Morality of the Old Testament

[shunyadragon]

??? Did you read the text? Like whom?
Were they any Roman rulers claiming to be Christian Apostles???

The references does not specify an apostle. It is more prophetic. Constantin is a candidate. Your interpretation is not accepted by 98% of Christians.

And don't forget that Paul's journey brought him to Ephesus where he stayed for 2 years and 3 months. Also he admitted that all who were in Asia turned away from him and had to defend himself by saying that he was not lying.

Not true. Paul was responsible for wide spread conversion in Asia Minor and Rome in general.

Of course they would, but that's an argument ad populum, a fallacious argument which is based on claiming a truth or affirming something is good because many people think so.

No it is an argument of fact of the by far dominate view of Paul in the History of Christianity.

 

[Ajax]

The references does not specify an apostle. It is more prophetic. Constantin is a candidate. Your interpretation is not accepted by 98% of Christians.

The text states: " “‘I know your works, your toil and your patient endurance, and how you cannot bear evil men but have tested those who call themselves apostles but are not, and found them to be false;" It is directed to the Church of Ephesus..
Did Constantine ever preach in Ephesus? Did he ever claim to be an apostle? No.
Do you have any evidence, citation or even suggestion that somebody else could be?

There we go again with the 98% of Christians. This is a fallacy. The number of Christians not believing this interpretation is completely irrelevant.

Not true.

Which one is not true? That he stayed in Ephesus for about three years (Acts 20:31), that he admitted that all who were in Asia turned away from him ((2 Tim1:15), or that he was not charged with lying (1 Tim 2:7)?

No it is an argument of fact of the by far dominate view of Paul in the History of Christianity.

It is a text book ad populum fallacy, and I'm almost certain that you know it. Truth is not democratic.

We agree to disagree then...

 

[shunyadragon]

The text states: " “‘I know your works, your toil and your patient endurance, and how you cannot bear evil men but have tested those who call themselves apostles but are not, and found them to be false;" It is directed to the Church of Ephesus..
Did Constantine ever preach in Ephesus? Did he ever claim to be an apostle? No.
Do you have any evidence, citation or even suggestion that somebody else could be?

Other false apostles that spread false doctrines referred to in the letters.

There we go again with the 98% of Christians. This is a fallacy. The number of Christians not believing this interpretation is completely irrelevant.

NO, it is a fact of Christian history

Which one is not true? That he stayed in Ephesus for about three years (Acts 20:31), that he admitted that all who were in Asia turned away from him ((2 Tim1:15), or that he was not charged with lying (1 Tim 2:7)?

It is a text book ad populum fallacy, and I'm almost certain that you know it. Truth is not democratic.

No it is not, but neither are your extremely biased assertions concerning Paul

We agree to disagree then...

Yes, we agree to disagree. I do not share the doctrines of Christianity, teachings of Paul or your selective extreme bias against the majority of Christians.

 

[Ajax]

Other false apostles that spread false doctrines referred to in the letters.

Such as?
And even if there are others, does anyone of them combine the biblical evidence that a) Paul stayed in Ephesus b) all his colleagues turned away from him there c) he was accused of lying, d) he was a criminal in the eyes of the first Christians and e) he wasn't a true Apostle in the sense that he wasn't a disciple and never met Jesus?
I would perhaps accept the argument that it was someone from the Jerusalem Christians who wrote the Revelation and didn't like Paul.

NO, it is a fact of Christian history

Totally irrelevant. Christian history contains a multitude of lies and falsehoods, as you yourself have pointed out many times.

No it is not, but neither are your extremely biased assertions concerning Paul

My assertions are all based on evidence supported by scripture with chapters and verses, although I 'm agnostic and do not believe much of it.

 

[shunyadragon]

Such as?

Those that opposed Paul

 

[Ajax]

Those that opposed Paul

The only other apostle who lived in Ephesus and that is according to tradition was John, but as far as we know nobody charged him as liar and none abandoned him.

 

[Ebionite]

OK sorry but I still don't see the problem.

Bait and hook from the definition of dolos relate to worm (the crucified man of Psalm 22) and fish (the symbol of Christianity). Also Paul refers to his lie in Romans 3:7

 

[questfortruth]

As a general principle, certainly that is good advice. But what if your father and mother are criminals?

The general principle must be written. Any exceptions are not necessary to be written. If it is not written: "do not murder", there will be dead planet in just one sec. So, it is written. Any exceptions from this commandment are not necessary to be written. So, to save the space of the Bible, they are not written.

 

[shunyadragon]

The only other apostle who lived in Ephesus and that is according to tradition was John, but as far as we know nobody charged him as liar and none abandoned him.

According to tradition could very well be in error.

 

[Ajax]

According to tradition could very well be in error.

I agree.