talked about, I think he was right in his assessment.
-
@reformed said:
After being here a month or so, I definitely see the trends the OP talked about, I think he was right in his assessment.What do you expect when not preaching to your own choir?
-
There is a difference between preaching to your choir and all out heresy. This week we have seen heresy on these boards by the denial that Christ is God. That being said, this is a board called "Christian Discourse." If that were the case, everyone here would affirm the Deity of Christ because to deny it is not Christian.
-
Wikipedia describes Unitarianism as a Christian movement. I suspect most Unitarians would call themselves Christian. I have 452 results on Unitarianism in Logos. It clearly is a Christian topic, and as such allowed in this forum. Judging from the debates so far, I would say we've done a very good job defending the Trinitarian view. Mission accomplished.
CD is a place for public discussion. I would welcome participants from other competing world views any time, and be happy to engage in debate with Muslims, atheists, JW, LDS and so forth. Even if it would mean spending more time writing responses to their claims.
-
@reformed said:
There is a difference between preaching to your choir and all out heresy. This week we have seen heresy on these boards by the denial that Christ is God. That being said, this is a board called "Christian Discourse." If that were the case, everyone here would affirm the Deity of Christ because to deny it is not Christian.
I encourage you to review the OP in the "What is Christian Discussion" thread, reformed. There you will find no references to refusal of forum participation to people whose points of view do not comport with a given orthodoxy.
You're of course welcome not to discuss Christology with people who disagree with you where you think they shouldn't disagree with you, but in my view, such rejection nullifies the whole purpose of forums which, according to the aforementioned OP, calls us to "...keep (our) questions and comments respectful and polite," to "treat others in this forum like you would treat your neighbor at church," and to "voice (our) opinion(s), but do (so) with love and kindness."
-
@reformed said:
There is a difference between preaching to your choir and all out heresy. This week we have seen heresy on these boards by the denial that Christ is God.Ever considered that the Trinity dogma and its subsidiary Deity of Christ dogma actually is the heresy?? There is no mention of such "Trinitarian" teaching anywhere in Scripture, and it is admitted even by Trinity adherents that this dogma only came into existence and was officially introduced as binding doctrine with the councils of the 4th century AD.
That being said, this is a board called "Christian Discourse." If that were the case, everyone here would affirm the Deity of Christ because to deny it is not Christian.
See above ... according to your ideas then, Jesus would be the top heretic, since he distinguished himself VERY CLEARLY from God, Whom Jesus declared to be his Father and his God (cp Joh 20:17) !!
-
@reformed said:
There is a difference between preaching to your choir and all out heresy. This week we have seen heresy on these boards by the denial that Christ is God. That being said, this is a board called "Christian Discourse." If that were the case, everyone here would affirm the Deity of Christ because to deny it is not Christian.
This is why I suggested on the recent topic of Tongues: "Thanks for sharing your understanding of the matter. I think this is the best way to avoid arguing. Everyone shares their views, and let the readers decide."
"In fact, the more I think about it, a forum where nobody argues, but shares their views, letting the reader decide would be optimal. Just a thought."
So given the Reformed understanding of spiritual blindness apart from the new birth, why try to argue with those who obviously cannot discern truth at a spiritual level? But your comments are valuable as a stand alone reason why you believe as you do.
I also mentioned the pharisees who believed just as others on this board in their denial of Christ's deity. And even though God in the flesh physically raised the dead, healed the sick, and restored amputated body parts, they could not believe their own eyes and killed him.
But let's not give up so easily because even if rejected here, in time what you say reaches the WWW.
-
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
There is a difference between preaching to your choir and all out heresy. This week we have seen heresy on these boards by the denial that Christ is God. That being said, this is a board called "Christian Discourse." If that were the case, everyone here would affirm the Deity of Christ because to deny it is not Christian.
This is why I suggested on the recent topic of Tongues: "Thanks for sharing your understanding of the matter. I think this is the best way to avoid arguing. Everyone shares their views, and let the readers decide."
"In fact, the more I think about it, a forum where nobody argues, but shares their views, letting the reader decide would be optimal. Just a thought."
So given the Reformed understanding of spiritual blindness apart from the new birth, why try to argue with those who obviously cannot discern truth at a spiritual level? But your comments are valuable as a stand alone reason why you believe as you do.
I also mentioned the pharisees who believed just as others on this board in their denial of Christ's deity. And even though God in the flesh physically raised the dead, healed the sick, and restored amputated body parts, they could not believe their own eyes and killed what they could of him.
But let's not give up so easily because even if rejected here, in time what you say reaches the WWW.
-
@Dave_L said:
I also mentioned the pharisees who believed just as others on this board in their denial of Christ's deity.I have not read anything from anyone on this board who believes as the Pharisees believed (or more accurately, did not believe) ... because the Pharisees did NOT believe that the man Jesus was the Christ, that man whom God had promised to be the Messiah.
Now, forum members here who deny the 4th century AD council dogmas about a supposed "deity of Christ", DO BELIEVE that the man Jesus of Nazareth was the God sent Messiah, the Christ. Thus, your above comparison and equation of forum participants with the Pharisees is plainly a false accusation.
And even though God in the flesh physically raised the dead, healed the sick, and restored amputated body parts, they could not believe their own eyes and killed him.
There is no "God in the flesh" - do you mean "a human God" with this phrase "God in the flesh"?) spoken of in either OT or NT scriptures.
Also, those on this forum to whom you are seemingly referring, do believe that the man Jesus, the Messiah, was anointed by God with holy spirit and power (cp Acts 10:38) and with such power and authority which God had given him, he did work those miracles you mention.
-
@Wolfgang said:
@Dave_L said:
I also mentioned the pharisees who believed just as others on this board in their denial of Christ's deity.I have not read anything from anyone on this board who believes as the Pharisees believed (or more accurately, did not believe) ... because the Pharisees did NOT believe that the man Jesus was the Christ, that man whom God had promised to be the Messiah.
Now, forum members here who deny the 4th century AD council dogmas about a supposed "deity of Christ", DO BELIEVE that the man Jesus of Nazareth was the God sent Messiah, the Christ. Thus, your above comparison and equation of forum participants with the Pharisees is plainly a false accusation.
And even though God in the flesh physically raised the dead, healed the sick, and restored amputated body parts, they could not believe their own eyes and killed him.
There is no "God in the flesh" - do you mean "a human God" with this phrase "God in the flesh"?) spoken of in either OT or NT scriptures.
Also, those on this forum to whom you are seemingly referring, do believe that the man Jesus, the Messiah, was anointed by God with holy spirit and power (cp Acts 10:38) and with such power and authority which God had given him, he did work those miracles you mention.
The Pharisees killed Jesus not discerning his divinity.
“The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.”” (John 10:33)
So this is no different from what you and Bill believe. Jesus was just a man, not God.
-
@Dave_L said:
So this is no different from what you and Bill believe. Jesus was just a man, not God.Your "Jesus was just a man" comment inaccurately and unfairly reports what I - and I'm confident, Wolfgang - believe, Dave.
Jesus was a man called/sent by God to save the world, to be our savior, to be the Messiah/Christ. Such a person is not "just a man."
BUT HE WAS A MAN!!! (emphasis added)
- "17 For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.
The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (Ro 5:17). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.
- "5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,"
The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (1 Ti 2:5). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.
And while I have the floor, some verses from John 7 that I encountered in my daily Bible reading this morning: (emphasis added)
"15 The people were surprised when they heard him. “How does he know so much when he hasn’t been trained?” they asked.
16 So Jesus told them, “My message is not my own; it comes from God who sent me. 17 Anyone who wants to do the will of God will know whether my teaching is from God or is merely my own. 18 Those who speak for themselves want glory only for themselves, but a person who seeks to honor the one who sent him speaks truth, not lies.Tyndale House Publishers. (2013). Holy Bible: New Living Translation (Jn 7:15–18). Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers.
I claim that in Jesus' response there is NO indication that he believes himself to be God, and EVERY indication that he believes he is not God. Further, I claim (and have in the past cited) several other verses/passages in which Jesus and/or his followers adopt the same approach to his identity.
Where in those verses do you find support for your view of Jesus' identity, Dave? (I'm NOT asking about creedal statements!! I'm asking specifically and only about those verses.)
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@Dave_L said:
So this is no different from what you and Bill believe. Jesus was just a man, not God.Your "Jesus was just a man" comment inaccurately and unfairly reports what I - and I'm confident, Wolfgang - believe, Dave.
Jesus was a man called/sent by God to save the world, to be our savior, to be the Messiah/Christ. Such a person is not "just a man."
BUT HE WAS A MAN!!! (emphasis added)
- "17 For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.
The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (Ro 5:17). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.
- "5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,"
The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (1 Ti 2:5). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.
And while I have the floor, some verses from John 7 that I encountered in my daily Bible reading this morning: (emphasis added)
"15 The people were surprised when they heard him. “How does he know so much when he hasn’t been trained?” they asked.
16 So Jesus told them, “My message is not my own; it comes from God who sent me. 17 Anyone who wants to do the will of God will know whether my teaching is from God or is merely my own. 18 Those who speak for themselves want glory only for themselves, but a person who seeks to honor the one who sent him speaks truth, not lies.Tyndale House Publishers. (2013). Holy Bible: New Living Translation (Jn 7:15–18). Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers.
I claim that in Jesus' response there is NO indication that he believes himself to be God, and EVERY indication that he believes he is not God. Further, I claim (and have in the past cited) several other verses/passages in which Jesus and/or his followers adopt the same approach to his identity.
Where in those verses do you find support for your view of Jesus' identity, Dave? (I'm NOT asking about creedal statements!! I'm asking specifically and only about those verses.)
But, you believe the same as the Pharisees when it comes to Christ's divinity.
In common Jewish thought, the Name Jesus Christ meant YHWH our salvation anointed. And the Jews thought he was an impostor and killed him for it. But the point is, nobody can say Jesus is the Lord (YHWH) without the Holy Spirit. Because it is a revealed truth. The fact that some see it and you do not (so far) strongly suggests this.
-
@Dave_L said:
The Pharisees killed Jesus not discerning his divinity.No, they killed Jesus because they rejected him as the Messiah(Christ) whom God promised to send .... and they used a false accusation "you make yourself God", because Jesus nowhere had ever claimed to be God but always had claimed to be a human being and as such to be that man whom God had sent.
I find it rather interesting that Trinitarians like you actually do false claim that Jesus was God, even worse than the Pharisees who claimed that he was a man making himself God!!
“The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.”” (John 10:33)
See above ... perhaps you will realize that you are the one who - similar to the Pharisees, talk about Jesus being God !!
So this is no different from what you and Bill believe. Jesus was just a man, not God.
This is quite different from what Bill and I believe concerning Jesus. For starters, we actually do NOT believe that "Jesus was JUST a man" ...
-
@Dave_L said:
But, you believe the same as the Pharisees when it comes to Christ's divinity.In common Jewish thought, the Name Jesus Christ meant YHWH our salvation anointed. And the Jews thought he was an impostor and killed him for it. But the point is, nobody can say Jesus is the Lord (YHWH) without the Holy Spirit. Because it is a revealed truth. The fact that some see it and you do not (so far) strongly suggests this.
Your response, Dave, fails to engage any of the substance of my previous post - not the verses about Jesus being a man; not the verses from John 7. So, I'll ask my question about the John 7 text again: Where in the verses I cited do you find support for your view of Jesus' identity? (And the advisory I appended to that question remains active: I'm NOT asking about creedal statements. I'm asking specifically and only about those verses.)
-
It still comes back to the Pharisees believed exactly as you guys believe when it comes to Christ's divinity..... undeniably so.
-
@Dave_L said:
It still comes back to the Pharisees believed exactly as you guys believe when it comes to Christ's divinity..... undeniably so.And I still come back to the fact that your response fails, yet again, to engage the question I asked.
I'm not fond of generalizations such as this, but it sure seems to be a common tactic in these forums for people simply to avoid - as in not even mention - questions they can't or don't want to address.
It's happened at least a handful of times in my engagements with you, Dave. I ask. You don't answer. I ask again. You don't answer again. I ask a third time, and still you don't answer. How is that a helpful or respectful way to engage issues?
So for the third time, I ask my question about the John 7.15-18 passage: Where in those verses do you find support for your view of Jesus' identity? (And the advisory I appended to that question remains active: I'm NOT asking about creedal statements. I'm asking specifically and only about those verses.)
-
@Dave_L said:
It still comes back to the Pharisees believed exactly as you guys believe when it comes to Christ's divinity..... undeniably so.Your non-substantial "response" comes back to repeating and repeating and repeating again your idea ... which in the meantime has been refuted and shown to be a false accusation. What's your real problem, Dave_L?
To clarify once more: The Pharisees did NOT believe exactly as we believe in regards to Messiah Jesus.
We believe that the man Jesus of Nazareth was the divinely ordained Son of God, sent by God as the Messiah to accomplish what God had ordained for him to accomplish for man's redemption and salvation.
The Pharisees instead rejected the man Jesus to be the God sent Messiah, and instead accused him - falsely - of "make yourself God". The interesting fact is that you and other Trinity adherents not only "make Jesus God", but claim - even worse than the what the Pharisees did - that "Jesus is God". -
What good does it do to present passages you cannot interpret in the way most Christians interpret them? All I can do is point out that the Pharisees could not interpret them either till this day. If the jews thought Jesus was God, they would not exist today. So you might say, most of the world's terrorism is because they could not discern Christ as God. And to boot, they believe exactly as you do when it comes to Christ's deity.
-
@Dave_L said:
What good does it do to present passages you cannot interpret in the way most Christians interpret them? All I can do is point out that the Pharisees could not interpret them either till this day. If the jews thought Jesus was God, they would not exist today. So you might say, most of the world's terrorism is because they could not discern Christ as God. And to boot, they believe exactly as you do when it comes to Christ's deity.I assume this is your response to both Wolfgang and me, for it shows many of the characteristics common among your other posts to either or both of us: You fail to mention, let alone engage, questions put to you, and you engage in thinly-veiled guilt-by-association, which in your latest response is particularly noticeable.
This time you seem to connect our point of view about Jesus' identity with "most of the world's terrorism." Your tactic here is striking for its level of indecency, Dave. I hope the low to which you have stooped here is a mistake, an act that on most days and occasions is beneath you. I know it's beneath deserving any more response from me than what I've just written.
-
I'm just pointing out how you reject Christ's divinity just as the Pharisees did. Wolfgang too.
-
@Dave_L said:
I'm just pointing out how you reject Christ's divinity just as the Pharisees did. Wolfgang too.No, Dave. You're associating, however indirectly, our view of Christ with what you called "most of the world's terrorism." In case you've forgotten your earlier post, you argued...
- "Most of the world's terrorism is because they could not discern Christ as God."
- "They (most of the world's terrorists) believe exactly as (Wolfgang and I) do when it comes to Christ's deity."
- THEREFORE, you clearly asserted, there's a connection between our view of Christology and "most of the world's terrorism."
Again I express my hope that your post was a mistake, that the connection you made between our views and terrorism was beneath you.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@Dave_L said:
I'm just pointing out how you reject Christ's divinity just as the Pharisees did. Wolfgang too.No, Dave. You're associating, however indirectly, our view of Christ with what you called "most of the world's terrorism." In case you've forgotten your earlier post, you argued...
- "Most of the world's terrorism is because they could not discern Christ as God."
- "They (most of the world's terrorists) believe exactly as (Wolfgang and I) do when it comes to Christ's deity."
- THEREFORE, you clearly asserted, there's a connection between our view of Christology and "most of the world's terrorism."
Again I express my hope that your post was a mistake, that the connection you made between our views and terrorism was beneath you.
Terrorism is just another nail in the coffin for those who reject Christ's deity. I believe we can link most of today's terrorism to the Jew's rejection of Christ's divinity. Had they accepted it, they would be acclimated into christendom and not exist. And they are the Pharisees who, like you and Wolfgang, reject Christ as YHWH.
-
@Dave_L said:
Terrorism is just another nail in the coffin for those who reject Christ's deity. I believe we can link most of today's terrorism to the Jew's rejection of Christ's divinity. Had they accepted it, they would be acclimated into christendom and not exist. And they are the Pharisees who, like you and Wolfgang, reject Christ as YHWH.Likewise, most terrorism can be linked to the Muslims' rejection of Christ's divinity. They would not only cease to terrorize the Jews, but also the Christians, atheists, and the free world in general.
-
@Jan said:
@Dave_L said:
Terrorism is just another nail in the coffin for those who reject Christ's deity. I believe we can link most of today's terrorism to the Jew's rejection of Christ's divinity. Had they accepted it, they would be acclimated into christendom and not exist. And they are the Pharisees who, like you and Wolfgang, reject Christ as YHWH.Likewise, most terrorism can be linked to the Muslims' rejection of Christ's divinity. They would not only cease to terrorize the Jews, but also the Christians, atheists, and the free world in general.
I think this is true, but the Jews and those who support them are the targets of terror.
-
@Dave_L said:
Terrorism is just another nail in the coffin for those who reject Christ's deity. I believe we can link most of today's terrorism to the Jew's rejection of Christ's divinity. Had they accepted it, they would be acclimated into christendom and not exist. And they are the Pharisees who, like you and Wolfgang, reject Christ as YHWH.Here you confirm that the connection you drew between terrorism and Wolfgang's and my Christological views was intentional. It was an offensive and indecent suggestion for you to make, Dave, but I respect your candor about it.
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fcddec765be35f238a0844bd23f54b59/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F8ce8323767a20f0f45db140c4cd2cea1_200.png&rating=g&size=200)