norwegen
Diamond Member
The Greek Interlinear may say taken up, but the transliteration is lifted up. Epairō is the word, which means to exalt.
Was Jesus a Human Being?
- Thread starter jwoodie
- Start date
Cecilie1200
Diamond Member
That's your idea of a logical viewpoint? Clearly, your "logic" is not like our Earth logic.
Again...........the scriptures declare, Acts 1:1-11, "...............as they were looking on, He was lifted up, and a could took Him out of their sight........"
As far as His resurrected form taking a different form than that of a physical human.....again, the scriptures declare, "Behold My hands and My feet, THAT IS I MYSELF.............FOR A SPIRIT HAS NOT FLESH AND BONES AS YOU SEE ME HAVE." -- Luke 24:39
Regardless of what false doctrine you have been taught in the tradition of men........the Body of Christ never saw corruption (Acts 2:31) and was taken up into heaven just as allowed "Enoch" and "Elijah" to ascend to heaven.
Jesus physical body never left the earth until ascension mentioned above. Jesus preached to the "sleeping/dead" in Hades (not confused with Hell's fire and brimstone, etc, but the resting place of the dead until the final judgement as revealed in Rev. 20:13) through the spirit only.
Jesus peached to those who were dead from previous generations (the blood of Christ flows backward as well as forward).....in order to find salvation for those who were righteous under the old law. -- 1 Peter 3:18-20
The scriptures define themself via the surrounding text, subject matter and context. Jesus had you characters pegged correctly when you attempt to deceive and deflect by simply cherry picking a single word away from its contextual integrity pretending it makes the subject matter a lie. Taken up.........lifted up. What exactly is the difference? In the same passage it self defines the single word you cherry picked LIFT up........as Jesus was lifted up by (.......as He was being taken up (lifted up)....behold two men stood beside them in white robs......" Jesus was lifted up into heaven by God's heavenly hosts.
"Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel." -- Matt. 23:24
Find the Book, Chapter, and Verse that supports YOUR PRIVATE interpretation (which is not allowed in true Christian Doctrine -- 2 Peter 1:19-20), show the passages within the entire context of the subject matter being addressed, that Jesus was in spirit form while still on earth. Book, Chapter and Verse.......please, let us reason together.
Last edited:
Again.........the scriptures where the very word is being used defines LIFTED UP.........as there were two angels present at Christs ascension (Act 1:1-11). You do not THINK that having to reference an external source other than the Holy Bible is not presenting a "PRIVATE INTERPRETATIO"?
You have to twist yourself into knots in order to maintain your false doctrine.Read the passages of scripture IN CONTEXT, they self define. As Jesus said, "Why choke on a gnat and then attempt to swallow a camel"?
It was not until the 5th century that all the different Christian churches came to a basic agreement on Biblical canon. To say the Gnostics were heretical is absurd since there was no orthodox canon yet. The 'Apostles' didn't refute anything that we know of. We don't have their writings to go by. The Gnostics and other Christian sects BECAME heretical since their scriptures were omitted from the canon much later.
When you talk about the Bible you're talking about a canon that took centuries to establish. As they say, history is written by the victors. There were Gnostic gospels that were deliberately omitted from the canon.
The reason that Gnostic writings were omitted is because they did not pass the scientific testing of "comparative analytical testing". In other words the writings did not agree with the writings that were documented and proven to be original copies from the Apostles of Christ. The source of calibrating the NT and OT canon........the Word of God never contradicts itself because ".........All scripture is given by inspiration of God....AND IS PROFITABLE FOR DOCTRINE, FOR REPROOF, FOR CORRECTION, FOR INSTRUCTION OF RIGHTEOUSNESS." -- 2 Tim. 3:16 This is the source of calibrating the New Testament of Christ Jesus. An "inspired" writer would never contradict another inspired writer because all come from the same source.......The Holy Spirit of God.
Consider the canon and what records were included in the final collection. Its been documented that .................. Matthew wrote the Gospel of Matthew, John wrote John, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, and Revelation.
Paul is accredited with 13 letters or chapters of the NT canon. Romans, 1 Cor., 2 Cor., Gal., Eph., Phil., Col., 1Thess, and 2Thess. all are letters to various churches/congregations in different cities or regions of the world. 1 Tim., 2 Tim., and Titus are personal letters to two preachers who worked with Paul on different occasions. Philemon is also a personal letter written to a member of the church and friend of Paul concerning a runaway slave.
We know why these writings were accepted into the canon.........they were tested and documented to be from the hand and mind of an Apostle of Christ.
This leaves the Gospel of Mark, Luke, Acts, Hebrew, James and Jude to consider why they were accepted into the Canon because there was a question concerning a link to an Apostle. Thus, they considered the writings of those who were alive while an Apostle was still living. They considered the writing of Papias (who lived around 130 A.D...) and was alive while John was still living. He had this to same, "Matthew composed the oracles in Hebrew, and each interpreted as they were able...."
The elder John stated that Mark was a personal writer for Peter and became Peter's interpreter, and wrote accurately all that he remembered, though he did not record IN ORDER those things, thus the time line of the events recorded might be slightly off.....some were recorded out of order. Nor did he record what was directly said by the Lord, as he was never in the company of Jesus..........he recorded that which Peter remembered, So Mark recorded no error as he recorded some particulars just as he recalled them to mind, for he took heed of one thing -- to omit none of the facts that he heard from Peter and to set nothing down falsely in his narrative of events.
Justin Martyr verified the record of Mark some 50 years after the Apostle John's death. He is quoted as saying, "...the apostle in the memoirs composed by them which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them. The mention of the fact that Jesus changed the name of Peter in his memoirs, together with his having changed the name of two other brethren who were son's of Zebedee to Boanerges tended to signify that he was the same though whom the surname Israel was given to Jacob, and Joshua to Hoshea.
FYI: the changing of Peter's name by Jesus is only found in the Gospel of MARK
Then we have Irenaeus verifying the record of the NT, Irenaeus lived around (180-190 A.D.)
The Heretic "Tertullian", being a false teacher sometimes used the actual scriptures to bolster his position. He had this to say about the NT record of Paul and Peter. He stated that Peter is responsible for the Gospel of Mark as Mark was Peter's personal interpreter.......while the record of Luke came from Paul as Luke often recorded Paul's writing.......Luke is recorded from Paul....as Paul at that time was an enemy of the Gospel and Luke recorded events that Paul witnessed and heard while an enemy of the Gospel. Thus, the Gospels record both sides of history from the memories of those who lived history. All were inspired by the Holy Spirit of God. Though some of the record was actually written by men other than an Apostle......all are direct eyewitness accounts from an Apostle of Christ.
Even in the scriptures we can see that others often worked under an Apostle and recorded what they had to say. Luke's writings are accepted because of his personal relationship with the Apostle Paul........Luke often worked as a scribe for Paul...but there were others as recorded in scripture.
Even though the Book of Romans is accredited to Paul Romans 16:22 shows us that Tertius was the scribe who actually placed Paul's words to paper. "Tertius who wrote this epistle , salute you in the Lord." -- Rom. 16:22
Sometimes Peter used Silvanus as a scribe as documented. "By Silvanus, a faithful brother........" -- 1 Peter 5:12
Simply because the record found in the Canon was not directly penned by an Apostle......does not mean that record was not coming directly from an inspired Apostle of Christ.
The real test of all the canon? They all agree in both word and deed.........there are no contradictions, even though some of the events recorded were slightly out of order......all were based upon the truth as delivered by an Apostle of Christ. Truth never contradicts itself
The Gnostic writings were rejected because of the many contradictory errors that the process of "Comparative Anaylitical Testing" revealed..........when a writer is found to contradict a "documented and known record of an Apostle"........that record is found to be false and not worthy of the canon.
Last edited:
But there are no writings that were documented and proven to be original copies from the Apostles of Christ. The best we have are writings that we have traditionally viewed as the writings of the Apostles or their direct disciples. They may or may not be accurate but none are original and none are 'proven'.
How do you know who was inspired by God? Are you? Am I?
Curious that you'd quote 2 Tim since it was written in Paul's name but was most likely not written by Paul or ever seen by him.
No it hasn't because and it seems unlikely that Aramaic-speaking, probably-illiterate peasants would write in educated Greek. Paul was the exception. None of the Gospels claims an author, that attribution happened much later.
Thirteen letters were written in Paul's name but, as I recall, only 7 are confirmed to be authentic. Some were written well after Paul's time and deal with thing that didn't exist in Paul's day.
In the ancient world, if you wanted to be taken seriously, you'd write in the name of someone famous. In Christianity, if you wanted your theology to be accepted, you'd write in the name of an Apostle. That has been documented.
Ringtone
Platinum Member
- Sep 3, 2019
- 6,142
- 3,537
- 940
You're either a pathological liar, as dense as a pile of bricks, or trolling.
Last edited:
There is nothing I wrote that I can't defend. Is there anything you wrote that you can defend?
Sorry you feel facts are trolling so I'll leave you to your bliss.
No documented writings of the Apostles of Christ?
People simply love a good conspiracy. Such as suggesting that there are many writings deliberately left out of the Bible for political reasons.........you see the ideology in supermarket rags and or at book stores. All to make a buck.......as they hint at or directly claim there was a covert effort to cover up the real writings that were excluded from the Canon....aka, the Gnostic Gospels.......or the Book of Enoch in the OT. As previously stated with a little investigation you find someone is attempting to sell you a book or a story.By definition it was God who was responsible for the canonized Bible we have today.....as canon by definition is simply an authoritative record. The canon is essentially the process by which men recognized the books that were actually inspired by God in the fact they make no contradicts in their story line as all maintain the same spiritual message concerning Jesus and the early church efforts to spread the Gospel around the then known world.
The most important thing about the canonization, both the O.T. and N.T. were recognized and accepted even before the Roman Catholic Church came into existence, of course withstanding their claim that Peter was the first POPE.....when in reality the actual first pope did not exist until the 5th century.
There is no other ancient writing existing in the world that can compare to the New Testament documents of record. There are in existence some 24000 copies of the N.T. documents, either partial or whole. The earliest of these documents were copied just 25 years after the original, sometime early in the 2nd century. And they are DATED, to that century by the paper and ink that was used. Egyptian papyri and other evidence from archeology prove the dating.
Last edited:
Ringtone
Platinum Member
- Sep 3, 2019
- 6,142
- 3,537
- 940
You're a know-nothing conspiracy nut talking to a least two others besides myself who have studied the pertinent theology, history, and textual criticism, but you will not be taught.
Your reactions amount to slogans and non sequiturs.
Hence, clap your hands, I got two turntables and a microphone.
Last edited:
Can you name any besides Paul?No documented writings of the Apostles of Christ?
All I'm saying is that it took hundreds of years for Christian theology to evolve the canon we know today.
Let's talk Gnostic Christians, shall we? Because until you understand what they believed you can't possibly understand why their beliefs were considered heretical, right?
Among the Cathars there were many different groups. Pope Innocent III counted as many as forty Cathar sects. In addition, there existed other sects that had many doctrinal points in common with the Cathars; among the best known were the Albigenses. They are all usually categorized as gnostic or Manichean heresies. In order to avoid unnecessary complexity, we shall describe the beliefs and notions common to all groups, without specifying the relative importance that a particular view might have in a given sect. (For a more detailed account, see 9 [Vol. I], 10, and 11.) The basic contention in all branches of the movement was the belief in the irreconcilable contradiction between the physical world, seen as the source of evil, and the spiritual world, seen as the essence of good. The so-called dualistic Cathars believed this to be caused by the existence of two Gods--one good, the other evil. It was the God of evil who had created the physical world--the earth with everything that grows upon it, the sky, the sun and the stars, and human bodies as well. The good God, on the other hand, was seen as the creator of the spiritual world, in which there is another, spiritual sky, other stars and another sun. Other Cathars, called monarchian Cathars, believed in one beneficent God, the creator of the universe, but assumed that the physical world was the creation of his eldest, fallen son--Satan or Lucifer. All the Cathars held that the mutual hostility of the realms of matter and spirit allowed for no intermingling. They therefore denied the bodily incarnation of Christ (asserting that his body was a spiritual one, which had only the appearance of physicality) and the resurrection of the flesh. They saw a reflection of their dualism in the division of the Holy Scriptures into Old and New Testaments. They identified the God of the Old Testament, the creator of the physical world, with the evil God or with Lucifer. They professed the New Testament as the teaching of the good God. The Cathars did not believe that God had created the world from nothing; they held that matter was eternal and that the world would have no end. So far as people were concerned, they considered their bodies to be the creation of the evil force. Their souls, though, did not have a single source. The souls of the majority of men, just like their bodies, were begotten by evil--such people had no hope for salvation and were doomed to perish when the entire material world returned to a state of primeval chaos. But the souls of some men had been created by the good God; these were the angels led into temptation by Lucifer and thus imprisoned in earthly bodies. As a result of changing into a series of bodies (Cathars believed in the transmigration of souls), they were destined to end up in their sect so as to receive liberation from the prison of matter. The ultimate goal and the ideal of all mankind was in principle universal suicide. This was conceived either as in the most direct sense (we shall encounter the practical realization of this .view later) or through ceasing to bear children.
The Cathars hated the cross in particular, considering it to be a symbol of the evil God. As early as about 1000 A.D., a certain Leutard, preaching near Châlons, called for the smashing of crosses and religious images. In the twelfth century, Pierre de Bruys made bonfires of broken crosses, until finally he himself was burned by an angry mob. The Cathars considered churches to be heaps of stones and divine services mere pagan rites. They rejected religious images, denied the intercession of the saints and the efficacy of prayer for the departed. A book by the Dominican inquisitor Rainier Sacconi, himself a heretic for seventeen years, states that the Cathars were not forbidden to plunder churches.
Although the Cathars rejected the Catholic hierarchy and the sacraments, they had a hierarchy and sacraments of their own. The basic division of the sect was into two groups--the "perfect" (perfecti) and the "faithful" (credenti). The former were few in number (Rainier counted only four thousand in all), but they constituted the select group of the sect leaders. The clergy was drawn from the perfecti, and only they were privy to all the doctrines of the sect; many extreme views that were radically opposed to Christianity were unknown to the ordinary faithful. Only the perfecti were obliged to observe the many prohibitions. In particular, they were not allowed to deny their faith under any circumstances. In case of persecution, they were to accept a martyr's death. The faithful, on the other hand, were allowed to go to regular church for form's sake and, when questioned, to disavow the faith.
In compensation for the rigors imposed on the perfecti, their position was far higher than that occupied by Catholic priests. In certain respects, the perfecti were as gods themselves, and the faithful worshiped them accordingly. The faithful were obliged to support the perfecti. One of the important rites of the sect was that of "submission," in which the faithful performed a threefold prostration before the perfecti. The perfecti had to renounce marriage, and they literally did not have the right to touch a woman. They could not possess any property and were obliged to devote their whole lives to service of the sect. They were forbidden to keep a permanent dwelling of any kind and were required to spend their lives in constant travel or to stay in special secret sanctuaries. The consecration of the perfecti, the "consolation" (consolamentum), was the central sacrament of the sect. This rite cannot be compared to anything in the Catholic Church. It combined baptism (or confirmation), ordination, confession, absolution and sometimes supreme unction as well. Only those who received it could count on being freed from the captivity of the body and having their souls returned to their celestial abode.
The majority of the Cathars had no hope of fulfilling the strict commandments that were obligatory for the perfecti and intended, rather, to receive "consolation" on their deathbed. This was called "the good end." The prayer to grant "the good end" under the care of "the good people" (the perfecti) was recited together with the Lord's Prayer.
Sometimes, having received "consolation," a sick person recovered. He was then usually advised to commit suicide (called "endura"). In many cases, "endura" was in fact a condition for receiving "consolation." Not infrequently, the aged or the very young who had received "consolation" were subjected to "endura"--i.e., in effect, murdered. There were various forms of "endura." Most frequently it was by starvation (especially for children, whom the mothers simply stopped suckling); bleeding, hot baths followed by sudden chilling, drinking of liquid mixed with ground glass and strangulation were also used. I. Dollinger, who studied the extant archives of the Inquisition in Toulouse and Carcassonne, writes: "Whoever examines the records of the above-mentioned courts attentively will have no doubt that far more people perished from the 'endura' (some voluntarily, some forcibly) than as a result of the Inquisition's verdicts."
These basic notions were the source of the socialist doctrines disseminated among the Cathars. They rejected property as belonging to the material world. The perfecti were forbidden to have any personal belongings, but as a group they controlled the holdings of the sect, which often were considerable.
Cathars enjoyed influence in various segments of society, including the highest strata. Thus it is said that Count Raymond VI of Toulouse always kept in his retinue Cathars disguised in ordinary attire, so they could bless him in case of impending death. For the most part, however, the preaching of the Cathars apparently was directed to the urban lower classes, as indicated in particular by the names of various sects: populicani (i.e., populists, although certain historians see this name as a corruption of "Paulicians"), piphlers (derived from "plebs"), texerants (weavers), etc. In their sermons, the Cathars preached that a true Christian life was possible only on the condition that property was held in common. In 1023, a group of Cathars were put on trial in Monteforte, charged with promulgating celibacy and communality of property and with attacking the accepted religious traditions.
It seems that the appeal for communality of property was rather widespread among the Cathars, since it is mentioned in certain Catholic works directed against them. In one of these, for instance, Cathars are accused of demagogically proclaiming this principle while not adhering to it themselves: "You do not have everything in common. Some have more, others less."
Interesting but not quite what I was talking about. Cathars came 1,000 years after Jesus but Gnostics were around from the very beginning of Christianity. As to heresy and orthodoxy, the original Gnostics were not heretical since there was no established orthodoxy in the first centuries of Christianity. 'Orthodox' Christianity killed off the early 'heresies' in the establishment of the Catholic Church but was only temporary and quickly diverged into the various sects we have today.
As for their beliefs, since I'm not a Christian, they seem no more or less absurd than the beliefs of any other religion. IMHO
Kinda is though as I literally just listed the heresies and none of them were from anything that was excluded. These were fundamental beliefs which were diametrically opposite and not based upon non-canonized writings. Apparently the Gnostics couldn't reconcile the OT and NT any better than you could which is why you apparently see all religions as absurd which on the basis of logic is absurd itself. Apparently your animus towards your failed religion of Christianity was transferred to all religions thus demonstrating your bias. What did the primal religions ever do to you?
You seem to be temporally challenged. As I tried to tell you, there were Gnostics before there was a canon. If there is no orthodoxy/canon, by definition, there can be no heresy.
No, your logic is flawed. My logic says that either there is the supernatural element in this universe or there isn't, can't be both. As a pre-teen I decided that unless someone could SHOW me (as opposed to TELL me) the supernatural I would withhold my belief. I'm still waiting to be shown.
I was never a Christian. All religions expect me to accept what they tell me is real but then can't show me what is real. The more I thought about it and studied it, the more sure I was that I was right.
And did these Gnostic Christians before the canon hold different beliefs about there being two Gods, etc? Are you aware of any Gnostic gospels that discussed two Gods?
There's no evidence you will accept. You can't even define a decent perception of what you claimed you looked for.
And you were twelve years old when you did that and stopped looking. Your words.
Similar threads
