Be Aware of False Prophets

[Wick Stick]

Not wrong. Wise and caring; the work of a shepherd.

You know who devours more sheep than the wolves?

Spoiler

The shepherds

 

[Matthias]

You know who devours more sheep than the wolves?

Spoiler

The shepherds

There are good shepherds and there are bad shepherds.

 

[bdavidc]

What is "textual corruption"?

Perhaps then my point in context is that we don't know...it may be wolves...

Also to note, NT was not "scripture" back then. So what was Peter referring to...

All things are subjectively encountered.

If it is not handled appropriately, then yes...

You and I both know that there is contention in the House of Christianity re this. Perhaps this explains the wolves on the porch.

His Truth is barely known and certainly only a tiny particle of Hie Truth is contained in the NT.

Then we best look elsewhere...

I do not think there is any evidence that all that is called "scripture" is indeed Scripture.

Textual corruption means altering the wording of a document, whether accidentally through copying or deliberately by adding, removing, or changing words. You have offered no evidence that wolves corrupted the biblical text. “It may have happened” is speculation, not an argument.

Your claim that the New Testament was not Scripture in Peter’s day is false. Peter referred to Paul’s letters and then spoke of “the other scriptures” (2 Peter 3:15–16). He placed Paul’s writings in the category of Scripture. Paul also quoted Luke 10:7 as Scripture in 1 Timothy 5:18.

Saying “all things are subjectively encountered” does not make truth subjective. Your reaction to a fact may be subjective, but the fact itself is not. Christ’s resurrection either happened or it did not. Scripture is either true or false. Personal perspective does not erase objective truth.

You say fear and division only come when truth is mishandled, but Jesus Himself said, “Fear him” (Luke 12:5) and, “I came not to send peace, but a sword” (Matthew 10:34). The offense is sometimes in the truth, not in its delivery.

Disagreement about hell does not disprove hell. It proves people disagree. Christ’s words remain: “These shall go away into everlasting punishment” (Matthew 25:46).

Your claim that only a “tiny particle” of Christ’s truth appears in the New Testament is unsupported. John said the written signs were sufficient “that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life” (John 20:31).

You say we should “look elsewhere,” but elsewhere is exactly where wolves want people looking. Jesus said, “Thy word is truth” (John 17:17). Isaiah said, “To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them” (Isaiah 8:20).

You have not demonstrated corruption. You have only raised possibilities and treated suspicion as evidence. That is not critical thinking. It is skepticism protecting itself from correction.

 

[Wick Stick]

There are good shepherds and there are bad shepherds.

Hmmm... I know of one Good Shepherd.

Here's a thought... in the book of Enoch, God commissions Enoch to record the sins of all the bad shepherds, and specifically to write down how many more sheep they destroy than what they are allotted. I find it curious that they were allotted to destroy ANY sheep at all, given what seems to be the obvious interpretation of the metaphor. Thoughts?

 

[Matthias]

Hmmm... I know of one Good Shepherd.

Pastors are shepherds; undershepherds, if you prefer.

Here's a thought... in the book of Enoch, God commissions Enoch to record the sins of all the bad shepherds, and specifically to write down how many more sheep they destroy than what they are allotted. I find it curious that they were allotted to destroy ANY sheep at all, given what seems to be the obvious interpretation of the metaphor. Thoughts?

A shepherd / undershepherd raised up and sent by the Good Shepherd won’t destroy any of the sheep.

 

[bdavidc]

The shaky ground of your argument is that you rest on it the belief that Christianity existed as it is today before the wolves got to tampering.

I think that Christianity exists because "The Wolves"...

The problem is to find a way out of that house and away from it without losing what connection one has with The Christ.
The solution is in imagining Jesus is not in that house but out on the streets and waiting for one to join him...

I never claimed Christianity existed “as it is today” before the wolves came. That is your straw man.

Christ established the church and gave the apostles the truth. Then wolves entered and corrupted it: “After my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you” (Acts 20:29).

The original faith came first. The corruption came afterward. That is why Jude says we must “earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints” (Jude 3).

Your argument collapses on one basic fact: wolves do not create the flock. They infiltrate it. Jesus said, “I will build my church” (Matthew 16:18), and Paul warned that wolves would enter afterward to corrupt what already existed (Acts 20:29–30).

Christianity does not exist because of wolves. It exists because Christ died, rose again, and sent His apostles to preach the gospel. Wolves counterfeit the truth. They do not originate it.

And your solution is worse than your accusation. “Imagining” Jesus outside the house is not faith. It is making a Christ in your own mind. Jesus said, “If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed” (John 8:31). John wrote, “He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son” (2 John 9).

Christ calls people out of false religion, but He does not call them away from His Word into private spirituality. That is not escaping the wolves. That is walking straight into their method: replacing revelation with imagination.

 

[Eternal Entity]

Wolves devour men. They devour as well as deceive and lead followers after them (2 Peter 2:3; Acts 20:30).

Then tame wolves. Balance your perceptions.

The fact that you claim they "help The Greater" means nothing.

It does when "The Greater" Means "The Fathers overall ongoing agenda"...

Jesus didn't teach that wolves are helpful gatekeepers.

How do you know that? Jesus taught most things which are not even in the bible. What we do have is Jesus teaching that both will grow together. The thing is, the "helpful" part is not that the wolves purposefully help. Rather it is that the help they individual seeker of the deeper truths when the seeker begins to identify who the wolves are then - what gates are there really?

He told us, "Beware of false prophets... even as wolves in sheep's clothing" (Matthew 7:15).

And some listening may even have wondered if Jesus himself was such...

You may label that as competition from men or infiltration, but Scripture labels it deceit.

Even so, competition and infiltration as aspects and just because "it is written" doesn't signify what was written was NOT wolfpaw.

It's not about porches or dogs. It's about whether you heed Christ's warning or sanitize the wolves until they don't appear dangerous.

The Christ would also say "Love you Enemies" but the deeper is not understood until the love is truely done.
"sanitize the wolves" = taming the beast.

 

[Eternal Entity]

You know who devours more sheep than the wolves?

Spoiler

The shepherds

That is apt and true.
THe question is, which do the sheep prefer to be eaten by?

 

[Eternal Entity]

Hmmm... I know of one Good Shepherd.

Here's a thought... in the book of Enoch, God commissions Enoch to record the sins of all the bad shepherds, and specifically to write down how many more sheep they destroy than what they are allotted. I find it curious that they were allotted to destroy ANY sheep at all, given what seems to be the obvious interpretation of the metaphor. Thoughts?

Where does the curiosity take one?

 

[Wick Stick]

THe question is, which do the sheep prefer to be eaten by?

Sheep don't have opinions... being a sheep is about following blindly.

 

[Eternal Entity]

Now why did you have to go and do a thing like that for?

Because deep down I am hilarious.

He thinks I’m a wolf. Did you know that?

Does it matter what he thinks you are? What do you think you are?

 

[Wick Stick]

Where does the curiosity take one?

 

[Eternal Entity]

Sheep don't have opinions... being a sheep is about following blindly.

Akin to being a suckling rather than eating meat...

 

[Matthias]

Does it matter what he thinks you are?

Yes.

What do you think you are?

Among other things, a 1st century primitive Christian living in the 21st century.

 

[Eternal Entity]

Textual corruption means altering the wording of a document, whether accidentally through copying or deliberately by adding, removing, or changing words. You have offered no evidence that wolves corrupted the biblical text. “It may have happened” is speculation, not an argument.

There is no evidence either way. It is all speculation.

Your claim that the New Testament was not Scripture in Peter’s day is false. Peter referred to Paul’s letters and then spoke of “the other scriptures” (2 Peter 3:15–16). He placed Paul’s writings in the category of Scripture. Paul also quoted Luke 10:7 as Scripture in 1 Timothy 5:18.

So they are claiming each others writings are "scripture"...and how do we know Saul was not a wolf? How do we know Peter actually penned the Peter writtings?
We don't. I remain open ...

Saying “all things are subjectively encountered” does not make truth subjective.

Saying something is objective is "truth" doesn't make it so.

Your reaction to a fact may be subjective, but the fact itself is not.

This is the same for all of us, whatever "truth" we are interpreting as Truth.

Christ’s resurrection either happened or it did not.

Let's assume for the sake of arguing, that it did. How was that achieved? Why is it important? Why are there different interpretations of what it means in relation to Humanity....

Scripture is either true or false. Personal perspective does not erase objective truth.

Scripture is not objective truth. What is objectively true about it is that it exists.

You say fear and division only come when truth is mishandled, but Jesus Himself said, “Fear him” (Luke 12:5) and, “I came not to send peace, but a sword” (Matthew 10:34). The offense is sometimes in the truth, not in its delivery.

The Father created wolves. AS such, he felt that wolves too, were "Good".

Disagreement about hell does not disprove hell. It proves people disagree. Christ’s words remain: “These shall go away into everlasting punishment” (Matthew 25:46).

Are these Christs words though? Or are they additions? How can we tell from scripture alone? FOr example, reports from those who have NDEs speak of both heavenly and hellish realms which can be experienced. There is more than scripture opinions through its authors...

Your claim that only a “tiny particle” of Christ’s truth appears in the New Testament is unsupported.

No, it isn't. Should I expect that the wolfish would have me believe that?

John said the written signs were sufficient “that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life” (John 20:31).

Of course. But not sufficient for those who are in that stage of their growth, to discern wolfishness in the script...

You say we should “look elsewhere,” but elsewhere is exactly where wolves want people looking.

Or, not. How have you discerned that?

Jesus said, “Thy word is truth”

Jesus said that he reported to us what The Father had told him. He did not get that telling from reading scripture.

(John 17:17). Isaiah said, “To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them” (Isaiah 8:20).

Who was Isiah directing this accusation about? Was it the Wolves?

You have not demonstrated corruption. You have only raised possibilities and treated suspicion as evidence. That is not critical thinking. It is skepticism protecting itself from correction.

You do not understand the nature of scepticism - you only present a version/interpretation of it which excludes the holistic.
By wholesome definition. Scepticism HAS to include critical thinking. My questions are based in that type of thinking. I do not exclude something as suspect, just because it shouts out and points fingers at the competition. I think perhaps that those doing the shouting may be using that ploy as distraction in a type of "look at them don't look at me" way.

I hear Paul saying "Examine all things and hold fast to that which is proven true" as him not excluding his own proclamations as exempt from said examination.

 

[Eternal Entity]

Yes.

Why?

Among other things, a 1st century primitive Christian living in the 21st century.

I am an Eternal Entity experiencing being a human in the 21st century.