A few questions for Christians and others interested in commenting

[The Spirit of Truth]

Although, Jesus gave warning about false
Christ’s and false prophets; such would be heretics.


Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here isthe Christ!’ or ‘There!’ do not believe it. 24 For false christs and false prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. 25 See, I have told you beforehand. 26 “Therefore if they say to you, ‘Look, He is in the desert!’ do not go out; or ‘Look, He is in the inner rooms!’ do not believe it.
Matthew 24:23-26

Jesus only said, “Beware of false prophets”, he did not mean us not to investigate every claim. Paul was not a prophet at all, as paarsurrey claimed. He was merely the ensign in Isa 11:10. God, through Jesus, allowed Paul to dispense with the Law of Moses, so that the Gentiles, who are exclusively Japheth’s descendants KJ 10:5 By these were the isles of the Gentiles, who would seek out, i.e., rapidly become Paulene Christians, such as they are for now, so that God’s incognito army would be ready to go to the rescue of the Jews when satan made his move to annihilate them. The Jews were the only descendants of Shem, Noah’s other righteous son, that satan was still aware of.

Cheers, the Branch growing out of The Rod Isa 11:1b, who is the Comforter, also the Holy Ghost in John 14:26, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. Ghost, because only Jesus is holy, has lived, died, and returned. Holy ghost has been used incorrectly 563 times in the Bible. Except for John 14:16, all should be replaced with Holy Spirit, which is God.

 

[InChrist]

" Jesus gave warning about false
Christ’s and false prophets; such would be heretics "

And Paul/Saul was that.

Regards

There’s no way I would consider Paul to be a heretic.
According to the biblical scriptures, Paul was an Apostle directly chosen by Jesus Christ. Paul was persecuted and suffered for Christ and was beloved by the other Apostles….


Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless; 15 and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, 16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.
2 Peter 3:14-16

 

[paarsurrey]

paarsurrey said:
" Jesus gave warning about false
Christ’s and false prophets; such would be heretics "

And Paul/Saul was that.

There’s no way I would consider Paul to be a heretic.
According to the biblical scriptures, Paul was an Apostle directly chosen by Jesus Christ. Paul was persecuted and suffered for Christ and was beloved by the other Apostles….


Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless; 15 and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, 16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.
2 Peter 3:14-16

" There’s no way I would consider Paul to be a heretic."

Those who remained in the company of (Jesus)Yeshua- the truthful Israelite Messiah, like the "Twelve" are fit to be called his orthodox followers.
Saul of Tarsus aka Paul didn't know Yeshua , so when Yeshua migrated to other lands out of the hands of Jews and the Roman Empire, Saul of Tarsus aka Paul the chief of Yeshua's persecutors, just faked a vision, so he is most fit to be called a Heretic, please, right?

Regards

 

[IndigoChild5559]

so when Yeshua migrated to other lands out of the hands of Jews and the Roman Empire

What? Jesus never left the Judea, Samaria, Galilee area.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Saul of Tarsus aka Paul the chief of Yeshua's persecutors, just faked a vision

Why in the world would you think he faked it? Do I think his vision was reality? No. The description of the light and stuff seems more indicative of some kind of seizure. If you have evidence that he lied, please present it.

 

[InChrist]

paarsurrey said:
" Jesus gave warning about false
Christ’s and false prophets; such would be heretics "

And Paul/Saul was that.

" There’s no way I would consider Paul to be a heretic."

Those who remained in the company of (Jesus)Yeshua- the truthful Israelite Messiah, like the "Twelve" are fit to be called his orthodox followers.
Saul of Tarsus aka Paul didn't know Yeshua , so when Yeshua migrated to other lands out of the hands of Jews and the Roman Empire, Saul of Tarsus aka Paul the chief of Yeshua's persecutors, just faked a vision, so he is most fit to be called a Heretic, please, right?

Regards

No, doesn’t sound right to me. Sounds like you are making up stories which divert from the biblical texts. There was no reason for Saul/Paul to fake a vision, give up his position as a Pharisee, then suffer persecution, jail, and trouble the rest of his life to serve Jesus Christ and share the gospel message.

 

[paarsurrey]

Those who remained in the company of (Jesus)Yeshua- the truthful Israelite Messiah, like the "Twelve" are fit to be called his orthodox followers.
Saul of Tarsus aka Paul didn't know Yeshua , so when Yeshua migrated to other lands out of the hands of Jews and the Roman Empire, Saul of Tarsus aka Paul the chief of Yeshua's persecutors, just faked a vision, so he is most fit to be called a Heretic, please, right?

Food for thought ; if devil could tempt (Jesus) Yeshua (as is very much there in the Pauline/NT-Bible), devil would have shown a fake vision to Saul aka Paul to (self) claim as an apostle, right, please? And this possibility reaches to certainty as (Jesus)Yeshua- the truthful Israelite Messiah ( who was neither a Zealot, nor he belonged to the Zionism people nor to the Judaism people), was still alive, though gone to other lands, please, right?

Regards

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Food for thought ; if devil could tempt (Jesus) Yeshua (as is very much there in the Pauline/NT-Bible), devil would have shown a fake vision to Saul aka Paul to (self) claim as an apostle, right, please? And this possibility reaches to certainty as (Jesus)Yeshua- the truthful Israelite Messiah ( who was neither a Zealot, nor he belonged to the Zionism people nor to the Judaism people), was still alive, though gone to other lands, please, right?

Regards

Even though I detest Paul, I find myself rolling my eyes every time you just make stuff up out of whole cloth.

And I'm also sick of your misuse of the English language. I assume you have a fair amount of intelligence. I've explained to you many times that it is not correct to follow a noun with the word people. Just like there is no such thing as atheist people, only atheists, there is no such thing as Zionist people, only Zionists, and no such thing as Judaism people, only observant Jews.

Try to learn and improve. I really have no problem with people who struggle with English. I only have a problem with those who refuse to correct their speech after being informed multiple times.

 

[truth467]

Thanks to @Rival for commenting on this matter some weeks ago. It gave me food for thought and led to my motivation for this thread.

1. Do you feel sufficiently aware of the role of the Council of Nicaea in the year 325?

2. Do you believe or suspect that it, or something at least somewhat comparable, was bound to happen sooner or later? Please elaborate as much as you want.

3. Do you view the Council as helpful for Christianity as a movement?

4. Do you view the Council as helpful for individual Christians as people in their own religious paths?

5. Do you see any counterarguments, drawbacks, prices (unavoidable or otherwise) or silver linings that might somehow temperate the general positive or negative perceptions expressed in the previous two answers?

6. Do you believe or suspect that things might have turned out significantly differently in the Council or in a hypothetical comparable event with similar goals? How impactful in the long run do you believe that might turn out to be?

7. How do you feel about the idea of heresy? How important do you feel the First Council of Nicaea was in shaping the concept and its significance? Do you wish, fear or wonder how different that might have turned out?



I have my own views on the matter and commented on them often enough. I will reiterate them at some point in this thread as well, but not immediately.

Thanks in advance for anyone willing to answer.

Council of Nicea is from man. Each man should know the truth of God for himself. The Bible written over a period of 1500 years, speaks of past, present, and future events. The Bible names all the kingdoms of the world ( kingdoms the ran the entire known world) in the 6th century to present day without error. Rome being the 6th kingdom, there is one more earthly kingdom to come and it will last 7 years. Today the world is divided into many gobal powers no one power running it all.

 

[truth467]

Council of Nicea is from man. Each man should know the truth of God for himself. The Bible written over a period of 1500 years, speaks of past, present, and future events. The Bible names all the kingdoms of the world ( kingdoms the ran the entire known world) in the 6th century to present day without error. Rome being the 6th kingdom, there is one more earthly kingdom to come and it will last 7 years. Today the world is divided into many gobal powers no one power running it all.

Seek the truth of God, he love us and offers us eternal life. Only Jesus/God is the atonement for sin. There is no other God no not one.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The Bible... speaks of past, present,

And things that never happened as well. It has songs, books of law, myths and legends, parables, proverbs, etc. It is an incredible anthology.

and future events.

Nope.

The Bible names all the kingdoms of the world

It absolutely does NOT. Where does it mention China? Saying it mentions all the kingdoms known to the authors is NOT evidence the Bible is special -- anyone can do that.

 

[paarsurrey]

Seek the truth of God, he love us and offers us eternal life. Only Jesus/God is the atonement for sin. There is no other God no not one.

(Jesus)Yeshua- the truthful Israelite Messiah ( who was neither a Zealot, nor he belonged to the Zionism people nor to the Judaism people), never claimed to be G-d in first person, it is the Pauline anonymous narratives that have been doctored to be understood as such, please, right?

Regards

 

[Muffled]

What do you mean by "motivated Constantine"?

I mean did the desire for Christian unity come from Constantine's own mind or from God.

 

[Muffled]

Were they actually errors or part of Gods plan though?

I believe it is more likley that men are prone to making errors and God is fully aware of that and takes it into account.

 

[Tinkerpeach]

I believe it is more likley that men are prone to making errors and God is fully aware of that and takes it into account.

Man isn’t going to surprise God though.

I doubt He is up in Heaven saying, “man I wish they hadn’t done that now I have to start over.”

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Thanks to @Rival for commenting on this matter some weeks ago. It gave me food for thought and led to my motivation for this thread.

1. Do you feel sufficiently aware of the role of the Council of Nicaea in the year 325?

2. Do you believe or suspect that it, or something at least somewhat comparable, was bound to happen sooner or later? Please elaborate as much as you want.

3. Do you view the Council as helpful for Christianity as a movement?

4. Do you view the Council as helpful for individual Christians as people in their own religious paths?

5. Do you see any counterarguments, drawbacks, prices (unavoidable or otherwise) or silver linings that might somehow temperate the general positive or negative perceptions expressed in the previous two answers?

6. Do you believe or suspect that things might have turned out significantly differently in the Council or in a hypothetical comparable event with similar goals? How impactful in the long run do you believe that might turn out to be?

7. How do you feel about the idea of heresy? How important do you feel the First Council of Nicaea was in shaping the concept and its significance? Do you wish, fear or wonder how different that might have turned out?



I have my own views on the matter and commented on them often enough. I will reiterate them at some point in this thread as well, but not immediately.

Thanks in advance for anyone willing to answer.

I was taught about it in school, from a very Evangelical ans conservative perspective. It was Jehovah's will amd intent, I was taught, for the Bible to be canonized with the incorrect books removed so what remains is Jehovah's word as he intended it.
I suppose it would be interesting to look at it from a secular, and more realistic, perspective.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Man isn’t going to surprise God though.

I doubt He is up in Heaven saying, “man I wish they hadn’t done that now I have to start over.”

That is what he said about the flood.

 

[Tinkerpeach]

That is what he said about the flood.

Are you saying God didn’t know how they would behave?

Remember that everything that happens has already been scripted by God.

 

[Colt]

Thanks to @Rival for commenting on this matter some weeks ago. It gave me food for thought and led to my motivation for this thread.

1. Do you feel sufficiently aware of the role of the Council of Nicaea in the year 325?

2. Do you believe or suspect that it, or something at least somewhat comparable, was bound to happen sooner or later? Please elaborate as much as you want.

3. Do you view the Council as helpful for Christianity as a movement?

4. Do you view the Council as helpful for individual Christians as people in their own religious paths?

5. Do you see any counterarguments, drawbacks, prices (unavoidable or otherwise) or silver linings that might somehow temperate the general positive or negative perceptions expressed in the previous two answers?

6. Do you believe or suspect that things might have turned out significantly differently in the Council or in a hypothetical comparable event with similar goals? How impactful in the long run do you believe that might turn out to be?

7. How do you feel about the idea of heresy? How important do you feel the First Council of Nicaea was in shaping the concept and its significance? Do you wish, fear or wonder how different that might have turned out?



I have my own views on the matter and commented on them often enough. I will reiterate them at some point in this thread as well, but not immediately.

Thanks in advance for anyone willing to answer.

NOTE: I believe that the original Gospel of the Kingdom changed significantly almost immediately after Jesus left. The religion OF Jesus morphed into a religion ABOUT Jesus!

1) yes
2) yes
3) yes, it preserved a doctrine.
4) yes, having preserved the bulk of Christian thinking then future Christians could be informed.
5) yes, preservation can also become petrification, stunting spiritual growth.
6) yes, the divinity of Christ may have been thrown out.
7) Heresy is purely institutional, not by divine decree. The First Council stunted further growth while whipping it's members into shape.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Are you saying God didn’t know how they would behave?

Remember that everything that happens has already been scripted by God.

Then it makes your god look monstrously cruel and wicked because that means he drown 99.9999% of all life on Earth because of wickedness and evil know very well that his flood would fail to do away with wickedness.