Carcholce:

As a Christian?
I have to admit, over the years I have been seeking knowledge everywhere. Even Quran and traditional too. They all have elements of God’s knowledge in them.

Noted!

At op, you need to understand the canonization timelines of the bible, the early church fathers were at some point spreading teachings and reading also from d lost books like; d gospel of thomas, mary .m, philip, along with the hebrew bible etc, until the first council of nicea, there was already the muratorian canon in AD 200 comprising a collection of new testament scriptures. at the first council under d authority of d roman emperor constantine, that brought together the gathering of church bishops, to finally address and solve the theological disputations about d divinity of Jesus christ, etc. As debate got heated after bishop arius won his augment against bishop athanasius whose belief was dat jesus was a saviour and no creature possessed the ability or prerogative to save from sin. When it was arius turned to defend his position and share his own belief, he argued that the uniqueness of God alone is self-exitent ( not dependent for its existence on anything else) and immutable, the son, jesus who ...

MrCodeSolo:
At op, you need to understand the canonization timelines of the bible, the early church fathers were at some point spreading teachings and reading also from d lost books like; d gospel of thomas, mary .m, philip, along with the hebrew bible etc, until the first council of nicea, there was already the muratorian canon in AD 200 comprising a collection of new testament scriptures. at the first council under d authority of d roman emperor constantine, that brought together the gathering of church bishops, to finally address and solve the theological disputations about d divinity of Jesus christ, etc. As debate got heated after bishop arius won his augment against bishop athanasius whose belief was dat jesus was a saviour and no creature possessed the ability or prerogative to save from sin. When it was arius turned to defend his position and share his own belief, he argued that the uniqueness of God alone is self-exitent ( not dependent for its existence on anything else) and immutable, the son, jesus who ...

Your canonisations do absolutely none of what is claimed claimed bold. In fact it is all meaningless to the Truth of Jesus Christ.

contd..who is not self existent cannot therefore be the self-existent and inmutable God, bcuz d Godhead is unique, it cannot be shared or communicated. Then bishop st nicholas in an outrage left his sit and came over to punch bishop arius in the face. And called him d heretic bishop. Nicholas will in many generations to come be celebrated with a feast day that marks "punch a heretic day" Then d nicene creed was formulated that affirmed the deity and eternality of Jesus christ and defined the relationship btw d Father and the Son. Arius lost position at his church at syria and was deroped. the bible began to take shape collectively all thru each council like about what scriptural book was to be debated on and then added. There was d council of hippo (393 AD), Carthage (in 397AD), like at d council of Laodicea in 363 AD the verdict was reached and decided dat d western church (romans) and the eastern church (greeks) should use d 26 new testaments + d first 5 books (Torah) of d hebrew bible + 1 apocrypha book.

contd.. Before d reign of d roman emperor constantine there was another roman emperor Diocletian who reigned from 284-305AD, menh, dz dude hated christians like mad and was busy filling pile-full roman jails with christians, it was during d reign of emperor constantine christianity started to come alive enmass, and so was mixed-mash doctrines of various christologies were becoming so loud, like roman soldiers praying differently, arguing what to belief and not to belief; and this brought some sense of weakness to the roman empire in a broader way. After d reign of emperor constantine, other pro-arianism emperors were installed and bishop arius' christology which was a mixture of adoptionism and logos theology spreaded like wildfire. Now, my point is dat under the authority of king james in 1611, the total books translated to english was 80 books to be used in churches, etc. Until another council of "oh! No, i m losing count since i can't remember" in 1648, 14 books were removed; dz way, bringing d count to 66

MrCodeSolo:
contd.. Before d reign of d roman emperor constantine there was another roman emperor Diocletian who reigned from 284-305AD, menh, dz dude hated christians like mad and was busy filling pile-full roman jails with christians, it was during d reign of emperor constantine christianity started to come alive enmass, and so was mixed-mash doctrines of various christologies were becoming so loud, like roman soldiers praying differently, arguing what to belief and not to belief; and this brought some sense of weakness to the roman empire in a broader way. After d reign of emperor constantine, other pro-arianism emperors were installed and bishop arius' christology which was a mixture of adoptionism and logos theology spreaded like wildfire. Now, my point is dat under the authority of king james in 1611, the total books translated to english was 80 books to be used in churches, etc. Until another council of "oh! No, i m losing count since i can't remember" in 1648, 14 books were removed; dz way, bringing d count to 66

Remember they were first called “Chrestian” in antioch by Agrippa.
Arianism has nothing to do with “emperor.
Arian is one of the church fathers that set up Christianity, he argued against the concept of trinity, created by tertulian.

contd..that's why today, you all christians may read from d same re-packaged, abrogated and stardardised book bcuz some bunch of old and acient farts debated and agreed on what to be added or removed to shapen their own imposed christological belief systems after putting everything about the scriptures to a council vote and despite; 4th century historic bishops' believable facts with proofs from same scriptural texts that formed d base collection of the very reason christian denominations (sects) existed today and more on way with separate confused belief systems. I.e; jehovah witness, presbyterians' etc. Whose doctrines are more like the true form of arianism (bishop arius' belief system) no doubt. If d body of christ is not scattered and mixed-mash, why do we today have catholicism, presbyterians, jow, mormors, protestants, seventh adventists, d white garment ppl, messianic judaism aka the "jews of jesus" churches dat go by various names, etc. all u guys do is to read from dat agreed instructional manual.

Maynnmann:


Remember they were first called “Chrestian” in antioch by Agrippa.
Arianism has nothing to do with “emperor.
Arian is one of the church fathers that set up Christianity, he argued against the concept of trinity, created by tertulian.

ok, 'em exactly. But was popularized by bishop arius himself when d trinity concept started coming a thing. D christological belief system quickly swerved to a different direction and d roman emperor constantine gathered all the early church bishops to arrive at a common ground and Dz old ancient balded fart Arius was invited to the council of niceae held at d bithynia city of Nicaea; some place in modern day Turkey. Arianism may have nothing to do with d roman emperor, but d early church fathers all-together no doubt played a major role in interpreting scriptures, debating on what goes in and what nut and evenually forming a theological construction template based on biblical exegesis. I m not a "pan-taker" of a confused nuts!

MrCodeSolo:
ok, 'em exactly. But was popularized by bishop arius himself when d trinity concept started coming a thing. D christological belief system quickly swerved to a different direction and d roman emperor constantine gathered all the early church bishops to arrive at a common ground and Dz old ancient balded fart Arius was invited to the council of niceae held at d bithynia city of Nicaea; some place in modern day Turkey. Arianism may have nothing to do with d roman emperor, but d early church fathers all-together no doubt played a major role in interpreting scriptures, debating on what goes in and what nut and evenually forming a theological construction template based on biblical exegesis. I m not a "pan-taker" of a confused nuts!

Arius is not a “bishop”
You don’t even know what “arianism” is, why don’t you research and help yourself?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arius

Arius rejected trinity and the nicene council termed him heresy.
Trinity is Tertulian idea.
The early church fathers didn’t interpret the scriptures, they CREATED the scriptures, look up PAULINE EPISTLES.


Can you send me a link to where you are getting these jargons?

Maynnmann:


Arius is not a “bishop”
You don’t even know what “arianism” is, why don’t you research and help yourself?
Arius rejected trinity and the nicene council termed him heresy.
Trinity is Tertulian idea.
The early church fathers didn’t interpret the scriptures, they CREATED the scriptures, look up PAULINE EPISTLES.

i m not talking about or interested in how d pauline epistles or some "controversial" non-pauline epistles are created. I m talking about the series of council meetings held over the centuaries that collectively shapen d bible into what it is today. Wetin concern me with christianity self. Who created pauline epistles or what nut is far from what one would see as the truth here. There is no direct answer that would point one to d fact dat pauline epistles were created by so so and so. Bcuz if you are to tell a christian today that d early church fathers did create d pauline epistles, he would say you are not a believer and U are speaking jargons too

MrCodeSolo:
i m not talking about or interested in how d pauline epistles or some "controversial" non-pauline epistles are created. I m talking about the series of council meetings held over the centuaries that collectively shapen d bible into what it is today. Wetin concern me with christianity self. Who created pauline epistles or what nut is far from what one would see as the truth here. There is no direct answer that would point one to d fact dat pauline epistles were created by so so and so. Bcuz if you are to tell a christian today that d early church fathers did create d pauline epistles, he would say you are not a believer and U are speaking jargons too

Everything you are saying are dumb assumptions, which council shaped the bible, what century? When was the bible fully shaped?
You think they were written and complied and added to canon at the same time?
Heard of codex sinaiticus? Bwahahahah


Post where you are getting all the jargons about bishop, arius, trinity, Constantine and arianism.
Show us where you read that arius popularised trinity
Show where you read Constantine gathered the bishop, was it after or before AGRIPPA called them Chrestian at antioch? Lol

If Christianity doesn’t concern you why are you posting utter trash on it?

Christians work and know within the scriptures and not outside it. this lost book you mentioned was probably thrown away bc it was unnecessary and so is the knowledge anyone can gain from it. God bless you as you stay within his territory

Carcholce:
From the book of Thomas. The lost gospel.

Jesus said, "This heaven will pass away, and the one above it will pass away. The dead are not alive, and the living will not die. In the days when you consumed what is dead, you made it what is alive. When you come to dwell in the light, what will you do? On the day when you were one you became two. But when you become two, what will you do?"



I’ll break it down

1. This heaven will pass away, and the one above it will pass away.

2. The dead are not alive, and the living will not die. In the days when you consumed what is dead, you made it what is alive.

3. When you come to dwell in the light, what will you do?

4. On the day when you were one you became two. But when you become two, what will you do?"


Can someone help? Thank you!

They were not lost book, they just didn’t make it to the Canon, the nicene creed needed books that will fit into Tertulian trinity idea.
You know you are practicing nicene Christianity?

knowingChrist:
Christians work and know within the scriptures and not outside it. this lost book you mentioned was probably thrown away bc it was unnecessary and so is the knowledge anyone can gain from it. God bless you as you stay within his territory

Maynnmann:

Those are the genuine books not the one you have that’s set up by the nicene creed.

You think mark, paul and john wrote those books in the Christian bible lol??

Be calming down. There's a book called Bible. Its spiritual and helpful. Even if it's not what you claim it is, it's indeed the best book ever written, the most generally acceptable, interpreted in diverse languages and most popular ever.
It get why.
Majority of the world ll not just do follow, follow.

Sweetplum:

Be calming down. There's a book called Bible. Its spiritual and helpful. Even if it's not what you claim it is, it's indeed the best book ever written, the most generally acceptable, interpreted in diverse languages and most popular ever.
It get why.
Majority of the world ll not just do follow, follow.

Learn, bible literally mean books.
We have jewish bible called tanakh and Christian bible called new testaments.

It’s the best book to Chrestians. The early church fathers did alot of work of interpolation, forgery and plagiarism.

Codex sinaiticus, the earliest new testaments is the most edited and corrected book in history.
What are they correcting in yahweh spiritual words?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFru-kUzQhM

Maynnmann:


Learn, bible literally mean books.
We have jewish bible called tanakh and Christian bible called new testaments.

It’s the best book to Chrestians. The early church fathers did alot of work of interpolation, forgery and plagiarism.

Codex sinaiticus, the earliest new testaments is the most edited and corrected book in history.
What are they correcting in yahweh spiritual words?

Bros. You are entitled to your opinion.
You aren't as wise as the majority that rated Bible.
Tanakh is same as the Bible. Torah & other Jewish books v similarities with Bible. This should tell you the book is indeed loaded. It's the most freely given out book in history.

Sweetplum:

Bros. You are entitled to your opinion.
You aren't as wise as the majority that rated Bible.
Tanakh is same as the Bible. Torah & other Jewish books v similarities with Bible. This should tell you the book is indeed loaded. It's the most freely given out book in history.

Sometimes the m is silent in masses.

Tanakh is a bible.
Bible LITERALLY means BOOK.
Tanakh is not an English word, the english word for tanakh is JEWISH BIBLE.
Chrestians likes to call the tanakh(jewish bible), the Old Testament.
Learn Chrestian, You are ignorant of your deity, yahweh worshipper.

Maynnmann:


Sometimes the m is silent in masses.

Tanakh is a bible.
Bible LITERALLY means BOOK.
Tanakh is not an English word, the english word for tanakh is JEWISH BIBLE.
Chrestians likes to call the tanakh(jewish bible), the Old Testament.
Learn Chrestian, You are ignorant of your deity, yahweh worshipper.

Ok thanks.

Sweetplum:

Ok thanks.

You are welcome Chrestian.

Maynnmann:


You are welcome Chrestian.

Thank you.

Sweetplum:

Thank you.

You are welcome yahweh worshipper