When is a christian NOT a Christian?

Waiting on him said:

Never met any of these men, but I’m sure none of them were crucified for me.

Click to expand...

They are the shoulders of the men you stand on.

They were students of the Apostles sooooooo who's writings of interpretations of Scripture has more credibility? Yours? Calvin's? Luther's?

Curious Mary

PS....who are you a student of?

brakelite said:

No, the church was doing no such thing......

Click to expand...

You OBVIOUSLY don't know your own Christian history and Scripture (Acts 2:45, Hebrews 13:16, Romans 12:20, Luke 3:10-11, 1 John 3:16-17) .......

GodsGrace said:

I agree with post no. 536

I've never studied this verse so deeply and the reason why I wouldn't is precisely because we can't be certain of the exact wording of the conversation or even of the situation at hand.
John is making a point....
I do believe this is all we can know for sure.

Click to expand...

John had other things to say.

John 21:21 Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do?
22 Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me.
23 Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?
24 This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.

Paul writes about hearing the trump and being caught up in the air. That being said, consider this:

Revelation 1:10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet,

And then:

Revelation 4:1 After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter.
2 And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne.

What he describes then is very similar to what Ezekiel did. I would say John is describing his born again experience, his change, there. Compare that to what Paul wrote:

1 Corinthians 15:51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.

I cannot read that "we" to mean only a later generation. It was written to people then. Most people do "sleep" before they experience this change, but some do not. I could name some saints I think showed evidence that they had been changed. Padre Pio comes to mind as does St. Francis of Asissi. But few indeed find that way.

The seventh or last trump is not completely unknown even now. Some people hear it at low volume and at that volume, they are not changed completely. It is heard as a profound silence. I don't know how else to describe it except as a "deafening silence." The person can still hear the earthly sounds around him, but they sound far off and almost unreal. He will also experience a profound peace. I think many people have experienced it without knowing what it was.

To the sinner, this trump is threatening. It makes a very loud noise -- it's like a musical note that threatens to shatter an object. When this trump sounded at Sinai, the people didn't want to hear it. They asked Moses to go off to talk with God. The people could discern ten sayings in the Voice of God; but Moses understood it all.

I think it is always there, but usually at low volume. At Sinai, it kept getting louder.

Exodus 19:19 And when the voice of the trumpet sounded long, and waxed louder and louder, Moses spake, and God answered him by a voice.

Revelation 10:7 But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets.

David wrote of why Israel did not enter into the eternal rest:

Psalm 95:7 . . . To day if ye will hear his voice,
8 Harden not your heart, as in the provocation, and as in the day of temptation in the wilderness:
. . .
10 Forty years long was I grieved with this generation, and said, It is a people that do err in their heart, and they have not known my ways:
11 Unto whom I sware in my wrath that they should not enter into my rest.

Today is always the day of salvation. The same period of 40 years shows up after Jesus' message. The end of the age was near. Some would hear the Voice from Heaven and soften their hearts and others would not.

Revelation 14:6 And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,

I believe all seven trumps are around all the time, but at low volume. The world is sustained thus. It would collapse otherwise. As they get louder, things that are not in line with Heaven begin to crumble.

If someone has not experienced awareness from outside his body, he may find it difficult to fathom how it would be. One needs to experience what is flesh and what is spirit by having the two separated, at least temporarily.

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

It is called the Word of God there, elsewhere others get more specific and refer to it as the last trump or the seventh trump. All seven trumps must be allowed to do their work. Thus "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."

My explanations also explain why John said those born of God do not sin. Those born of the Spirit do not. Those who are born of water can; but after their souls are made immortal, they are changed and do not sin.

Giuliano said:

If we read the history of the early Church, we also find that the ideas in the Nicene Creed were extremely controversial at first. I don't assume they knew much for sure. Indeed I know they didn't since the first version was adopted in 325 AD and then altered in 381 AD. What's remarkable about the 381 AD version is that it claimed to be the same version as the original.

Nicene Creed - Wikipedia

The third Ecumenical Council (Council of Ephesus of 431) reaffirmed the original 325 version of the Nicene Creed and declared that "it is unlawful for any man to bring forward, or to write, or to compose a different (ἑτέραν) faith as a rival to that established by the holy Fathers assembled with the Holy Ghost in Nicaea" (i.e., the 325 creed).

That makes no sense at all since their version was not the same as the original. If the Council of Nicea had settled things, why did they need to revisit the subject and revise the Nicene Creed?

Click to expand...

Hi Giuliano,

The rest of the paragraph, of which you left out, puts it all in context: The word ἑτέραν is more accurately translated as used by the Council to mean "different", "contradictory", rather than "another". This statement has been interpreted as a prohibition against changing this creed or composing others, but not all accept this interpretation. This question is connected with the controversy whether a creed proclaimed by an Ecumenical Council is definitive in excluding not only excisions from its text but also additions to it.

Hope this helps @brakelite @Grailhunter and @amadeus better understand the context of your post.....Mary

'I am not skilled to understand
What God has willed
What God has planned
I only know, at His right hand
Stands One Who is my Saviour.'

Praise God!

'The entrance of Thy words giveth light;
it giveth understanding unto the simple.'
(Psalm 119:130)

'Then again called they the man that was blind,
and said unto him,
He answered and said,
(John 9:24-25)

'I know that my Redeemer liveth.'

In Christ Jesus
Chris

Giuliano said:

I don't happen to be a Trinitarian; but I find how the idea arose interesting......

Click to expand...

Hello,

The "idea" of the Trinity is based on Scripture such as Matthew 28:19, 2 Cor. 13:14 and Heb. 9:14

But lets pretend the Trinity is not CLEAR in Scripture and go with your theory: The original Greek version of the concept uses the word personae which means in Greek what it means in English -- a persona was also like a mask actors in plays used -- ......Catholic theologians began teaching that personae meant persons.

Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, Tertullian and Irenaeus alluded to the Trinity. Were they Catholic theologians that began teaching that personae meant persons?

Curious Mary

PS.....Are you self taught or are you parroting someone else's teachings???

Grailhunter said:

For a religion that hinges on every word and their meaning, they sure have played a shell game with words and meanings. People think I am trying to confuse them when I say that any significant doctrine or scripture should be taken back to its original language and how that word was applied in that culture. Good job.

Click to expand...

Have you an example of how the CC has not complied with your "original language" criteria?

Mary

Marymog said:

They are the shoulders of the men you stand on.

There were students of the Apostles sooooooo who's writings of interpretations of Scripture has more credibility? Yours? Calvin's? Luther's?

Curious Mary

PS....who are you a student of?

Click to expand...

Marymog said:

a persona was also like a mask actors in plays used -- ......Catholic theologians began teaching that personae meant persons.

Click to expand...

Greek: ὑποκριτής
Transliteration: hupokritēs
Pronunciation: hoop-ok-ree-tace'
Definition: From G5271; an actor under an assumed character (stage player) that is (figuratively) a dissembler (hypocrite): - hypocrite.

Giuliano said:

Have you heard of the council where one Bishop got beaten so badly, he died later? At least that council wasn't proclaimed ecumenical.

Click to expand...

Are you talking about the Council of Chalcedon?

Historical Mary

Hmmmm.....not sure what you mean but I guess you know what you mean....

Marymog said:

Hi Giuliano,

The rest of the paragraph, of which you left out, puts it all in context: The word ἑτέραν is more accurately translated as used by the Council to mean "different", "contradictory", rather than "another". This statement has been interpreted as a prohibition against changing this creed or composing others, but not all accept this interpretation. This question is connected with the controversy whether a creed proclaimed by an Ecumenical Council is definitive in excluding not only excisions from its text but also additions to it.

Hope this helps @brakelite @Grailhunter and @amadeus better understand the context of your post.....Mary

Click to expand...

What does seem certain is that we now have "rivals" to the Creed composed at Nicea. It was confusing enough to have the Council of Ephesus revise it ; but the Catholic Church then revised it on their own adding a word, creating division between them and the Orthodox Church. They're still in conflict. Was it worth it?

The sense of it seems clear to me. The Bishops worked out a Creed and said, "This is what we agree to -- don't try to change it." But then people who wanted to change it managed to change it.

We see the Catholic Church creating more disagreement by altering the calendar without consulting anyone else. The Council of Nicea said that for the sake of unity, all Christians should adopt the calendar used by Rome so everyone celebrated Easter at the same time. That worked fine until a Pope on his own changed the calendar. Now we're back to people disagreeing.

Nicea also said people should pray standing. If you read the Bible, you find most of the people praying are standing to show respect. The Catholic Church on its own introduced pews and had people sitting. This also remains a point of disagreement and division.

Why have Ecumenical Councils to decide anything if a Pope has the right or authority to decide them by himself? Time and time again, we see Ecumenical Councils trying to work out solutions so everyone agreed only to have the agreements broken later. No one seemed to take what these councils said too seriously. The Council of Nicea said there were three Patriarchies. Later when the Emperor in in the east wanted one under his influence, he got it, so the Patriarchy of Constantinople got created with more animosity and confusion ensuing. Constantinople then claimed the same Apostolic authority as Rome. The more things changed, the more the church leaders claimed the current versions were what was once delivered to the Apostles. You can't add or subtract words to a document and then say you didn't change its meaning. It is different when you changed it.

Marymog said:

Are you talking about the Council of Chalcedon?

Historical Mary

Click to expand...

It was the Second Council of Ephesus. It was intended to an Ecumenical Council, but things went seriously wrong. They were still arguing over the Nature of Christ. Flavian the Archbishop of Constantinople was the person who died after being beaten severely.

Second Council of Ephesus - Wikipedia

Evidence given at the ecumenical Council of Chalcedon contradicts the account in the acts of the final scene of the session. It was reported that secretaries of the bishops had been violently prevented from taking notes and it was declared that both Barsumas and Dioscorus struck Flavian. It was further reported that many bishops threw themselves on their knees to beg Dioscorus for mercy to Flavian and also Alexandrine Parabolani, that some signed a blank paper, and that others did not sign at all, the names being afterwards filled in of all who were actually present.

The papal legate Hilarius uttered a single word in Latin, "Contradicitur", annulling the sentence in Leo's name. He then escaped with difficulty. Flavian and Eusebius of Dorylaeum appealed to the pope, and their letters, only lately discovered, were probably taken by Hilarus to Rome, which he reached by a devious route.

It was said Dioscorus had previously gathered 1000 monks, telling them to wait outside the church during the council and to come when he called them. When Dioscorus began to read the sentence of condemnation against Flavian and Eusebius, some bishops went up to Dioscorus, asking him not to. Dioscorus called the guards, and the 1000 monks who were waiting outside with some soldiers came in and charged at Flavian and his followers. Flavian ran to the altar and grabbed hold of it for his life. The soldiers and monks forcefully took him from the altar beating him, kicking him and then whipping him.

Flavian was deported into exile and died from his wounds a few days later in Lydia.

Marymog said:

Hmmmm.....not sure what you mean but I guess you know what you mean....

Click to expand...

Just thought it interesting, you ask who’s shoulders I’m standing on. I look to these men you mentioned for nothing, then you post the Catholics(RCC) came up with the the idea of being actors(hypocrites) if I were you I’d be more concerned about who’s giving you the piggyback ride?

Revelation 17:3-4 KJV
[3] So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns. [4] And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:


Tecarta Bible

Marymog said:

Hello,

The "idea" of the Trinity is based on Scripture such as Matthew 28:19, 2 Cor. 13:14 and Heb. 9:14

Click to expand...

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.

2 Corinthians 13:14 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen.

I see God mentioned once there. I also see three manifestations, but not three persons.

Hebrews 9:14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

Again I see one God mentioned.

But lets pretend the Trinity is not CLEAR in Scripture and go with your theory: The original Greek version of the concept uses the word personae which means in Greek what it means in English -- a persona was also like a mask actors in plays used -- ......Catholic theologians began teaching that personae meant persons.

Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, Tertullian and Irenaeus alluded to the Trinity. Were they Catholic theologians that began teaching that personae meant persons?

Click to expand...

I don't know who introduced the change. Right now, I do know that Tertullian was the first to use the word "Trinity" and he taught things some of which the Catholic Church rejected later. From what I can discern, he saw two "persons" as being God, with the Son not being eternal.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Tertullian

His Trinitarian teaching is inconsistent, being an amalgamation of the Roman doctrine with that of St. Justin Martyr. Tertullian has the true formula for the Holy Trinity, tres Personae, una Substantia. The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are numerically distinct, and each is God; they are of one substance, one state, and one power. So far the doctrine is accurately Nicene. But by the side of this appears the Greek view which was one day to develop into Arianism: that the unity is to be sought not in the Essence but in the origin of the Persons. He says that from all eternity there was reason (ratio) in God, and in reason the Word (Sermo), not distinct from God, but in vulva cordis. For the purpose of creation the Word received a perfect birth as Son. There was a time when there was no Son and no sin, when God was neither Father nor Judge.

I agree with him that the Son (as the Word) was once with God and was God. He then emanated. I disagree with him slightly on other points.

However you want to read Tertullian, it shows one thing for sure. He lived in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, and he did not have the idea of the Trinity that the Council of Nicea had later. The idea of the Trinity evolved over time. If it had always been known, why did Tertullian have a defective view?

I do not know how to read Ignatius of Antioch.

https://www.orderofstignatius.org/files/Letters/Ignatius_to_Ephesians.pdf

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.

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.

What I see is that the people in the early church appear as confused as people today.

PS.....Are you self taught or are you parroting someone else's teachings???

Click to expand...

Neither.

Giuliano said:

John had other things to say.

John 21:21 Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do?
22 Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me.
23 Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?
24 This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.

Paul writes about hearing the trump and being caught up in the air. That being said, consider this:

Revelation 1:10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet,

And then:

Revelation 4:1 After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter.
2 And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne.

What he describes then is very similar to what Ezekiel did. I would say John is describing his born again experience, his change, there. Compare that to what Paul wrote:

1 Corinthians 15:51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.

I cannot read that "we" to mean only a later generation. It was written to people then. Most people do "sleep" before they experience this change, but some do not. I could name some saints I think showed evidence that they had been changed. Padre Pio comes to mind as does St. Francis of Asissi. But few indeed find that way.

Click to expand...

1 Corinthians 15:51
We shall not all sleep is referring to a future event.
When Jesus returns SOME WILL BE SLEEPING/DEAD
Some will NOT be dead but they will be alive.

At that moment we will be changed instantly....
first the dead and then those still living will meet in the air.

Our mortal bodies will become immortal/incorruptable bodies.

The seventh or last trump is not completely unknown even now. Some people hear it at low volume and at that volume, they are not changed completely. It is heard as a profound silence. I don't know how else to describe it except as a "deafening silence." The person can still hear the earthly sounds around him, but they sound far off and almost unreal. He will also experience a profound peace. I think many people have experienced it without knowing what it was.

To the sinner, this trump is threatening. It makes a very loud noise -- it's like a musical note that threatens to shatter an object. When this trump sounded at Sinai, the people didn't want to hear it. They asked Moses to go off to talk with God. The people could discern ten sayings in the Voice of God; but Moses understood it all.

I think it is always there, but usually at low volume. At Sinai, it kept getting louder.

Exodus 19:19 And when the voice of the trumpet sounded long, and waxed louder and louder, Moses spake, and God answered him by a voice.

Revelation 10:7 But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets.

David wrote of why Israel did not enter into the eternal rest:

Psalm 95:7 . . . To day if ye will hear his voice,
8 Harden not your heart, as in the provocation, and as in the day of temptation in the wilderness:
. . .
10 Forty years long was I grieved with this generation, and said, It is a people that do err in their heart, and they have not known my ways:
11 Unto whom I sware in my wrath that they should not enter into my rest.

Today is always the day of salvation. The same period of 40 years shows up after Jesus' message. The end of the age was near. Some would hear the Voice from Heaven and soften their hearts and others would not.

Revelation 14:6 And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,

I believe all seven trumps are around all the time, but at low volume. The world is sustained thus. It would collapse otherwise. As they get louder, things that are not in line with Heaven begin to crumble.

If someone has not experienced awareness from outside his body, he may find it difficult to fathom how it would be. One needs to experience what is flesh and what is spirit by having the two separated, at least temporarily.

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

It is called the Word of God there, elsewhere others get more specific and refer to it as the last trump or the seventh trump. All seven trumps must be allowed to do their work. Thus "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."

My explanations also explain why John said those born of God do not sin. Those born of the Spirit do not. Those who are born of water can; but after their souls are made immortal, they are changed and do not sin.

Click to expand...

I don't know too much about eschatology so I cannot reply to the rest about the trumpet.
Your last paragraph is very interesting.

You think when John is speaking about THOSE BORN OF GOD...
he's referring to persons already dead and in heaven?

GodsGrace said:

1 Corinthians 15:51
We shall not all sleep is referring to a future event.
When Jesus returns SOME WILL BE SLEEPING/DEAD
Some will NOT be dead but they will be alive.

Click to expand...

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?

At that moment we will be changed instantly....
first the dead and then those still living will meet in the air.

Click to expand...

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.

Our mortal bodies will become immortal/incorruptable bodies.

Click to expand...

think it is rare, but it can happen when someone's body is still alive.

You think when John is speaking about THOSE BORN OF GOD...
he's referring to persons already dead and in heaven?

Click to expand...

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.

Giuliano said:

What does seem certain is that we now have "rivals" to the Creed composed at Nicea. It was confusing enough to have the Council of Ephesus revise it ; but the Catholic Church then revised it on their own adding a word, creating division between them and the Orthodox Church. They're still in conflict. Was it worth it?

The sense of it seems clear to me. The Bishops worked out a Creed and said, "This is what we agree to -- don't try to change it." But then people who wanted to change it managed to change it.

We see the Catholic Church creating more disagreement by altering the calendar without consulting anyone else. The Council of Nicea said that for the sake of unity, all Christians should adopt the calendar used by Rome so everyone celebrated Easter at the same time. That worked fine until a Pope on his own changed the calendar. Now we're back to people disagreeing.

Nicea also said people should pray standing. If you read the Bible, you find most of the people praying are standing to show respect. The Catholic Church on its own introduced pews and had people sitting. This also remains a point of disagreement and division.

Why have Ecumenical Councils to decide anything if a Pope has the right or authority to decide them by himself? Time and time again, we see Ecumenical Councils trying to work out solutions so everyone agreed only to have the agreements broken later. No one seemed to take what these councils said too seriously. The Council of Nicea said there were three Patriarchies. Later when the Emperor in in the east wanted one under his influence, he got it, so the Patriarchy of Constantinople got created with more animosity and confusion ensuing. Constantinople then claimed the same Apostolic authority as Rome. The more things changed, the more the church leaders claimed the current versions were what was once delivered to the Apostles. You can't add or subtract words to a document and then say you didn't change its meaning. It is different when you changed it.

Click to expand...

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

Giuliano said:

It was the Second Council of Ephesus. It was intended to an Ecumenical Council, but things went seriously wrong. They were still arguing over the Nature of Christ. Flavian the Archbishop of Constantinople was the person who died after being beaten severely.

Second Council of Ephesus - Wikipedia

Evidence given at the ecumenical Council of Chalcedon contradicts the account in the acts of the final scene of the session. It was reported that secretaries of the bishops had been violently prevented from taking notes and it was declared that both Barsumas and Dioscorus struck Flavian. It was further reported that many bishops threw themselves on their knees to beg Dioscorus for mercy to Flavian and also Alexandrine Parabolani, that some signed a blank paper, and that others did not sign at all, the names being afterwards filled in of all who were actually present.

The papal legate Hilarius uttered a single word in Latin, "Contradicitur", annulling the sentence in Leo's name. He then escaped with difficulty. Flavian and Eusebius of Dorylaeum appealed to the pope, and their letters, only lately discovered, were probably taken by Hilarus to Rome, which he reached by a devious route.

It was said Dioscorus had previously gathered 1000 monks, telling them to wait outside the church during the council and to come when he called them. When Dioscorus began to read the sentence of condemnation against Flavian and Eusebius, some bishops went up to Dioscorus, asking him not to. Dioscorus called the guards, and the 1000 monks who were waiting outside with some soldiers came in and charged at Flavian and his followers. Flavian ran to the altar and grabbed hold of it for his life. The soldiers and monks forcefully took him from the altar beating him, kicking him and then whipping him.

Flavian was deported into exile and died from his wounds a few days later in Lydia.

Click to expand...

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

Waiting on him said:

. I look to these men you mentioned for nothing,......

Click to expand...

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

What men do you look to??

Curious Mary