Constantine -- good guy or bad guy for Christianity?

[Smellin Coffee]

What is the quote from the false god?  I had a feeling that was who you might be referring to, so I did a Bing search and all I could find was stuff written by people who questioned his apostleship and basically called him a liar.  I couldn't find anything about quotes from false gods.

Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me? It is hard for you to kick against the pricks.

Euripedes work Bacchae about the god Dionysus where as being deity in the flesh, he tells his questioner “You are mortal, he is a god. If I were you, I would control my rage and sacrifice to him, rather than kick against the pricks.”

I have a hard time believing God would have to quote a false god to convict Saul's heart. But that is just me.

It was a common saying. Its no wonder it showed up in more than one place.

God didn't quote a "false God".... no more He quoted a false God when he tells use "he loves us". Are you going to search history and find all the times someone told someone else "I love you"..... until you find some questionable source?

Your bias is blinding you.

Meh. You're right about this; "God" didn't quote a "false God". I believe the "talking light" itself taht claimed to be Jesus really wasn't.

If the quote were the only red flag in my book about Paul, I could easily accept your position. But when one can find 20-30 more, well, the red flags add up and suspicion arises in my mind. And when Paul quotes pagan sources on a couple of occasions, well, that makes me wonder why he had to address it. (I understand the reasoning on Mars Hill but other places, not so much.)

Perhaps my bias is blinding me but that "bias" developed after literally a couple years of studying things that just didn't add up. And I would rather be blinded by bias than a light that claimed to be Jesus with no proof, especially since Paul himself admitted that Satan transforms himself into an angel of light.

I can understand your concerns about Paul. I've wondered about some of the same things. But would God allow the works of a false prophet to be canonized? That's a hard one for me to swallow.

Yeah, that was a sticking point for me too at one time. However, the canon had been tampered with before:

Jeremiah 8 tells how scribes replaced the Law of God with their own spin:

“How can you say, ‘We are wise, and the law of the Lord is with us’? But behold, the lying pen of the scribes has made it into a lie. The wise men shall be put to shame; they shall be dismayed and taken; behold, they have rejected the word of the Lord, so what wisdom is in them?

And God purposely allowed false prophets to arise in Israel to test the people:

Deuteronomy 13:

“If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or wonder that he tells you comes to pass, and if he says, ‘Let us go after other gods,’ which you have not known, ‘and let us serve them,’ you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams. For the Lord your God is testing you, to know whether you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul.

So if God tested people with false prophets and allowed scribes to interpolate the Torah, then I suppose He could allow Paul to be canonized.

But.... YOU KNOW THE OUTCOME of the false prophets in the OT. You KNOW what became of them and God even told you about it. On the other hand, you have NOTHING from GOD against Paul.... and you reject him. Don't over think the issue and miss the obvious.

If God stopped His word at Jesus, should we expect Him to create canon for the specific purpose of exposing one false prophet? God did not expose the outcome of David Koresh or Jim Jones either.

Besides, Jesus gave some prophetic clues that I'm sure the disciples eventually picked up on which is why they abandoned Paul when after he took his Nazarite vow.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Do you REALLY believe the most successful preacher/apostle/missionary that has ever lived.... "served up"... "false light".... "secretly as a servant of Satan"?

What did Paul get out of it?

Be careful.  There's another thread about highly successful preachers like Osteen, etc., who serve up a lot of false light. 

Not concerned at all. Are you trying to compare Olsteen to Paul? Seriously...

Not at all.  But you can't measure the truth of a speaker by his success.  That's all.

Then lets just throw out everything Jesus said. One testament to validity of Jesus Christ is His success.

Act 5:38  And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought:
Act 5:39  But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.

I guess that kinda nukes Paul's church discipline teachings!

 

[Smellin Coffee]

I can understand your concerns about Paul. I've wondered about some of the same things. But would God allow the works of a false prophet to be canonized? That's a hard one for me to swallow.

It might be a good way to separate the goats from the sheep.  Not saying that's the case, though.

What if he wasn't a false prophet, but just a guy who made errors and wandered off in wrong directions at times?  He was a brilliant man, but his arguments were not always sound.  I almost wonder if all his surviving epistles are in the canon just because there wasn't much of anything else to put there.

One of the things I am looking at is the Ebionite writings of the first century and the Marcionites oppression of them. I haven't studied it out diligently enough to come to a conclusion but it appears the Ebionites were trying to follow Christ alone and the Marcionites tried to push Paul to a god-like status. The Marcionites would try to destroy Ebionite writings that were not Pauline so (it has been stated) the Ebionites would disguise their writings to keep them from being destroyed. Clementine wrote about Peter's face-to-face meeting with a Simon Magus and because the issue was the keeping of the Law vs. the abolition of the Law, Simon Magus might have been a code name for Paul. And in the Dead Sea Scrolls (an Ebionite writing), James (Zaddick - "Just One") has been mentioned in some kind of church discipline against one recorded only as "the Spouter of Lies". And when one sees the Book of James in that light, it has been noted that James might have been organizing a trial for the same.

Again, speculation from various authors so I am not adhering to the above as fact, but various pieces seem to fit for me.

The Ebionites rejected the divinity of Christ. So much for trying to FOLLOW Him. They simply used Him as means to an end. To garner validity to their cause.

Either way, such writings and struggles are too far removed from the days of the apostles to garner any real information to the contrary. You can't take a battle almost a 100 years after their death as a means to shed light on what "really happened".

Actually, no. From how I understand it, the Ebionites believed whole-heartedly in the divinity of Jesus (being the "Son of God") but rejected His being deity. IOW, God the Father fulfilled Himself in Jesus and Jesus' teachings but Jesus was not a part of the Godhead.

 

[rsc2a]

I can understand your concerns about Paul. I've wondered about some of the same things. But would God allow the works of a false prophet to be canonized? That's a hard one for me to swallow.

It might be a good way to separate the goats from the sheep.  Not saying that's the case, though.

Personally I think God is more interested in people loving others (1 Cor 13 comes to mind) than playing gotcha with people who want sincerely to follow Jesus.

It's not a game of gotcha.  How many times have people used what Paul wrote in order to NOT love others?  Hm?

How many people have used the words of Jesus in order to NOT love others?

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=Smellin Coffee]One of the things I am looking at is the Ebionite writings of the first century and the Marcionites oppression of them. I haven't studied it out diligently enough to come to a conclusion but it appears the Ebionites were trying to follow Christ alone and the Marcionites tried to push Paul to a god-like status. The Marcionites would try to destroy Ebionite writings that were not Pauline so (it has been stated) the Ebionites would disguise their writings to keep them from being destroyed. Clementine wrote about Peter's face-to-face meeting with a Simon Magus and because the issue was the keeping of the Law vs. the abolition of the Law, Simon Magus might have been a code name for Paul. And in the Dead Sea Scrolls (an Ebionite writing), James (Zaddick - "Just One") has been mentioned in some kind of church discipline against one recorded only as "the Spouter of Lies". And when one sees the Book of James in that light, it has been noted that James might have been organizing a trial for the same.

Again, speculation from various authors so I am not adhering to the above as fact, but various pieces seem to fit for me.[/quote]

And the Illuminati are controlled by 13 ancient bloodlines whose families are controlling all the world's events. And con-trails are actually chemtrails that the Feds use to spray mind-control chemicals. And 9-11 was in inside job. And we are being ruled by shape-shifting lizard people...

 

[Smellin Coffee]

[quote author=Smellin Coffee]One of the things I am looking at is the Ebionite writings of the first century and the Marcionites oppression of them. I haven't studied it out diligently enough to come to a conclusion but it appears the Ebionites were trying to follow Christ alone and the Marcionites tried to push Paul to a god-like status. The Marcionites would try to destroy Ebionite writings that were not Pauline so (it has been stated) the Ebionites would disguise their writings to keep them from being destroyed. Clementine wrote about Peter's face-to-face meeting with a Simon Magus and because the issue was the keeping of the Law vs. the abolition of the Law, Simon Magus might have been a code name for Paul. And in the Dead Sea Scrolls (an Ebionite writing), James (Zaddick - "Just One") has been mentioned in some kind of church discipline against one recorded only as "the Spouter of Lies". And when one sees the Book of James in that light, it has been noted that James might have been organizing a trial for the same.

Again, speculation from various authors so I am not adhering to the above as fact, but various pieces seem to fit for me.

And the Illuminati are controlled by 13 ancient bloodlines whose families are controlling all the world's events. And con-trails are actually chemtrails that the Feds use to spray mind-control chemicals. And 9-11 was in inside job. And we are being ruled by shape-shifting lizard people...
[/quote]

Again, I've not seen enough evidence to make it conclusive in my mind. Just laying out what is being said.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=Smellin Coffee]If God stopped His word at Jesus, should we expect Him to create canon for the specific purpose of exposing one false prophet? God did not expose the outcome of David Koresh or Jim Jones either.[/quote]

You don't have the words of Jesus. You have other's words about Jesus (which might or might not* accurately reflect the words of Jesus).

[quote author=Smellin Coffee]Besides, Jesus gave some prophetic clues that I'm sure the disciples eventually picked up on which is why they abandoned Paul when after he took his Nazarite vow.[/quote]

So your entire theological framework is built on speculation, maybes, and conspiracy theories. Got it.


* I fall on the side of "might" with some allowance for editorial input.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

You don't have the words of Jesus. You have other's words about Jesus (which might or might not* accurately reflect the words of Jesus).

Niether do you.

So your entire theological framework is built on speculation, maybes, and conspiracy theories. Got it.

As is everyone's opinion about the Bible. Faith in a particular though subjective record.

* I fall on the side of "might" with some allowance for editorial input.

There is enough biblical (canonical) record which would make it plausible.

 

[christundivided]

The misuse is obvious. I don't see where the question arises from???

How do you always know what is misuse and what is use?  I know what I believe, and you know what you believe, but I also know lots of people who use Paul to prove points Paul was not trying to make. 

Perhaps that was intentional on the part of God, even if Paul belongs in the canon.

Maybe it wasn't.

 

[rsc2a]

You don't have the words of Jesus. You have other's words about Jesus (which might or might not* accurately reflect the words of Jesus).

Niether do you.

Right. But I don't have an issue accepting the doctrines "given for all the saints" as evidenced by the universal acceptance by the community of faith.

[quote author=Smellin Coffee][quote author=rsc2a]So your entire theological framework is built on speculation, maybes, and conspiracy theories. Got it. [/quote]

As is everyone's opinion about the Bible. Faith in a particular though subjective record.[/quote]

No. For instance, my reading is based (partially) on a historical approach to the Bible whereby we attempt to learn based on what we already know from the historical record. Yours is based on wild speculation that is widely rejected by virtually all historians regardless of background or creed.

You are doing the functional equivalent of doing historical research on President Obama and limiting your source material to Alex Jones.

 

[christundivided]

I can understand your concerns about Paul. I've wondered about some of the same things. But would God allow the works of a false prophet to be canonized? That's a hard one for me to swallow.

It might be a good way to separate the goats from the sheep.  Not saying that's the case, though.

What if he wasn't a false prophet, but just a guy who made errors and wandered off in wrong directions at times?  He was a brilliant man, but his arguments were not always sound.  I almost wonder if all his surviving epistles are in the canon just because there wasn't much of anything else to put there.

One of the things I am looking at is the Ebionite writings of the first century and the Marcionites oppression of them. I haven't studied it out diligently enough to come to a conclusion but it appears the Ebionites were trying to follow Christ alone and the Marcionites tried to push Paul to a god-like status. The Marcionites would try to destroy Ebionite writings that were not Pauline so (it has been stated) the Ebionites would disguise their writings to keep them from being destroyed. Clementine wrote about Peter's face-to-face meeting with a Simon Magus and because the issue was the keeping of the Law vs. the abolition of the Law, Simon Magus might have been a code name for Paul. And in the Dead Sea Scrolls (an Ebionite writing), James (Zaddick - "Just One") has been mentioned in some kind of church discipline against one recorded only as "the Spouter of Lies". And when one sees the Book of James in that light, it has been noted that James might have been organizing a trial for the same.

Again, speculation from various authors so I am not adhering to the above as fact, but various pieces seem to fit for me.

The Ebionites rejected the divinity of Christ. So much for trying to FOLLOW Him. They simply used Him as means to an end. To garner validity to their cause.

Either way, such writings and struggles are too far removed from the days of the apostles to garner any real information to the contrary. You can't take a battle almost a 100 years after their death as a means to shed light on what "really happened".

Actually, no. From how I understand it, the Ebionites believed whole-heartedly in the divinity of Jesus (being the "Son of God") but rejected His being deity. IOW, God the Father fulfilled Himself in Jesus and Jesus' teachings but Jesus was not a part of the Godhead.

Godhead is a KJV term. So Jesus was divine but not part of the Trinity? Humm..... Sounds like they rejected the divinity of Christ. Jesus talked about being One with the Father. I suppose you have an issue with this meaning One in divine being?

 

[christundivided]

Do you REALLY believe the most successful preacher/apostle/missionary that has ever lived.... "served up"... "false light".... "secretly as a servant of Satan"?

What did Paul get out of it?

Be careful.  There's another thread about highly successful preachers like Osteen, etc., who serve up a lot of false light. 

Not concerned at all. Are you trying to compare Olsteen to Paul? Seriously...

Not at all.  But you can't measure the truth of a speaker by his success.  That's all.

Then lets just throw out everything Jesus said. One testament to validity of Jesus Christ is His success.

Act 5:38  And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought:
Act 5:39  But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.

I guess that kinda nukes Paul's church discipline teachings!

Elaborate.... How?

 

[Castor Muscular]

Godhead is a KJV term.

Sounds more like a hippie term, like Jesus freak. 

 

[christundivided]

If God stopped His word at Jesus, should we expect Him to create canon for the specific purpose of exposing one false prophet? God did not expose the outcome of David Koresh or Jim Jones either.

Besides, Jesus gave some prophetic clues that I'm sure the disciples eventually picked up on which is why they abandoned Paul when after he took his Nazarite vow.

Sure God exposed them. Who in the world is still following David Koresh and Jim Jones?

They didn't abandon him.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Right. But I don't have an issue accepting the doctrines "given for all the saints" as evidenced by the universal acceptance by the community of faith.

Perhaps. But are we not encourage to "test the spirits"? And if lying scribes can interpolate and God allow false teachers to arise in Israel to test them, should we not put Paul (and I would say, all NT penmen) to the test? Or do we just accept status quo from religious historians of various stripes?

No. For instance, my reading is based (partially) on a historical approach to the Bible whereby we attempt to learn based on what we already know from the historical record. Yours is based on wild speculation that is widely rejected by virtually all historians regardless of background or creed.

The Pharisees did the exact same thing. I do believe Jesus challenged them on a few issues.

You are doing the functional equivalent of doing historical research on President Obama and limiting your source material to Alex Jones.

This after 40 years of loyalty and intense studying the Republican agenda.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

If God stopped His word at Jesus, should we expect Him to create canon for the specific purpose of exposing one false prophet? God did not expose the outcome of David Koresh or Jim Jones either.

Besides, Jesus gave some prophetic clues that I'm sure the disciples eventually picked up on which is why they abandoned Paul when after he took his Nazarite vow.

Sure God exposed them. Who in the world is still following David Koresh and Jim Jones?

They didn't abandon him.

So you admit people are following Paul.

THAT is the problem. If they are following Paul (or ANY man, for that matter), they are not directly following Jesus.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

I can understand your concerns about Paul. I've wondered about some of the same things. But would God allow the works of a false prophet to be canonized? That's a hard one for me to swallow.

It might be a good way to separate the goats from the sheep.  Not saying that's the case, though.

What if he wasn't a false prophet, but just a guy who made errors and wandered off in wrong directions at times?  He was a brilliant man, but his arguments were not always sound.  I almost wonder if all his surviving epistles are in the canon just because there wasn't much of anything else to put there.

One of the things I am looking at is the Ebionite writings of the first century and the Marcionites oppression of them. I haven't studied it out diligently enough to come to a conclusion but it appears the Ebionites were trying to follow Christ alone and the Marcionites tried to push Paul to a god-like status. The Marcionites would try to destroy Ebionite writings that were not Pauline so (it has been stated) the Ebionites would disguise their writings to keep them from being destroyed. Clementine wrote about Peter's face-to-face meeting with a Simon Magus and because the issue was the keeping of the Law vs. the abolition of the Law, Simon Magus might have been a code name for Paul. And in the Dead Sea Scrolls (an Ebionite writing), James (Zaddick - "Just One") has been mentioned in some kind of church discipline against one recorded only as "the Spouter of Lies". And when one sees the Book of James in that light, it has been noted that James might have been organizing a trial for the same.

Again, speculation from various authors so I am not adhering to the above as fact, but various pieces seem to fit for me.

The Ebionites rejected the divinity of Christ. So much for trying to FOLLOW Him. They simply used Him as means to an end. To garner validity to their cause.

Either way, such writings and struggles are too far removed from the days of the apostles to garner any real information to the contrary. You can't take a battle almost a 100 years after their death as a means to shed light on what "really happened".

Actually, no. From how I understand it, the Ebionites believed whole-heartedly in the divinity of Jesus (being the "Son of God") but rejected His being deity. IOW, God the Father fulfilled Himself in Jesus and Jesus' teachings but Jesus was not a part of the Godhead.

Godhead is a KJV term. So Jesus was divine but not part of the Trinity? Humm..... Sounds like they rejected the divinity of Christ. Jesus talked about being One with the Father. I suppose you have an issue with this meaning One in divine being?

Not saying at all that is what I believe but that is how it was viewed by the Ebionite community, from how I understand it.

 

[christundivided]

This after 40 years of loyalty and intense studying the Republican agenda.

You've gave up one frustration to find another.

 

[christundivided]

If God stopped His word at Jesus, should we expect Him to create canon for the specific purpose of exposing one false prophet? God did not expose the outcome of David Koresh or Jim Jones either.

Besides, Jesus gave some prophetic clues that I'm sure the disciples eventually picked up on which is why they abandoned Paul when after he took his Nazarite vow.

Sure God exposed them. Who in the world is still following David Koresh and Jim Jones?

They didn't abandon him.

So you admit people are following Paul.

THAT is the problem. If they are following Paul (or ANY man, for that matter), they are not directly following Jesus.

LOL. Who are you reading after? Who is pointing you to the truth? Paul pointed men to Christ. You're being dishonest by making such a statement. You're following someone in your beliefs. Your beliefs aren't original.

 

[rsc2a]

Right. But I don't have an issue accepting the doctrines "given for all the saints" as evidenced by the universal acceptance by the community of faith.

Perhaps. But are we not encourage to "test the spirits"? And if lying scribes can interpolate and God allow false teachers to arise in Israel to test them, should we not put Paul (and I would say, all NT penmen) to the test? Or do we just accept status quo from religious historians of various stripes?

Option A: The Church universal across 2000 years has gotten this right and you are wrong.

Option B: The Church universal has been deceived for 2000 years and suddenly you figured it out.

I think I'll stick with option A.

[quote author=Smellin Coffee]

No. For instance, my reading is based (partially) on a historical approach to the Bible whereby we attempt to learn based on what we already know from the historical record. Yours is based on wild speculation that is widely rejected by virtually all historians regardless of background or creed.

The Pharisees did the exact same thing. I do believe Jesus challenged them on a few issues. [/quote]

You aren't Jesus. Keep tryin'....