Kasz216 said:
Baroque_Dude said:
ManusJustus said:
Slimebeast said:
ManusJustus said:
Slimebeast said:
Marcion was significant, but the early church fathers condemned his teachings clearly. As I said, there's always some offsprings of every ideology.
|
Paul of Samosata was an early church father. He was the bishop of Antioch in the 3rd century and taught that Jesus was born a man but was adopted by God. His theology, Paulicianism, was significantly large in the medieval period and survived until the 19th century.
|
Well, he was wrong.
|
Well, thats your opinion, and that opinion is no more supported than any other religious opinion.
|
And his opinion is according to the Bible. We Christians try to have our opinion according to the Bible. Your (implicit) opinion that Paulicianism mustn't be judged as incorrect ISN'T according to the Bible. Paulicianism is a supposedly Christian branch, so it must be judged according to the Bible.
Paulicianism isn't supported by the Bible and Paul of Samosata wasn't prior to the New Testament. The New Testament, at different spots and books, says that Jesus is God and was with God since the foundation of the World. Hence, he wasn't adopted by God. That is a clear statement, and a different approach at this point is a heresy, according to the Bible.
It's like saying:
- B is the biological son of A.
- B proclaims that. So do their friends and a lot people more, throughout decades.
- Two centuries later, C says that believes in B, but that B wasn't the biological son of A, hence C says that B was lying.
- Some people complain about C's incongruity.
- You say "Hey! You can't say that C's opinion is wrong".
You're an intelligent user, but I don't understand why you're following this line of thinking.
|
By your interpretation of the bible. Which is just that.
Your interpretation of it.
As was said before. No where in the bible is it directly stated... and it is stupid to try and directly literally interpret statements in an era where speach wasn't as directly literal... espiecally when it comes to things like holy sermons.
Using metaphors was the standard.
|
Now I do think you have a somewhat Christian background Kasz, but that argument sounds so typical from one who really hasn't read and studied the Bible much.
Very few ancient texts are so clear and concrete as the Gospels and the writings of Paul. I'm always amazed how much awkward stuff, symbolism especially, that people read into the New Testament. Yes, of course there's quite a lot of symbolism and metaphors carried over from Judaism in the NT, but scholars have decided ages ago that the Bible writers were very simple, down to earth and direct in their style, and it was always very clear to me that the NT is almost completely written in common, literal, day-to-day language.
(now this isnt to say that the interpretation of different dogma is always easy, far from it)
