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.
|
