• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Mystery Solved

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
Note though, you said,
Do you mean the early church - as in the first century Christians, or do you mean the Roman Catholic church?

As you said, apostle means one sent forth. In this case, you need to consider the context, because Jesus himself was sent forth. He was called an apostle, but he cannot be considered to have been "in the company of Jesus".

Therefore apostle is not restricted to being in the company of Jesus.
Paul was sent forth directly by Jesus.
(Acts 9:15) . . .But the Lord said to him: “Go! because this man is a chosen vessel to me to bear my name to the nations as well as to kings and the sons of Israel.
Romans 11:13; 1 Corinthians 1:1

Both Paul and Barnabas are referred to as apostles, bu Luke.
Acts 14:14
"As you said, apostle means one sent forth. In this case, you need to consider the context, because Jesus himself was sent forth. He was called an apostle, but he cannot be considered to have been "in the company of Jesus".

Jesus was a prophet/messenger of G-d in the sense he was sent by G-d and chosen by Him, and the twelve were apostles in the sense they were given a mission by the prophet Jesus as they were devoted to his mission as a prophet/messenger of G-d. Paul was not among the twelve. Paul was , I believe, a fake apostle.

Regards
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
"As you said, apostle means one sent forth. In this case, you need to consider the context, because Jesus himself was sent forth. He was called an apostle, but he cannot be considered to have been "in the company of Jesus".

Jesus was a prophet/messenger of G-d in the sense he was sent by G-d and chosen by Him, and the twelve were apostles in the sense they were given a mission by the prophet Jesus as they were devoted to his mission as a prophet/messenger of G-d. Paul was not among the twelve. Paul was , I believe, a fake apostle.

Regards
Okay, I understand we have opinions on various things, but I am using a source - the same source that says Jesus was an apostle. The same source that says Paul and Barnabas were apostles. The same source that says God selects his servants - the one that contains 13 letters written by a chosen servant - Paul, etc

What is your source? Do you see how that is a problem for your argument?
You would only be able to say that your argument is based on your own personal feelings, which really doesn't count.
Do you understand what I mean?
 

David T

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Whilst not speaking for nPeace I would like to ask you if you know when the trinity doctrine was adopted by the Catholic Church? It appears as if this doctrine was not part of original Christian teaching and the Catholic Church admits it.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia states: “The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.”
—(1967), Vol. XIV, p. 299.

So, not "fully assimilated" into church doctrine until the end of the 4th century....that is over 350 years after Jesus died.

So where did this idea come from? Would it surprise you to know that non-Christian religions have had trinities of gods for hundreds of years before Christ, and that the concept goes back to ancient Babylon?

pagan trinities - Google Search

According to the Athanasian Creed, there are three divine Persons (the Father, the Son, the Holy Ghost), each said to be eternal, each said to be almighty, none greater or less than another, each said to be God, and yet together being but one God. It is difficult to have three separate persons who can apparently be in three different places at once and can express different wills, to be considered one God. There is no way to explain the trinity scripturally as there is no direct statement from either God or Jesus that they share any equality.



If you consider all the scriptures that relate to Jesus' relationship to his God and Father, you will see that there is not even a twosome, let alone a threesome.

Even at John 1:18 it states that "no man has seen God at any time", which if Jesus was God makes that a lie.

At John 17:3 Jesus calls his Father "the only true God" and speaks of himself as the one "sent" by him.

There are so many other scriptures that prove that the trinity is false, but people have been indoctrinated with this belief for so long that it is too ingrained in many to be shifted.



There is only one truth and we mustn't settle for anything less. We have an enemy who plated seeds of false Christianity very early in Christian history. (Matthew 13:24-30; 36-42) It was foretold that this would happen so we shouldn't be surprised that false ideas crept in and men followed other men down many different paths of interpretation. Today we have literally thousands of sects and denominations all claiming to be the truth.....so how do we know the truth from the lies? We examine each teaching to see if it agrees with scripture...all of it, not just some random verses.

We ask questions and then evaluate the answers and ask God to help unravel the mystery for us.....or to expose it as a lie so that we can discard it.

Did you ever realize that putting Jesus in equal place with the father is actually blasphemy? It is a breach of the first commandment. (Exodus 20:3) Please do not dismiss this without thorough investigation.
Nice although some would say proof its nonsense


The trinity issue is interesting. 3rds of a
whole. I am Facinated how it reverberates through taoism in their narratives about the lao tzu(s).

It probably predates all writing so reaching bsck to the babalonian empire only places it in writing. my view is its much much much older. Although some would very "christian" that fact to mean its invalid but this stuff is like DNA. Ever notice authenticity for religion is dependent on its utter lack if historical existence before it. While others will claim because its not hististorcally originally its nonsense. Hahahaha two southern baptists arguing.


it spontaneously pops up what might appear ex nihilo into concious awareness . In actuality it manifests from the unconscious..
 

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
Okay, I understand we have opinions on various things, but I am using a source - the same source that says Jesus was an apostle. The same source that says Paul and Barnabas were apostles. The same source that says God selects his servants - the one that contains 13 letters written by a chosen servant - Paul, etc

What is your source? Do you see how that is a problem for your argument?
You would only be able to say that your argument is based on your own personal feelings, which really doesn't count.
Do you understand what I mean?
Did Jesus say he was an apostle, please?
Regards
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
Did Jesus say he was an apostle, please?
Regards
Hebrews 3:1
Therefore, holy brothers, you who share in a heavenly calling, consider Jesus, the apostle and high priest of our confession,

It is just as you mentioned - sent by God.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Hebrews 3:1
Therefore, holy brothers, you who share in a heavenly calling, consider Jesus, the apostle and high priest of our confession,

It is just as you mentioned - sent by God.
So Jesus never said that he was an apostle. Now you may debate whether or not the Hebrews verse is good enough to call him an apostle.
 

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
Hebrews 3:1
Therefore, holy brothers, you who share in a heavenly calling, consider Jesus, the apostle and high priest of our confession,

It is just as you mentioned - sent by God.
It is not from Jesus. Right, please?
Paul was neither accepted by Mary nor by the twelve with consensus? Was he, please?

Regards
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
The trinity issue is interesting. 3rds of a
whole. I am Facinated how it reverberates through taoism in their narratives about the lao tzu(s).

If you opened the link you would see it reverberates through many cultures.

It probably predates all writing so reaching bsck to the babalonian empire only places it in writing. my view is its much much much older.

I am not talking about Babylon in the time of the Jews, but original Babylon built by Nimrod, Noah's great grandson. The evidence of Scripture points to the land of Shinar as the post-Flood birthplace of false religious concepts. Undoubtedly under the direction of Nimrod, who became, “a mighty hunter in opposition to Jehovah”. He was instrumental in building the city of Babel and its tower, (likely a ziggurat) to be used for false worship.

This building project was undertaken, not to bring honor to God, but for the self-glorification of the builders, who desired to make “a celebrated name” for themselves. Also, it was in direct opposition to God’s purpose, which was for mankind to spread about in the earth. The Almighty frustrated the plans of these builders by confusing their language. No longer being able to understand one another, they gradually left off building the city and were scattered abroad. (Genesis 10:8-10; Genesis 11:2-9)

However, Nimrod apparently remained at Babel and expanded his dominion, founding the first Babylonian Empire. (Genesis 10:11-12)
With the passage of time, the gods of the first Babylonian Empire began to multiply. The pantheon came to have a number of triads of gods, or deities. One such triad was composed of Anu (the god of the sky), Enlil (the god of the earth, air, and storm), and Ea (the god presiding over the waters). Another triad was that of the moon-god Sin, the sun-god Shamash, and the fertility goddess Ishtar, the lover or consort of Tammuz.

The picture portrayed of the gods and goddesses in ancient Babylonian texts is but a reflection of sinful mortal man. These accounts say that the deities were born, loved, had families, fought, and even died, as did Tammuz.
The deities were also portrayed as being greedy, frequently eating to the point of gluttony, and drinking to the point of intoxication. They had furious tempers and were vindictive and suspicious of one another. Bitter hatreds existed among them. Hardly qualities that humans would look up to, but I guess it was easier to live down to their standards than up to the standards of the true God.

Nimrod features heavily in the Northern Hemisphere religious thought and practice. A lot of Christendom's beliefs come from the beliefs of pagans incorporated by the church to make "Christianity" more palatable to them. But we have the Bible's narrative to help us understand that contamination of the Bible's teachings was never tolerated by God at all....ever.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
It is not from Jesus. Right, please?
Paul was neither accepted by Mary nor by the twelve with consensus? Was he, please?

Regards
Acts 9:1-20
It is evident that Jesus directly chose Paul, and sent him forth to the nations.
Paul was chosen as an instrument for this very purpose. 1 Timothy 1:12; 2:7; Galatians 2:7
God knows whom to use better than anyone else.
He knew that based on Pauls background, and his heart-condition, he would be the right instrument - perfect for the job at hand.
God does the choosing - we don't.

God even saw Barnabas as a useful instrument. Acts 13:2
As they were ministering to Jehovah and fasting, the holy spirit said: “Set aside for me Barʹna·bas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.”
Acts 14:14; Romans 1:5

Even some in the congregation may have felt Paul did not qualify to be even among them, but his qualifications were evident - He even reproved Peter, who had seen, and walked with the Christ.

I don't understand though, how this is a problem.
How is it you agree that apostle means "sent forth", and the scriptures speak of Paul as being chosen and sent forth, yet you deny Paul being an apostle.

Every letter Paul wrote to the congregation of God, begins with words like this:
Paul, called to be an apostle of Christ Jesus by God’s will. . . (1 Corinthians 1:1)
Paul is the same person that wrote, (2 Timothy 3:16, 17) 16 All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.
He is the same person that trained Timothy, and give a powerful witnesses to kings and governors.

I think for one to deny what the scriptures say in regard to Paul's apostleship, is to deny trust in the scriptures as God's inspired word.
 
Last edited:

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
Acts 9:1-20
It is evident that Jesus directly chose Paul, and sent him forth to the nations.
Paul was chosen as an instrument for this very purpose. 1 Timothy 1:12; 2:7; Galatians 2:7
God knows whom to use better than anyone else.
He knew that based on Pauls background, and his heart-condition, he would be the right instrument - perfect for the job at hand.
God does the choosing - we don't.

God even saw Barnabas as a useful instrument. Acts 13:2
As they were ministering to Jehovah and fasting, the holy spirit said: “Set aside for me Barʹna·bas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.”
Acts 14:14; Romans 1:5

Even some in the congregation may have felt Paul did not qualify to be even among them, but his qualifications were evident - He even reproved Peter, who had seen, and walked with the Christ.

I don't understand though, how this is a problem.
How is it you agree that apostle means "sent forth", and the scriptures speak of Paul as being chosen and sent forth, yet you deny Paul being an apostle.

Every letter Paul wrote to the congregation of God, begins with words like this:
Paul, called to be an apostle of Christ Jesus by God’s will. . . (1 Corinthians 1:1)
Paul is the same person that wrote, (2 Timothy 3:16, 17) 16 All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.
He is the same person that trained Timothy, and give a powerful witnesses to kings and governors.

I think for one to deny what the scriptures say in regard to Paul's apostleship, is to deny trust in the scriptures as God's inspired word.
Sorry, it is all not from Jesus, it is all made-up after the fake vision of Paul. Jesus had nothing to do with it.
Regards
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
Sorry, it is all not from Jesus, it is all made-up after the fake vision of Paul. Jesus had nothing to do with it.
Regards
What's made up - The writings of Luke. The writings of Paul. The writings of Peter? What is your evidence for making that claim?
 

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
paarsurrey said:
Sorry, it is all not from Jesus, it is all made-up after the fake vision of Paul. Jesus had nothing to do with it.
Regards

nPeace
said:
What's made up - The writings of Luke. The writings of Paul. The writings of Peter? What is your evidence for making that claim?
There is a certain degree of forgery to them. Luke's nativity at the very least. Half of the Pauline letters. And some of those by Peter as well.


A good starting point:

Forged (book) - Wikipedia

I good reply in response to the point.
Thanks and regards
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
paarsurrey said:
Sorry, it is all not from Jesus, it is all made-up after the fake vision of Paul. Jesus had nothing to do with it.
Regards

nPeace
said:
What's made up - The writings of Luke. The writings of Paul. The writings of Peter? What is your evidence for making that claim?


I good reply in response to the point.
Thanks and regards
Who is this man Bart Denton Ehrman if nothing more than a man - not God?
Why is this man's opinions accepted as Gospel, if not because persons like what he says, because it fits their agenda?
The man has proved nothing - has he?

If the man said cows fly, does it mean that cows do fly?
He is nothing more than a two footed creature like you and I, is that not true?
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Who is this man Bart Denton Ehrman if nothing more than a man - not God?
Why is this man's opinions accepted as Gospel, if not because persons like what he says, because it fits their agenda?
The man has proved nothing - has he?

If the man said cows fly, does it mean that cows do fly?
He is nothing more than a two footed creature like you and I, is that not true?
He makes a much better argument than most theists do. He does not rely on special pleading fallacies for one thing. He simply analyzes scripture without the prejudice of belief. A better understanding of why the Bible was written the way it was can be attained by those that avoid false beliefs.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
He makes a much better argument than most theists do. He does not rely on special pleading fallacies for one thing. He simply analyzes scripture without the prejudice of belief. A better understanding of why the Bible was written the way it was can be attained by those that avoid false beliefs.
That's just your opinion SZ - nothing more.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
That's just your opinion SZ - nothing more.
You know that is not true. Why is the Ninth Commandment meaningless to you when you have to defend your myth? That is a self defeating tactic. It shows that you really do not believe when you do this. I have noticed when an argument has you totally flummoxed that this is your "go to".

Show me an apologist that does not make the error of using the special pleading fallacy. It is hard to find an argument of theirs that does not rely on it.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
You know that is not true. Why is the Ninth Commandment meaningless to you when you have to defend your myth? That is a self defeating tactic. It shows that you really do not believe when you do this. I have noticed when an argument has you totally flummoxed that this is your "go to".

Show me an apologist that does not make the error of using the special pleading fallacy. It is hard to find an argument of theirs that does not rely on it.
It's not your opinion? That means you can prove it then. I'm not asking you to. I'm not going through that drama again. So... Okay.
 

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
He makes a much better argument than most theists do. He does not rely on special pleading fallacies for one thing. He simply analyzes scripture without the prejudice of belief. A better understanding of why the Bible was written the way it was can be attained by those that avoid false beliefs.
This is also confirmed by the Catholic Encyclopedia.

Regards
 
Top