|
Post by faune on Apr 28, 2014 18:15:59 GMT -5
Dubious ~ Actually, I believe these Ebionites either ceased to exist or merged with the Islam religion during the 7th century. However, they did have some different teachings in relation to Christianity which might be found to be questionable today. It's entirely possible that they influenced Islam because what is now referred to as Christianity (then practiced in Arabia) and Judaism had great influence on Islam in its formative period. That is the direction that the Jesus-believers from Palestine did migrate. It may also explain why Islam rejects the notion that Jesus was divine, and maintains a Jewish theology with respect to God. Bob ~ That was my line of thinking, too. They would fit in perfectly with Islam with the beliefs they held to back in time, especially rejecting the divinity of Christ along with the legalistic aspects.
The documentary, Christian Dilemmas, Part I, addresses the Ebionites at the 25 minute marker and Paul's agenda within the early church at the 30 minute marker. It also goes into the archaeological evidence which is lacking to substantiate some of the historical sites referenced within the O.T. and gospel accounts around the 18 minute marker. Some of these referenced towns didn't appear until about 150 years later than Jesus was rumored to have existed.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-lpjvexeuk
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Apr 28, 2014 18:52:05 GMT -5
... And that church formally adopted Paul's theology (with respect to God and the Cristos). And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.5547. Christos Strong's Concordance Christos: the Anointed One, Messiah, ChristOriginal Word: Χριστός, οῦ, ὁ Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine Transliteration: Christos Short Definition: Anointed One, the Messiah, the Christ Definition: Anointed One; the Messiah, the Christ. biblehub.com/greek/5547.htmCould you provide quotes for that? I would like to see that in writing and referenced to source please.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 28, 2014 18:56:53 GMT -5
... And that church formally adopted Paul's theology (with respect to God and the Cristos). And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.5547. Christos Strong's Concordance Christos: the Anointed One, Messiah, ChristOriginal Word: Χριστός, οῦ, ὁ Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine Transliteration: Christos Short Definition: Anointed One, the Messiah, the Christ Definition: Anointed One; the Messiah, the Christ. biblehub.com/greek/5547.htmI know. Most Greeks had no idea that "Messiah" was not the same as "Christ". Yes. The Nicene Creed.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Apr 28, 2014 19:19:53 GMT -5
... And that church formally adopted Paul's theology (with respect to God and the Cristos). That remains to this day, and the popes confirm that. Could you provide quotes for that? I would like to see that in writing and referenced to source please. Yes. The Nicene Creed. Ah. Hedging I see. No, I didn't believe you could show any referenced quotes from popes saying the church formally adopted Paul's theology with respect to God and the Cristos. Especially since it is Peter who first confessed Jesus as ' the Christ, the Son of the Living God.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2014 19:29:43 GMT -5
Quote - "Paul, John, Peter and Jude were calling each other apostates."
Quote - "Peter... and his supporters did not approve of Paul and his followers -- so at that get go point the surviving church did reject Paul's theology."
I like what Peter wrote of Paul.
"Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him."
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 28, 2014 21:22:34 GMT -5
... And that church formally adopted Paul's theology (with respect to God and the Cristos). That remains to this day, and the popes confirm that. Ah. Hedging I see. No, I didn't believe you could show any referenced quotes from popes saying the church formally adopted Paul's theology with respect to God and the Cristos. Especially since it is Peter who first confessed Jesus as ' the Christ, the Son of the Living God. Sorry, I throw out old Time magazines. Pope Benedict can confirm that he made such a statement. The other popes I heard of are dead. We can check with Pope Francis to see if he also believes that. And who cares what some Greek-speaking person called Jesus -- they didn't know the difference between "Messiah" and "Christ". If the original had been written in Aramaic I would take that term more seriously.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Apr 28, 2014 23:21:28 GMT -5
Bob ~ I appreciated what this Wiki article said about Paul.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_the_Apostle
Personally, I can't imagine a man going through what Paul described in 2 Corinthians 11 without receiving a genuine revelation of Christ, because he surely had a change of heart and did a total about face from his old lifestyle of persecuting Christians. Even if he didn't see Jesus in real life, I don't doubt his conversion experience. Also, in Galatians 1 he references the same people who seem to be opposing his ministry and refers to them as "false apostles." Somehow I don't associate this group with the original apostles, but rather with some fringe group coming within the church who had a different agenda from that of Paul. They definitely were proclaiming a different gospel message and presenting another Jesus than Paul, according to his own words.
However, what I don't understand is why Paul waited so long to get together with the disciples in Jerusalem after his conversion according to these scriptures found in 2 Corinthians 11 and Galatians 1. That part is truly puzzling to me, as you naturally would think he would want to get together with the original apostles and learn more about Jesus from them instead of going off by himself for a number of years? That just doesn't make sense to me, but I guess I must add these questions to the rest of the things that puzzle my mind about Paul?
I'm personally a fan of Paul's form of Christianity myself, so perhaps I might be a little partial since I prefer his version of Christianity and the New Covenant teachings.
www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Corinthians+11 (2 Corinthians 11) www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians%201 (Galatians 1)
|
|
|
Post by faune on Apr 28, 2014 23:29:27 GMT -5
Quote - " Paul, John, Peter and Jude were calling each other apostates." Quote - " Peter... and his supporters did not approve of Paul and his followers -- so at that get go point the surviving church did reject Paul's theology."I like what Peter wrote of Paul.
"Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him."Bert ~ I also thought about Peter said about Paul in II Peter 3:15. It's highly unlikely he would say such complimentary things about somebody whose teachings he severely questioned, as some modern day scholars might try to portray, IMO. However, that being said, perhaps I should also comment that II Peter was one of the books that was disputed over concerning the Bible canon along with James, 2 John, 3 John, Hebrews, Jude, and Revelation.
www.bible-researcher.com/canon5.html
biblehub.com/2_peter/3-15.htm
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2014 23:31:45 GMT -5
Faune I feel that if you want to go down the disputational bandwagon path then why bother believing the Gospels at all? I am confident that Peter wrote Peter 1 & 2. In any case it was someone who was an "eyewitness" to Jesus.
We simply don't know who wrote Hebrews. But its one powerful book that really tackled the issues of why there should not be a Christian temple.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 28, 2014 23:41:18 GMT -5
Bob ~ I appreciated what this Wiki article said about Paul.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_the_Apostle
Personally, I can't imagine a man going through what he described in 2 Corinthians 11 without receiving a genuine revelation of Christ, because he surely had a change of heart and did a total about face from his old lifestyle of persecuting Christians. Even if he didn't see Jesus in real life, I don't doubt his conversion experience. Also, in Galatians 1 he references the same people who seem to be opposing his ministry and refers to them as "false apostles." Somehow I don't associate this group with the original apostles, but rather with some group coming within the church who had a different agenda from that of Paul. They definitely were proclaiming a different gospel message and presenting another Jesus than Paul, according to his own words.
However, what I don't understand is why Paul waited so long to get together with the disciples in Jerusalem after his conversion according to these scriptures found in I Corinthians 11 and Galatians 1. That part is truly puzzling to me, as you naturally would think he would want to get together with the original apostles and learn more about Jesus from them instead of going off by himself for a number of years? That just doesn't make sense to me, but I guess I must add these questions to the rest of the things that puzzle my mind about Paul.
I'm personally a fan of Paul's form of Christianity myself, so perhaps I might be a little partial since I prefer his version of Christianity and the New Covenant teachings.
www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Corinthians+11 (2 Corinthians 11) www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians%201 (Galatians 1) Paul was really a Gnostic. He didn't say that a revelation was given to him, he said that it was revealed "in" him. It wasn't important for him to consult with the others because he had it within himself. You'll notice that the two accounts of his Damascus Road experience are somewhat different -- one of them apparently not having been written by him.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Apr 28, 2014 23:42:21 GMT -5
Faune I feel that if you want to go down the disputational bandwagon path then why both believing the Gospels at all? I am confident that Peter wrote Peter 1 & 2. In any case it was someone who was an "eyewitness" to Jesus. We simply don't know who wrote Hebrews. But its one powerful book that really tackled the issues of why there should not be a Christian temple. Bert ~ Since we've been talking about the Bible canon on this thread, I felt it was worth mentioning the books that were disputed back in time and the different votes of the ECF's regarding these books as part of the final canon.
However, apart from that fact, I'm just sharing some knowledge I gained along the ways from my own personal research on the New Testament. However, I personally enjoy these disputed books of the Bible and I'm glad they were included after all. I'm not sure why they were disputed in the first place, but the ECF's would be a good source for that information, if you decide to investigate it for yourself by checking out their comments related to these books? The chart found at this site gives you a good impression of their concerns and their votes, IMO.
www.bible-researcher.com/canon5.html
Heb. - Epistle to the Hebrews Jas. - Epistle of James Jn. - Second and Third Epistle of John Pet. - Second Epistle of Peter Jude - Epistle of Jude Rev. - Revelation of John Shep. - Shepherd of Hermas Apoc. - Apocalypse of Peter Barn. - Epistle of Barnabas Clem. - Epistle of Clement
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2014 23:50:45 GMT -5
Sometimes you encounter apocalyptic works and there is this frisson of excitement - as if you are treading on forbidden ground. But it doesn't take long to grasp why people (not the church - common people) intuited what was authentic in scripture. Have you read the Infancy narrative of Thomas - what I have just written is there, quite plainly: another Jesus who we simply don't recognize from scripture, OT and NT.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2014 23:56:16 GMT -5
after reading that chart i am happy that a majority consider Heb, James, John, Peter, Jude and revelation Holy Scripture...
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Apr 29, 2014 0:18:52 GMT -5
I keep hearing the gateway/bible link being referred to.
Do most people posting here consider this to be an legitimate & accurate interpretation of the bible?
|
|
|
Post by faune on Apr 29, 2014 0:22:07 GMT -5
Bob ~ I appreciated what this Wiki article said about Paul.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_the_Apostle
Personally, I can't imagine a man going through what he described in 2 Corinthians 11 without receiving a genuine revelation of Christ, because he surely had a change of heart and did a total about face from his old lifestyle of persecuting Christians. Even if he didn't see Jesus in real life, I don't doubt his conversion experience. Also, in Galatians 1 he references the same people who seem to be opposing his ministry and refers to them as "false apostles." Somehow I don't associate this group with the original apostles, but rather with some group coming within the church who had a different agenda from that of Paul. They definitely were proclaiming a different gospel message and presenting another Jesus than Paul, according to his own words.
However, what I don't understand is why Paul waited so long to get together with the disciples in Jerusalem after his conversion according to these scriptures found in I Corinthians 11 and Galatians 1. That part is truly puzzling to me, as you naturally would think he would want to get together with the original apostles and learn more about Jesus from them instead of going off by himself for a number of years? That just doesn't make sense to me, but I guess I must add these questions to the rest of the things that puzzle my mind about Paul.
I'm personally a fan of Paul's form of Christianity myself, so perhaps I might be a little partial since I prefer his version of Christianity and the New Covenant teachings.
www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Corinthians+11 (2 Corinthians 11) www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians%201 (Galatians 1) Paul was really a Gnostic. He didn't say that a revelation was given to him, he said that it was revealed "in" him. It wasn't important for him to consult with the others because he had it within himself. You'll notice that the two accounts of his Damascus Road experience are somewhat different -- one of them apparently not having been written by him. Bob ~ Which account are you referring to here ~ Acts 9 or Acts 26? Honestly, I can see how you might come to that opinion above about Paul being a Gnostic due to all his personal revelations from Jesus Christ. However, even Peter has a similar revelation in Matthew 16 pertaining to Jesus as being the Christ, too.
www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+26%3A12-18&version=AMP (Acts 26:12-18)
www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+9 (Acts 9)
www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+16%3A11-28&version=AMP (Matthew 16:11-28)
|
|
|
Post by faune on Apr 29, 2014 0:32:15 GMT -5
I keep hearing the gateway/bible link being referred to.
Do most people posting here consider this to be an legitimate & accurate interpretation of the bible? Dmmichgood ~ Bible-gateway is an on-line Bible Search engine that provides the largest number of different Bible versions, which I use all the time in quoting scriptures. However it's not a Bible commentary which gives interpretations of scripture, like you find in conjunction with this site ~ www.biblehub.com
www.biblegateway.com/
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 29, 2014 1:23:22 GMT -5
Paul was really a Gnostic. He didn't say that a revelation was given to him, he said that it was revealed "in" him. It wasn't important for him to consult with the others because he had it within himself. You'll notice that the two accounts of his Damascus Road experience are somewhat different -- one of them apparently not having been written by him. Bob ~ Which account are you referring to here ~ Acts 9 or Acts 26? Honestly, I can see how you might come to that opinion above about Paul being a Gnostic due to all his personal revelations from Jesus Christ. However, even Peter has a similar revelation in Matthew 16 pertaining to Jesus as being the Christ, too.
www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+26%3A12-18&version=AMP (Acts 26:12-18)
www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+9 (Acts 9)
www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+16%3A11-28&version=AMP (Matthew 16:11-28)
You'll notice that in one account in Acts Paul fell down and the rest stood in amazement. In the other account everyone falls down. FWIW. When you read in the gospels that the apostles called Jesus "Christ", I think you can reasonably attribute the use of that term to the Greek writer. The Greeks translated "Messiah" in Hebrew/Aramaic to "Christ" in Greek, but it was really a false translation because they really didn't mean the same thing -- at all. And as far as being the "Son of God", it's a curious use of that phrase because the Jews considered themselves the children of God. I don't have access to any list of the "corrective changes" the church fathers made to the original gospels, but they made it quite clear that enough such changes were made that some complained that it changed the whole meaning of the gospel. And "Christology" was their greatest beef of all. Who knows?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Apr 29, 2014 1:41:07 GMT -5
I keep hearing the gateway/bible link being referred to.
Do most people posting here consider this to be an legitimate & accurate interpretation of the bible? Dmmichgood ~ Bible-gateway is an on-line Bible Search engine that provides the largest number of different Bible versions, which I use all the time in quoting scriptures. However it's not a Bible commentary which gives interpretations of scripture, like you find in conjunction with the site ~ www.biblehub.com
www.biblegateway.com/
T hanks, faune. I heard it used a lot & I really couldn't find out a lot of who started it & if they might have any bias.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Apr 29, 2014 2:13:42 GMT -5
Dmmichgood ~ Bible-gateway is an on-line Bible Search engine that provides the largest number of different Bible versions, which I use all the time in quoting scriptures. However it's not a Bible commentary which gives interpretations of scripture, like you find in conjunction with this site ~ www.biblehub.com
www.biblegateway.com/
T hanks, faune. I heard it used a lot & I really couldn't find out a lot of who started it & if they might have any bias.Your welcome!
|
|