Paul, a false prophet?

There is alsos the chance that Paul never had a vision, lied about it in order to get into the Christian inner circle. The fact that his teachings sometimes contridicts the ones of Christ caused several early christians to believe this is what heppened. That Paul was in fact a spy.

People try to claim this is not true because the bible says it's not.....but the fact that is Paul and his followers wrote the majority of the new testament. So expecting the bible to call him a liar is like expecting OJ simpson to give up his Double Jepody rights and turn himself in for retrial

 

many Christians seem to consider the bible to be a coherent book. It is not! The bible is a book of often unrelated texts by mostly unknown authors that a committee of Catholics used to support their Catholic beliefs. The selected the items to support their beliefs and tossed out the things, no matter how valid they actually were, that did NOT support their beliefs. Most Christians do NOT even know that the original KJV of the bible contained all the words in the Catholic bible. Just as the Catholic bible today contains books and parts of books that are not in the current version of the KJV, the original KJV also contained those 'extra' books. over the years one group or another decided that some parts of the bible did not fit their HUMAN views so they tossed them out. The bible is a HUMAN compilation of HUMAN works, assembled to support HUMAN concepts.

 

LOL .. OK I get it now. You have a serious lack of understanding of the terminology for God used in the Bible.

http://bible.cc/isaiah/48-16.htm

 

Considering the references I gave you were from Christian bible dictionaries and encyclopedia's I would have hoped you would have taken them seriously.

Any verses you have given that you claim refers to the trinity have been refuted.

It was Constantine that made the Trinity doctrine orthadoxy and he did it for political reasons.

As discussed earlier the Trinity was considered heresy by the church at large in the 3rd century AD.

It was the Trinity that was considered heresy until Constantine started killing folks who did not adopt it.

Catagorically not. God does not refer to himself as us in the Bible .. ever.

Back in the early days .. Noah's children worshiped many Gods and the Trinity doctrine did not exist for the folks writing the Bible.

This is a rediculous attempt to hide the fact that more than one God is being referred to here.

Quit grasping at straws unless you can provide some actual scholarship for yoru claim.

 

Perhaps he drank some bad punch or ate a Magic Mushroom.

Who knows. This is all just wild speculation.

What we do know is that Paul did not meet Jesus prior to the death of Jesus.

What also seems apparent is that Paul did not have much of a relationship with the disciples.

This is likely due to the fact that Pauls teachings differ from the teachings of Jesus. The disciples most likely thought Paul was a nutter .. and with good reason I might add.

 

Again - you have shown nothing - you mentioned some verses!

Pure BULL - I showed and explained why they are not trinity - for instance Elohimy! And the FACT that the HEBREW - who wrote them - say you folks are full of you know what!

That is BULL - they had a problem because these documents were there - and because they were there, many intelligent Christians chose the other as accurate. They stuck to their ancient Hebrew scrolls (God is ONE) and said Iesous was a Prophet, not a God, and the trinity was PAGAN.

No it doesn't - that is added in Christian crap - AGAIN - the Hebrew/Jews say you Christians are WRONG about their scrolls! And they should know!

Bull again - the Hebrew/Jews whom know their own language - UNLIKE YOU - say that is PURE BULL!

Which obviously has nothing to do with trinity!

I can call my mom - her name - mom - Duchess, etc, and that doesn't make her a trinity.

But it does have a lot to do with the original pagan gods the Hebrew took their God from.

 

We are back where we began. Not in flesh, or solid, means vision, which is what he calls it.

 

Yep, I said something about that.

There are many sites out there contrasting what the OT, and Jesus said, with what Paul taught.

People should just Google this.

 

YEP!

I actually have an old Bible with the extra books that they later tossed - which (later tossing) alone - proves the original choices were from men - not God, or they would not have done it.

 

Actually I showed him it didn't mean any trinity by translating it out for him. In correct order, it obviously is only ONE!

***

(We are told who was CALLED in 12, and 1 tells us whom this is about -

***

Isa 48:1 Hear this, O House of Jacob, who are called in name/honor Israel, and from the lineage of Judah descend; who swear by the name of YHVH and the Elohiym of Israel, (but) not from truth/faith, nor righteousness.

Isa 48:12 Hearken unto me, O JACOB and ISRAEL, MY CALLED; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last.)

Isa 48:15 I--I have spoken, yea, I have called him, I have brought him in, And he hath made prosperous his way.

Isa 48:16 Come near unto me: hear this, (it was) not from the beginning (in) secret SPOKEN: from that time existed there I/it unto this time, Adonay YHVH, sending (it) to HIM/them, and "ruach" breath/courage/spirit.
***

 

No, I understand it quite well. Your ariticle simply is saying it doesn't believe that Is.48:16 pertains to the Trinity or Messiah. Im not trying to prove it pertains to Messiah. It does however speak to the Trinity.

Three separate persons are indicated. Yet are God.

Quantrill

 

What you may call Christian is not taken seriously by me. Thus your sources are as questionable and of little value. And, they have not refuted anything. They have certainly done their 'dance', but hardly a refutation.

No, the Church is the one who professed and taught the doctrine of the Trinity as found in the Bible. As I indicated earliler it was Arianism that was declared heresy, not the Trinity. The Trinity was rejected by Arian, who along with Constantines son who was Arian also rejected the Trinity. The Church did not and the Church by 381 was able to defeat this heresy at the Couincil of Constantinople.

God refers to Himself as 'us' in Gen. 1:26, and 11:4-5.

Quantrill

 

LOL! That is NOT the case!

 

I showed verses because thats what proves or disproves what is being said.

And Elohim is a plural noun.

God gives different names of Himself to reveal some aspect of Himself.

Quantrill

 

Obviously, I also showed verses.

And your Christian ideas about Hebrew texts - don't trump the understanding of the writers, the Hebrew/Jews.

In other words it doesn't matter what you THINK those OT texts say - the Hebrew/Jews say differently. And they KNOW.

 

The first Christians were Jews. The Hebrew language is not only known by Jews.

Is.48:16 "Draw near to me and hear this: From the beginning, I did not speak in secret; From the time anything existed, I was there. And now the Lord God has sent me, endowed with His spirit. ( Lit. 'and His spirit') ".

The above is from the Tanakh, the new JPS translation according to the traditional text. The parenthesis is their footnote.

So, it is evident that the same plurality of persons, three, are existant here. Quite different from 'your' translation, which is based on your interpretation.

Quantrill

 

LOL! Mine and that are very close - to the ''I was there" - and where they aren't - it is DEFINITELY "and", as the "and" sign is there. There is also no "and now" before Adoney YHVH. Nor does the subject change.

The subject is the what was spoken/sent from the "beginning" it does not change at the end of the sentence to "NOW" sending.

It is saying it was there from the beginning being sent, and also "ruach" -which is breath, spirit, courage, etc.

This in no way can be taken as multi gods!

It makes clear both before and after what and whom is being spoken about.

Isa 48:3 I have declared the former things from the beginning; and they went forth out of my mouth, and I shewed them; I did them suddenly, and they came to pass.

Isa 48:5 I have even from the beginning declared it to thee; before it came to pass I shewed it thee: ...

This is my translation - followed by the Tanakh

Isa 48:16 Come near unto me: hear this, (it was) not from the beginning (in) secret SPOKEN: from that time existed there I/it unto this time, Adonay YHVH, sending (it) to HIM/them, and "ruach" breath/courage/spirit.

קרבו אלי שׁמעו־זאת לא מראשׁ בסתר דברתי מעת היותה שׁם אני ועתה אדני יהוה שׁלחני ורוחו׃

 

Throughout chapter 48 of Isaiah, the 'I' is God. He is the 'first and last' in vs 12. Thus making the 'I' in verse 16, God.

Not multi 'God's'. But a God as a plurality. A Trinity of three Persons. God.

I, God, hath not spoken in secret.
The Lord GOD, sent God.
The Spirit of GOD sent God.

Quantrill

 

LOL! God is indeed speaking as was shown - you are mistranslating the rest of the text.

NO trinity is even implied in that text.

As I said look up what the Hebrew had to say about it.

 

You have not provided any refutation to the fact that Tertullian was the first person we know of to apply the Trinity doctrine to Christianity and the Church at that time called Tertullian's doctrine heresy.

And your support that the Church taught this doctrine prior to Constantine is ?

Arianism was made a heresy because Constantine decreed it so .. after killing Arian.

This has nothing to do with the beliefs of the Church prior to Constantine.

 

No, there is no mistranslating. The text says what it says. You however interpret it not to be a plurality, in this case three. I do.

Quantrill

 

Agree with me or not - the Hebrew/Jews wrote the text - have only ONE God - no trinity - and they say it doesn't say that!

SO! It doesn't say that!

 

That Tertullian was the first to use the term 'Trinity' to the doctrine doesn't mean the doctrine didn't already exist. It was already understood and believed that the Jesus Christ was equal with God. He was the Son as distinct from the Father. But He was God. And it was understood also that the Holy Spirit was equal with God and distinct yet God. Again, see Matt. 3:16-17.

The fact that as soon as Arius made his Arian heresy known to his Bishop Alexander, of Alexandria Egypt, and Alexander immeditately sent out letters to the Churches warning of this heresy, and asked for Arius removal as a priest, showed that the doctrine of the Trinity was already believed.

Constantine simply added his political clout to the Churches decision in the Council of 325 to reject Arianism and then issue by decree the firm conviction that Jesus Christ was God, not created.

318 bishops voted, yet in the end only two sided with Arius. They all three were anathematized by the Church and then exiled by Constantine.

See " Caesar and Christ" by Will Durant, p. 660.

So, it has everything to do with the beliefs of the Church prior to Constantine. Constantine didn't know theology. He just wanted peace in the realm. The Church developed its theology.

Quantrill

 

I agree there is only one God.

Quantrill

 

The idea that Christ was equal with God as per Tertullian's Trinity was condemned by the Church as heresy. This is a fact and you have yet to address this fact.


It was only later that the Trinity was accepted.

The Arian controversy raged on for a long time. Constantine's son who became emperor was an Arian and did not have good things to say about Constantine or his creed.

Of course they voted with Constantine !! It was either that or be exiled.

Even Eusebius objected and never did sign the statment of faith but went along with his hero in the end.

The controversy over the nature of Christ was something that was debate that had raged in the church for a long long time prior to Constantine.

There were many theories advanced.

What do we take from this other than that those that were closest to the time of Christ had no idea how to classify the deity of Jesus in relation to God.

http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/history/ath-inc.htm

It was Athanasius that championed the Trinity doctrine but it was not to a willing audience. The Trinity was "not" doctine to the Church at large.

Athanasius was not even born until 296-298 AD.

The debate raged on for many years was still ongoing in 451 AD "Council of Chalcedon".

There was no standard Trinity belief in the early Church as we know it today.

The Trinity doctrine as we know it was forced on folks by the sword and that is the main reason why this particular doctrine triumphed.

This doctine as we know it was not a commonly held belief of the early Church prior to Constantine.