It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Apostle Paul, A Man Used of God

page: 6
6
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 05:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Essene616

scripture please...

I've been following since the start of this thread and I've seen little to no "proof"

IF you believe he lied... post said lie, and the scripture he went against

pretty simple





posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 05:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Akragon
considering neither the NT or what is "Christian" teaching existed at that time... that being when Jesus actually was alive...

I wasn't talking about "when Jesus was alive". I said "the early church". The church of 200 A.D. was still the early church.
As I said, they brought together the New Testament for the purpose of defining their understanding of Christian teaching.

to me this sounds like something straight out of a local church

What's "local" about it? The whole church since that time has had that understanding of the New Testament, and any secular historian will tell you the same thing about how the church has treated it.
edit on 20-1-2016 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 05:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Akragon
What? I've posted like 5, why are you giving me a hard time?



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 05:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Akragon

Pick something I said and I'll show you. Other than that I don't know what is bothering you.



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 05:31 AM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI

As I said, they brought together the New Testament for the purpose of defining their understanding of Christian teaching.


Or perhaps for preventing another uprising?


What's "local" about it? The whole church since that time has had that understanding of the New Testament, and any secular historian will tell you the same thing about how the church has treated it.


I don't know about that... since that time there have been wars, divisions.. schisms lol

the end result has been that no one has found a clear and precise teaching in Christianity... even though its all right in the four books... And, there is a reason for that...




posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 05:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Akragon

I gave th OP my proof as he asked and he went to witsec or something because I haven't heard a peep since. Anyone who asks Ill provide.



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 05:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Essene616
a reply to: Akragon

Pick something I said and I'll show you. Other than that I don't know what is bothering you.


you don't need to show me brother... I know the bible

There are other people reading and the best way to defend your position is to post the passage...




posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 05:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Akragon
Or perhaps for preventing another uprising?

Since they were an outlaw sect themselves at the time, intermittently persecuted by the Roman state, fear of "an uprising" would not have been an issue.


the end result has been that no one has found a clear and precise teaching in Christianity... even though its all right in the four books...

Even when they disagreed about the meaning of the New Testament, they were still using the whole of the New Testament as the basis for their arguments.
That was my point. The whole of the New Testament accepted as the starting point, the standard of teaching.



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 05:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Akragon

Well when they ask I will. Anyone who knows the bible is familiar with what I've said. It'll happen, ill be here all day. Unless I find something better to do. But I'll be keeping this thread until it's spent.



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 05:46 AM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI


Since they were an outlaw sect themselves at the time, intermittently persecuted by the Roman state, fear of "an uprising" would not have been an issue.


Innitially yes, "Christians were outlaws but by the time you're talking about..200ish, people were in the majority of a "Christian" belief of sorts...but said belief was scattered... yet the ruler was still Roman, which led to the next century and more romanisk beliefs


Even when they disagreed about the meaning of the New Testament, they were still using the whole of the New Testament as the basis for their arguments.
That was my point. The whole of the New Testament accepted as the starting point, the standard of teaching


not so much... revelation wasn't NT at that point... and Marcion came on the scene, and attempted to remove gospel texts and replace them with Paul... which pretty much happened in the end of it all...

He was condemned as a heretic because he literally ripped apart the texts of the apostles... but he was Pauls best friend




posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 05:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Akragon

What translation you got? I just bought a mint condition 1966 Jerusalem bible. First bible to include the DSS in the translation process.



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 05:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Essene616

All of them...



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 05:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Akragon
Really? That's impressive. So you have a Jerusalem bible?



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 05:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: DISRAELI

Even when they disagreed about the meaning of the New Testament, they were still using the whole of the New Testament as the basis for their arguments.
That was my point. The whole of the New Testament accepted as the starting point, the standard of teaching.


What?
The whole of the New Testament has to be taken into account

You can't just take a sentence or paragraph and base your whole theology on that sentence or paragraph.

And then teaching, what, you can't just read the bible and understand it? You actually have to study it?
What next, revelation from the Spirit as well.

Oh Dis, you make it sound as if people who want to be Christians need to be serious about what they are getting involved in
Jesus came to the Jews first, after they rejected His message, then the Gentiles

Gnostics miss lots



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 05:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Akragon
and Marcion came on the scene, and attempted to remove gospel texts and replace them with Paul... which pretty much happened in the end of it all...

As Tertullian pointed out in careful detail, Marcion's strategy actually depended on removing crucial chunks of Paul.
edit on 20-1-2016 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 05:57 AM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI

Those historians are not that reliable and very biased.



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 05:57 AM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI

yeah but those "chunks" were completely "Hebrew"/jewish...

which was why Matthew was first on his list... yet he was all about Lukes writing the one writer that wasn't close to Jesus, but knew Paul intimately




posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 05:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman
So do you.



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 06:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

Dude...

DISRAELI is one of the most knowledgeable Christians I've ever had the pleasure of conversing with...

you should check yourself brother...




posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 06:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Essene616
Those historians are not that reliable and very biased.

Tertullian was an author who died c 240 A.D. I take it you did not know that.
I was referring to his book ADVERSUS MARCIONEM.




top topics



 
6
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join