On Christ's Passion

[Marcus]

The Jewish mikveh water purification rituals were (are) actually a third instance separate from both Christian baptism and from JtB's baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. . .

If I'm not mistaken, Jewish water purification extended even to cooking vessels. If so, JtB's baptism was obviously some sort of extrapolation from there. Christian baptism is entirely dissimilar, replacing circumcision as a sign of admission into the Covenant community.

[Nonc Hilaire]

The Jewish mikveh water purification rituals were (are) actually a third instance separate from both Christian baptism and from JtB's baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. . .

If I'm not mistaken, Jewish water purification extended even to cooking vessels. If so, JtB's baptism was obviously some sort of extrapolation from there. Christian baptism is entirely dissimilar, replacing circumcision as a sign of admission into the Covenant community.

Jews did (do) not wash their pots and pans in the mikveh. The connection between baptism and circumcision is poetic, not direct. And Acts clearly states that baptism into Christ was a baptism for the remission of sins by repentance, in the same vein as that by JtB, the difference being baptism in the name of Jesus also led to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

“Therefore let the entire house of Israel know with certainty that God has made him both Lord and Messiah, this Jesus whom you crucified.” Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and to the other apostles, “Brothers, what should we do?” Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you, for your children, and for all who are far away, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to him.” And he testified with many other arguments and exhorted them, saying, “Save yourselves from this corrupt generation.” So those who welcomed his message were baptized, and that day about three thousand persons were added.”
(Acts 2:36–41 NRSV)

Baptism certainly rates higher than a mere sign of admission. It is a sacrament with accompanying gifts of grace.

[Parodite]

Did Paul actually ever meet Jesus personally?

[Ibrahim]

Did Paul actually ever meet Jesus personally?

According to the accounts? No.


Assuming Paul and Jesus existed.

[Demon of Undoing]

Did Paul actually ever meet Jesus personally?

According to the accounts? No.


Assuming Paul and Jesus existed.

Road to Damascus. If you believe that sort of thing.

[Mr. Perfect]

What's interesting about Christianity is that even a lot of Christians have doubts about whether these people existed and they believe in the message anyway. Very powerful stuff.

[Parodite]

Did Paul actually ever meet Jesus personally?

According to the accounts? No.

So Paul was never intitiated by Jesus himself as an Apostle or spokesman.

Assuming Paul and Jesus existed.

Obviously.

[Ibrahim]

Did Paul actually ever meet Jesus personally?

According to the accounts? No.

So Paul was never intitiated by Jesus himself as an Apostle or spokesman.

No. Unless you believe that they met in supernatural form on the road to Damascus aster Jesus' death, resurrection and ascent to heaven.



Assuming Damascus existed, and the road existed.

[Parodite]

Did Paul actually ever meet Jesus personally?

According to the accounts? No.

So Paul was never intitiated by Jesus himself as an Apostle or spokesman.

No. Unless you believe that they met in supernatural form on the road to Damascus aster Jesus' death, resurrection and ascent to heaven.

Indeed. Given he probably felt guilty persecuting early Christians and being present at the stoning of one of them making sure the execution went according to plan, that at least explains in part his torment. He could then easily project the presence of Jesus into his epileptic hallucinations on the road to Damascus.

[Ibrahim]

Maybe.

[Nonc Hilaire]

Assuming Paul and Jesus existed.

Of course Jesus existed.

I know because He is in the Q'uran.

[Ibrahim]

Assuming Paul and Jesus existed.

Of course Jesus existed.

I know because He is in the Q'uran.

You have me there.

[Dioscuri]

Cornelius is the first gentile on record to convert to Christianity, and Peter needed a special revelation in order to prepare him for something so unusual. There is really no reason to believe that gentiles were being baptized previous to Cornelious or brought into the Christian community. There is no record of it. Acts 10: 45-47 makes no sense unless gentiles were not baptized previously.

"needed a special revelation in order to prepare him for something so unusual."

An odd way of stating the case. It implies that a demand for "conversion to Christianity" pre-existed Peter's vision, that there had to be a request put in to God in order for that to be "permitted".

That is wrong in more than one way. First, in that there was no "Christianity" and thus there could not have been such thing as "conversion" to it. What there was, were the followers of Jesus, and this clearly was not a body with a stable self-identity, and it was certainly not an institution with a stated set of standards and practices, but rather a creature assembled out words and deeds known to a relatively few people.

What is recounted in Acts is that Peter receives a vision of a sort of square napkin which contains all the teeming multiplicity of earthly life, and Peter hears a voice: "Peter, kill and eat." Peter reacts according to 1500 years of Jewish cultural doctrine, but the voice insists: "What God has made clean you do not declare unclean."

And promptly he hears Cornelius's men knocking at the door. This is what is known as a synchronicity.

Peter and Cornelius hit it off, Peter realizing that it no longer works for Jews to have to sequester themselves from others. I think it is not impertinent to presume that Peter is likely recalling another Roman military man, the one whom Jesus praised as having holiness greater than anyone in Israel. So you see, in life, lessons about what is true never make one single appearance that is determinative; rather, a mass of hints accumulate until there is a tipping point. Paul could never have been struck so dumb by the truth had he not invested a good deal of himself in hating this newfangled Jesus thing, and even in engineering punishments to the early follows to try and eliminate them.

So while it's not inaccurate to state that "baptism was extended to the Gentiles", that phrasing does make presumptions that are inaccurate. It implies that "baptism" was an act endowed with special value by Jesus himself. It was not. Alternatively it implies that baptism sealed a bond of community among the faithful both before Peter's "extension" of it, and after. As other posters have explained, it was not. It was associated with ritual purity, not with community. And Jesus does not make it into an act that establishes membership in a community. The one passing reference in the Gospels only indicates that Jesus was doing what people asked of him. Finally, it implies that "baptism" actually means "baptism". It doesn't. Baptism means "bathing" or "washing."

The moment at which Peter "extends baptism to the Gentiles" [sic] is, sorry to split hairs here, also not an act that denotes the establishing of a community bond.

" While Peter was yet speaking these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them that heard the word.
45 And the faithful of the circumcision, who came with Peter, were astonished, for that the grace of the Holy Ghost was poured out upon the Gentiles also.
46 For they heard them speaking with tongues, and magnifying God.
47 Then Peter answered: Can any man forbid water, that these should not be washed, who have received the Holy Ghost, as well as we?
48 And he commanded them to be washed in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Then they desired him to tarry with them some days."

Recall that the "faithful of the circumcision" are having enough trouble even tolerating Gentiles to be in the same room with them. Peter is surely aware of the Jew/Gentile tensions at play in this situation, and so he has to let the Jews know that this is not just a one-time thing, that the old rules are not coming back. Not only will the Gentiles be allowed into the house, they will be treated as guests. Therefore, let water not be denied them. The "baptism" did not originate as a formal conversionary ritual, but as a sign of the breakdown of social separation between Jew and Gentile. This first "baptism" is not even a "baptism" at all, it is a sharing of washingwater with a guest. This is not a ritual, just as the Last Supper was not a ritual. Both were ritualized by the church hierarchy, founded on the slender branch of Jesus's "Do this in remembrance of me" for the Eucharist, and on an even slenderer branch here for "ritual baptism."

A baptism nowadays is (supposed to be) a gesture, an indication that a transition has occurred. What that transition is, is the subject of a lot of blablabla. And that's not to bash it, not at all. The blablabla is the point. The way you know that something is important is by feeling the compulsion to talk about it and wonder what it means.

Humans, of course, have the tendency overindulge in any activity they discover to be satisfying, and via the principle of addiction, they will render it thoroughly degraded and unsatisfying. Thus we have such institutional features as infant baptism, an act clearly not performed for the child's benefit, who has not the slightest clue what's happening, but performed rather for the pleasure of watching it. The relevant principle is no longer of marking the breach between the end of a convert's old life and its old order of meanings and the beginning of his new one and its new meaning, but rather the self-pleasuring of a community as it assimilates another member. Squirt a bit of spooj on the kid's face and everybody murmurs happily.

Yes I know that was a tad subtle, but it really is quite important with regard to such distinctions as that between "revelation" and "churchianity." One may not, of course, have any interest in distinguishing them, as churches will rarely come off well when under the knife in that way, but nevertheless those who will, will.

In days of yore, people had to arrange lengthy voyages across desert wastes, packing food and water and being unable to bathe for days, in order to arrive at a little river where a holy man lives, a man who has been living in the wild for years.

Baptists today live in homes with hot running water and drive cars to 7/11. Baptism is something done by a guy with a job and a mortgage. We're worlds apart.

tl;dr: Rituals, baptism included, are the products of accumulated historical misunderstandings, and are, in short, bupkis. The Spirit remains the Spirit, and the Spirit flows. All else vanishes.

So to answer the original point of dispute, which Torchwood brought up regarding Jesus's "intentions." No, these intentions were not "limited" to Jews, they were limited by where and what Jesus happened to be, and by what it was possible for a man to do in a certain span of time, and by what the faithful were capable of comprehending, a limitation which, alas, survives to this day. But the intentions were universal. The Law Is For All.

[Parodite]

Assuming Paul and Jesus existed.

Of course Jesus existed.

I know because He is in the Q'uran.

You have me there.

Could all be hearsay

[Parodite]

Assuming Paul and Jesus existed.

Of course Jesus existed.

I know because He is in the Q'uran.

You have me there.

Could all be hearsay

[Marcus]

. . Thus we have such institutional features as infant baptism, an act clearly not performed for the child's benefit, who has not the slightest clue what's happening, but performed rather for the pleasure of watching it. The relevant principle is no longer of marking the breach between the end of a convert's old life and its old order of meanings and the beginning of his new one and its new meaning, but rather the self-pleasuring of a community as it assimilates another member. Squirt a bit of spooj on the kid's face and everybody murmurs happily .. .

A gross and vulgar misunderstanding or deliberate misrepresentation of the theology behind infant baptism.

Westminster Confession of Faith, 1647
Of Baptism

I. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church; but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in the newness of life. Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in His Church until the end of the world.

II. The outward element to be used in this sacrament is water, wherewith the party is to be baptized, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, by a minister of the Gospel, lawfully called thereunto.

III. Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but Baptism is rightly administered by pouring, or sprinkling water upon the person.

IV. Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ, but also the infants of one, or both, believing parents, are to be baptized.

V. Although it is a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it: or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.

VI. The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongs unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in His appointed time.

VII. The sacrament of Baptism is but once to be administered unto any person.

Book of Concord
Of Infant Baptism.

47] Here a question occurs by which the devil, through his sects, confuses the world, namely, Of Infant Baptism, whether children also believe, and are justly baptized. Concerning this we say briefly: 48] Let the simple dismiss this question from their minds, and refer it to the learned. But if you wish to answer, 49] then answer thus:-

That the Baptism of infants is pleasing to Christ is sufficiently proved from His own work, namely, that God sanctifies many of them who have been thus baptized, and has given them the Holy Ghost; and that there are yet many even to-day in whom we perceive that they have the Holy Ghost both because of their doctrine and life; as it is also given to us by the grace of God that we can explain the Scriptures and come to the knowledge of Christ, which is impossible without the Holy Ghost. 50] But if God did not accept the baptism of infants, He would not give the Holy Ghost nor any of His gifts to any of them; in short, during this long time unto this day no man upon earth could have been a Christian. Now, since God confirms Baptism by the gifts of His Holy Ghost, as is plainly perceptible in some of the church fathers, as St. Bernard, Gerson, John Hus, and others, who were baptized in infancy, and since the holy Christian Church cannot perish until the end of the world, they must acknowledge that such infant baptism is pleasing to God. For He can never be opposed to Himself, or support falsehood and wickedness, or for its promotion impart His grace and Spirit. 51] This is indeed the best and strongest proof for the simple-minded and unlearned. For they shall not take from us or overthrow this article: I believe a holy Christian Church, the communion of saints.

52] Further, we say that we are not so much concerned to know whether the person baptized believes or not; for on that account Baptism does not become invalid; but everything depends upon the Word and command of God. 53] This now is perhaps somewhat acute, but it rests entirely upon what I have said, that Baptism is nothing else than water and the Word of God in and with each other, that is, when the Word is added to the water, Baptism is valid, even though faith be wanting. For my faith does not make Baptism, but receives it. Now, Baptism does not become invalid even though it be wrongly received or employed; since it is not bound (as stated) to our faith, but to the Word.

54] For even though a Jew should to-day come dishonestly and with evil purpose, and we should baptize him in all good faith, we must say that his baptism is nevertheless genuine. For here is the water together with the Word of God, even though he does not receive it as he should, just as those who unworthily go to the Sacrament receive the true Sacrament, even though they do not believe.

55] Thus you see that the objection of the sectarians is vain. For (as we have said) even though infants did not believe, which, however, is not the case, yet their baptism as now shown would be valid, and no one should rebaptize them; just as nothing is detracted from the Sacrament though some one approach it with evil purpose, and he could not be allowed on account of his abuse to take it a second time the selfsame hour, as though he had not received the true Sacrament at first; for that would mean to blaspheme and profane the Sacrament in the worst manner. How dare we think that God's Word and ordinance should be wrong and invalid because we make a wrong use of it?

56] Therefore I say, if you did not believe then believe now and say thus: The baptism indeed was right, but I, alas! did not receive it aright. For I myself also, and all who are baptized, must speak thus before God: I come hither in my faith and in that of others, yet I cannot rest in this, that I believe, and that many people pray for me; but in this I rest, that it is Thy Word and command. Just as I go to the Sacrament trusting not in my faith, but in the Word of Christ; whether I am strong or weak, that I commit to God. But this I know, that He bids me go, eat and drink, etc., and gives me His body and blood; that will not deceive me or prove false to me.

57] Thus we do also in infant baptism. We bring the child in the conviction and hope that it believes, and we pray that God may grant it faith; but we do not baptize it upon that, but solely upon the command of God. Why so? Because we know that God does not lie. I and my neighbor and, in short, all men, may err and deceive, but the Word of God cannot err.

58] Therefore they are presumptuous, clumsy minds that draw such inferences and conclusions as these: Where there is not the true faith, there also can be no true Baptism. Just as if I would infer: If I do not believe, then Christ is nothing; or thus: If I am not obedient, then father, mother, and government are nothing. Is that a correct conclusion, that whenever any one does not do what he ought, the thing in itself shall be nothing and of no value? 59] My dear, just invert the argument and rather draw this inference: For this very reason Baptism is something and is right, because it has been wrongly received. For if it were not right and true in itself, it could not be misused nor sinned against. The saying is: Abusus non tollit, sed confirmat substantiam, Abuse does not destroy the essence, but confirms it. For gold is not the less gold though a harlot wear it in sin and shame.

60] Therefore let it be decided that Baptism always remains true, retains its full essence, even though a single person should be baptized, and he, in addition, should not believe truly. For God's ordinance and Word cannot be made variable or be altered by men. 61] But these people, the fanatics, are so blinded that they do not see the Word and command of God, and regard Baptism and the magistrates only as they regard water in the brook or in pots, or as any other man; and because they do not see faith nor obedience, they conclude that they are to be regarded as invalid. 62] Here lurks a concealed seditious devil, who would like to tear the crown from the head of authority and then trample it under foot, and, in addition, pervert and bring to naught all the works and ordinances of God. 63] Therefore we must be watchful and well armed, and not allow ourselves to be directed nor turned away from the Word, in order that we may not regard Baptism as a mere empty sign, as the fanatics dream.

64] Lastly, we must also know what Baptism signifies, and why God has ordained just such external sign and ceremony for the Sacrament by which we are first received into the Christian Church. 65] But the act or ceremony is this, that we are sunk under the water, which passes over us, and afterwards are drawn out again. These two parts, to be sunk under the water and drawn out again, signify the power and operation of Baptism, which is nothing else than putting to death the old Adam, and after that the resurrection of the new man, both of which must take place in us all our lives, so that a truly Christian life is nothing else than a daily baptism, once begun and ever to be continued. For this must be practised without ceasing, that we ever keep purging away whatever is of the old Adam, and that that which belongs to the new man come forth. 66] But what is the old man? It is that which is born in us from Adam, angry, hateful, envious, unchaste, stingy, lazy, haughty, yea, unbelieving, infected with all vices, and having by nature nothing good in it. 67] Now, when we are come into the kingdom of Christ, these things must daily decrease, that the longer we live we become more gentle, more patient, more meek, and ever withdraw more and more from unbelief, avarice, hatred, envy, haughtiness.

68] This is the true use of Baptism among Christians, as signified by baptizing with water. Where this, therefore, is not practised, but the old man is left unbridled, so as to continually become stronger, that is not using Baptism, but striving against Baptism. 69] For those who are without Christ cannot but daily become worse, according to the proverb which expresses the truth, "Worse and worse-the longer, the worse." 70] If a year ago one was proud and avaricious, then he is much prouder and more avaricious this year, so that the vice grows and increases with him from his youth up. A young child has no special vice; but when it grows up, it becomes unchaste and impure, and when it reaches maturity, real vices begin to prevail the longer, the more.

71] Therefore the old man goes unrestrained in his nature if he is not checked and suppressed by the power of Baptism. On the other hand, where men have become Christians, he daily decreases until he finally perishes. That is truly to be buried in Baptism, and daily to come forth again. 72] Therefore the external sign is appointed not only for a powerful effect, but also for a signification. 73] Where, therefore, faith flourishes with its fruits, there it has no empty signification, but the work [of mortifying the flesh] accompanies it; but where faith is wanting, it remains a mere unfruitful sign.

74] And here you see that Baptism, both in its power and signification, comprehends also the third Sacrament, which has been called repentance, 75] as it is really nothing else than Baptism. For what else is repentance but an earnest attack upon the old man [that his lusts be restrained] and entering upon a new life? Therefore, if you live in repentance, you walk in Baptism, which not only signifies such a new life, but also produces, begins, and exercises it. 76] For therein are given grace, the Spirit, and power to suppress the old man, so that the new man may come forth and become strong.

77] Therefore our Baptism abides forever; and even though some one should fall from it and sin, nevertheless we always have access thereto, that we may again subdue the old man. 78] But we need not again be sprinkled with water; for though we were put under the water a hundred times, it would nevertheless be only one Baptism, although the operation and signification continue and remain. 79] Repentance, therefore, is nothing else than a return and approach to Baptism, that we repeat and practise what we began before, but abandoned.

80] This I say lest we fall into the opinion in which we were for a long time, imagining that our Baptism is something past, which we can no longer use after we have fallen again into sin. The reason is, that it is regarded only according to the external act once performed [and completed]. 81] And this arose from the fact that St. Jerome wrote that repentance is the second plank by which we must swim forth and cross over after the ship is broken, on which we step and are carried across when we come into the Christian Church. 82] Thereby the use of Baptism has been abolished so that it can profit us no longer. Therefore the statement is not correct, or at any rate not rightly understood. For the ship never breaks, because (as we have said) it is the ordinance of God, and not a work of ours; but it happens, indeed, that we slip and fall out of the ship. Yet if any one fall out, let him see to it that he swim up and cling to it till he again come into it and live in it, as he had formerly begun.

83] Thus it appears what a great, excellent thing Baptism is, which delivers us from the jaws of the devil and makes us God's own, suppresses and takes away sin, and then daily strengthens the new man; and is and remains ever efficacious until we pass from this estate of misery to eternal glory.

84] For this reason let every one esteem his Baptism as a daily dress in which he is to walk constantly, that he may ever be found in the faith and its fruits, that he suppress the old man and grow up in the new. 85] For if we would be Christians, we must practise the work whereby we are Christians. 86] But if any one fall away from it, let him again come into it. For just as Christ, the Mercy-seat, does not recede from us or forbid us to come to Him again, even though we sin, so all His treasure and gifts also remain. If, therefore, we have once in Baptism obtained forgiveness of sin, it will remain every day, as long as we live, that is, as long as we carry the old man about our neck.

The Belgic Confession
Article 34: The Sacrament of Baptism

We believe and confess that Jesus Christ, in whom the law is fulfilled, has by his shed blood put an end to every other shedding of blood, which anyone might do or wish to do in order to atone or satisfy for sins.
Having abolished circumcision, which was done with blood, he established in its place the sacrament of baptism. By it we are received into God's church and set apart from all other people and alien religions, that we may be dedicated entirely to him, bearing his mark and sign. It also witnesses to us that he will be our God forever, since he is our gracious Father.

Therefore he has commanded that all those who belong to him be baptized with pure water in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.^76

In this way he signifies to us that just as water washes away the dirt of the body when it is poured on us and also is seen on the body of the baptized when it is sprinkled on him, so too the blood of Christ does the same thing internally, in the soul, by the Holy Spirit. It washes and cleanses it from its sins and transforms us from being the children of wrath into the children of God.

This does not happen by the physical water but by the sprinkling of the precious blood of the Son of God, who is our Red Sea, through which we must pass to escape the tyranny of Pharoah, who is the devil, and to enter the spiritual land of Canaan.

So ministers, as far as their work is concerned, give us the sacrament and what is visible, but our Lord gives what the sacrament signifies-- namely the invisible gifts and graces; washing, purifying, and cleansing our souls of all filth and unrighteousness; renewing our hearts and filling them with all comfort; giving us true assurance of his fatherly goodness; clothing us with the "new man" and stripping off the "old," with all its works.

For this reason we believe that anyone who aspires to reach eternal life ought to be baptized only once without ever repeating it-- for we cannot be born twice. Yet this baptism is profitable not only when the water is on us and when we receive it but throughout our entire lives.

For that reason we detest the error of the Anabaptists who are not content with a single baptism once received and also condemn the baptism of the children of believers. We believe our children ought to be baptized and sealed with the sign of the covenant, as little children were circumcised in Israel on the basis of the same promises made to our children.

And truly, Christ has shed his blood no less for washing the little children of believers than he did for adults.

Therefore they ought to receive the sign and sacrament of what Christ has done for them, just as the Lord commanded in the law that by offering a lamb for them the sacrament of the suffering and death of Christ would be granted them shortly after their birth. This was the sacrament of Jesus Christ.

Furthermore, baptism does for our children what circumcision did for the Jewish people. That is why Paul calls baptism the "circumcision of Christ."

[Dioscuri]

Well, now the barn door is closed again, at least.

[Marcus]

Well, now the barn door is closed again, at least.

Not really. It's one thing to disagree, quite another to ridicule.

Try the former and try again . . .

[Dioscuri]

Priests inform us as to what they think is fit and proper.

Is that worth being reminded of?

Men say what it satisfies them to say. What some have to say just happens to be more satisfying than others.

[Marcus]

Priests inform us as to what they think is fit and proper.
Is that worth being reminded of?
Men say what it satisfies them to say. What some have to say just happens to be more satisfying than others.

The documents cited above—the Westminster Confession, the Book of Concord, and the Belgic Confession—are not simply what some priest thinks fit and proper. Agree with them or not, as you and we all are free to do, they all are the results of joint effort by sincere, intelligent men, and have all stood the test of time.

Yes, that is worth being reminded of, and to think the consensus of centuries can be blithely dismissed is ignorant.

Disagree if you wish, but do it from an informed position.

[Taboo]

Priests inform us as to what they think is fit and proper.
Is that worth being reminded of?
Men say what it satisfies them to say. What some have to say just happens to be more satisfying than others.

The documents cited above—the Westminster Confession, the Book of Concord, and the Belgic Confession—are not simply what some priest thinks fit and proper. Agree with them or not, as you and we all are free to do, they all are the results of joint effort by sincere, intelligent men, and have all stood the test of time.

Yes, that is worth being reminded of, and to think the consensus of centuries can be blithely dismissed is ignorant.

Disagree if you wish, but do it from an informed position.

Sometimes, reading and hearing similar arguments (deep accumulated knowledge wounded by the insouciance with which it is being ignored), I get a feeling of déjà vu. After a few seconds, I can eventually place it in context: it is how the Pagan Latin philosophers were reacting to a virulent emerging faith two millenia ago. It almost brings a tear to my eye.

[YMix]

Sometimes, reading and hearing similar arguments (deep accumulated knowledge wounded by the insouciance with which it is being ignored), I get a feeling of déjà vu. After a few seconds, I can eventually place it in context: it is how the Pagan Latin philosophers were reacting to a virulent emerging faith two millenia ago. It almost brings a tear to my eye.

It puts a smile on my face. It's not nice to gloat, I know.

[Marcus]

Sometimes, reading and hearing similar arguments (deep accumulated knowledge wounded by the insouciance with which it is being ignored), I get a feeling of déjà vu. After a few seconds, I can eventually place it in context: it is how the Pagan Latin philosophers were reacting to a virulent emerging faith two millenia ago. It almost brings a tear to my eye.

Perhaps you could cite some contemporary examples of "Pagan Latin philosophers" being ignored by Christianity? News to me . . . did you just make that up or are there real examples of it out there?

Last I knew, the early Church Fathers did not ignore pre-existing philosophies but were actively engaged in dialog with them.

Where did you come up with any fantasy otherwise? . . . .

[Demon of Undoing]

Priests inform us as to what they think is fit and proper.
Is that worth being reminded of?
Men say what it satisfies them to say. What some have to say just happens to be more satisfying than others.

The documents cited above—the Westminster Confession, the Book of Concord, and the Belgic Confession—are not simply what some priest thinks fit and proper. Agree with them or not, as you and we all are free to do, they all are the results of joint effort by sincere, intelligent men, and have all stood the test of time.

Yes, that is worth being reminded of, and to think the consensus of centuries can be blithely dismissed is ignorant.

Disagree if you wish, but do it from an informed position.

Sometimes, reading and hearing similar arguments (deep accumulated knowledge wounded by the insouciance with which it is being ignored), I get a feeling of déjà vu. After a few seconds, I can eventually place it in context: it is how the Pagan Latin philosophers were reacting to a virulent emerging faith two millenia ago. It almost brings a tear to my eye.

Very good.

Christ simply has to escape all this Christianity, or lose relevance .

[Ibrahim]

The documents cited above—the Westminster Confession, the Book of Concord, and the Belgic Confession—are not simply what some priest thinks fit and proper. Agree with them or not, as you and we all are free to do, they all are the results of joint effort by sincere, intelligent men, and have all stood the test of time.

Yes, that is worth being reminded of, and to think the consensus of centuries can be blithely dismissed is ignorant.

Do you feel the same way about e.g. Confucianism? It was likewise the product of the join efforts of sincere and intelligent men and has also stood the test of time.