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.
Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Akragon
Actually Irenaeus's volume 1 is an assault on Gnosticism. And it's a classic that has been used for centuries by theologians and scholars.
Marcion of Pontus succeeded him, and developed his doctrine. In so doing, he advanced the most daring blasphemy against Him who is proclaimed as God by the law and the prophets, declaring Him to be the author of evils, to take delight in war, to be infirm of purpose, and even to be contrary to Himself.
He was twice removed from the apostle John. His spiritual father was Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna and a matryr for the faith. And Polycarp was the direct disciple of John. I don't care who you are today your seminary or theological school isnt that good.
Polycarp
Polycarp does not quote from the Gospel of John in his surviving letter, which may be an indication that whichever John he knew was not the author of that gospel, or that the gospel was not finished during Polycarp's discipleship with John.
Polycarp
It is recorded by Irenaeus, who heard him speak in his youth, and by Tertullian, that he had been a disciple of John the Apostle.
Irenaeus was later than Polycarp. By the time Irenaeus was Bishop, there was the idea of Apostolic Succession, which he used to support his own authority.
Make aure to check out the portion under the subheading "apostolic authority".
In your opinion. How many semesters of seminary did you take to know this, or is this just a phrase to demean people that you picked up from one of your cult leader's YouTube videos?
1st semester seminary students call all tell you who John's disciple was.
What I care is that you take him and invent (actually, stole and claim as your own invention) this theory how you link Marcion to the NT texts that are used for figuring out the proper reading, or figuring out what the original probably was.
Why are you so *** *** that Marcion was a heretic? Why do you care?
Originally posted by Lord Jules
Just goes to show that the bible is not God's infallible word if it has missing sections and mistranslations. Plus all four gospels contradict each other, John being the worst as Jesus refers to himself as both equal to God and less than God.
Paul made Jesus equal with God
Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Akragon
Paul made Jesus equal with God
If you mean Acts, you should say, "Paul, according to whoever wrote Acts".
I am not aware of Paul, in his own writings, equating Jesus with God.
In Philippians, Paul says that Jesus found himself in the form of god, then emptied himself to be one who was subservient to God.
That... is a straight up lie..
Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Akragon
That... is a straight up lie..
So, according to you, Jesus could never have been "in the form of God", whatever that means exactly?
That fits with Hebrews 1, where it says that the son existed in heaven with God before the world, as the "reflection" of God.
Now you're repeating info I have posted multiple times.
They were also believed to be the product of Gnostic tampering to discredit the deity of Jesus.
reply to post by jmdewey60
TextWho believes that. I'm not aware that this is a current belief by the mainstream biblical scholars. Maybe this was something held a hundred and fifty years ago and some sects of Christianity have made no progress in the time since.
. . . the Gnostic's influenced the omission in manuscripts . . .
reply to post by Shoonra
TextThe so-called Majority Text is NOT the same as the Textus Receptus, and, to many scholars, neither is especially close to the original NT text.