When is a christian NOT a Christian?

[Marymog]

Considering how so many other passages have the commandment to baptize in the name of Jesus, I tend to think Matthew 28:19 got altered by a later hand. ....

On what evidence do you "tend to think" this?

 

[Philip James]

There is only one physician — of flesh yet spiritual, born yet unbegotten, God incarnate, genuine life in the midst of death, sprung from Mary as well as God, first subject to suffering then beyond it — Jesus Christ our Lord.

Hello Guiliano,
I prefer the lightfoot translatiion,

7:2 There is one only physician, of flesh and of
spirit, generate and ingenerate, God in man, true Life
in death, Son of Mary and Son of God, first passible
and then impassible, Jesus Christ our Lord.

Found here: Ignatius of Antioch to the Ephesians (Lightfoot translation)

Which express that Jesus is both man (generate) and God (ingenerate) .
I see no issue with catholic teaching here...

In the same letter to the Ephesians, he says something else that I doubt the Catholic Church would cite as authoritative:

The last days are here. So let us abase ourselves and stand in awe of God’s patience, lest it turn out to be our condemnation. Either let us fear the wrath to come or let us value the grace we have: one or the other.

670 Since the Ascension God's plan has entered into its fulfilment. We are already at "the last hour"....

No conflict there either... How bout we go through the rest of the letter?

Peace!

 

[Waiting on him]

You don't look to the men who walked and talked with the Apostles?

What men do you look to??

Curious Mary

This may sound radical, but Christ

 

[Giuliano]

It was changed due to new heretical teachings that were dividing the flock. The Church created it therefore they can change it.

Did the Church create it? I thought it was said to be truth as delivered to the Apostles.

They had also said it wasn't to be changed; but a later generation said, "No, we're going to change it." How does that work? Why not point to the original creed and say, "This is what you should believe."

It seems to me then that the first creed accomplished nothing. It was supposed to create unity and now you're saying it didn't? So when more "heresies" popped up because the first creed didn't work, the Church abandoned the version they said should not be changed and created another? I don't see that as preserving the truth delivered to the Apostles. I'd say that's changing what you say depending on what other people say.

What actually divided the Church? I'd say intolerance -- often on full display at the Ecumenical Councils. Too many people wanted to insist they knew more than they did and the people who disagreed with them had to be bad people. The early Ecumenical Councils often led to some group breaking off communion with other groups. If they couldn't win by voting, they'd break away. The Ecumenical Councils created schisms. Both sides would call the other heretics. That spirit of intolerance is still alive in Christianity. It can be observed here.

 

[Waiting on him]

This may sound radical, but Christ

The way I see it is it’s not about me or men, so I try to center every word in scripture around Christ. Anything else would be man centered, or self centered?

 

[Marymog]

Did the Church create it? I thought it was said to be truth as delivered to the Apostles.

They had also said it wasn't to be changed; but a later generation said, "No, we're going to change it." How does that work? Why not point to the original creed and say, "This is what you should believe."

It seems to me then that the first creed accomplished nothing. It was supposed to create unity and now you're saying it didn't? So when more "heresies" popped up because the first creed didn't work, the Church abandoned the version they said should not be changed and created another? I don't see that as preserving the truth delivered to the Apostles. I'd say that's changing what you say depending on what other people say.

What actually divided the Church? I'd say intolerance -- often on full display at the Ecumenical Councils. Too many people wanted to insist they knew more than they did and the people who disagreed with them had to be bad people. The early Ecumenical Councils often led to some group breaking off communion with other groups. If they couldn't win by voting, they'd break away. The Ecumenical Councils created schisms. Both sides would call the other heretics. That spirit of intolerance is still alive in Christianity. It can be observed here.

Hi Giuliano,

The Apostles were The Church sooooo it was, as tradition alludes to, delivered by the Apostles. They handed that authority and word of mouth tradition (2 Thes. 2:15) down to other men who handed it down to other men.....Just like Scripture says in 2 Timothy 2:2. Those men maintained the sound doctrine taught by the Apostles. 2 Timothy 1:13 and Luke 1:4 are some good starting points for your research on the matter.

You asked what actually divided the Church(?). It was heretical men that taught opposite of Scripture and the teachings of the Apostles that divided The Church. They did it by tickling of mens ears......Just like Scripture says in 2 Timothy 4:3

Where are you observing intolerance "here"?

Curious Mary

 

[Giuliano]

Hello Guiliano,
I prefer the lightfoot translatiion,

7:2 There is one only physician, of flesh and of
spirit, generate and ingenerate, God in man, true Life
in death, Son of Mary and Son of God, first passible
and then impassible, Jesus Christ our Lord.

Found here: Ignatius of Antioch to the Ephesians (Lightfoot translation)

I don't understand that translation either.

Which express that Jesus is both man (generate) and God (ingenerate) .
I see no issue with catholic teaching here...

It may not conflict with Catholic teaching, but such contradictions seem impossible to me. I can believe God can dwell in men, but I don't think that makes those people God. I find the following easier to understand and believe:

Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

I believe that and I don't believe any future revelation would contradict it.

670 Since the Ascension God's plan has entered into its fulfilment. We are already at "the last hour"....

He said last days and talked about the "wrath to come" in a way that reminded me of people today who keep predicting disasters because they believe we're in the "last days."

No conflict there either... How bout we go through the rest of the letter?

Peace!

Thanks for the offer, but I'd rather not. Perhaps another time. You could also start a thread on it to see if someone else is interested.

 

[Giuliano]

Soooo it was the Council of Chalcedon that that you were referring to.

That council was proclaimed ecumenical which is opposite of what you said.....;)

Council of Chalcedon - Wikipedia

Council of Chalcedon

Historical Mary

Please read me more closely. The Second Council of Ephesus was not approved by Rome; the Pope's representative walked out and said it was not. That was the council Flavian was beaten at. Then a new council was convened, trying again to resolve the conflicts. It was this Council of Chalcedon that evidence from the Second Council of Ephesus was read. (That is the reason the Council of Chalcedon is mentioned in that article.) The Pope's representative did not walk out at Chalcedon, and it was approved as ecumenical by Rome.

After the Council of Chalcedon, Flavian's body was found and given a honorable burial.

Second Council of Ephesus - Wikipedia

Flavian was deported into exile and died from his wounds a few days later in Lydia. His body was buried in obscurity. It was not until Flavius Marcianus called the Council of Chalcedon that Flavian's body was buried with honour in Constantinople.

 

[Philip James]

It may not conflict with Catholic teaching, but such contradictions seem impossible to me.

Many have found the mystery of the Incarnation hard to understand, and yet the Church has proclamied this Truth for 2000 years!

Immanuel! God with us!
Alleluia!

Thanks for the offer, but I'd rather not. Perhaps another time

As you wish,

Peace be with you!

 

[Waiting on him]

A Christian is not a Christian, when their declaration is a man and not of Christ.

 

[GodsGrace]

I know many people read it that way; but if that is right, the "we" would not include him or the people he was writing to. Can we read that today and it thinks us today but it didn't mean the people Paul was writing to?
Yes, and he uses "we" the same way.

1 Thessalonians 4:15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.
16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
18 Wherefore comfort one another with these words.

Can you see that Jesus came for Stephen and John? Jesus also said:

Matthew 16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

He told Caiaphas that he would see him.

Matthew 26:64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

think it is rare, but it can happen when someone's body is still alive.
For the most part, yes; but I believe someone can be changed before their body dies.

Matthew contains two passages which seem to contradict each other. Up on the mountain, in the sermon on the mount speaking with his disciples, Jesus said:

Matthew 7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

Then coming down from the mountain, he encounters a Roman whose faith sparks a comment:

8:1 When he was come down from the mountain, great multitudes followed him.
. . .
8 The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof: but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed.
9 For I am a man under authority, having soldiers under me: and I say to this man, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it.
10 When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.
11 And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.

I can't believe Jesus forgot what he said so shortly before on the mountain; but "few" are going to do it the hard way. Still many will enter the kingdom.

As you must surely know, the people of that time were expecting Jesus to return imminently.
When He didn't return by about the year 100, well past the destruction of Jerusalem in 70,
some of what Jesus said had to become to be understood in a different way.

I don't know what you mean by somebody's body being able to be changed before they die.
The body gets older.

The soul and the spirit change.

 

[Giuliano]

Hi Giuliano,

The Apostles were The Church sooooo it was, as tradition alludes to, delivered by the Apostles.

I'd use another preposition first, "unto".

Jude 1:3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

I read that to mean it was delivered once to them and they were to pass it down to others as you later state below. The Apostles did not invent it themselves. It was delivered to them.

They handed that authority and word of mouth tradition (2 Thes. 2:15) down to other men who handed it down to other men.....Just like Scripture says in 2 Timothy 2:2. Those men maintained the sound doctrine taught by the Apostles. 2 Timothy 1:13 and Luke 1:4 are some good starting points for your research on the matter.

It is obvious that someone failed to pass things down that way.

You asked

what actually divided the Church(?). It was heretical men that taught opposite of Scripture and the teachings of the Apostles that divided The Church. They did it by tickling of mens ears......Just like Scripture says in 2 Timothy 4:3

And we see the same thing going on in the early Church when the Council of Nicea was convened. How could there have been heretical clergy if they had all been ordained and instructed properly?

People formed parties, the way they form political parties today. They used words and ideas to divide people and to increase their own power.

Where are you observing intolerance "here"?

Curious Mary

Not in this thread, thank goodness. It can be found here and there in the forum. Surely you've seen it. Such behavior is to be expected, I guess. I trust the moderators will clamp if they think someone has gone too far.

 

[Grailhunter]

I had to break my post into parts since it was too long.
First and most importantly to me, He said he had seen what he spoke about. Second, his statement itself says he, as Son of Man, came down from Heaven -- and also is in Heaven.

I tend to believe many Christians also already have a foot in Heaven but lack awareness of it in their daily lives as men on earth. It can be true without people knowing it in their daily type of awareness.

Ephesians 2:6 6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:

There are also spiritual problems in "high places" which need correcting. These could be called "spiritual sins." I believe the Catholic Church makes a distinction between spiritual sins and other types. I cannot judge my fellow Christians on this since I believe we first have to deal with carnal and earthly sins; if we do that, then we begin to see the spiritual ones so we can repent of them. Think of when the Bible says Satan shows up -- in person -- and you will find he's accusing or testing one of the saints. This is all to the Glory of God because God does not allow this test unless He knows the saint can pass the test. When Satan accused Joshua the High Priest, he happened to be right. Joshua did have dirty garments. The matter got resolved easily enough -- the text does not say it, but Joshua repented of a certain sin -- and then he could be given clean garments. The Jews say his sin was allowing his sons to marry inappropriately. He corrected it.

Any saint who reaches a certain level should not be surprised by this test; and Satan is cast out of heaven because of it. Every saint who does this is removing a foothold for Satan in heaven. The person who still has spiritual problems is unknowingly giving Satan a place to stand in heaven. Part of the "spiritual wickedness in high places" Paul wrote about in Ephesians 6:12 can be our own. Part can also be spiritual wickedness of others, as it was with Jacob and Esau. Perhaps Paul had them in mind since he uses the word "wrestle."

The idea itself is from the Oral Torah or Talmud. I did not accept it at first, so I am not going to be critical or to complain if others don't accept it. One thing seems fairly sure to me is that Jacob did not see God's face in the way Moses asked to. After all, the text says the being showed up as "a man." Some things can be obscured by translation. One thing obscured in that passage is that the same word is used twice in that chapter but almost always translated differently. Christians do not find it hard to believe that Jesus could call angels and get them to do what he wanted. They may find it hard to believe Jacob could. Yet the text certainly suggests that possibility. First the word is translated (in the King James Version) as angels; two verses later, it's rendered messengers.

Genesis 32:And Jacob went on his way, and the angels of God met him.
2 And when Jacob saw them, he said, This is God's host: and he called the name of that place Mahanaim.
3 And Jacob sent messengers before him to Esau his brother unto the land of Seir, the country of Edom.

I suggest Jacob sent angels to go see what was going on. They returned and told him. I think the angels Jacob sent got the attention of Esau's Guardian Angel.

Another factor is why Rebekkah received the prophetic message and not Isaac about their two sons. How does it relate to Adams' fall? We can read about "Edom" without realizing it's written the same way in Hebrew as "Adam" -- only the vowels which are not in the original text are different.

I was very perplexed by this:

Romans 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)
12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.

I asked myself, "How so?" At first glance, Esau looks more righteous than Jacob. What did Esau do that was so wrong? Yet Jacob deceived Isaac. He connived to get Esau's birthright; and it seems too that Esau forgave him, he said he did at any rate, and Jacob promised to meet him in Seir but didn't.

Genesis 33:14 Let my lord, I pray thee, pass over before his servant: and I will lead on softly, according as the cattle that goeth before me and the children be able to endure, until I come unto my lord unto Seir.

Jacob knew better than to trust his fate in Esau's hands at Seir. He was following the rule Jesus talked about later -- about being as wise as serpents and as gentle as doves. "Jacob" did finally get to Seir a few hundred years later.

Deuteronomy 33:2 And he said, The Lord came from Sinai, and rose up from Seir unto them; he shined forth from mount Paran, and he came with ten thousands of saints: from his right hand went a fiery law for them.

The Edomites, as descendants of Esau, were to be protected too even though they were a troublesome lot.

Deuteronomy 2:5 Meddle not with them; for I will not give you of their land, no, not so much as a foot breadth; because I have given mount Seir unto Esau for a possession.

The struggle between Jacob and Esau is a continuing one throughout history, continuing even today. Many of the troubles Israel experienced were caused by the Edomites. Herod the Great by the way was an Edomite, although his family had allegedly converted to Judaism. There is a special antagonism between the Edomites and the tribe of Benjamin that shows up more than once; but this post is getting too long to go into too many details.

What I see in my interpretation is a manifestation of God's Love. The Scriptures may say God "hated" Esau, but that word really means "avoided." God's plan was to save Esau and his descendants even if they had the fallen Adamic nature. For me, if I can't see how a passage in the Bible helps me love God or my fellow man better, I figure I don't have the right take on it yet.

Matthew 22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38 This is the first and great commandment.
39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

I am not even that concerned if parts of the Bible might not be authentic. If there are fake passages, I suppose I wouldn't be able to see God's Love in them. So where there are passages I don't understand, I do not make a firm conclusion and do not base my action on them. Perhaps I am lacking in understanding, perhaps they're not authentic. I don't know. Only when a passage shows me God's Love and makes me love him more or when it shows me how to love my neighbor better do I think I'm probably on the right track.

I asked myself, "How so?" At first glance, Esau looks more righteous than Jacob. What did Esau do that was so wrong? Yet Jacob deceived Isaac. He connived to get Esau's birthright; and it seems too that Esau forgave him, he said he did at any rate, and Jacob promised to meet him in Seir but didn't.

Do you know of a source or tradition that would cause God to hate Esau. That is drastic. I think that we are missing something for God to single out one person and keep mentioning it, and then seem to favor Jacob. The writers of the Bible pretty much had to do a tap dance to keep Jacob from looking like a complete scumbag. He was lazy, he did non work for what he had, he used deceit and trickery to get what he wanted, and that was against his own brother. He hanged with witches etc. I have not seen anything that would explain this.

 

[Waiting on him]

I asked myself, "How so?" At first glance, Esau looks more righteous than Jacob. What did Esau do that was so wrong? Yet Jacob deceived Isaac. He connived to get Esau's birthright; and it seems too that Esau forgave him, he said he did at any rate, and Jacob promised to meet him in Seir but didn't.

Do you know of a source or tradition that would cause God to hate Esau. That is drastic. I think that we are missing something for God to single out one person and keep mentioning it, and then seem to favor Jacob. The writers of the Bible pretty much had to do a tap dance to keep Jacob from looking like a complete scumbag. He was lazy, he did non work for what he had, he used deceit and trickery to get what he wanted, and that was against his own brother. He hanged with witches etc. I have not seen anything that would explain this.

Quite a scandal

 

[Giuliano]

As you must surely know, the people of that time were expecting Jesus to return imminently.
When He didn't return by about the year 100, well past the destruction of Jerusalem in 70,
some of what Jesus said had to become to be understood in a different way.

I remember the minister in my church at the time reading a passage and then saying that the disciples expected Jesus to return then, but they were mistaken. I realized as a child, my minister couldn't be right. I think I could produce twenty or more passages that say his coming was imminent. If he didn't come then as he said and as his disciples said, there is not much reason to believe other things in the New Testament. What people may have missed is that the kingdom does not come by observation.

Luke 17:20 And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:

Hebrews 9:28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

I don't know what you mean by somebody's body being able to be changed before they day.
The body gets older.

The soul and the spirit change.

The very atoms of the body are changed. This is not discernible to mortal eyes. The Christian is being changed daily; but there can also be a moment when the the process is completed. Again, this is not discernible to mortal eyes. Jesus' transfigured body didn't look changed to anyone except Peter, James and John and then only for a time. The word translated as "transfigured" twice occurs two other times.

Rom 12:2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

2Co 3:18 But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.

There will come a time when the glory God has imparted to His saints is revealed although it remains concealed for now.

Daniel 12:3 And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever.

Matthew 13:43 Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

What may seem incredible is that the glory of God can be hidden like that. The following doesn't say that directly, I infer it:

Proverbs 25:2 It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.

Then this said at the consecration of the Temple:

2 Chronicles 6:1 Then said Solomon, The Lord hath said that he would dwell in the thick darkness.

How so if God is Light and all Light?

7:1 Now when Solomon had made an end of praying, the fire came down from heaven, and consumed the burnt offering and the sacrifices; and the glory of the Lord filled the house.

People say light was "created" on Day 1 in Genesis; but the text does not say that. It was already there, concealed. The potential for light was there, waiting to be called forth -- by the Word. It does not say God created light on Day 1.

Genesis 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

It was made or called forth on Day 1.

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

We can also learn from science since we now know that physical matter can be changed into physical light. There is a further step: Matter can be changed into spiritual Light and form spiritual bodies which are made of Light. It confounds the imagination, I admit.

Even wonder how Jesus could walk on the water in his physical body? The fact that he could do that tells me he had already converted much of his physical body into Light. He could make his body lighter or heavier at will by changing how it manifested -- as physical matter or as Spiritual Light.
There was a saint, I forget his name, who used to levitate when he prayed or praised God; but he hadn't mastered the ability to keep it on the ground around other people, and it caused him some embarrassment.

 

[Waiting on him]

Psalm 19:1-8 KJV
[1] The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. [2] Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. [3] There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard. [4] Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun, [5] Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race. [6] His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof. [7] The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple. [8] The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes.

In them hath he set a tabernacle.
Tecarta Bible

 

[Waiting on him]

I asked myself, "How so?" At first glance, Esau looks more righteous than Jacob. What did Esau do that was so wrong? Yet Jacob deceived Isaac. He connived to get Esau's birthright; and it seems too that Esau forgave him, he said he did at any rate, and Jacob promised to meet him in Seir but didn't.

Do you know of a source or tradition that would cause God to hate Esau. That is drastic. I think that we are missing something for God to single out one person and keep mentioning it, and then seem to favor Jacob. The writers of the Bible pretty much had to do a tap dance to keep Jacob from looking like a complete scumbag. He was lazy, he did non work for what he had, he used deceit and trickery to get what he wanted, and that was against his own brother. He hanged with witches etc. I have not seen anything that would explain this.

1 Corinthians 1:26-29 KJV
[26] For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called : [27] But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; [28] And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: [29] That no flesh should glory in his presence.


Tecarta Bible
1 Corinthians 4:13 KJV
[13] Being defamed, we intreat: we are made as the filth of the world, and are the offscouring of all things unto this day.


Tecarta Bible

 

[Giuliano]

Do you know of a source or tradition that would cause God to hate Esau. That is drastic. I think that we are missing something for God to single out one person and keep mentioning it, and then seem to favor Jacob. The writers of the Bible pretty much had to do a tap dance to keep Jacob from looking like a complete scumbag. He was lazy, he did non work for what he had, he used deceit and trickery to get what he wanted, and that was against his own brother. He hanged with witches etc. I have not seen anything that would explain this.

I begin by insisting there must be a message of love in it. God knew Jacob before he was born. Jacob knew God before he was born. Esau had not yet come to know God, and that was the problem especially since the birthright was his. Jacob could not get Esau to come to know God unless he had spiritual authority over him; and Esau had that spiritual authority. So to save him and his descendants, Jacob had to supplant him so he could exercise proper spiritual authority.

Esau did look like the better son. The Jews say he fooled Isaac by asking all the right questions, leading Isaac to think he was devout. He did not fool Rebekkah. Rebekkah can be said to reverse some of the harm done when Eve was fooled by the serpent. Rebekkah was not fooled by the pleasant exterior Esau had. Jacob looked worse, but appearances can be deceiving. . . . Jacob did his job and supplanted Esau's spiritual authority, thus making it possible for God's authority to be exerted.

As for Jacob living with Laban? Laban was desperately wicked. He tried several things to prevent Jacob from returning to the Land of Promise. He had Jacob marry sisters. Although Moses hadn't said it was wrong yet, Laban knew it would be was a source of trouble. Finally Rachel did some theft too, stealing her father's idols when they left. She did not steal them to worship them -- please do not think that. She did it so her father wouldn't have them. He was using them to do black magic, so stealing them weakened him. Part of Laban's strength had been inherited by his daughters too; and that strength got introduced into Israel and purified.

Sometimes it takes a little trickery to get things done. If all authority was ordained by God, what happens if they are abusive and wicked? They get replaced. Little did Pilate know that he was handing over Rome's authority to Jesus when he violated the terms anyone in authority is held too. He knew Jesus was innocent and still condemned him. (Pharaoh had done something similar when ordering children to be killed. He lost his God-given right to rule when he did that and again when he refused to allow religious freedom in his kingdom.) The soldiers who crucified him did not know what they were doing; but when they stole Jesus' clothes, that also gave Jesus authority over them. Those clothes would have been like Elijah's mantle in a way. Those soldiers "sold" their birthright (so to speak) for some clothes.

Some make an association the Romans with the Edomites. Several Jewish authors called Rome Edom.

EDOX, IDUMEA - JewishEncyclopedia.com

The name "Edom" is used by the Talmudists for the Roman empire, and they applied to Rome every passage of the Bible referring to Edom or to Esau. In Leviticus Rabbah (xiii.) Rome, under the name of "Edom," is compared to a boar, and the symbolic name "Seir" was used by the poets of the Middle Ages not only for Rome (comp. Ecclus. 1. 26, Hebr.), but also for Christianity (Zunz, "Literaturgesch." p. 620). On this account the word "Edom" was often expunged by the censor and another name substituted (Popper, "Censorship of Hebrew Books," p. 58). In place of "Edom," the word "Ḥazir" (swine) was occasionally used, perhaps as a mere term of reproach (but see Epstein, "Beiträge zur Jüd. Alterthumskunde," p. 35). In Midrash Tanḥuma Bereshit, Hadrian is called "the King of Edom." The Talmudists, however, made an exception in favor of Antoninus Pius, whom they assured would attain paradise, because he had not acted in the manner of Esau ('Ab. Zarah 10b). 'Abodah Zarah 10a, however, explaining Obadiah, verse 2, says that Edom had neither written nor spoken language. This is inconsistent with its application to Rome.

I think Rome had a connection with the Edomites and see the conversion of Rome from paganism to Christianity as part of the continuing struggle between Israel and Edom with God's advancing. At any rate, the Edomites would have been "pink people" since the words means "red."

 

[Marymog]

Please read me more closely. The Second Council of Ephesus was not approved by Rome; the Pope's representative walked out and said it was not. That was the council Flavian was beaten at. Then a new council was convened, trying again to resolve the conflicts. It was this Council of Chalcedon that evidence from the Second Council of Ephesus was read. (That is the reason the Council of Chalcedon is mentioned in that article.) The Pope's representative did not walk out at Chalcedon, and it was approved as ecumenical by Rome.

After the Council of Chalcedon, Flavian's body was found and given a honorable burial.

Second Council of Ephesus - Wikipedia

Flavian was deported into exile and died from his wounds a few days later in Lydia. His body was buried in obscurity. It was not until Flavius Marcianus called the Council of Chalcedon that Flavian's body was buried with honour in Constantinople.

Got it......I sincerely apologize. Your first post on the matter left me with the impression that you thought he was killed at the Council of Chalcedon. I see now you do not believe that.

Sincerely....Mary

 

[Philip James]

I asked myself, "How so?" At first glance, Esau looks more righteous than Jacob. What did Esau do that was so wrong?

He sold his eternal birthright for a bowl of porrige.

God honours contracts!

Peace!