Constantine -- good guy or bad guy for Christianity?

[Castor Muscular]

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.

Which reminds me.... what's wrong with this picture?

http://www.sermoncentral.com/articleb.asp?article=top-100-largest-churches

 

[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!

Elaborate.... How?

Paul:

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel—not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.

So what is Jesus' words on the matter?

But he said, ‘No, lest in gathering the weeds you root up the wheat along with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest, and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.’”

By the way, the quote you made from Acts 5 was from the lips of a Pharisee, not that it matters.

 

[Izdaari]

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.

I agree that option A seems far more probable.

 

[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.

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.

Paul insisted on people following him. He couched it in "follow me (Paul) as I follow Christ". Regardless of what you think, that is pointing people to himself and not Christ alone.

Joseph Smith pointed people to Christ. So did Herbert Armstrong. But they also pointed to their teaching and skewed the truth. (Oh, and people are STILL following their heresies, so since God didn't stop them, I suppose they are right. )

My beliefs are not original? There is nothing new under the sun. However, I know of no one who believes what I do point-for-point. In additions, I don't claim to have the answers at all. I admit, I'm a skeptic and I refuse to accept 2000 years of religious tradition at face value and assume that they had it 100% correct.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

They didn't abandon him.

So Paul is lying?

At my first defense no one came to stand by me, but all deserted me. May it not be charged against them!

Acts proves this out. When Trophimus the Ephesian entered the temple (remember, Paul taught the Ephesians the wall had been divided and opened up) and desecrated it, the fingers were pointing at Paul because Trophimus had traveled into town with him. During the trial (about which Paul lied about why he was there, or else Luke was wrong in his record), absolutely NONE of the disciples came to his defense. Zero. Did they chicken out or were their eyes opened? And why is it NOT recorded that Paul ever met them after his arrest?

Then you also have the abandonment of the Asian churches, same ones Jesus wrote to through John's revelation:

You are aware that all who are in Asia turned away from me...

And the split with Barnabas, etc.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

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

The Muslims have been around for about the same amount of time (if not longer) so time cannot be a meter of right or wrong. Just ask the Pharisees in the New Testament.

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

I haven't got it figured out. Just calling it as I see it.

I think I'll stick with option A.

Based on subjectivity.

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

Tru dat!

 

[christundivided]

They didn't abandon him.

So Paul is lying?

At my first defense no one came to stand by me, but all deserted me. May it not be charged against them!

Acts proves this out. When Trophimus the Ephesian entered the temple (remember, Paul taught the Ephesians the wall had been divided and opened up) and desecrated it, the fingers were pointing at Paul because Trophimus had traveled into town with him. During the trial (about which Paul lied about why he was there, or else Luke was wrong in his record), absolutely NONE of the disciples came to his defense. Zero. Did they chicken out or were their eyes opened? And why is it NOT recorded that Paul ever met them after his arrest?

Then you also have the abandonment of the Asian churches, same ones Jesus wrote to through John's revelation:

You are aware that all who are in Asia turned away from me...

And the split with Barnabas, etc.

You have weird way of tying things together. You can't tie taking the vow of Nazarene with 2 Tim 4:16.  Paul was talking about his first defense at Rome.... and no doubt those with him did not stand with him. You can't even tie 2 Timothy 2:15 with the one and same event.

Did Paul still have Timothy? What about Titus. What about all the elders that stood and weep as he spoke of going to Jerusalem?

You're only seeing what you want to see.

 

[christundivided]

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

The Muslims have been around for about the same amount of time (if not longer) so time cannot be a meter of right or wrong. Just ask the Pharisees in the New Testament.

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

I haven't got it figured out. Just calling it as I see it.

I think I'll stick with option A.

Based on subjectivity.

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

Tru dat!

Muslims aren't even close. You can't believe their nonsense. They do not have the historical evidence to back them up.

 

[Izdaari]

Also, Islam is at most 1400 years old, which is not that close to 2000. Muhammad began receiving his revelations in 610 AD (according to Islamic tradition).

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Also, Islam is at most 1400 years old, which is not that close to 2000. Muhammad began receiving his revelations in 610 AD (according to Islamic tradition).

I stand corrected. Regardless, Buddhism pre-dates Christianity for sure.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

You have weird way of tying things together. You can't tie taking the vow of Nazarene with 2 Tim 4:16.  Paul was talking about his first defense at Rome.... and no doubt those with him did not stand with him. You can't even tie 2 Timothy 2:15 with the one and same event.

Even if Paul wasn't referring to Jerusalem, it still does not negate the fact that the actual 12 apostles are never again mentioned as being in contact with him after the Trophimus incident and his arrest. There is no record of them coming to his defense. And there must have been a reason that "all" those churches in Asia Minor left Paul.

Did Paul still have Timothy? What about Titus. What about all the elders that stood and weep as he spoke of going to Jerusalem?

Just because Jack Hyles had coverts does not confirm he was a true prophet of God.

You're only seeing what you want to see.

Isn't that true of all of us? I never denied being subjective. I'm just bringing to attention various viewpoints.