PDA

View Full Version : Paul vs. Jesus



Pages : [1] 2

Chileice
April 15th, 2005, 03:05 PM
In some recent discussions some people have made statements that Paul and Jesus were at odds with each other philosophically or religiously. I have read those arguments over the years and I think they are largely straw man arguments.

Why Paul sometimes sounds so radically different is because he took Jesus to heart: hook, line and sinker. Paul was willing to leave behind the Jewish trappings that held so many in check and that have in fact held Christianity hostage to some degree over the centuries. He was willing to make a complete break with the old sacrificial/levitical system because he saw Jesus as the fulfillment of that entire process. Many Christians today still hang on to the OT like a talisman rather than as God's word to his people. They are afraid to see in Christ the perfection and completion of that chapter in history. They want to claim Christ but kind of hold on to the law (the parts they are able or want to enforce) just in case it isn't really by grace that we are saved.

Paul just put all his eggs in one basket. He put them all in Jesus' basket and therefore he sounds radical because he was a true radical follower of the Lord, who saw in Him freedom, forgiveness and life. But He saw no more than Jesus proclaimed. If you look at John 6 http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=John%206;&version=31;... the whole chapter, you will see the kind of radical break Jesus was calling for. Paul just took Him up on it. He was a Christ one, a Christian.

Caledvwlch
April 15th, 2005, 03:07 PM
It could be argued that Jesus' ministry was in direct opposition to religious authoritarianism, but Paul, on the other hand, was all about religious authoritarianism. Especially in Romans.

allsmiles
April 15th, 2005, 03:23 PM
Why did Paul not include any biographical data on Jesus?

Berean Todd
April 15th, 2005, 03:25 PM
It could be argued that Jesus' ministry was in direct opposition to religious authoritarianism, but Paul, on the other hand, was all about religious authoritarianism. Especially in Romans.


Where do you get that? If anything it is the opposite, Paul is the one who get's accused of being too easy on people at times, of giving them "too much liscence" (not that he does, but that he gets accused of it), whereas Jesus said "Be ye perfect," and "wide is the road that leads to destruction and narrow the path to life ..." and "No man comes unless the Father draws him," and "I am the Way the Truth and the Life, no one comes to the Father but by me", and "Be ye Holy as my Father is Holy," and "the one who loves me will keep my commandments." I could keep going, but if anything Jesus was much more authroitarian than Paul is at times.

allsmiles
April 15th, 2005, 03:26 PM
BT, I think you need to get used to the fact that some people have informed, opposing positions. Cal isn't stupid. Why can't you people just agree to disagree and be cool with it?

Berean Todd
April 15th, 2005, 03:26 PM
Why did Paul not include any biographical data on Jesus?

Why would he need to? He recorded aspects of the death and ressurection (see 1 Cor 15 for example), but the Christian life is not about studying about Jesus' life on earth, it's about being made right with God through the death, burial and ressurection of Christ. In fact we have very little material on Christ that doesn't deal with either His birth or the last week of His life. We don't need a biography of His eartly life.

Delmar
April 15th, 2005, 03:27 PM
It could be argued that Jesus' ministry was in direct opposition to religious authoritarianism, but Paul, on the other hand, was all about religious authoritarianism. Especially in Romans.
Guess I'll have to read Romans again. I thought it was more about grace!

Berean Todd
April 15th, 2005, 03:29 PM
BT, I think you need to get used to the fact that some people have informed, opposing positions. Cal isn't stupid. Why can't you people just agree to disagree and be cool with it?


Did I call him stupid anywhere?? But the fact is that Paul is the one always charged with being too easy on people, on letting people get off with too much. Agnostics and atheists complain that how can we "square away" the "easy believism" of Paul (I don't believe that it is, but that is the frequent charge made) and the "faith without works is dead" of James, or the hard sayings of Jesus Himself.

I gave several examples, the fact is that Jesus was much harder than Paul in His words. You can't just say "Jesus is easy and Paul is so authoritarian" if there is no proof or grounds for such, and there IS NO GROUNDS for such.

Berean Todd
April 15th, 2005, 03:30 PM
By the way, Pauls' nickname in Christian circles is "the apostle of grace" ...

allsmiles
April 15th, 2005, 03:30 PM
Why would he need to? He recorded aspects of the death and ressurection (see 1 Cor 15 for example), but the Christian life is not about studying about Jesus' life on earth, it's about being made right with God through the death, burial and ressurection of Christ. In fact we have very little material on Christ that doesn't deal with either His birth or the last week of His life. We don't need a biography of His eartly life.

Why don't we need it?

Why would Paul only speak in vague, innocuous terms about the cycle of life and death and resurrection that, in my belief, the mythological christ (or KRST/Horus) represented?

Paul wrote of Jesus as though he were a mythical character, not a real man.

allsmiles
April 15th, 2005, 03:32 PM
Did I call him stupid anywhere??

No, I apologize.


I gave several examples, the fact is that Jesus was much harder than Paul in His words. You can't just say "Jesus is easy and Paul is so authoritarian" if there is no proof or grounds for such, and there IS NO GROUNDS for such.

Apparently you're not quite as right as you think you are. Keep telling youself that you are though, I'd feel terrible if you lost sleep.

Chileice
April 15th, 2005, 03:32 PM
It could be argued that Jesus' ministry was in direct opposition to religious authoritarianism, but Paul, on the other hand, was all about religious authoritarianism. Especially in Romans.


I think he was anything but. Have you read Romans lately? I guess I really don't know what you mean. If you can show me from Romans then maybe I'll believe you. But I don't see it and I've read Romans a bunch of times.

Caledvwlch
April 15th, 2005, 03:33 PM
Where do you get that? If anything it is the opposite, Paul is the one who get's accused of being too easy on people at times, of giving them "too much liscence" (not that he does, but that he gets accused of it), whereas Jesus said "Be ye perfect," and "wide is the road that leads to destruction and narrow the path to life ..." and "No man comes unless the Father draws him," and "I am the Way the Truth and the Life, no one comes to the Father but by me", and "Be ye Holy as my Father is Holy," and "the one who loves me will keep my commandments." I could keep going, but if anything Jesus was much more authroitarian than Paul is at times.
I see where you're coming from, but the argument I'm referring to has it's roots in the concept that Jesus was not crucified for our sins, as Paul suggests, but because he challenged the authority of the established "church". While Jesus certainly recognized the problem of sin, he did not preach a doctrine of original sin.

Paul required subjection to the authorities (both ecclesiastical and statist). While Jesus did say that non would come to the Father but by him, he did not say that non would come to the father without the church. Jesus followed in the tradition of the radical prophets, who berated the law constantly, even suggesting that the Levites had made up the ceremonial laws erroneously.

Neither Jesus, nor the prophets, nor the Hebrew religion before them ever preached a doctrine of original sin.

Agape4Robin
April 15th, 2005, 03:34 PM
I think that these people read the bible like it's some sort of bed time novel! :rolleyes:

Berean Todd
April 15th, 2005, 03:36 PM
Why don't we need it?

Because quite frankly Christ's life did nothing for us. He came here with one purpose and one purpose only, the cross. From the day He was born the cross was ever before Him. It was prophesied centuries before, it is the only way that we can bridge the gap between man and God.


Why would Paul only speak in vague, innocuous terms about the cycle of life and death and resurrection that, in my belief, the mythological christ (or KRST/Horus) represented?

You can choose to not believe what you call the "mythological" christ, but that is THE Christ. Give me another explanation (and a plausable one) for the empty tomb, or the change of character in the apostles ... there is none. Jesus Christ paid the debt of sin upon the cross, was dead, buried, a stone rolled in front of the tomb, only to rise three days later, attesting to the fact that He is who He said He was. He has gone to prepare a place for us, but He will come back again, to judge the living and the dead. That is Jesus Christ.


Paul wrote of Jesus as though he were a mythical character, not a real man.

You can not show me one mythological character that had clear dates, times, places, people associated with them. Myths are always set "out there" , not given historical context. Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 not only testifies to the ressurection, but gives the testimony of 500 more people who also saw it, most of whom were still alive and able to be sought out and questioned. Paul gives a very real, detailed setting to Christ and the ressurection, and there is nothing mythological about that other than the fact that the godless refuse to accept it, to their eternal shame.

Caledvwlch
April 15th, 2005, 03:36 PM
I think that these people read the bible like it's some sort of bed time novel! :rolleyes:
Actually, more like a book of bed time allegorical fairy tales.

Chileice
April 15th, 2005, 03:37 PM
Why did Paul not include any biographical data on Jesus?

The biographical information was already available. Besides Paul was not even converted until after Jesus' death. And I suppose, if you want to be picky, some of Luke's info probably came from much of the same info Paul had.

Agape4Robin
April 15th, 2005, 03:39 PM
Actually, more like a book of bed time allegorical fairy tales.
Your opinion.

Caledvwlch
April 15th, 2005, 03:39 PM
The biographical information was already available. Besides Paul was not even converted until after Jesus' death. And I suppose, if you want to be picky, some of Luke's info probably came from much of the same info Paul had.
Actually, Paul wrote before the gospels. The biographical information followed. Which turns to another debate altogether.

Caledvwlch
April 15th, 2005, 03:39 PM
Your opinion.
It certainly is that. My opinion and nothing more.

Berean Todd
April 15th, 2005, 03:41 PM
I see where you're coming from, but the argument I'm referring to has it's roots in the concept that Jesus was not crucified for our sins, as Paul suggests, but because he challenged the authority of the established "church". While Jesus certainly recognized the problem of sin, he did not preach a doctrine of original sin.

Paul required subjection to the authorities (both ecclesiastical and statist). While Jesus did say that non would come to the Father but by him, he did not say that non would come to the father without the church. Jesus followed in the tradition of the radical prophets, who berated the law constantly, even suggesting that the Levites had made up the ceremonial laws erroneously.

Neither Jesus, nor the prophets, nor the Hebrew religion before them ever preached a doctrine of original sin.

Throughout His ministry Jesus pointed to the cross, He came for that purpose, He never foreswrore the law, in fact He perfectly lived out the 613 commandments of God. In fact Jesus said that not a jot nor a tiddle would pass away from the law until all was fulfilled. What he challenged the authorities on was two things, A. their heart attitudes and B. the extra laws. God gave 613 laws to Israel, but they held many thousands of laws. For instance God in the 10 commandments said to remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy, the jews changed that so that a woman couldn't look in a mirror on the sabbath because she might see a grey hair and be tempted to pluck it out and that would be "sin", and they were only allowed to take a certain maximum number of steps during the sabbath, on and on and on they added laws.

Delmar
April 15th, 2005, 03:45 PM
I think that these people read the bible like it's some sort of bed time novel! :rolleyes: and missed an important plot twist.

Caledvwlch
April 15th, 2005, 03:47 PM
Throughout His ministry Jesus pointed to the cross, He came for that purpose, He never foreswrore the law, in fact He perfectly lived out the 613 commandments of God. In fact Jesus said that not a jot nor a tiddle would pass away from the law until all was fulfilled. What he challenged the authorities on was two things, A. their heart attitudes and B. the extra laws. God gave 613 laws to Israel, but they held many thousands of laws. For instance God in the 10 commandments said to remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy, the jews changed that so that a woman couldn't look in a mirror on the sabbath because she might see a grey hair and be tempted to pluck it out and that would be "sin", and they were only allowed to take a certain maximum number of steps during the sabbath, on and on and on they added laws.
Fair enough. I'm not really trying to preach too much blasphemy here, just throwing out some alternative ideas. This idea of Christ upholding the law appeared in Matthew, but not in the earlier gospel of Mark. Mark's gospel spoke of a Jesus that had no use for the law at all.

These things aside, I don't believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that Jesus preached a doctrine of original sin. This seems to be the best way for me to stay on topic (I tend to always lean toward a position of doubting the reliability of the gospel accounts, but for the sake of this debate, I'll try to assume that they are accurate).

Agape4Robin
April 15th, 2005, 03:47 PM
and missed an important plot twist.
That they did! :(

Agape4Robin
April 15th, 2005, 03:51 PM
Fair enough. I'm not really trying to preach too much blasphemy here, just throwing out some alternative ideas. This idea of Christ upholding the law appeared in Matthew, but not in the earlier gospel of Mark. Mark's gospel spoke of a Jesus that had no use for the law at all.

These things aside, I don't believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that Jesus preached a doctrine of original sin. This seems to be the best way for me to stay on topic (I tend to always lean toward a position of doubting the reliability of the gospel accounts, but for the sake of this debate, I'll try to assume that they are accurate).
Jesus not only obeyed the law and upheld it, but showed the religious leaders of the day that their error was that they didn't follow the intent of the law. Jesus said that He did not come to abolish the law but was the fulfillment of it.

Berean Todd
April 15th, 2005, 03:52 PM
These things aside, I don't believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that Jesus preached a doctrine of original sin. This seems to be the best way for me to stay on topic (I tend to always lean toward a position of doubting the reliability of the gospel accounts, but for the sake of this debate, I'll try to assume that they are accurate).

Original sin is one of the things like the trinity, it is the clear teaching of scripture without being every blatantly specifically stated.

Jesus did say things like:

"I tell you the truth, unless a man is born again, he can not even see the Kingdom of God."

""I am the Way the Truth and the Life, no man comes to the Father but by Me."

That is just a couple, I'm short on time, but He taught extensively that all of humanity save those who are born again, coming to God through Him, are lost and going to hell.

Lovejoy
April 15th, 2005, 03:57 PM
Because quite frankly Christ's life did nothing for us. He came here with one purpose and one purpose only, the cross. From the day He was born the cross was ever before Him. It was prophesied centuries before, it is the only way that we can bridge the gap between man and God.



You can choose to not believe what you call the "mythological" christ, but that is THE Christ. Give me another explanation (and a plausable one) for the empty tomb, or the change of character in the apostles ... there is none. Jesus Christ paid the debt of sin upon the cross, was dead, buried, a stone rolled in front of the tomb, only to rise three days later, attesting to the fact that He is who He said He was. He has gone to prepare a place for us, but He will come back again, to judge the living and the dead. That is Jesus Christ.



You can not show me one mythological character that had clear dates, times, places, people associated with them. Myths are always set "out there" , not given historical context. Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 not only testifies to the ressurection, but gives the testimony of 500 more people who also saw it, most of whom were still alive and able to be sought out and questioned. Paul gives a very real, detailed setting to Christ and the ressurection, and there is nothing mythological about that other than the fact that the godless refuse to accept it, to their eternal shame.

How funny, I was reading down through the posts, and was going to post 1Corinthians15 myself, and for the same reason! I hope that means that the great "mind(s) of Christ" think alike.

Caledvwlch
April 15th, 2005, 03:59 PM
Original sin is one of the things like the trinity, it is the clear teaching of scripture without being every blatantly specifically stated.

Jesus did say things like:

"I tell you the truth, unless a man is born again, he can not even see the Kingdom of God."

""I am the Way the Truth and the Life, no man comes to the Father but by Me."

That is just a couple, I'm short on time, but He taught extensively that all of humanity save those who are born again, coming to God through Him, are lost and going to hell.
Now we're getting somewhere.

Ok, given those quotes from Jesus, would we interpret those things the same way, if perhaps, Augustine had never solidified the doctrine of original sin? It seems that Jesus is used as a puppet to back up church dogmas that did not emerge until decades, if not hundreds of years after either Jesus or Paul. For example, lets say that the agnostics had won the battle for supremecy in church philosophy (I know it doesn't sit well, but just bear with me for a minute). And for all of the centuries since then, there had been no doctrine of original sin. Could we not then interpret Jesus' teachings above in a different way? Perhaps when he says born again, he means coming to a sense of self awareness.

My point being, Jesus teachings, in their raw form, existed before the ratification of church dogma, and therefore could have been interpreted any number of ways, depending on what those dogmas eventually became.

By dogma, for clarification, I mean a belief that cannot be proven, but is taught under the authority of the church (and coincidentally by pain of hell-fire).

Chileice
April 15th, 2005, 04:03 PM
Actually, Paul wrote before the gospels. The biographical information followed. Which turns to another debate altogether.

This, my friend is not really true. Most scholars say Mark is the earliest writing of the NT followed by Galatians which was written by Paul. However, even if the material were not yet written, it was still available in oral form. How else would the message spread at all? We are SOOO glued to the written form that we have lost the power of story, of verbal impact. The message was there and being shared so Paul felt no need to write it. He assumed the facts were trua and wrote about what to do with those facts or better said with the relationship.

Caledvwlch
April 15th, 2005, 04:04 PM
This, my friend is not really true. Most scholars say Mark is the earliest writing of the NT followed by Galatians which was written by Paul. However, even if the material were not yet written, it was still available in oral form. How else would the message spread at all? We are SOOO glued to the written form that we have lost the power of story, of verbal impact. The message was there and being shared so Paul felt no need to write it. He assumed the facts were trua and wrote about what to do with those facts or better said with the relationship.
Ok fair enough. I'm not here to argue about the canon anyway, so for now I'll concede.

Chileice
April 15th, 2005, 04:08 PM
Fair enough. I'm not really trying to preach too much blasphemy here, just throwing out some alternative ideas. This idea of Christ upholding the law appeared in Matthew, but not in the earlier gospel of Mark. Mark's gospel spoke of a Jesus that had no use for the law at all.

These things aside, I don't believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that Jesus preached a doctrine of original sin. This seems to be the best way for me to stay on topic (I tend to always lean toward a position of doubting the reliability of the gospel accounts, but for the sake of this debate, I'll try to assume that they are accurate).

I don't think Paul preached original sin either. I think that was Augustine's addition to the mix some 400 years later. Paul was very clear each person was responsible for his own sin, not from being born but rather from committing sin. Read Romans 3. Seriously, read it and see if you will agree that Paul says we go astray. That means we have a responsibility. It is not some ingrown toenail we are born with.

http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=Romans%203;&version=31;

I think Paul squares with Jesus quite nicely on this issue.

Agape4Robin
April 15th, 2005, 04:11 PM
I don't think Paul preached original sin either. I think that was Augustine's addition to the mix some 400 years later. Paul was very clear each person was responsible for his own sin, not from being born but rather from committing sin. Read Romans 3. Seriously, read it and see if you will agree that Paul says we go astray. That means we have a responsibility. It is not some ingrown toenail we are born with.

http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=Romans%203;&version=31;

I think Paul squares with Jesus quite nicely on this issue.
I agree with you Chelice.......kind of like from the point of the moment you tell a lie and know that it is a lie....you sin.

Caledvwlch
April 15th, 2005, 04:12 PM
I don't think Paul preached original sin either. I think that was Augustine's addition to the mix some 400 years later. Paul was very clear each person was responsible for his own sin, not from being born but rather from committing sin. Read Romans 3. Seriously, read it and see if you will agree that Paul says we go astray. That means we have a responsibility. It is not some ingrown toenail we are born with.

http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=Romans%203;&version=31;

I think Paul squares with Jesus quite nicely on this issue.
Ok, I read it, but doesn't it say that all are sinners? (verse 23) I suppose this doesn't necessarily point to original sin, but it seems awefully close.

Chileice
April 15th, 2005, 04:14 PM
Original sin is one of the things like the trinity, it is the clear teaching of scripture without being every blatantly specifically stated.

Jesus did say things like:

"I tell you the truth, unless a man is born again, he can not even see the Kingdom of God."

""I am the Way the Truth and the Life, no man comes to the Father but by Me."

That is just a couple, I'm short on time, but He taught extensively that all of humanity save those who are born again, coming to God through Him, are lost and going to hell.

BT,
While I agree with many of your insights, I can not in any way see how the scripture CLEARLY teaches original sin. Now it might be interpreted that way but to say it is clearly taught seems to be a far stretch. It seems to me that both Paul and Jesus make us accountable for our action (or lack thereof) rather than being guilty just for being born.

Chileice
April 15th, 2005, 04:20 PM
Ok, I read it, but doesn't it say that all are sinners? (verse 23) I suppose this doesn't necessarily point to original sin, but it seems awefully close.

I think the point is that we are all without excuse, as Paul makes clear in chapter 1 of Romans. We have all gone astray... of our own free will. Yes, we have all sinned and stand in need of a saviour. I have never yet anyone who told me they have never sinned. No one needs a doctrine of original sin for that. Why that got popular was to justify infant baptism. The infant baptism had to do something so they decided it washed away original sin which basically brought a person back to square one anyway. After he sinned... then what? So we invented pennance and a whole bunch of other baloney that got further and further from both Jesus and Paul. I think when Paul said in Philippians 4
8Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable–if anything is excellent or praiseworthy–think about such things. 9Whatever you have learned or received or heard from me, or seen in me–put it into practice. And the God of peace will be with you.
it sounded a bit egotistical, but I think he was right. He knew that others would make it Jesus+ and he just wanted it to be Jesus.

Lighthouse
April 15th, 2005, 08:44 PM
In some recent discussions some people have made statements that Paul and Jesus were at odds with each other philosophically or religiously. I have read those arguments over the years and I think they are largely straw man arguments.

Why Paul sometimes sounds so radically different is because he took Jesus to heart: hook, line and sinker. Paul was willing to leave behind the Jewish trappings that held so many in check and that have in fact held Christianity hostage to some degree over the centuries. He was willing to make a complete break with the old sacrificial/levitical system because he saw Jesus as the fulfillment of that entire process. Many Christians today still hang on to the OT like a talisman rather than as God's word to his people. They are afraid to see in Christ the perfection and completion of that chapter in history. They want to claim Christ but kind of hold on to the law (the parts they are able or want to enforce) just in case it isn't really by grace that we are saved.

Paul just put all his eggs in one basket. He put them all in Jesus' basket and therefore he sounds radical because he was a true radical follower of the Lord, who saw in Him freedom, forgiveness and life. But He saw no more than Jesus proclaimed. If you look at John 6 http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=John%206;&version=31;... the whole chapter, you will see the kind of radical break Jesus was calling for. Paul just took Him up on it. He was a Christ one, a Christian.
And how far is that break supposed to go? Should criminal laws be non-existant, because Christ died?

Lighthouse
April 15th, 2005, 08:48 PM
Paul wrote of Jesus as though he were a mythical character, not a real man.
You're stupid.

temple2006
April 15th, 2005, 10:48 PM
What do you fellas really mean when you say that you can only come to salvation or God only through Jesus? If what you are saying is that you believe in vicarious atonement than I think you are mistaken. Jesus has other names besides Jesus, such as love incarnate, truth, way, light....... when you understand this, you see salvation in a different light. Jesus came to show you what his father is like and to tell you to follow him (Jesus) on his walk to his father. He showed you heaven and you do not see it. He died not as atonement but to show you what lenghts he would go to in order to bring you this message of grace.

Lovejoy
April 15th, 2005, 10:58 PM
You're stupid.
Oh man! :chuckle: Since you are out of a job now, I am going to recommend that we make you the nation's diplomat to unpopular countries.

Lighthouse: Your nation sucks and we are going to bomb you. Or at least refuse to do any business with you. Either way, I'm outta here on the next flight.

Lovejoy
April 15th, 2005, 11:00 PM
What do you fellas really mean when you say that you can only come to salvation or God only through Jesus? If what you are saying is that you believe in vicarious atonement than I think you are mistaken. Jesus has other names besides Jesus, such as love incarnate, truth, way, light....... when you understand this, you see salvation in a different light. Jesus came to show you what his father is like and to tell you to follow him (Jesus) on his walk to his father. He showed you heaven and you do not see it. He died not as atonement but to show you what lenghts he would go to in order to bring you this message of grace.
Five bucks says I wasting my breath, but Scripture is very specific that God is love, not that love is God. It is always ordered in that fashion in the Word, and for good reason: to avoid heresies like the one that you are trying to pass.

Lighthouse
April 15th, 2005, 11:11 PM
What do you fellas really mean when you say that you can only come to salvation or God only through Jesus? If what you are saying is that you believe in vicarious atonement than I think you are mistaken. Jesus has other names besides Jesus, such as love incarnate, truth, way, light....... when you understand this, you see salvation in a different light. Jesus came to show you what his father is like and to tell you to follow him (Jesus) on his walk to his father. He showed you heaven and you do not see it. He died not as atonement but to show you what lenghts he would go to in order to bring you this message of grace.
The Bible specifically states that Jesus[the Son] is the only way to the Father. And that His death was a sacrafice of propitiation [some versions use atonement]. If you deny the word of God, you deny God. You're a disgusting, vile, putrid, waste of thought. You do not know God, and He does not know you.

temple2006
April 16th, 2005, 01:14 AM
Litehouse, I am not a vile, disgusting, putrid, waste of thought. I think you are very rude to say that.

Caledvwlch
April 16th, 2005, 08:02 AM
Five bucks says I wasting my breath, but Scripture is very specific that God is love, not that love is God. It is always ordered in that fashion in the Word, and for good reason: to avoid heresies like the one that you are trying to pass.
Actually, from what I remember of my Greek syntax... in a phrase like God is love, both Theos and agape are in the same case (nominative), because "is" is an intransitive verb. In greek, two nouns in the same case can often be translated either way, because word order meant very little in this grammar. Therefore, "God is love" could easily and accurately be translated "Love is God".

Caledvwlch
April 16th, 2005, 08:05 AM
The Bible specifically states that Jesus[the Son] is the only way to the Father. And that His death was a sacrafice of propitiation [some versions use atonement]. If you deny the word of God, you deny God. You're a disgusting, vile, putrid, waste of thought. You do not know God, and He does not know you.
Yeah, lighthouse, that's kind of steep don't you think? Of course that's what infallible dogmatics does to people, it sets them on a higher plain than those who don't believe the dogma. And forgive my ignorance (it's been a while since I gave the gospels a thorough read), but do any of the 4 actually mention the crucifixion as being atonement? Or was that bit added in the epistles?

Caledvwlch
April 16th, 2005, 08:06 AM
Darn. I was hoping someone would school me on this original sin thing.

Agape4Robin
April 16th, 2005, 08:09 AM
Litehouse, I am not a vile, disgusting, putrid, waste of thought. I think you are very rude to say that.
I think that was his way of saying that you so are in serious error.
I'd forgive him......he means well.

Caledvwlch
April 16th, 2005, 08:15 AM
I think that was his way of saying that you so are in serious error.
I'd forgive him......he means well.
He means well, huh? So disagreement is justification for ridicule? Oh yeah, it is for lighthouse. I forgot.

Agape4Robin
April 16th, 2005, 08:20 AM
He means well, huh? So disagreement is justification for ridicule? Oh yeah, it is for lighthouse. I forgot.
Did ya miss the part where I said, "I'd forgive him"?

Caledvwlch
April 16th, 2005, 08:24 AM
Did ya miss the part where I said, "I'd forgive him"?
Oh yeah. I guess I did miss that. But I have a hard time believing that lighthouse will repent of his name-calling and ridicule, and therefore is not deserving of forgiveness.

Agape4Robin
April 16th, 2005, 08:29 AM
Oh yeah. I guess I did miss that. But I have a hard time believing that lighthouse will repent of his name-calling and ridicule, and therefore is not deserving of forgiveness.
forgiveness is not for the benefit of the offender, but for the benefit of the one who was offended. Forgiveness is not absolution.

Caledvwlch
April 16th, 2005, 08:46 AM
forgiveness is not for the benefit of the offender, but for the benefit of the one who was offended. Forgiveness is not absolution.
Sure, I see where you're coming from. The forgiveness of God would then be the only forgiveness that is to the benefit of the offender. For practical purposes, though, I no longer forgive people who repeatedly commit the same offense. Boy who cried wolf syndrome.

Agape4Robin
April 16th, 2005, 09:01 AM
Sure, I see where you're coming from. The forgiveness of God would then be the only forgiveness that is to the benefit of the offender. For practical purposes, though, I no longer forgive people who repeatedly commit the same offense. Boy who cried wolf syndrome.
How many times? Where is the cutoff? 2x, 4x, 20x?

Caledvwlch
April 16th, 2005, 09:14 AM
How many times? Where is the cutoff? 2x, 4x, 20x?
There's nothing set in stone. For example, I used to be friends with someone my age who was manipulative and psychologically abusive. Every once in a while, the situation would come to a head, and I'd forgive him, and everything would be cool, for a while. In reality, I waited far too long before I finally wrote him off for good. In the end, it took him being physically abusive (not to me, but another one of his "friends") for me to finally pull the plug. I do try to err on the side of forgiveness, but there's only so much a man can take.

temple2006
April 16th, 2005, 12:53 PM
A4R......................I forgave him before he ever posted that crude remark, just as I forgive all of you who are so insulting to me and to other posters. I have that attitude toward life, accepting, but still I wanted him to be aware of his rudeness. People I have nothing I need to prove to you nor do I need to defend my beliefs.

Lovejoy
April 16th, 2005, 01:01 PM
Actually, from what I remember of my Greek syntax... in a phrase like God is love, both Theos and agape are in the same case (nominative), because "is" is an intransitive verb. In greek, two nouns in the same case can often be translated either way, because word order meant very little in this grammar. Therefore, "God is love" could easily and accurately be translated "Love is God".

This is from Robertson's word pictures:

And the Word was God (kai qeoß hn o logoß). By exact and careful language John denied Sabellianism by not saying o qeoß hn o logoß. That would mean that all of God was expressed in o logoß and the terms would be interchangeable, each having the article. The subject is made plain by the article (o logoß) and the predicate without it (qeoß) just as in John 4:24 pneuma o qeoß can only mean "God is spirit," not "spirit is God." So in 1 John 4:16 o qeoß agaph estin can only mean "God is love," not "love is God" as a so-called Christian scientist would confusedly say.

I can neither confirm or deny, but there are those here who can.

Caledvwlch
April 16th, 2005, 01:04 PM
This is from Robertson's word pictures:

And the Word was God (kai qeoß hn o logoß). By exact and careful language John denied Sabellianism by not saying o qeoß hn o logoß. That would mean that all of God was expressed in o logoß and the terms would be interchangeable, each having the article. The subject is made plain by the article (o logoß) and the predicate without it (qeoß) just as in John 4:24 pneuma o qeoß can only mean "God is spirit," not "spirit is God." So in 1 John 4:16 o qeoß agaph estin can only mean "God is love," not "love is God" as a so-called Christian scientist would confusedly say.

I can neither confirm or deny, but there are those here who can.
No, that sounds reasonable, I was just being a pain in the butt.

Lovejoy
April 16th, 2005, 01:15 PM
No, that sounds reasonable, I was just being a pain in the butt.
Ha! Honestly, I am basing my assessment on someone who seems to know, but without the knowledge to actually say that he knows. However, it is consistent with other statements in Scripture, and therefore I accept it as truth.

BTW, you have been very careful not to back yourself into a corner with bullheadedness. I find that very wise, and try hard to do the same. Who can claim to always be right?

Caledvwlch
April 16th, 2005, 01:30 PM
Ha! Honestly, I am basing my assessment on someone who seems to know, but without the knowledge to actually say that he knows. However, it is consistent with other statements in Scripture, and therefore I accept it as truth.

BTW, you have been very careful not to back yourself into a corner with bullheadedness. I find that very wise, and try hard to do the same. Who can claim to always be right?
Not I. But it seems they are out there.

Agape4Robin
April 16th, 2005, 01:35 PM
Then why even debate? :doh:
How boring..... :yawn:
"I'm always wrong, I don't have any answers, so neither does anyone else." :blabla:

Caledvwlch
April 16th, 2005, 01:39 PM
Debate is fun, but more often than not, it doesn't lead to much resolution, but if it's debate you want, than I will repost a previous post, which I don't believe anyone has really touched on:


Now we're getting somewhere.

Ok, given those quotes from Jesus, would we interpret those things the same way, if perhaps, Augustine had never solidified the doctrine of original sin? It seems that Jesus is used as a puppet to back up church dogmas that did not emerge until decades, if not hundreds of years after either Jesus or Paul. For example, lets say that the agnostics had won the battle for supremecy in church philosophy (I know it doesn't sit well, but just bear with me for a minute). And for all of the centuries since then, there had been no doctrine of original sin. Could we not then interpret Jesus' teachings above in a different way? Perhaps when he says born again, he means coming to a sense of self awareness.

My point being, Jesus teachings, in their raw form, existed before the ratification of church dogma, and therefore could have been interpreted any number of ways, depending on what those dogmas eventually became.

By dogma, for clarification, I mean a belief that cannot be proven, but is taught under the authority of the church (and coincidentally by pain of hell-fire).

Agape4Robin
April 16th, 2005, 01:41 PM
Debate is fun, but more often than not, it doesn't lead to much resolution, but if it's debate you want, than I will repost a previous post, which I don't believe anyone has really touched on:
Are we talking about "original sin" or church dogma......if dogma, then which church's teaching are you questioning?

Caledvwlch
April 16th, 2005, 01:42 PM
Are we talking about "original sin" or church dogma......if dogma, then which church's teaching are you questioning?
Any and all. Pick one if you need a frame of reference, but I was speaking in a broad sense.

Agape4Robin
April 16th, 2005, 01:49 PM
Any and all. Pick one if you need a frame of reference, but I was speaking in a broad sense.
Ok, let's go with dogma.
Who's dogma do you wish to discuss?

Caledvwlch
April 16th, 2005, 01:53 PM
Ok, let's go with dogma.
Who's dogma do you wish to discuss?
A few pages back we were on the topic of "original sin" and how Paul taught it in Romans, specifically chapter 3, but that Jesus did not specifically mention original sin (unless I'm missing something).

Agape4Robin
April 16th, 2005, 02:00 PM
A few pages back we were on the topic of "original sin" and how Paul taught it in Romans, specifically chapter 3, but that Jesus did not specifically mention original sin (unless I'm missing something).
Jesus didn't "specifically" address a number of things. Only through prayer and bible study can we gain wisdom and insight into the teaching of scripture.
So, what church's dogma seems to be bothering you?
If you want to discuss Romans Chapter 3, you will have to be specific. There are 31 verses. Also, which translation are we using?

Chileice
April 16th, 2005, 02:02 PM
Then why even debate? :doh:
How boring..... :yawn:
"I'm always wrong, I don't have any answers, so neither does anyone else." :blabla:

Not as boring as you think. I guess we all base what we KNOW on what we know. And sometimes in debate someone teaches us something new, or proves us wrong or reinforces the knowledge we had thereby solidifying it. Actually debate is much more fun if there is at least a slim chance of convincing someone else or of being convinced of something new. If we really did KNOW everything then debate would be 100% pointless except to prove to everyone how smart we are, which would be pompous and extremely irritating as well as just plain childish.

Agape4Robin
April 16th, 2005, 02:05 PM
Not as boring as you think. I guess we all base what we KNOW on what we know. And sometimes in debate someone teaches us something new, or proves us wrong or reinforces the knowledge we had thereby solidifying it. Actually debate is much more fun if there is at least a slim chance of convincing someone else or of being convinced of something new. If we really did KNOW everything then debate would be 100% pointless except to prove to everyone how smart we are, which would be pompous and extremely irritating as well as just plain childish.
I was being facetious..... :rolleyes:

Caledvwlch
April 16th, 2005, 02:09 PM
Jesus didn't "specifically" address a number of things. Only through prayer and bible study can we gain wisdom and insight into the teaching of scripture.
So, what church's dogma seems to be bothering you?
If you want to discuss Romans Chapter 3, you will have to be specific. There are 31 verses. Also, which translation are we using?
Ok, cool, so we're on the right track. (We're both talking about the same thing, I think).

So, my whole point was, if Jesus didn't specifically speak about original sin, but we read Jesus' teachings with a presupposed original sin doctrine (i.e. a dogma) then we could easily find teachings that back up our original sin doctrine. But if, hypothetically, original sin had never been adopted as a church dogma, then Jesus' teachings would just as easily be used to back up whatever doctrine we had to replace original sin.

Did that make any sense? I have a tendency to make one mean run-on sentence.

Agape4Robin
April 16th, 2005, 02:19 PM
Ok, cool, so we're on the right track. (We're both talking about the same thing, I think).

So, my whole point was, if Jesus didn't specifically speak about original sin, but we read Jesus' teachings with a presupposed original sin doctrine (i.e. a dogma) then we could easily find teachings that back up our original sin doctrine. But if, hypothetically, original sin had never been adopted as a church dogma, then Jesus' teachings would just as easily be used to back up whatever doctrine we had to replace original sin.

Did that make any sense? I have a tendency to make one mean run-on sentence.
But you asked about Paul's teaching in Romans, chapter 3. What exactly did you want to know?

Lovejoy
April 16th, 2005, 02:21 PM
“Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned” (Romans 5:12). Genesis clearly shows the fall of man, Jesus calls all men sinners, Paul sets up original sin and its cure with the Adam/Jesus concept, and all under the mediation of the Holy Spirit. That is how I see it.

Caledvwlch
April 16th, 2005, 02:21 PM
But you asked about Paul's teaching in Romans, chapter 3. What exactly did you want to know?
I want to know what you think about my hypothesis. If church dogmas had panned out differently, do you or do you not think, we could use the exact same scriptures to back them up (as far as the teachings of Jesus are concerned)?

Caledvwlch
April 16th, 2005, 02:24 PM
“Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned” (Romans 5:12). Genesis clearly shows the fall of man, Jesus calls all men sinners, Paul sets up original sin and its cure with the Adam/Jesus concept, and all under the mediation of the Holy Spirit. That is how I see it.
And I certainly understand why, but I'm not trying to argue the validity of the doctrine of original sin, per se. I'm just trying to have an exercise in thinking out of the box, if you will. If the church had never adopted the doctrine of original sin, don't you think that all of the scriptures you use to support it could be just as easily used to support some other theory (for the sake of this discussion, I'm not including Paul's teachings, only those of Jesus, as related in the gospels specifically).

Agape4Robin
April 16th, 2005, 02:24 PM
I think Lovejoy said it well! :thumb:

Caledvwlch
April 16th, 2005, 02:27 PM
I think Lovejoy said it well! :thumb:
Again, I'm not arguing the doctrine of original sin, per se. I'm just using it as a backdrop in an argument that will eventually tie in with the topic of this thread.

Agape4Robin
April 16th, 2005, 02:28 PM
And I certainly understand why, but I'm not trying to argue the validity of the doctrine of original sin, per se. I'm just trying to have an exercise in thinking out of the box, if you will. If the church had never adopted the doctrine of original sin, don't you think that all of the scriptures you use to support it could be just as easily used to support some other theory (for the sake of this discussion, I'm not including Paul's teachings, only those of Jesus, as related in the gospels specifically).
I think that any scripture can be used to support any dogma that is desired (see "can anyone answer yes..." thread) but as I stated earlier in another post somewhere, that scripture is used to prove scripture, anything else is heresy.
Or "hear say"...... :chuckle: (pun intended)

Lovejoy
April 16th, 2005, 02:31 PM
And I certainly understand why, but I'm not trying to argue the validity of the doctrine of original sin, per se. I'm just trying to have an exercise in thinking out of the box, if you will. If the church had never adopted the doctrine of original sin, don't you think that all of the scriptures you use to support it could be just as easily used to support some other theory (for the sake of this discussion, I'm not including Paul's teachings, only those of Jesus, as related in the gospels specifically).
I understand, but original sin falls under the doctrines of reconciliation, which were Paul's to give. Trying to find it in the words of Christ would be very difficult. Truly, the whole chapter of Romans 5 sets this up quite nicely. However, I do see what you are trying to accomplish. The interpretion (by man) of Scripture can by twisted by preconcieved notions. That is why there is Biblical theology, Church tradition Theology, Systematic theology, etc. I don't use the theology of Church tradition, rather, I edge between Biblical and Systematic. Sometimes, however, a doctrine like "original sin" fits nicely with what I get from Scripture.

Agape4Robin
April 16th, 2005, 02:33 PM
I understand, but original sin falls under the doctrines of reconciliation, which were Paul's to give. Trying to find it in the words of Christ would be very difficult. Truly, the whole chapter of Romans 5 sets this up quite nicely. However, I do see what you are trying to accomplish. The interpretion (by man) of Scripture can by twisted by preconcieved notions. That is why there is Biblical theology, Church tradition Theology, Systematic theology, etc. I don't use the theology of Church tradition, rather, I edge between Biblical and Systematic. Sometimes, however, a doctrine like "original sin" fits nicely with what I get from Scripture.
Rep points for you!!!! :bannana: :BRAVO:

Lovejoy
April 16th, 2005, 02:33 PM
Again, I'm not arguing the doctrine of original sin, per se. I'm just using it as a backdrop in an argument that will eventually tie in with the topic of this thread.
I assume, then, that we are not really here to discuss Hamartiology?

Caledvwlch
April 16th, 2005, 02:33 PM
I think that any scripture can be used to support any dogma that is desired (see "can anyone answer yes..." thread) but as I stated earlier in another post somewhere, that scripture is used to prove scripture, anything else is heresy.
Or "hear say"...... :chuckle: (pun intended)
And since scripture is the only thing that does prove scripture, where does that leave us?

Anyway, there is a possibility that Paul simply invented the original sin doctrine, using Genesis, and certain teachings of Jesus to back himself up. This is why one might say Jesus and Paul disagree, because until someone can show me an instance where Jesus specifically said, all men are born sinful, then I'm going to have to assume that Paul invented it. (Whether it was just a mistake, or an outright deception is immaterial).

Agape4Robin
April 16th, 2005, 02:34 PM
dang it!!!!
I already gave you some.......
but it's the thought that counts!! :chuckle:

Caledvwlch
April 16th, 2005, 02:37 PM
I assume, then, that we are not really here to discuss Hamartiology?
Hamartiology?

Lovejoy
April 16th, 2005, 02:39 PM
And since scripture is the only thing that does prove scripture, where does that leave us?

Anyway, there is a possibility that Paul simply invented the original sin doctrine, using Genesis, and certain teachings of Jesus to back himself up. This is why one might say Jesus and Paul disagree, because until someone can show me an instance where Jesus specifically said, all men are born sinful, then I'm going to have to assume that Paul invented it. (Whether it was just a mistake, or an outright deception is immaterial).
Christ was big on who could testify to who He was, and where His authority came from. That is why He appeared to Paul, had a believer cure Pauls blindess, perform miracles through Paul, etc. All to give credibility to Pauls word. Someone had to deliver the full Gospel after Jesus left. Paul is the only whose writings are discussed by another Apostle (Peter writes about them, and their authority). Why, then, would everything Paul said have to be a complete rehash of Christ's words?

Caledvwlch
April 16th, 2005, 02:40 PM
I understand, but original sin falls under the doctrines of reconciliation, which were Paul's to give. Trying to find it in the words of Christ would be very difficult. Truly, the whole chapter of Romans 5 sets this up quite nicely. However, I do see what you are trying to accomplish. The interpretion (by man) of Scripture can by twisted by preconcieved notions. That is why there is Biblical theology, Church tradition Theology, Systematic theology, etc. I don't use the theology of Church tradition, rather, I edge between Biblical and Systematic. Sometimes, however, a doctrine like "original sin" fits nicely with what I get from Scripture.
Unfortunately, from this point on is where we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't believe Paul was divinely inspired (he certainly never claimed to be). I think he was preaching Christ's message as well as he knew how, but added his own flavor to the mix, i.e. the doctrine of original sin.

Lovejoy
April 16th, 2005, 02:40 PM
Hamartiology?
Theology of sin.

Caledvwlch
April 16th, 2005, 02:43 PM
Theology of sin.
Gotcha. And no, I think the thread is about possible disagreements between Paul and Jesus. I happen to believe that original sin is one of those disagreements.

Lovejoy
April 16th, 2005, 02:47 PM
Unfortunately, from this point on is where we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't believe Paul was divinely inspired (he certainly never claimed to be). I think he was preaching Christ's message as well as he knew how, but added his own flavor to the mix, i.e. the doctrine of original sin.
Peter refers to the letters of Paul as Scripture. As well, 1corinthians2:13 "This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words." The whole chapter reads that way.

Caledvwlch
April 16th, 2005, 02:50 PM
Peter refers to the letters of Paul as Scripture. As well, 1corinthians2:13 "This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words." The whole chapter reads that way.
Ok, maybe he did claim to be inspired. I stand corrected. But that doesn't mean he was. At any rate. The discussion was good today, thanks for putting up with my curiosity, but from this point on, we're going to have to agree to disagree.

Agape4Robin
April 16th, 2005, 02:50 PM
We are all responsible for our own sin. But, it is also in our nature to sin, that we inherited from Adam.
But it's not unusual for the New Testament writers to use quotes from the OT to back up their teachings. Jesus did it too, are you going to say that Jesus was simply parroting what the OT writers said?

Caledvwlch
April 16th, 2005, 02:52 PM
We are all responsible for our own sin. But, it is also in our nature to sin, that we inherited from Adam.
But it's not unusual for the New Testament writers to use quotes from the OT to back up their teachings. Jesus did it too, are you going to say that Jesus was simply parroting what the OT writers said?
The old testement doesn't teach original sin either. It chronicals Adam's sin and God's curse upon him, but never says that every human is born evil, in need of redemption.

Lovejoy
April 16th, 2005, 02:53 PM
Ok, maybe he did claim to be inspired. I stand corrected. But that doesn't mean he was. At any rate. The discussion was good today, thanks for putting up with my curiosity, but from this point on, we're going to have to agree to disagree.
That's alright. This would have just gone in circles from here anyway, and that is purposeless. I hope you got what you wanted from the discussion.

Agape4Robin
April 16th, 2005, 02:54 PM
The old testement doesn't teach original sin either. It chronicals Adam's sin and God's curse upon him, but never says that every human is born evil, in need of redemption.
Oh brother....... :doh:

Caledvwlch
April 16th, 2005, 02:55 PM
That's alright. This would have just gone in circles from here anyway, and that is purposeless. I hope you got what you wanted from the discussion.
Absolutely. A little insight into the Christian psyche. There's hope for you guys yet. :)

Peace

Caledvwlch
April 16th, 2005, 02:57 PM
Oh brother....... :doh:
Well, it doesn't... unless you know something I don't. Ask any practicing Jew if they believe in original sin and they'll say no.

Agape4Robin
April 16th, 2005, 02:59 PM
Well, it doesn't... unless you know something I don't. Ask any practicing Jew if they believe in original sin and they'll say no.
I'm sorry... I didn't know you were jewish.

Caledvwlch
April 16th, 2005, 03:01 PM
I'm sorry... I didn't know you were jewish.
What does my race have to do with it? And I'm not Jewish, but I'm just saying that original sin is not in the old testement. Adam's curse is there, but not original sin.

Agape4Robin
April 16th, 2005, 03:05 PM
What does my race have to do with it? And I'm not Jewish, but I'm just saying that original sin is not in the old testement. Adam's curse is there, but not original sin.
You brought it up first about asking a jew.
Adam's curse is not original sin?
Hhhmmmmmm....... :think:

Then why did Jesus come? He had nothing better to do? :rolleyes:

Caledvwlch
April 16th, 2005, 03:08 PM
You brought it up first about asking a jew.
Adam's curse is not original sin?
Hhhmmmmmm....... :think:

Then why did Jesus come? He had nothing better to do? :rolleyes:
You're missing the point. The fact is, that nothing in the old testement teaches original sin on its own. If we study it with the bias of the new testement, then we can find what ever meaning we want, just like Paul when he invented original sin.

Agape4Robin
April 16th, 2005, 03:10 PM
You're missing the point. The fact is, that nothing in the old testement teaches original sin on its own. If we study it with the bias of the new testement, then we can find what ever meaning we want, just like Paul when he invented original sin.
How is the NT biased? Based on what? Your opinion?

Agape4Robin
April 16th, 2005, 03:11 PM
If there is no sin...then there is no Jesus....

Lighthouse
April 17th, 2005, 12:10 AM
Litehouse, I am not a vile, disgusting, putrid, waste of thought. I think you are very rude to say that.
:taoist::baby:

:rolleyes:

Lighthouse
April 17th, 2005, 12:36 AM
And since scripture is the only thing that does prove scripture, where does that leave us?

Anyway, there is a possibility that Paul simply invented the original sin doctrine, using Genesis, and certain teachings of Jesus to back himself up. This is why one might say Jesus and Paul disagree, because until someone can show me an instance where Jesus specifically said, all men are born sinful, then I'm going to have to assume that Paul invented it. (Whether it was just a mistake, or an outright deception is immaterial).
Did Christ teach that anyone could be holy on their own? Did He ever teach that we were not sinners? And what makes you think that Paul taught original sin as it is most widely accepted? Babies who have had no chance to sin can not be held accountable for their actions, and therefore do not go to hell if they die as infants. And if you read Paul's letters carefully, you will see that he offers up that same conclusion. But if you read only some of what he wrote, out of context, you will miss it.

Lighthouse
April 17th, 2005, 12:42 AM
I don't believe Paul was divinely inspired (he certainly never claimed to be).
Did you miss Acts 9? Acts 22? 2 Timothy 3:16?

Lovejoy
April 17th, 2005, 12:43 AM
Did Christ teach that anyone could be holy on their own? Did He ever teach that we were not sinners? And what makes you think that Paul taught original sin as it is most widely accepted? Babies who have had no chance to sin can not be held accountable for their actions, and therefore do not go to hell if they die as infants. And if you read Paul's letters carefully, you will see that he offers up that same conclusion. But if you read only some of what he wrote, out of context, you will miss it.
Very true. The concept of "original sin" that requires infant baptism is silly. I tend to think that "justification" rests on children until willful reconciliation can be made. Children are not born "regenerate", they are just born unaccountable.

Lighthouse
April 17th, 2005, 12:54 AM
Very true. The concept of "original sin" that requires infant baptism is silly. I tend to think that "justification" rests on children until willful reconciliation can be made. Children are not born "regenerate", they are just born unaccountable.
:thumb:

Gnostic
April 17th, 2005, 01:29 AM
You said: "Did Christ teach that anyone could be holy on their own?"

Luke 7:50
Jesus said to the woman, “Your faith has saved you; go in peace.”

You said: "Did He ever teach that we were not sinners?"

Mark 2:17
On hearing this, Jesus said to them, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."

Jesus did not teach original sin, and he also did not teach that everyone is a sinner, and according to the synoptic gospels he actually rejected such ideas (see above). So I'd say that "everyone's a sinner" is "another gospel."

*

Lovejoy
April 17th, 2005, 01:38 AM
You said: "Did Christ teach that anyone could be holy on their own?"

Luke 7:50
Jesus said to the woman, “Your faith has saved you; go in peace.”

You said: "Did He ever teach that we were not sinners?"

Mark 2:17
On hearing this, Jesus said to them, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."

Jesus did not teach original sin, and he also did not teach that everyone is a sinner, and according to the synoptic gospels he actually rejected such ideas (see above). So I'd say that "everyone's a sinner" is "another gospel."

*
I can't believe that you could read chapter 19 of Matthew and still believe that. It is patently false, in the light of those scriptures. He frankly says it is impossible to be saved on your own, it is only possible through God. He even says no one is good but God!

Gnostic
April 17th, 2005, 02:36 AM
I can't believe you could say "He frankly says it is impossible to be saved on your own" without posting the scripture to support your opinion.

But fine, I'll meet you half way by admitting that a little divine intervention does make the process of soul survival somewhat more efficient.

*

Lovejoy
April 17th, 2005, 02:47 AM
Matthew 19:25-26 Who then can be saved? Jesus looked at them and said "with man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."

I just assumed that when I referred to Chapter 19 of Matthew you would know what I was talking about. It is a fairly well know verse.

Gnostic
April 17th, 2005, 03:14 AM
Yes God makes it possible by giving us free will so that we may make certain choices. But it's not God making our choices for us, is it?

Question: Do you have free will to choose or is God making your choices for you?

*

Lovejoy
April 17th, 2005, 03:25 AM
Hmm, that is not as clear cut a question as it sounds. Surely, God is not just using my puppet form to do His will. However, with a regenerate heart I do not make the same choices I would have made prior to my new birth. It is a little from column A and a little from column B.

Gnostic
April 17th, 2005, 03:33 AM
Furthermore, "but with God all things are possible" means what? Consider:

Luke 17:21
nor will people say, ‘Here it is,’ or ‘There it is,’ because the kingdom of God is within you.”

Therefore you are suggesting that for salvation I look "up there" to some external God sitting in a throne to save me, but Master said that what people seek is within.

Consider:

Colossians 1:27
To them God has chosen to make known among the Gentiles the glorious riches of this mystery, which is Christ in you,

This is certainly a different teaching to certain synoptic gospels which in my opinion mistakenly teach that Jesus physically rose in the flesh and asked for meat to eat, know what I mean?

*

Gnostic
April 17th, 2005, 03:50 AM
You said: "It is a little from column A and a little from column B."

If by this you mean a little God and a little you, then that makes some sense.

You said: "However, with a regenerate heart I do not make the same choices I would have made prior to my new birth."

But what made the choice for you to have a regenerate heart? Did you make this choice or did God? If you say you (even in part), then you saved yourself, if you say God, then you have no free will.

*

Lovejoy
April 17th, 2005, 03:50 AM
I am afraid that I will have to take this up later. It is long after when I should have gone to bed, especially since I have a test on Monday. Thank you for the brief discussion.

Lovejoy
April 17th, 2005, 03:54 AM
You siad: "It is a little from column A and a little from column B."

If by this you mean a little God and a little you, then that makes some sense.

You said: "However, with a regenerate heart I do not make the same choices I would have made prior to my new birth."

But what made the choice for you to have a regenerate heart? Did you make this choice or did God? If you say you (even in part), then you saved yourself, if you say God, then you have no free will.

*
Oops, we posted at the same time! I will take this up again tomorrow, but this has to do (from my perspective) on the order of salvation, or, does faith or regeneration come first. It is also central to the debate between reform and open belief systems. I say that I made the choice to believe on Christ, and at that moment my heart was regenerated (by God) into something capable of Spiritual things. However, I will be more able to discuss this in a few hours. Goodnight!

Gnostic
April 17th, 2005, 03:55 AM
My pleasure, Lovejoy, and I thank you also.

*

Delmar
April 17th, 2005, 06:03 AM
You said: "It is a little from column A and a little from column B."

If by this you mean a little God and a little you, then that makes some sense.

You said: "However, with a regenerate heart I do not make the same choices I would have made prior to my new birth."

But what made the choice for you to have a regenerate heart? Did you make this choice or did God? If you say you (even in part), then you saved yourself, if you say God, then you have no free will.

*Gods choice is for all to have a regenerate heart . Most reject it.

Chileice
April 17th, 2005, 09:16 AM
You said: "Did Christ teach that anyone could be holy on their own?"

Luke 7:50
Jesus said to the woman, “Your faith has saved you; go in peace.”

You said: "Did He ever teach that we were not sinners?"

Mark 2:17
On hearing this, Jesus said to them, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."

Jesus did not teach original sin, and he also did not teach that everyone is a sinner, and according to the synoptic gospels he actually rejected such ideas (see above). So I'd say that "everyone's a sinner" is "another gospel."

*

Gnostic,
I certainly don't think Jesus was using Mark 2.17 to teach that you could be righteous. Actually, quite to the contrary, the irony is clear in the context. Jesus was there to help the people who admitted they needed help. If they were self-righteous (as were his accusers) then Jesus could do nothing for them, for their faith was placed in themselves rather than in the Son of God who came to seek and save that which was lost. It is our faith that saves us, not a self-generated faith, but a placing of the faith we all have in the person who will never fail... Jesus.

Gnostic
April 18th, 2005, 03:34 AM
Hi Chileice, and thanks for your reply. You said: "Jesus was there to help the people who admitted they needed help."

Actually it simply says he came for "sinners", it does not say anything about whether the "sinners" admit anything. But what about the "righteous" who don't need a doctor, is this not a contradiction to the teaching that everyone is automatically a sinner and needs a doctor?

You said: "I certainly don't think Jesus was using Mark 2.17 to teach that you could be righteous."

Here it is again:

Mark 2:17
Jesus said to them, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."

Clearly according to that scripture Jesus believed that some were righteous and have no need of his help.

Here is another...

Luke 1:6
Both of them were upright in the sight of God, observing all the Lord's commandments and regulations blamelessly.

This is in direct contradiction to some of "Paul's" teachings. I place Paul in quotes because I don't believe he wrote everything attributed to him since those writings are contradictory and they demonstrate utterly incompatible mindsets. The same is found in "John's" gospel vs. his epistles, they are two very different mindsets.

*

Gnostic
April 18th, 2005, 03:57 AM
Hi deardelmar, you said: "Gods choice is for all to have a regenerate heart . Most reject it."

Then your idea of God is that he is not all-powerful. If it's God's choice to regenerate us, and we reject God's choice, then we must be more powerful than God. I'm not sure what you actually believe, please elaborate.

*

Delmar
April 18th, 2005, 04:47 AM
Hi deardelmar, you said: "Gods choice is for all to have a regenerate heart . Most reject it."

Then your idea of God is that he is not all-powerful. If it's God's choice to regenerate us, and we reject God's choice, then we must be more powerful than God. I'm not sure what you actually believe, please elaborate.

* No, not at all! My claim is that his is not the robotic controller of all.

Caledvwlch
April 18th, 2005, 07:02 AM
Did you miss Acts 9? Acts 22? 2 Timothy 3:16?
Acts doesn't count. It was written by Luke. And 2 Timothy 3:16 doesn't necessarily mean anything either. Paul doesn't say that his writings are scripture, only that scripture is divinely inspired. I don't think Paul ever meant for his letters to end up in the Bible.

Berean Todd
April 18th, 2005, 07:08 AM
Acts doesn't count. It was written by Luke. And 2 Timothy 3:16 doesn't necessarily mean anything either. Paul doesn't say that his writings are scripture, only that scripture is divinely inspired. I don't think Paul ever meant for his letters to end up in the Bible.

except you miss the fact that Peter called Paul's letters scripture. (2 Pet 3:16)

Caledvwlch
April 18th, 2005, 07:11 AM
except you miss the fact that Peter called Paul's letters scripture. (2 Pet 3:16)
Wow... is there a significance to the 3:16 pattern here? Kinda cool, if you ask me. But anyway, just because Peter said so doesn't mean it's true. You can't use the Bible to prove the Bible, that's silly, and you wouldn't allow it in any other argument.

Caledvwlch
April 18th, 2005, 07:11 AM
Wow... is there a significance to the 3:16 pattern here? Kinda cool, if you ask me. But anyway, just because Peter said so doesn't mean it's true. You can't use the Bible to prove the Bible, that's silly, and you wouldn't allow it in any other argument.
Also, the only thing I was trying to say was that Paul himself never claimed to be divinely inspired.

Chileice
April 18th, 2005, 07:20 AM
Hi Chileice, and thanks for your reply. You said: "Jesus was there to help the people who admitted they needed help."

Actually it simply says he came for "sinners", it does not say anything about whether the "sinners" admit anything. But what about the "righteous" who don't need a doctor, is this not a contradiction to the teaching that everyone is automatically a sinner and needs a doctor?

You said: "I certainly don't think Jesus was using Mark 2.17 to teach that you could be righteous."

Here it is again:

Mark 2:17
Jesus said to them, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."

Clearly according to that scripture Jesus believed that some were righteous and have no need of his help.

Here is another...

Luke 1:6
Both of them were upright in the sight of God, observing all the Lord's commandments and regulations blamelessly.

This is in direct contradiction to some of "Paul's" teachings. I place Paul in quotes because I don't believe he wrote everything attributed to him since those writings are contradictory and they demonstrate utterly incompatible mindsets. The same is found in "John's" gospel vs. his epistles, they are two very different mindsets.

*

Obviously I don't see it that way. There are upright people, some are certainly more righteous than others... but perfect... NO.

In the passage in Mark 2.17 it clearly tells me there is no one righteous. It was a way to point out to his listeners that they were sorely mistaken. Here is the context:

The Calling of Levi
13Once again Jesus went out beside the lake. A large crowd came to him, and he began to teach them. 14As he walked along, he saw Levi son of Alphaeus sitting at the tax collector's booth. “Follow me,” Jesus told him, and Levi got up and followed him.
15While Jesus was having dinner at Levi's house, many tax collectors and “sinners” were eating with him and his disciples, for there were many who followed him. 16When the teachers of the law who were Pharisees saw him eating with the “sinners” and tax collectors, they asked his disciples: “Why does he eat with tax collectors and ‘sinners’?”

17On hearing this, Jesus said to them, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”

Obviously the teachers of the law thought the group Jesus was with were people not worthy of associating with. The arrogance, self-pride and gaul are showing through to even the most casual reader. So Jesus is saying, "well I came to help sinners, not the righteous" Well they were the "righteous" he was talking about and they were anything BUT righteous. They were self-centred pompous bigots... not exactly the perfect people your interpretation makes them out to be.

Paul did not deny that some were more righteous than others, only that any self-righteousness was no righteousness at all. That my right standing with God does not depend on the quanity of things I do right but rather in trusting that Christ will make me right with God.

Lighthouse
April 18th, 2005, 09:22 AM
Also, the only thing I was trying to say was that Paul himself never claimed to be divinely inspired.
And you're dead wrong.

Granite
April 18th, 2005, 09:29 AM
So when did he?

Caledvwlch
April 18th, 2005, 10:28 AM
And you're dead wrong.
Yeah, lighthouse. When did Paul tell us that God told him what to write? When did he claim such a thing? I'm not saying that he definately was not inspired, only that he never claimed to be.

Chileice
April 18th, 2005, 10:33 AM
I can't think of any NT writer who claimed inspiration for himself/herself.

Caledvwlch
April 18th, 2005, 10:36 AM
I can't think of any NT writer who claimed inspiration for himself/herself.
Exactly. So to bring this back around to the point... Paul wasn't writing scriptures. He was writing letters. He also added things to the teachings of Jesus that simply weren't there. It was committees of men, much later on (centuries later) who decided to include Paul's letters in the Scriptures and label them infallible. Shady...

Granite
April 18th, 2005, 10:43 AM
The point's been made by others that, strictly speaking, what is known today as "Christianity" is more accurately called "Paulinism."

Chileice
April 18th, 2005, 11:45 AM
Exactly. So to bring this back around to the point... Paul wasn't writing scriptures. He was writing letters. He also added things to the teachings of Jesus that simply weren't there. It was committees of men, much later on (centuries later) who decided to include Paul's letters in the Scriptures and label them infallible. Shady...

The first part of your post is true. The last is just plain silly.

He may not have been knowingly writing scripture just as John the Baptist did not know he was the forerunner of the Messiah promised by Malachi. But Jesus said, after John's death, that he had been just that. God can use people in ways unbeknownst to them. For example his use of Cyrus in the return from exile as mentioned in Isaiah. So while Paul may have been writing letters and may not have claimed they were inspired, that does not preclude them from being inspired and therefore being scripture, as Peter very soon recognized.

The second part of your post is just silly. That would mean no one could add anything to anyone's thoughts without it being some huge violation. The US Constitiution, The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, or any such document should remain inviolate even to ammendments and addenda. It would be like saying all communist writings are bogus if not written by Marx himself. Therefore Lenin wasn't a communist. You see it gets silly after a while.

Paul never made any sort of claim for this "Paulism" you are promoting. He was a radical committed follower of Jesus Christ and just wrote how following him was lived out (or ought to be) in daily life. He was certainly not trying to replace Jesus with anything. Read this from Paul and tell me how on earth you can think he was undermining Jesus:

Colossians 1:
The Supremacy of Christ
15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

Or what about this where Paul clearly dismisses the importance of himself or any other messenger from 1 Corinthians 1:

10I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought. 11My brothers, some from Chloe's household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. 12What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas”; still another, “I follow Christ.”
13Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into[b] the name of Paul? 14I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15so no one can say that you were baptized into my name. 16(Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don't remember if I baptized anyone else.) 17For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel–not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

Christ the Wisdom and Power of God
18For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19For it is written: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”
20Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.

Seems to me Paul had no interest in promoting himself, rather Jesus: crucified, risen and coming again. That is the same thing Jesus did. He proclaimed that he would be crucuified, that he would rise and that he would return. Seems to me they were pretty much on the same page. Paul was the average Joe living out his relationship to the almighty Jesus

Granite
April 18th, 2005, 11:48 AM
The interest he had was certainly not in the earthly, human Jesus, but a resurrected cosmic Christ. The Jesus of the epistles is not the man of the gospels. Not by a long shot. It is very curious that Paul makes no attempt whatsoever (or had no knowledge) to describe Jesus' life, existence, ministry, virgin birth, and what have you. And Paul rarely if ever actually cites Christ's words or teachings to bolster Paul's own claims.

Who's kidding who?

Caledvwlch
April 18th, 2005, 11:48 AM
I didn't say he was undermining Jesus. Just that he was adding some more ingredients to the soup.

Lighthouse
April 18th, 2005, 11:53 AM
Yeah, lighthouse. When did Paul tell us that God told him what to write? When did he claim such a thing? I'm not saying that he definately was not inspired, only that he never claimed to be.
You say that Acts 22 doesn't count. But it is the record of Paul speaking to the heads of the church, telling them of the events that were recorded in Acts 9. Paul is saying that Jesus, Himself, called Paul to preach the message he preached. And it is that message that is found in his letters.:duh:

Lighthouse
April 18th, 2005, 11:54 AM
He may not have been knowingly writing scripture just as John the Baptist did not know he was the forerunner of the Messiah promised by Malachi.
John did know. He even said as much.

Caledvwlch
April 18th, 2005, 12:04 PM
John did know. He even said as much.
Considering John and Jesus were cousins, it's no stretch for me to believe they were in cahoots.

Chileice
April 18th, 2005, 01:46 PM
I didn't say he was undermining Jesus. Just that he was adding some more ingredients to the soup.


But it's still the same soup.

Caledvwlch
April 18th, 2005, 01:49 PM
Well, maybe Jesus didn't want anyone putting beans in his corn chowder.

Chileice
April 18th, 2005, 01:59 PM
I don't think he would have met Paul on the road to Damascus if he didn't. Seems like it was Jesus' choice. Saul was pretty content to punish anybody that followed Him until that encounter.

Granite
April 18th, 2005, 03:20 PM
One way to look at it is that he swapped one form of fanaticism for another.

Chileice
April 18th, 2005, 03:53 PM
One way to look at it is that he swapped one form of fanaticism for another.
I know you are trying hard to stay away from anything that gives Christianity any credit but you have admit granite, it is pretty dog gone rare in this world that one does that and that one does it so dramatically. Even if you just look at the situation as a non-religious person, what would have caused a well-respected, well-educated guy to do that? Seems like the explanation would have to be a bit more dramatic than "he just switched fanaticisms". People in the normal course of life don't do that. How many moslem terrorists have you seen signing up to go on missions withYWAM? How many Hindu zealots suddenly drop everything, move to Pakistan and join the taliban? It just isn't within our normal experience to see that or even hear about it.

Caledvwlch
April 18th, 2005, 04:42 PM
I know you are trying hard to stay away from anything that gives Christianity any credit but you have admit granite, it is pretty dog gone rare in this world that one does that and that one does it so dramatically. Even if you just look at the situation as a non-religious person, what would have caused a well-respected, well-educated guy to do that? Seems like the explanation would have to be a bit more dramatic than "he just switched fanaticisms". People in the normal course of life don't do that. How many moslem terrorists have you seen signing up to go on missions withYWAM? How many Hindu zealots suddenly drop everything, move to Pakistan and join the taliban? It just isn't within our normal experience to see that or even hear about it.
It's not inconceivable that the guilt of Saul's persecutions suddenly caught up with him. A conversion experience is usually tied to guilt somehow.

Agape4Robin
April 18th, 2005, 05:03 PM
It's not inconceivable that the guilt of Saul's persecutions suddenly caught up with him. A conversion experience is usually tied to guilt somehow.
Jesus "caught up" with him.
Otherwise, he had nothing to feel guilty about. He was doing the work of God in his persecutions of the christians. According to jewish law, they were commiting blasphemy against God and stoning was the punishment.
As for the guilt factor concerning conversion, it is our remorse over our sin that causes true conversion. Guilt without remorse and then repentance, is not a true conversion.

Gnostic
April 19th, 2005, 02:49 AM
Quote granite, "The interest he had was certainly not in the earthly, human Jesus, but a resurrected cosmic Christ. The Jesus of the epistles is not the man of the gospels."

Indeed Paul didn't care too much for Jesus of Nazareth. His Cosmic Christ was not a man but rather the divine force that is "in you." Jesus taught exactly the same thing when he said the Father is in him. And now we come to the contradictions...

Luke 24:39 Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.”

but Paul didn't believe it...

1 Corinthians 15:50 I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God,

15:1 Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received ...

15:35 But someone may ask, “How are the dead raised?

this is how, and he makes it perfectly clear by contradicting certain myths of physical resurrections...

44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.

45 The first man Adam became a living being; the last Adam, a lifegiving spirit.

46 The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual.

47 The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven.

I'd say when Paul mentions "other gospels" that he's referring to ideas which later crept into the synoptic gospels, namely the myth of Jesus' physical resurrection [into the flesh]. Paul didn't see legs, but a light.

*

Granite
April 19th, 2005, 06:13 AM
I know you are trying hard to stay away from anything that gives Christianity any credit but you have admit granite, it is pretty dog gone rare in this world that one does that and that one does it so dramatically. Even if you just look at the situation as a non-religious person, what would have caused a well-respected, well-educated guy to do that? Seems like the explanation would have to be a bit more dramatic than "he just switched fanaticisms". People in the normal course of life don't do that. How many moslem terrorists have you seen signing up to go on missions withYWAM? How many Hindu zealots suddenly drop everything, move to Pakistan and join the taliban? It just isn't within our normal experience to see that or even hear about it.

It isn't normal but it's certainly not unheard of. A devout Catholic interested in the priesthood wound up running the SS. A former seminary student was responsible for the Soviet gulag. Democratic idealists met their end at the guillotine they used on their opponents. Paradigm shifts happen, and when they happen to the right (or wrong) person, they change history.

Caledvwlch
April 19th, 2005, 07:05 AM
Jesus "caught up" with him.
Otherwise, he had nothing to feel guilty about. He was doing the work of God in his persecutions of the christians. According to jewish law, they were commiting blasphemy against God and stoning was the punishment.
As for the guilt factor concerning conversion, it is our remorse over our sin that causes true conversion. Guilt without remorse and then repentance, is not a true conversion.
Are you telling me that non-christians are incapable of feeling guilt and turning from their evil ways?

Berean Todd
April 19th, 2005, 09:51 AM
Are you telling me that non-christians are incapable of feeling guilt and turning from their evil ways?

It depends on your meaning of "turning from their evil ways". If you mean turning from "really" evil ways, that even society would admit is wrong, to less evil ways, which God would call sinful, but society today oks ... then yes, man can do it. If you mean true repentence and turning, then no, man can not turn from it apart from the drawing work of the Holy Spirit in our lives.

Caledvwlch
April 19th, 2005, 09:52 AM
It depends on your meaning of "turning from their evil ways". If you mean turning from "really" evil ways, that even society would admit is wrong, to less evil ways, which God would call sinful, but society today oks ... then yes, man can do it. If you mean true repentence and turning, then no, man can not turn from it apart from the drawing work of the Holy Spirit in our lives.
Fair enough. Differences of opinion I can live with.

Lighthouse
April 19th, 2005, 02:53 PM
Quote granite, "The interest he had was certainly not in the earthly, human Jesus, but a resurrected cosmic Christ. The Jesus of the epistles is not the man of the gospels."

Indeed Paul didn't care too much for Jesus of Nazareth. His Cosmic Christ was not a man but rather the divine force that is "in you." Jesus taught exactly the same thing when he said the Father is in him. And now we come to the contradictions...

Luke 24:39 Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.”

but Paul didn't believe it...

1 Corinthians 15:50 I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God,

15:1 Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received ...

15:35 But someone may ask, “How are the dead raised?

this is how, and he makes it perfectly clear by contradicting certain myths of physical resurrections...

44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.

45 The first man Adam became a living being; the last Adam, a lifegiving spirit.

46 The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual.

47 The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven.

I'd say when Paul mentions "other gospels" that he's referring to ideas which later crept into the synoptic gospels, namely the myth of Jesus' physical resurrection [into the flesh]. Paul didn't see legs, but a light.

*
"That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."

-Romans 10:9

Guess who wrote that.:rolleyes:

Granite
April 19th, 2005, 03:01 PM
"That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."

-Romans 10:9

Guess who wrote that.:rolleyes:

This has absolutely nothing to do with my point or Gnostic's. Try again.

Agape4Robin
April 19th, 2005, 03:14 PM
Are you telling me that non-christians are incapable of feeling guilt and turning from their evil ways?
Don't change the subject. We are talking about religious conversion and Paul.
But in answer to your question, Berean Todd said it best.

Granite
April 19th, 2005, 03:16 PM
So much for asking a simple question and getting a straight answer.:rolleyes:

Caledvwlch
April 19th, 2005, 03:17 PM
Don't change the subject. We are talking about religious conversion and Paul.
But in answer to your question, Berean Todd said it best.
Ok, but I wasn't trying to change the subject. I was suggesting that the experience on the road to Damascus was not revelation, but hallucination. A conversion could still result. A conversion experience is usually the result of pychological trauma brought on by guilt of some sort.

Agape4Robin
April 19th, 2005, 03:19 PM
Ok, but I wasn't trying to change the subject. I was suggesting that the experience on the road to Damascus was not revelation, but hallucination. A conversion could still result. A conversion experience is usually the result of pychological trauma brought on by guilt of some sort.
Maybe in your case...... :rolleyes:

Caledvwlch
April 19th, 2005, 03:23 PM
Maybe in your case...... :rolleyes:
No most conversion experiences are exactly that. They call it Paranoid Personality Disorder (http://www.pdjamboree.healthyplace2.com/about.html).

Agape4Robin
April 19th, 2005, 03:26 PM
No most conversion experiences are exactly that. They call it Paranoid Personality Disorder (http://www.pdjamboree.healthyplace2.com/about.html).
Paul was not hallucinating and he did not feel guilty.....until after he met Jesus.

Caledvwlch
April 19th, 2005, 03:31 PM
Paul was not hallucinating and he did not feel guilty.....until after he met Jesus.
Well sure, that's the dogmatic interpretation of what happened, but just because that's what Luke wrote in the book of Acts doesn't necessarily make it so.

Lighthouse
April 19th, 2005, 03:37 PM
It's also what Paul said.

Agape4Robin
April 19th, 2005, 03:38 PM
Well sure, that's the dogmatic interpretation of what happened, but just because that's what Luke wrote in the book of Acts doesn't necessarily make it so.
Says who?

Caledvwlch
April 19th, 2005, 03:39 PM
Says who?
That's what I'm asking you. I've learned that just because it is written, doesn't make it so. Things need to be corroborated.

Agape4Robin
April 19th, 2005, 04:02 PM
That's what I'm asking you. I've learned that just because it is written, doesn't make it so. Things need to be corroborated.
Really?
So, where is the lack of evidence?

Chileice
April 19th, 2005, 08:01 PM
That's what I'm asking you. I've learned that just because it is written, doesn't make it so. Things need to be corroborated.

The early Christians would have rejected the writings of Luke if it were just a crock. Too many people were around Paul who could have said it was baloney. The meetings with Festus and Felix and Agrippa are pretty convincing. Why would he say that crap if it weren't true. I mean in Acts 26.24 Festus called Paul crazy... literally, but Paul had a pretty nice comeback. Why would Luke invent THAT. He was there. Why would he want his "mentor" to be called crazy by the authorities? If he was just going to make up stuff, Why didn't Agrippa just fall on his knees and pray to receive Christ?

You guys are digging pretty deep just to make yourselves feel better. The fact is people have conversion experiences and remain completely sane. Are you saying every Christian is clinically ill? I think that kind of thinking might lead a good psychiatrist to question your mental state. If we can't accept a writing which tells the conversion story 3 different times, it's hard to imagine you accepting the writing of anyone even your wife. "Sorry Honey, unless I have three notarized statements from ocular witnesses, I refuse to believe you had pepperoni pizza for lunch." :bang:

Lighthouse
April 19th, 2005, 08:25 PM
The early Christians would have rejected the writings of Luke if it were just a crock. Too many people were around Paul who could have said it was baloney. The meetings with Festus and Felix and Agrippa are pretty convincing. Why would he say that crap if it weren't true. I mean in Acts 26.24 Festus called Paul crazy... literally, but Paul had a pretty nice comeback. Why would Luke invent THAT. He was there. Why would he want his "mentor" to be called crazy by the authorities? If he was just going to make up stuff, Why didn't Agrippa just fall on his knees and pray to receive Christ?

You guys are digging pretty deep just to make yourselves feel better. The fact is people have conversion experiences and remain completely sane. Are you saying every Christian is clinically ill? I think that kind of thinking might lead a good psychiatrist to question your mental state. If we can't accept a writing which tells the conversion story 3 different times, it's hard to imagine you accepting the writing of anyone even your wife. "Sorry Honey, unless I have three notarized statements from ocular witnesses, I refuse to believe you had pepperoni pizza for lunch." :bang:
:thumb:

Caledvwlch
April 19th, 2005, 08:40 PM
Really?
So, where is the lack of evidence?
Or more appropriately, where is the evidence?

Gnostic
April 20th, 2005, 04:23 AM
lighthouse: "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."

So where did I ever say Jesus was not raised from the dead? Of course his spirit was raised, but not his fleshy body. And where does Paul say Jesus' fleshy body was raised? Nowhere. I guess he thought it was more important to write about a cloak he left behind. Dead men rising from their graves are myths. Paul, even though it seems he was a schizophrenic (a trademark of genius), and probably also had a near death experience when they stoned him, wasn't delusional enough to believe such mythology.

*

Granite
April 20th, 2005, 06:20 AM
lighthouse: "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."

So where did I ever say Jesus was not raised from the dead? Of course his spirit was raised, but not his fleshy body. And where does Paul say Jesus' fleshy body was raised? Nowhere. I guess he thought it was more important to write about a cloak he left behind. Dead men rising from their graves are myths. Paul, even though it seems he was a schizophrenic (a trademark of genius), and probably also had a near death experience when they stoned him, wasn't delusional enough to believe such mythology.

*

Paul spoke VERY little of anything literal and historical in the life of Jesus of Nazareth. He wasn't INTERESTED in the human Jesus; he was, in a very real well, creating an entirely new Jesus as he went along.

Aimiel
April 20th, 2005, 07:14 AM
"That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."

So where did I ever say Jesus was not raised from the dead?For one, your very next sentence:
Of course his spirit was raised, but not his fleshy body.Denying the eywitness reports and the fact that Jesus prayed for those who would believe upon Him due to the (honest) testimony of those apostles, you're calling The Word of God a lie, and His appointed apostles worthless.
And where does Paul say Jesus' fleshy body was raised? Nowhere. I guess he thought it was more important to write about a cloak he left behind.He wasn't opposed to The Gospel, which the apostles preached, which is the good news that Jesus is raised from the dead, physically, and ascended to The Right Hand of The Father, and that salvation is available through faith in His Name.
Dead men rising from their graves are myths.You oppose The Truth of The Gospel because you believe your fables, which are far more obvious myths than the truth that many have been physically raised from the dead.
Paul, even though it seems he was a schizophrenic (a trademark of genius), and probably also had a near death experience when they stoned him, wasn't delusional enough to believe such mythology.*If he wasn't, he certainly would have made it a point to let us know about it, since he did let the apostles and his readers know about anything which he disagreed with the others about, regarding doctrine, to enable The Gospel to become more clear. You don't seem to grasp the fact that Paul was a Christian, and not a 'magician' like you want people to believe.

Granite
April 20th, 2005, 07:47 AM
How often did Paul actually refer to the gospels themselves?

Cite them?

Use them as evidence?

Quote them?

Aimiel
April 20th, 2005, 07:57 AM
Maybe you could count the times he said the word, "gospel," and get back to us. He referred to them many times, and even spoke of believers being a 'living epistle' of The Word of God. He had respect for the apostles, and was one Himself, though not one of the twelve.

Caledvwlch
April 20th, 2005, 08:01 AM
Maybe you could count the times he said the word, "gospel," and get back to us. He referred to them many times, and even spoke of believers being a 'living epistle' of The Word of God. He had respect for the apostles, and was one Himself, though not one of the twelve.
That's hardly significant. We all know that the word gospel is used to describe Jesus' story, not necessarily Matthew's spin, Mark's spin, Luke's third hand guesswork, or John's spin. How many of these gospels were written when Paul wrote his letters, by the way?

Caledvwlch
April 20th, 2005, 08:03 AM
By the way. You've not experienced Paul's letters until you've read them in the original Klingon.

Granite
April 20th, 2005, 08:10 AM
Maybe you could count the times he said the word, "gospel," and get back to us. He referred to them many times, and even spoke of believers being a 'living epistle' of The Word of God. He had respect for the apostles, and was one Himself, though not one of the twelve.

When did he refer to them? Example please.

Aimiel
April 20th, 2005, 08:17 AM
That's hardly significant. We all know that the word gospel is used to describe Jesus' story, not necessarily Matthew's spin, Mark's spin, Luke's third hand guesswork, or John's spin. How many of these gospels were written when Paul wrote his letters, by the way?I wasn't referring to 'written' words. He certainly knew what was being preached, having consorted with the apostles, and listening to their sermons, as well as reports from others. The agreement with the whole of The New Testament is simply amazing to me. Here's a new twist (believe upon The Lord Jesus, The Ressurrected Messiah, prophecied for centuries) which throws a monkey wrench into Judaism and causes adherents to come into a dynamic, personal and verifiable relationship with The One Whose very presence used to cause death to anyone who even entered the holy of holies, much less touched the ark of the covenant, and the apostles agree in their theology to the point that they are able to describe what God wants men to do to carry on the tradition until His Son returns to earth, and they don't argue over it until they destroy it, but they seek God and work out the truth behind what their differences are. That's amazing to me. The vast differences between the apostles' backgrounds and their agreement with one another, eventually, is just amazing.

Granite
April 20th, 2005, 08:18 AM
What would be amazing is if Christians had that same spirit of agreement today.

Caledvwlch
April 20th, 2005, 08:19 AM
I wasn't referring to 'written' words. He certainly knew what was being preached, having consorted with the apostles, and listening to their sermons, as well as reports from others. The agreement with the whole of The New Testament is simply amazing to me. Here's a new twist (believe upon The Lord Jesus, The Ressurrected Messiah, prophecied for centuries) which throws a monkey wrench into Judaism and causes adherents to come into a dynamic, personal and verifiable relationship with The One Whose very presence used to cause death to anyone who even entered the holy of holies, much less touched the ark of the covenant, and the apostles agree in their theology to the point that they are able to describe what God wants men to do to carry on the tradition until His Son returns to earth, and they don't argue over it until they destroy it, but they seek God and work out the truth behind what their differences are. That's amazing to me. The vast differences between the apostles' backgrounds and their agreement with one another, eventually, is just amazing.
The reason they "agree" so well is that they were compiled in the same church council.

Granite
April 20th, 2005, 08:27 AM
That might have helped...

Aimiel
April 20th, 2005, 08:30 AM
When did he refer to them? Example please.So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also.

That's just one example. The following is more of what I'm thinking, which is that Paul preached the same Jesus, baptized with The Same Spirit and spread the same Gospel that the other apostles did.

For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.

That shows that he's in agreement with the twelve, because they all preached Jesus crucified.

Aimiel
April 20th, 2005, 08:32 AM
The reason they "agree" so well is that they were compiled in the same church council.I'm not talking about the agreement of The Gospels, which is a large piece of evidence for the validity of The Scriptures, but of the agreement of the apostles.

Granite
April 20th, 2005, 08:38 AM
So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also.

That's just one example. The following is more of what I'm thinking, which is that Paul preached the same Jesus, baptized with The Same Spirit and spread the same Gospel that the other apostles did.

For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.

That shows that he's in agreement with the twelve, because they all preached Jesus crucified.

Aimiel, I was asking for examples of Paul actually using the words of Jesus himself, or the gospels as we have them today.

Here's your problem: Paul rarely if ever appeals to the words of Jesus personally. He never says something to the effect of, "Women shouldn't speak in church because the Lord said so." (As an example.) The epistles are Paul doing his own thing. He does not ever refer to Jesus as a historical, literal, very human being. The Christ of Paul is cosmic and untouchable.

There is a disconnect between the epistles and gospels. They present very, very different pictures of Jesus.

Aimiel
April 20th, 2005, 08:48 AM
There is a disconnect between the epistles and gospels. They present very, very different pictures of Jesus.No, they present different perspectives of The Same Jesus.

Granite
April 20th, 2005, 09:00 AM
...yet Paul apparently was completely unaware of anything relating to Jesus' life. Virgin birth, miracles, any of it.

Caledvwlch
April 20th, 2005, 09:02 AM
...yet Paul apparently was completely unaware of anything relating to Jesus' life. Virgin birth, miracles, any of it.
You'd think the apostles might have mentioned it, at least in passing. "Oh yeah, by the way, Jesus walked on FREAKIN water!!!"

Granite
April 20th, 2005, 09:04 AM
Either Paul was ignorant, unaware, misinformed, underinformed, disinterested, off his rocker...or, for whatever his reasons, he completely didn't care about Jesus the man.

You'll notice whenever Paul gives his testimony that he goes to Damascus. A personal experience. He NEVER appeals to the miracles and ministry of Jesus; he preaches an intangible resurrected Christ who blew his mind.

Caledvwlch
April 20th, 2005, 09:38 AM
Far out...

Aimiel
April 20th, 2005, 09:45 AM
You'll notice whenever Paul gives his testimony that he goes to Damascus. A personal experience. He NEVER appeals to the miracles and ministry of Jesus; he preaches an intangible resurrected Christ who blew his mind.Paul said that he had left behind those things that he grew out of. He went on with The Ressurrected Christ, His Spirit living inside of him, leading, guiding and directing him and encourages us to do the same. He considered himself the 'Chief of sinners' not because he was so evil that no other name would fit, but because he saw (more and more as he progressed in his relationship with The Lord) that he was incapable of putting into use all the things that The Lord had showed him were available to a Christian. We'd do well to complete one tenth of the works that Paul did after his salvation, and we not only have available to us all the Heavenly blessings he had available to him but modern technology which allows us to get more done in less time, and most of us have a hard time just getting out of our beds.

Granite
April 20th, 2005, 12:36 PM
Somehow I find the idea of Paul "growing out" of Jesus' ministry a little hard to believe.:rolleyes:

Aimiel
April 20th, 2005, 01:00 PM
Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. And this will we do, if God permit.

Delmar
April 20th, 2005, 01:02 PM
Somehow I find the idea of Paul "growing out" of Jesus' ministry a little hard to believe.:rolleyes:
An Agnostic finding something hard to believe, imangine that. :think:

Granite
April 20th, 2005, 01:18 PM
:yawn:

I notice no one here has actually addressed what I've said, which isn't too surprising.

Maybe if an answer was GIVEN every once in a while there'd be less doubt in the world. Unfortunately you people are not in the Answering Inquiring Minds business. More like the Believe What We Tell You racket.

Aimiel
April 20th, 2005, 01:27 PM
That's because you aren't looking for answers, for if you were, you'd seek The One Who can answer any question; instead of merely trying to 'trick' believers into the same net of deception you find yourself snagged in.

Turbo
April 20th, 2005, 01:37 PM
...yet Paul apparently was completely unaware of anything relating to Jesus' life. Virgin birth, miracles, any of it.

...

Either Paul was ignorant, unaware, misinformed, underinformed, disinterested, off his rocker...or, for whatever his reasons, he completely didn't care about Jesus the man.

You'll notice whenever Paul gives his testimony that he goes to Damascus. A personal experience. He NEVER appeals to the miracles and ministry of Jesus; he preaches an intangible resurrected Christ who blew his mind.Not so.


Acts 13
16Then Paul stood up, and motioning with his hand said, "Men of Israel, and you who fear God, listen: 17The God of this people Israel chose our fathers, and exalted the people when they dwelt as strangers in the land of Egypt, and with an uplifted arm He brought them out of it. 18Now for a time of about forty years He put up with their ways in the wilderness. 19And when He had destroyed seven nations in the land of Canaan, He distributed their land to them by allotment.

20"After that He gave them judges for about four hundred and fifty years, until Samuel the prophet. 21And afterward they asked for a king; so God gave them Saul the son of Kish, a man of the tribe of Benjamin, for forty years. 22And when He had removed him, He raised up for them David as king, to whom also He gave testimony and said, "I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after My own heart, who will do all My will.'[d] 23From this man's seed, according to the promise, God raised up for Israel a Savior--Jesus-- 24after John had first preached, before His coming, the baptism of repentance to all the people of Israel. 25And as John was finishing his course, he said, "Who do you think I am? I am not He. But behold, there comes One after me, the sandals of whose feet I am not worthy to loose.'

26"Men and brethren, sons of the family of Abraham, and those among you who fear God, to you the word of this salvation has been sent. 27For those who dwell in Jerusalem, and their rulers, because they did not know Him, nor even the voices of the Prophets which are read every Sabbath, have fulfilled them in condemning Him. 28And though they found no cause for death in Him, they asked Pilate that He should be put to death. 29Now when they had fulfilled all that was written concerning Him, they took Him down from the tree and laid Him in a tomb. 30But God raised Him from the dead. 31He was seen for many days by those who came up with Him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are His witnesses to the people.

Also, it's quite a stretch even for an agnostic to assume that Paul was unfamiliar with the details of Christ's life, ministry, and miracles, especially considering his close contact with Luke, as well as his meeting with Peter, John, and James. You're trying to make an argument from silence.

Granite
April 20th, 2005, 01:44 PM
But silent it is, and notably so. This is the man perhaps most responsible for Christianity as we know it today. Yet Paul doesn't lean on Jesus. He leans on himself. I think that's a very important distinction.

Turbo
April 20th, 2005, 01:50 PM
But silent it is, and notably so. No, it isn't. Did you not read the passage I quoted? What do expect, for Paul to have written a fifth detailed account of Christ's earthly ministry just to prove to you that he was familiar with it?


This is the man perhaps most responsible for Christianity as we know it today. Yet Paul doesn't lean on Jesus. He leans on himself. I think that's a very important distinction.It would be more accurate to say that his ministry was based upon direct revelation from Christ rather than on the teachings of other men (i.e. the twelve apostles). He goes to great lengths to make that point particularly in Galatians 1. And Peter and the twelve were convinced that he was telling the truth.

Granite
April 20th, 2005, 02:01 PM
No, it isn't. Did you not read the passage I quoted? What do expect, for Paul to have written a fifth detailed account of Christ's earthly ministry just to prove to you that he was familiar with it?

It would be more accurate to say that his ministry was based upon direct revelation from Christ rather than on the teachings of other men (i.e. the twelve apostles). He goes to great lengths to make that point particularly in Galatians 1. And Peter and the twelve were convinced that he was telling the truth.

The passage you quoted has Paul rehashing second-hand information that was already a few years old. Again, nothing direct.

It would certainly help if Paul had ever documented familiarity with Christ's ministry but the fact remains, if all we had was the epistles, we'd be forced to conclude he was not.

Aimiel
April 20th, 2005, 02:18 PM
People fail to grasp that Paul's work (writing about two thirds of the New Testament) didn't come about merely because he was intelligent or had completed more formal training than the other men, but because (being converted supernaturally and paying so much attention to The Holy Ghost) he had to rely upon his own relationship with The Risen Lord's Spirit, directly; whereas the apostles relied more upon their memory, and wrote what they had heard, not paying nearly as much attention to what The Spirit of The Lord was saying to them today (the day they were writing). It is easier to write from memory than it is to listen and follow The Spirit of The Lord, depending upon Him for inspiration only.

Granite
April 20th, 2005, 02:50 PM
Either that or people think this whole Holy Spirit thing is just bunk...

Turbo
April 20th, 2005, 03:06 PM
The passage you quoted has Paul rehashing second-hand information that was already a few years old. Again, nothing direct.

It would certainly help if Paul had ever documented familiarity with Christ's ministry...
But then you would say that he was just rehashing second-hand information that was already a few years old. I'm getting the impression that nothing would satisfy you.

Do you likewise conclude that Peter and James and Jude were unfamiliar with Christ's earthly ministry, based on the "silence" in their epistles?
but the fact remains, if all we had was the epistles, we'd be forced to conclude he was not.Speak for yourself. I don't like to base my beliefs on logical fallacies, and you've already conceded that you are making your argument from silence.

But anyway, Paul's epistles are not all we have. We also have the Acts of the Apostles and Peter's second epistle, both of which endorse Paul, who claimed to receive revelation from Christ Himself. And we know that Paul spent a great deal of time with Luke, who wrote a detailed account of Christ's earthly ministry.

But hey, If you want to blindly believe that Paul was ignorant about Christ's ministry and went out of his way to stay that way, go right ahead.

Emo
April 20th, 2005, 03:10 PM
I don't really understand this Paul vs. Jesus thing. The message of Grace was revealed directly to Paul from Christ Himself. What's the big mix-up?

Acts 26:14-18 sums it up rather well, which is just a recollection of what happened to Paul in Acts 9.

and of course there's also Gal. chapter 1 which Turbo has already cited, I'll just quote the verse.

Gal 1:1 Paul, an apostle (not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father who raised Him from the dead),

Agape4Robin
April 20th, 2005, 03:12 PM
An Agnostic finding something hard to believe, imangine that. :think:
:BRAVO:

Granite
April 20th, 2005, 03:21 PM
But then you would say that he was just rehashing second-hand information that was already a few years old. I'm getting the impression that nothing would satisfy you.

Do you likewise conclude that Peter and James and Jude were unfamiliar with Christ's earthly ministry, based on the "silence" in their epistles?Speak for yourself. I don't like to base my beliefs on logical fallacies, and you've already conceded that you are making your argument from silence.

But anyway, Paul's epistles are not all we have. We also have the Acts of the Apostles and Peter's second epistle, both of which endorse Paul, who claimed to receive revelation from Christ Himself. And we know that Paul spent a great deal of time with Luke, who wrote a detailed account of Christ's earthly ministry.

But hey, If you want to blindly believe that Paul was ignorant about Christ's ministry and went out of his way to stay that way, go right ahead.

Turbo, bottomline: the epistles reveal next to nothing about Jesus the man. They are more evocative of myth and the cosmic Christ has more in common with Apollo than with the Jesus of the gospels. It's not just a matter of differing styles; it's a matter of differing messages.

Turbo
April 20th, 2005, 04:08 PM
Turbo, bottomline: the epistles reveal next to nothing about Jesus the man. So what?
They are more evocative of myth and the cosmic Christ has more in common with Apollo than with the Jesus of the gospels. Peter and the twelve didn't think so.
It's not just a matter of differing styles; it's a matter of differing messages.Paul did have a different message than the twelve; that was the whole point of God making Paul an apostle. He preached his gospel of uncircumcision (which he received directly from Christ) to the Gentiles, whereas the twelve agreed to preach the gospel of circumcision only to Israel. Paul went out of his was to make that clear in his epistle to the Galatians, particularly in the first two chapters.

Chileice
April 20th, 2005, 06:44 PM
:yawn:

I notice no one here has actually addressed what I've said, which isn't too surprising.

Maybe if an answer was GIVEN every once in a while there'd be less doubt in the world. Unfortunately you people are not in the Answering Inquiring Minds business. More like the Believe What We Tell You racket.

Acts 13:
23“From this man's descendants God has brought to Israel the Savior Jesus, as he promised. 24Before the coming of Jesus, John preached repentance and baptism to all the people of Israel. 25As John was completing his work, he said: ‘Who do you think I am? I am not that one. No, but he is coming after me, whose sandals I am not worthy to untie.’

26“Brothers, children of Abraham, and you Godfearing Gentiles, it is to us that this message of salvation has been sent. 27The people of Jerusalem and their rulers did not recognize Jesus, yet in condemning him they fulfilled the words of the prophets that are read every Sabbath. 28Though they found no proper ground for a death sentence, they asked Pilate to have him executed. 29When they had carried out all that was written about him, they took him down from the tree and laid him in a tomb. 30But God raised him from the dead, 31and for many days he was seen by those who had traveled with him from Galilee to Jerusalem. They are now his witnesses to our people.

32“We tell you the good news: What God promised our fathers 33he has fulfilled for us, their children, by raising up Jesus. As it is written in the second Psalm: “ ‘You are my Son;
today I have become your Father."

Acts 20:
34You yourselves know that these hands of mine have supplied my own needs and the needs of my companions. 35In everything I did, I showed you that by this kind of hard work we must help the weak, remembering the words the Lord Jesus himself said: ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’ ”

1Cor. 1:
13Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into[b] the name of Paul? 14I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15so no one can say that you were baptized into my name. 16(Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don't remember if I baptized anyone else.) 17For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel–not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

Christ the Wisdom and Power of God
18For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19For it is written: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”[c]
20Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.

1 Cor. 11:
23For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

1 Cor. 15:
3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Peter,[b] and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

2 Cor. 8
8I am not commanding you, but I want to test the sincerity of your love by comparing it with the earnestness of others. 9For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, so that you through his poverty might become rich.

Ephesians 2:
19Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God's people and members of God's household, 20built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. 21In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord.

1 Thes. 2:
14For you, brothers, became imitators of God's churches in Judea, which are in Christ Jesus: You suffered from your own countrymen the same things those churches suffered from the Jews, 15who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out. They displease God and are hostile to all men 16in their effort to keep us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved. In this way they always heap up their sins to the limit. The wrath of God has come upon them at last.

1 Thes. 5:
8But since we belong to the day, let us be selfcontrolled, putting on faith and love as a breastplate, and the hope of salvation as a helmet. 9For God did not appoint us to suffer wrath but to receive salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ. 10He died for us so that, whether we are awake or asleep, we may live together with him.

1 Tim. 6:
11But you, man of God, flee from all this, and pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, endurance and gentleness. 12Fight the good fight of the faith. Take hold of the eternal life to which you were called when you made your good confession in the presence of many witnesses. 13In the sight of God, who gives life to everything, and of Christ Jesus, who while testifying before Pontius Pilate made the good confession, I charge you 14to keep this command without spot or blame until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, 15which God will bring about in his own time–God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords, 16who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen.

2 Tim. 2:
8Remember Jesus Christ, raised from the dead, descended from David. This is my gospel, 9for which I am suffering even to the point of being chained like a criminal. But God's word is not chained. 10Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they too may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus, with eternal glory.

Titus 3:
3At one time we too were foolish, disobedient, deceived and enslaved by all kinds of passions and pleasures. We lived in malice and envy, being hated and hating one another. 4But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, 5he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, 6whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life.

Hebrews 5:
7During the days of Jesus' life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with loud cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission. 8Although he was a son, he learned obedience from what he suffered 9and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him 10and was designated by God to be high priest in the order of Melchizedek.

Hebrews 12:
1Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles, and let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us. 2Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. 3Consider him who endured such opposition from sinful men, so that you will not grow weary and lose heart.

Hebrews 13:
11The high priest carries the blood of animals into the Most Holy Place as a sin offering, but the bodies are burned outside the camp. 12And so Jesus also suffered outside the city gate to make the people holy through his own blood. 13Let us, then, go to him outside the camp, bearing the disgrace he bore. 14For here we do not have an enduring city, but we are looking for the city that is to come.

15Through Jesus, therefore, let us continually offer to God a sacrifice of praise–the fruit of lips that confess his name. 16And do not forget to do good and to share with others, for with such sacrifices God is pleased. 17Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you.

18Pray for us. We are sure that we have a clear conscience and desire to live honorably in every way. 19I particularly urge you to pray so that I may be restored to you soon.

20May the God of peace, who through the blood of the eternal covenant brought back from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep, 21equip you with everything good for doing his will, and may he work in us what is pleasing to him, through Jesus Christ, to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.



Here are a few verses for you to chew on granite. How do these differ from Jesus of the Gospels? This is a broad sampling from almost every Pauline epistle plus Acts of some of what Paul had to say about Jesus. Now I would like you to respond and show me how this Jesus is materially different from Jesus in the Gospels. I have time so you can read all of the verse before you jump out there with some one-liner. If you can prove that this is something different, I will accept your research. But it appears to me that Paul is talking of Jesus of Nazareth who was born, who grew up in Nazareth, who suffered at the hands of the authorities, who was crucified, who suffered outside the city walls, who was buried, resurrected and who promised to come again. It also appears that he sent His Holy Spirit as promised and that he came not to condemn but rather to save just as John 3 states. So, anyway, I'm having a hard time dismissing Paul as some inventor of a mock Jesus who had no real earthly life.

I don't know what has you so bummed about your experience in a christian church, but maybe they were preaching the wrong Christ. I don't know. But , anyway, I await your response.

Lighthouse
April 21st, 2005, 03:12 AM
Why is anybody still putting up with granite?

Granite
April 21st, 2005, 06:26 AM
"Here are a few verses for you to chew on granite."

I appreciate you actually giving me an answer!:thumb:

"How do these differ from Jesus of the Gospels? This is a broad sampling from almost every Pauline epistle plus Acts of some of what Paul had to say about Jesus. Now I would like you to respond and show me how this Jesus is materially different from Jesus in the Gospels."

To this I would ask: how often does Paul appeal to the WORDS of Jesus? The sermon the mount, the miracles, the ministry, the prayers? Next to never. He does, indeed, preach "Christ crucified," but remember, if Paul was taking the Jesus Story (a wise rabbi unjustly executed) and putting his own spin on it, what does that really prove? And I'm not exactly making this up. The idea that Paul took a local story and ran with it is certainly not a new concept.

The emphasis in the passages you cited is, of course, on Jesus' death and resurrection. Paul does not appeal to (very recent) local history and cites a nebulous "five hundred" witnesses, none of whom are named (the witnesses he does name are the apostles, which is a self-proving argument, i.e., scripture essentially proving scripture).

"I have time so you can read all of the verse before you jump out there with some one-liner."

Ah. You know me too well...:chuckle:

"If you can prove that this is something different, I will accept your research. But it appears to me that Paul is talking of Jesus of Nazareth who was born, who grew up in Nazareth, who suffered at the hands of the authorities, who was crucified, who suffered outside the city walls, who was buried, resurrected and who promised to come again."

This is what he talked about, yes. Paul's greatest next step, as it were, was claiming that Jesus was the promised messiah. Jews of his day and of ours deny this, of course, by appealing to the very scripture Paul as a pharisee knew inside and out. (Nazareth, incidently, may not have even existed in Jesus' day; there's no agreement amongst scholars on this subject, but it's a digression.) Here's the thing: Paul championed the idea that Jesus was the Christ, amidst stiff opposition even among "Christian" or at least gnostic sects. If the gnostics had "won," as it were, say at Nicea, Pauline thought wouldn't dominate today. He was one man, one scholar, one voice, one argument. His argument won out; lucky Paul.

As Paul himself pointed out, his story was worthless without the resurrection. Sooner or later this discussion boils down to the validity of scripture, of course, and neither of us will "win" THAT argument. Paul endorsed the resurrection story and ran with it. Many didn't and still don't.

"It also appears that he sent His Holy Spirit as promised and that he came not to condemn but rather to save just as John 3 states. So, anyway, I'm having a hard time dismissing Paul as some inventor of a mock Jesus who had no real earthly life."

Well, trying to "prove" the Holy Spirit was "sent" is well-nigh impossible. I wouldn't say Paul invented the entire Jesus story out of whole cloth, no. I would say he embellished it.

"I don't know what has you so bummed about your experience in a christian church, but maybe they were preaching the wrong Christ. I don't know. But , anyway, I await your response."

PM me if you care to know Granite's Tale of Woe (it's short and not terribly interesting, FYI), but I can tell you each church I ever attended preach the "right" (read: ORTHODOX) Christ.

Chileice
April 21st, 2005, 08:30 AM
Chileice-- "Here are a few verses for you to chew on granite."

I appreciate you actually giving me an answer!:thumb:
You're Welcome.



Chileice- "How do these differ from Jesus of the Gospels? This is a broad sampling from almost every Pauline epistle plus Acts of some of what Paul had to say about Jesus. Now I would like you to respond and show me how this Jesus is materially different from Jesus in the Gospels."

To this I would ask: how often does Paul appeal to the WORDS of Jesus? The sermon the mount, the miracles, the ministry, the prayers? Next to never. He does, indeed, preach "Christ crucified," but remember, if Paul was taking the Jesus Story (a wise rabbi unjustly executed) and putting his own spin on it, what does that really prove? And I'm not exactly making this up. The idea that Paul took a local story and ran with it is certainly not a new concept.

The emphasis in the passages you cited is, of course, on Jesus' death and resurrection. Paul does not appeal to (very recent) local history and cites a nebulous "five hundred" witnesses, none of whom are named (the witnesses he does name are the apostles, which is a self-proving argument, i.e., scripture essentially proving scripture).

Let me say that this is never unusual in literature. How often do Republicans refer to incidents in the life of Ronald Reagan to promote their agenda. They refer to him and to Reagonomics for example but rarely refer directly to quotes when trying to promote some economic agenda.

Paul was trying to give us the meaning of Jesus in our lives not recapitulate biographical information. Obviously he knew it or Luke wouldn't have been able to write his Gospel. Luke is a Pauline convert. Luke travelled with Paul and probably learned a whole bunch of the biographical info he had from Paul. I think you are trying to go back 2000 years and remake people based on what you want them to think. I guess we all do that. But at some point, we also have to take things at face value. I just don't think Paul was in some conscious conspiracy to co-opt Jesus in order to form some new world order. He was just a Jew who saw the light and often appealed to the OT because that was how he was convinced that Jesus WAS the Messiah.



Chileice-- "I have time so you can read all of the verse before you jump out there with some one-liner."
Ah. You know me too well...:chuckle:

Let's just say that I have detected some patterns ;)





Chileice-- "If you can prove that this is something different, I will accept your research. But it appears to me that Paul is talking of Jesus of Nazareth who was born, who grew up in Nazareth, who suffered at the hands of the authorities, who was crucified, who suffered outside the city walls, who was buried, resurrected and who promised to come again."

This is what he talked about, yes. Paul's greatest next step, as it were, was claiming that Jesus was the promised messiah. Jews of his day and of ours deny this, of course, by appealing to the very scripture Paul as a pharisee knew inside and out. (Nazareth, incidently, may not have even existed in Jesus' day; there's no agreement amongst scholars on this subject, but it's a digression.) Here's the thing: Paul championed the idea that Jesus was the Christ, amidst stiff opposition even among "Christian" or at least gnostic sects. If the gnostics had "won," as it were, say at Nicea, Pauline thought wouldn't dominate today. He was one man, one scholar, one voice, one argument. His argument won out; lucky Paul.

As Paul himself pointed out, his story was worthless without the resurrection. Sooner or later this discussion boils down to the validity of scripture, of course, and neither of us will "win" THAT argument. Paul endorsed the resurrection story and ran with it. Many didn't and still don't.


Of course my point was not whether you or anyone else believes in the resurrection, but rather whether Paul's teaching on it is consistent with what is in the Gospel accounts. I believe it is.



Chileice--"It also appears that he sent His Holy Spirit as promised and that he came not to condemn but rather to save just as John 3 states. So, anyway, I'm having a hard time dismissing Paul as some inventor of a mock Jesus who had no real earthly life."

Well, trying to "prove" the Holy Spirit was "sent" is well-nigh impossible. I wouldn't say Paul invented the entire Jesus story out of whole cloth, no. I would say he embellished it.



Again, it is the same thing. Your original point seemed to be that Paul didn't follow from Jesus. But , of course to embellish something you have to have the original to start with. Of course I don't see it as embellishment. I see it as more teaching on the same subject, going to another level or explaining the idea in different terms. As far as your story... send me a PM. I'd be interested to hear it.

Gnostic
April 22nd, 2005, 03:42 AM
Aimiel said: "...you're calling The Word of God a lie"

Show me the verse in the Bible where it says the Bible is the Word of God. And this time please don't ignore it but show me. Put your Bible where your mouth is. Until you do, I'll call any writing on earth a lie as I see fit, and God certainly won't mind.

You said: "The Word of God"

You mean this...

2 Timothy 4:13
When you come, bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas...

Unless you believeth in the Doctrine of the Lost Cloak, you cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven.

Or maybe this...

1 Corinthians 11:7
... A man ought not to have long hair since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. ...neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.

Or perhaps...

1 Timothy 2:12
I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.

Or maybe this one which really pisses me off...

1 Timothy 2:14
And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.

And no wonder there is such confusion since...

2 Corinthians 11:17
In this selfconfident boasting I am not talking as the Lord would, but as a fool.

It's not Paul's or God's fault that you should insist on believing that every single word in his letters to his congregations and family and friends is "The Word of God." Who in heavens name taught you to worship the Bible? I'd say it was probably the preacher at your local church, right?

:sheep: :sheep: :sheep:

*

Gnostic
April 22nd, 2005, 04:42 AM
Saint Aimiel said: "...you're calling The Word of God a lie"

Matthew 5:28
But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Well, Aimiel, I don't know about you, but according to the above I'm certainly the greatest adulterer on the planet and certainly on my way to the Big Roast. You know, when a beautiful woman walks past (showcasing the very sexy legs and fanny Almighty God blessed her with), I cannot but desire to have her [in my bed]. Well this is the truth, What, you'd prefer that I lie? Now what about you, Saint Aimiel, do you think Jesus was a liar when he said that? Or perhaps you have complete control over your Mind? Or maybe you're secretly a homosexual and spared from that sin? Or maybe it doesn't apply to you since you only do such wickedness on rare occasions? Or maybe the verse isn't really completely true so you ignore it? Anyway, whatever you do, remember that God loves you for things you'd never guess, and hates you for striving to achieve your particualr idea of "righteousness." I know all this because I've had a man to man fight with the Guy (lasted for hours), and when I delivered a final exceedingly powerful blow to the neck, he gave up in defeat and admitted it is so.

*

Granite
April 22nd, 2005, 05:55 AM
Oh boy.

Deep breaths, everybody, deep breaths...

Aimiel
April 22nd, 2005, 11:00 AM
Show me the verse in the Bible where it says the Bible is the Word of God.We are told to let everything be established out of the mouth of two or more witnesses. The writers of The Gospels (as well as the rest of The Bible) were inspired by The Lord to write The Scriptures. If one doesn't believe in God, then The Witness that He gives, which is better than any eyewitness account, of His Word and Its validity isn't available to them.
Put your Bible where your mouth is. Until you do, I'll call any writing on earth a lie as I see fit, and God certainly won't mind. If you walk by faith in God, then His Word means everything to you, if you don't, then it means nothing.
It's not Paul's or God's fault that you should insist on believing that every single word in his letters to his congregations and family and friends is "The Word of God."Actually, since God told us that every single Scripture was given by His Inspiration, it is His 'fault.'
Who in heavens name taught you to worship the Bible?I don't worship The Bible, I worship It's Author, The Lord Jesus. It is also painfully obvious who you worship, false gods who don't even exist. :kookoo:

Aimiel
April 22nd, 2005, 11:09 AM
Saint Aimiel said: "...you're calling The Word of God a lie"

Matthew 5:28
But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Well, Aimiel, I don't know about you, but according to the above I'm certainly the greatest adulterer on the planet and certainly on my way to the Big Roast. You know, when a beautiful woman walks past (showcasing the very sexy legs and fanny Almighty God blessed her with), I cannot but desire to have her [in my bed]. Well this is the truth, What, you'd prefer that I lie? Now what about you, Saint Aimiel, do you think Jesus was a liar when he said that?Of course not. He can't lie. If He were to say, during the daytime, "It is night," the earth would have to rotate or the sun would have to go out. That is The Authority that He has. If you don't recognize that authority, or accept His Help in identifying your sinfullness, and need for A Saviour, that's your problem. He has given you all the warning you're going to get from Him.
Or perhaps you have complete control over your Mind?My God, Who lives inside of me does.
Or maybe it doesn't apply to you since you only do such wickedness on rare occasions?No, actually I used to (before I became Christian) actually seek them out, as well as every page of pornography I could lay my hands on. Becoming Christian isn't about joining a church, but is a death to our carnal nature as we are born-again as spiritual creatures.
Or maybe the verse isn't really completely true so you ignore it?No, it is true. Always will be.
Anyway, whatever you do, remember that God loves you for things you'd never guess, and hates you for striving to achieve your particualr idea of "righteousness."You're right on one point, He hates 'works' that people do to try to be righteous. His Righteousness is a free gift to Christians. We no longer have to work to try to achieve that which has been given to us freely.
I know all this because I've had a man to man fight with the Guy (lasted for hours), and when I delivered a final exceedingly powerful blow to the neck, he gave up in defeat and admitted it is so.Excuse me, exactly what are you talking about here? Could you possibly clarify what you're trying to say?

Gnostic
April 23rd, 2005, 12:28 AM
Aimiel: "We are told to let everything be established out of the mouth of two or more witnesses. The writers of The Gospels (as well as the rest of The Bible) were inspired by The Lord to write The Scriptures."

Thank you for your opinion. Now show me the verse in the Bible where it says the Bible is the Word of God. If you can't, then sadly God never said it, but you said it, Mr. God.

You said: "Actually, since God told us that every single Scripture was given by His Inspiration, it is His 'fault.'"

Then it must also include scripture outside the canon that God never told you to close.

You said: "I don't worship The Bible, I worship It's Author, The Lord Jesus."

I find that remarkable. If I were convinced something came out of the very mouth of God, I would most definitely worship that thing. Perhaps you should reconsider your position.

Nevertheless, exactly which book is signed by Jesus as its author? If Jesus himself knocked on your door tonight and told you a new saying, you would reply: "Sir, please wait a moment while I check to see whether my Bible says so..." and you would return to reject the demon possessed man. This is called "The Crucifixion Of Truth" or TCOT. Master Jesus experienced exactly this, from the ancestors of your species.

You said: "Excuse me, exactly what are you talking about here? Could you possibly clarify what you're trying to say?"

Sadly I can't do that because it is forbidden to clarify esoteric writings to the common people. You see, when you walk up to a lion saying "Greetings, lion, how are you to-day?"... the lion will reply "Who are you, O man, to tease a lion?" and will continue to take a huge bite out of your butt. If you don't get your act together and run very fast, the Angels will be entertained while he additionally feasts on your carcass for the next three days. If God does not spare your butt in the harsh Realities of the material world (but rather gives you legs capable of running and leaves the rest to you), then why should I go against his principals by making it easy for you to comprehend the meanings of the non-material world? Therefore continue to do what you have been doing, and you will receive more of the same. And please do remember to post that verse concerning the closing of your canon. I'm sure there are others here who would equally like to see it.

*

Lighthouse
April 23rd, 2005, 12:39 AM
Gnostic has no Gnosis.:nono:

Gnostic
April 23rd, 2005, 02:13 AM
I said: "Or perhaps you have complete control over your Mind?"

You replied: "My God, Who lives inside of me does."

My response: You are indeed not in control of your own Mind, and you admit it.

Will heaven be full of minds like this? God forbid, a giant windowless cube called New Jerusalem, packed to the brim with saints who are there because they didn't use their own minds, does not look to me like heaven, but rather it resembles somthing like hell.

You said: "His Righteousness is a free gift to Christians. We no longer have to work to try to achieve that which has been given to us freely."

Firstly, a gift is always free, so saying "free gift" should be left to advertising agencies who know well why they use that term.

Secondly, it is not a gift of God since according to your doctrines someone had to pay a price. Therefore it's free to you, but since God gives nothing for free, your God lacks grace. Sorry, I can't change the bottom line of your doctrines.

Thirdly...

Acts 14:22 “We must go through many hardships to enter the kingdom of God,” they said.

So it's not work-less either.

*

Gnostic
April 23rd, 2005, 02:34 AM
lighthouse, Gnosis is not used at public forums, it is not knowledge, but rather a state. Saying one has no Gnosis is like speculating a forum member has no mortgage on his house.

Anyway, at this thread I'm being a Post Iconoclast. Remember when you guys were demolishing the interiors of the Catholic churches because you thought their teachings were false? Well the tradition continues except in modern times we do it digitally, which is far more efficient, and the target is not specifically Catholicism.

*

Lighthouse
April 23rd, 2005, 02:42 AM
lighthouse, Gnosis is not used at public forums, it is not knowledge, but rather a state. Saying one has no Gnosis is like speculating a forum member has no mortgage on his house.
You're still full of crap.

Gnostic
April 23rd, 2005, 03:21 AM
I'd rather be full of crap than a self-righteous hypocrite like you, any day, lol.

*

Gnostic
April 23rd, 2005, 03:27 AM
And since we're currently passing the time by insulting each other (and you started it BTW), I must say I love your avatar, the way the light goes in one ear and out the other. Nice bit of abstract creativity, dude. OK so now it's your turn.

*

Lighthouse
April 23rd, 2005, 03:42 AM
I'd rather be full of crap than a self-righteous hypocrite like you, any day, lol.

*
How am I self-righteous? How am I a hypocrite? Can you base these on anything I've said?

Gnostic
April 23rd, 2005, 03:44 AM
Aimiel said about sexy girls walking past: "No, actually I used to (before I became Christian)..."

So now since you're a Christian, when an extremely sexy girl walks past you turn your head? How has Christianity made it possible for you to ignore a beautiful sexy butt? I'd say Christian men love sexy butts just as much the guys of the other religions, wouldn't you agree? Are you telling me that you have no desires? Are you saying that you don't have desires only because you don't see things such as porno's? I find your mindset fascinating.

*

Gnostic
April 23rd, 2005, 03:47 AM
I'll tell you exactly why you're a self-righteous hypocrite when you tell me first why I'm full of crap.

*

Lighthouse
April 23rd, 2005, 03:51 AM
Aimiel said about sexy girls walking past: "No, actually I used to (before I became Christian)..."

So now since you're a Christian, when an extremely sexy girl walks past you turn your head? How has Christianity made it possible for you to ignore a beautiful sexy butt? I'd say Christian men love sexy butts just as much the guys of the other religions, wouldn't you agree? Are you telling me that you have no desires? Are you saying that you don't have desires only because you don't see things such as porno's? I find your mindset fascinating.
Yes, I have lusted. And by that token I am an adulterer. I have failed in one aspect of the law [actually many], and by that token I have faile din them all. But Christ died for me, and I am now forgiven, becuase His grace has been appropriated for me by faith. And I am now no longer under the law, and can no longer fail the law.

Gnostic
April 23rd, 2005, 03:52 AM
Here's an important scripture your Catholic ancestors left out of the Bible and attempted to destroy...

The Gospel of Thomas
6. His disciples asked him and said to him, "Do you want us to fast? How should we pray? Should we give to charity? What diet should we observe?"
Jesus said, "Don't lie, and don't do what you hate, because all things are disclosed before heaven."

*

Lighthouse
April 23rd, 2005, 03:55 AM
I'll tell you exactly why you're a self-righteous hypocrite when you tell me first why I'm full of crap.
Post # 212 (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=733846&postcount=212), for starters...

Lighthouse
April 23rd, 2005, 03:58 AM
Here's an important scripture your Catholic ancestors left out of the Bible and attempted to destroy...

The Gospel of Thomas
6. His disciples asked him and said to him, "Do you want us to fast? How should we pray? Should we give to charity? What diet should we observe?"
Jesus said, "Don't lie, and don't do what you hate, because all things are disclosed before heaven."
You are aware that the gospel of Thomas is in the Catholic Bible, aren't you?

And what are yo trying to say wiht this verse, anyway? Who are you directing this towards, and why?

Gnostic
April 23rd, 2005, 03:59 AM
Yes but despite all that, when an extremely beautiful butt walks past, you're not indifferent, are you?

At these forums you're very nice (except when you offend me and others), but I'm sure when you're with the guys at the pub, you don't mind a nice set of legs walking past, am I right?

If you think I sound like the Serpent, then you think well. Remember that our cause is for truth, not BS, and we don't mind being thrown into hell for a while by your God for taking care of Father's business.

*

Lighthouse
April 23rd, 2005, 04:06 AM
Yes but despite all that, when an extremely beautiful butt walks past, you're not indifferent, are you?

At these forums you're very nice (except when you offend me and others), but I'm sure when you're with the guys at the pub, you don't mind a nice set of legs walking past, am I right?

If you think I sound like the Serpent, then you think well. Remember that our cause is for truth, not BS, and we don't mind being thrown into hell for a while by your God for taking care of Father's business.
I go to bars to drink, not check out women.

Anyway, I never said I was indifferent, but checking out a beautiful woman is not lusting. And I am not a slave to lust, so why should I lust? However, if I do, it is adultery. Jesus said it was, and who am I to argue with God?

You do sound very much like your father, the serpent...

Gnostic
April 23rd, 2005, 04:09 AM
You said: "You are aware that the gospel of Thomas is in the Catholic Bible, aren't you?"

You are very amusing.

You said: "http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=733846&postcount=212, for starters..."

And so you pointed me to a post. And, specifically, what? Tell me specifically what you find wrong with it. Always be specific (unless you're being esoteric, of course)

You said: "And what are yo trying to say wiht this verse, anyway? Who are you directing this towards, and why?"

Jesus is saying to cut the BS. Don't do what you hate. Ie. close the porno magazine because someone said it's wrong, or worship Saturdays because some ancient Rabbis said so, or lock yourself up in a room and bring your hands together and close your eyes to pray to Father because otherwise he can't hear you. In other words, Jesus is saying your mind is your own. If you want to have sex with a man, God couldn't give a rats butt where you prefer to stick your weenie. We are all "sinners", but that's how your God made us to be. We are animals, and our behavior is very fitting. So don't think someone is a sinner going to hell because he rejects your particular doctrines, while you are also a sinner yet going to heaven because you believe "this" and "that", otherwise, you're indeed a hypocrite. Just be what you are and let others do the same and leave the judging to God (not Father, but "God").

*

Gnostic
April 23rd, 2005, 04:33 AM
You siad: "I go to bars to drink, not check out women."

I also go to bars to drink, and if a woman goes past I'll check her out. Women DO make themselves attractive so that men check them out, that is why they do it. And here you are at the forums saying all their work is in vain for Christian men. Shame on you!

You said: "You do sound very much like your father, the serpent..."

You do me justice. Just remember what the Serpent did, and what Jesus did, and then tell me it's not the same work. Would you like me to post the scripture that supports this? I, unlike you, can back my doctrines with the Bible.

*

Gnostic
April 23rd, 2005, 04:45 AM
Thanks for the chat, lighthouse, and please accept my sincere apology if I've offended you.

I'll leave you with this...

Matthew 21:32
Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you [dogma worshipers].

*

Aimiel
April 23rd, 2005, 10:58 AM
Aimiel: "We are told to let everything be established out of the mouth of two or more witnesses. The writers of The Gospels (as well as the rest of The Bible) were inspired by The Lord to write The Scriptures."

Thank you for your opinion. Now show me the verse in the Bible where it says the Bible is the Word of God. If you can't, then sadly God never said it, but you said it, Mr. God.In order to receive truth from God, you first have to believe in Him. Since you don't, you can't. It is that simple. You are lost, and need to be saved.
You said: "Actually, since God told us that every single Scripture was given by His Inspiration, it is His 'fault.'"

Then it must also include scripture outside the canon that God never told you to close.I didn't close it, He did. He inspired the men who did so, just as He inspired Moses to write the word, "In..." to begin His Word.
You said: "I don't worship The Bible, I worship It's Author, The Lord Jesus."

I find that remarkable. If I were convinced something came out of the very mouth of God, I would most definitely worship that thing. Perhaps you should reconsider your position.Perhaps you should recognize the truth that God wants people who worship Him in spirit and in truth, not with vain words and lip-service, like you suggest. He told us not to worship any 'graven' image. Books are not God. God is in The Words, just as He is in those who read those words, but we are not to worship each other. We worship God, Who is Spirit.
Nevertheless, exactly which book is signed by Jesus as its author?All 66 of them.
If Jesus himself knocked on your door tonight and told you a new saying, you would reply: "Sir, please wait a moment while I check to see whether my Bible says so..."He is able to speak to His children, and has done so, both to me and to others, through me. I've told you before that I am a prophet, and that He makes use of me, as He wills.
You said: "[i]Excuse me, exactly what are you talking about here? Could you possibly clarify what you're trying to say?"

Sadly I can't do that because it is forbidden to clarify esoteric writings to the common people.Then what you believe is hogwash. The Word of God says that there is no 'private' interpretation of The Scriptures. You've been decieved.
You are indeed not in control of your own Mind, and you admit it. You're right, I'm mad about God. I'm crazy for Jesus. I'm a fanatic. I'm insanely jealous of false gods, like the one that has complete control of you.
Will heaven be full of minds like this? God forbid, a giant windowless cube called New Jerusalem, packed to the brim with saints who are there because they didn't use their own minds, does not look to me like heaven, but rather it resembles somthing like hell.Only to one whose very imagination and every thought has been completely polluted by demonic lies. :vomit:
...it is not a gift of God since according to your doctrines someone had to pay a price.God paid the price, when He hung upon the cross.
Therefore it's free to you, but since God gives nothing for free, your God lacks grace. Sorry, I can't change the bottom line of your doctrines.You're right in that you cannot change Truth. The Truth is Jesus is The Embodiment of Grace and Truth. You can't fathom That Truth.
Acts 14:22 “We must go through many hardships to enter the kingdom of God,” they said.

So it's not work-less either.No one ever said it would be easy, but that is not considered part of the price, but one of the blessings, suffering for God. It is not (in the end) a 'price' but riches, galore. Again, you cannot comprehend what I say, because it is foolishness to you, since it is part of the preaching of the cross and you are perishing.
Aimiel said about sexy girls walking past: "No, actually I used to (before I became Christian)..."

So now since you're a Christian, when an extremely sexy girl walks past you turn your head?There is no desire to have my way with them, or thought of 'what can I get from them' since I look to bless others, and not to curse them.
How has Christianity made it possible for you to ignore a beautiful sexy butt?That is not what they were made for, the sexuality of man was made for the marriage bed, only. Your perversion, again, can't understand that.
I'd say Christian men love sexy butts just as much the guys of the other religions, wouldn't you agree? Your definition of a Christian and mine are probably not the same. Those who obey God don't lust, freely, and allow their carnal nature to rule them.
Are you telling me that you have no desires?I have satisfied my desire for sexual fulfillment in my marriage, and am extremely happily married. I desire the things that God lays upon my heart. Salvation for others is my primary desire. The rest is just distraction.
Are you saying that you don't have desires only because you don't see things such as porno's? I find your mindset fascinating.*You would find the treasures that I possess and the heights that I walk in exhilirating and fascinating, if you could but comprehend them. I have seen things and been places very few on this earth have ever even dreamed of. I have been shown many 'secret' things which are real, and not the tom-foolery that you have fallen for, these things are real and they are wonderful. Serving God is far better than serving Satan. If you only knew, you'd repent in 1/2 of one heartbeat. You'd run to God like a deer to water. He is worth far more than the greatest knowledge or mysticism that men or demons can dream up. He is The One Who created those beings. He is far above them, and far better.

Agape4Robin
April 23rd, 2005, 11:07 AM
You do me justice. Just remember what the Serpent did, and what Jesus did, and then tell me it's not the same work. Would you like me to post the scripture that supports this? I, unlike you, can back my doctrines with the Bible.
So can satan....... :devil:

Aimiel
April 23rd, 2005, 11:42 AM
I, unlike you, can back my doctrines with the Bible.*Quoting words from a book that you don't understand or have the least bit of faith in the author of is foolishness, magnified. You're a hypocrite, of the greatest distinction I've ever encountered; a snake and a liar. The things you post are imaginary and severe heresy.

Agape4Robin
April 23rd, 2005, 11:49 AM
Quoting words from a book that you don't understand or have the least bit of faith in the author of is foolishness, magnified. You're a hypocrite, of the greatest distinction I've ever encountered; a snake and a liar. The things you post are imaginary and severe heresy.
Aimiel....obviously this person prefers to wallow in the filth of their own perversion. Content to be blinded and decieved by satan. While it's sad, indeed.......maybe you are wasting your breath, dear brother.

Aimiel
April 23rd, 2005, 11:56 AM
All of us are here (Christians, still walking the earth) because we're supposed to preach The Word, in season and out. This person is no more or less in need than anyone else. I have merely attempted to communicate with him because of the longing The Lord lays upon my heart to give witness to His Word to Gnostic every time I read one of his posts. The Lord longs for every soul on earth who is lost to come to Him and to be set free from the wiles of Satan by Truth. He longs to give us the desires of our hearts, and the greatest desire of my heart is to minister to those who a man I still listen to on the radio pray about (even though he has been with The Lord for many years now) and that is Pastor John Decker, on his, "In Defence of Truth," broadcasts, when he would pray, he would always say, "...save that one nearest hell..." in every prayer. I took that to heart, and seek and search out those who are the greatest pawns of Satan, and bring them The Good News that God loves them and wants them free. They respond, and become saved. That is Salvation. That is what I live for, to bring Words of Life to the lost. What do you live for?

Agape4Robin
April 23rd, 2005, 12:05 PM
All of us are here (Christians, still walking the earth) because we're supposed to preach The Word, in season and out. This person is no more or less in need than anyone else. I have merely attempted to communicate with him because of the longing The Lord lays upon my heart to give witness to His Word to Gnostic every time I read one of his posts. The Lord longs for every soul on earth who is lost to come to Him and to be set free from the wiles of Satan by Truth. He longs to give us the desires of our hearts, and the greatest desire of my heart is to minister to those who a man I still listen to on the radio pray about (even though he has been with The Lord for many years now) and that is Pastor John Decker, on his, "In Defence of Truth," broadcasts, when he would pray, he would always say, "...save that one nearest hell..." in every prayer. I took that to heart, and seek and search out those who are the greatest pawns of Satan, and bring them The Good News that God loves them and wants them free. They respond, and become saved. That is Salvation. That is what I live for, to bring Words of Life to the lost. What do you live for?
Just recalling scripture that says to shake the dust off our sandals if we are continuously rebuffed. But if you , dear brother are led to witness to this person(or any person), then far be it from me to tell you otherwise!
Carry on! :thumb:

Agape4Robin
April 23rd, 2005, 12:06 PM
I too live for Christ. With out Him, I would be lost!

Aimiel
April 23rd, 2005, 12:09 PM
Sorry, I wan't accusing you of living wrong, just wanted to ask what you desire most. That is an important question, and often opens the door to conversation, or allows someone to see their own motives. I meant no disrespect by asking you what you live for, only wanted to affirm The Truth, Who lives in you.

Agape4Robin
April 23rd, 2005, 12:14 PM
Sorry, I wan't accusing you of living wrong, just wanted to ask what you desire most. That is an important question, and often opens the door to conversation, or allows someone to see their own motives. I meant no disrespect by asking you what you live for, only wanted to affirm The Truth, Who lives in you.
No disrespect was percieved. Thank you for asking......I invite any one to ask that of me! ;)

Aimiel
April 23rd, 2005, 12:20 PM
Carry on! :thumb:Aye-aye, Cap'n.

Agape4Robin
April 23rd, 2005, 12:22 PM
Aye-aye, Cap'n.
:chuckle:

Caledvwlch
April 23rd, 2005, 12:29 PM
Quoting words from a book that you don't understand or have the least bit of faith in the author of is foolishness, magnified. You're a hypocrite, of the greatest distinction I've ever encountered; a snake and a liar. The things you post are imaginary and severe heresy.
I thought you only said those things about me, Aimiel! I feel like I've been cheated on... :sigh:

Gnostic
April 23rd, 2005, 06:56 PM
I said: "Then it must also include scripture outside the canon that God never told you to close."

Aimiel replied: "I didn't close it, He did. He inspired the men who did so..."

So you admit the Catholic Church Fathers were infallible? Then why do you deny that the pope can also be infallible? Seems people are only infallible when it suits your doctines.

You said: "In order to receive truth from God, you first have to believe in Him."

I don't believe in "Him", I believe in Him-Her-It. Unlike your God, mine doesn't have testicles.

I said: "...exactly which book is signed by Jesus as its author?"

You replied: "All 66 of them."

I didn't ask for your popular Protestant opinion, I asked you to show me the scripture where God said it. Back your mouth with your closed canon.

You said: "I've told you before that I am a prophet, and that He makes use of me,.."

Prophets speak new things, all you do is quote other prophets. Tell me something I don't know and then you will be a prophet.

You said about the Esoteric: "The Word of God says that there is no 'private' interpretation of The Scriptures."

Mark 4:11 He told them, “The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables.

You said: "God paid the price, when He hung upon the cross."

And you'd hang him again no problem. In fact you would have no choice, since the only way YOU can get your stinky butt into heaven is to hang Master on a cross. If he sliped while carying the thing, you'd have to help him up the hill. My dear man, you are in a predicament.

You said: "the sexuality of man was made for the marriage bed, only."

Then why didn't your God design his creatures to have sex urge only, say, once a year when it's time to make babies? That would have been a better design, don't you agree? As it is, your God is a lousy programmer. Even Microsoft would have done a better job and saved millions from hell.

You said: "Your definition of a Christian and mine are probably not the same."

Correct. So why must you be the True Christian™

The Evangelical Right Wing Protestant Literalist said to the Gnostic: "You would find the treasures that I possess and the heights that I walk in exhilirating and fascinating, if you could but comprehend them."

No comment on this one.

You said: "I have seen things and been places very few on this earth have ever even dreamed of."

And if you dared to write about it in detail, some of your Christian friends would say you're "Full of crap."

You said: "The things you post are imaginary and severe heresy."

Sounds like some of your doctrines to me. Ie. Imaginary: when the prophet goes up into the sky in a blazing chariot... heresy: when Jesus resurrected into a fleshy body and asked for a T-Bone steak to eat.

Agape4Robin: "obviously this person prefers to wallow in the filth of their own perversion. Content to be blinded and decieved by satan."

Mark 3:22
And the teachers of the law who came down from Jerusalem said, “He is possessed by Beelzebub!

It was always the dogma worshipers who see Satan in everyone who challenges their established ideas. But the greatest heretic of all time, Jesus, was good at esoterically saying "Did God really say..." when he opening their eyes so that they see that God never said the Law, and they will live forever even if they don't obey what "God said", and that's why his disciples don't have to keep it. That's the bottom line, the rest is just popular Christian democratic philosophy.

*

Agape4Robin
April 23rd, 2005, 07:00 PM
I said: "Then it must also include scripture outside the canon that God never told you to close."

Aimiel replied: "I didn't close it, He did. He inspired the men who did so..."

So you admit the Catholic Church Fathers were infallible? Then why do you deny that the pope can also be infallible? Seems people are only infallible when it suits your doctines.

You said: "In order to receive truth from God, you first have to believe in Him."

I don't believe in "Him", I believe in Him-Her-It. Unlike your God, mine doesn't have testicles.

I said: "...exactly which book is signed by Jesus as its author?"

You replied: "All 66 of them."

I didn't ask for your popular Protestant opinion, I asked you to show me the scripture where God said it. Back your mouth with your closed canon.

You said: "I've told you before that I am a prophet, and that He makes use of me,.."

Prophets speak new things, all you do is quote other prophets. Tell me something I don't know and then you will be a prophet.

You said about the esoteric: "The Word of God says that there is no 'private' interpretation of The Scriptures."

Mark 4:11 He told them, “The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables.

You said: "God paid the price, when He hung upon the cross."

And you'd hang him again no problem. In fact you would have no choice, since the only way YOU can get your stinky butt into heaven is to hang Master on a cross. If he sliped while carying the thing, you'd have to help him up the hill. My dear man, you are in a predicament.

You said: "the sexuality of man was made for the marriage bed, only."

Then why didn't your God design his creatures to have sex urge only, say, once a year when it's time to make babies? That would have been a better design, don't you agree? As it is, your God is a lousy programmer. Even Microsoft would have done a better job and saved millions from hell.

You said: "Your definition of a Christian and mine are probably not the same."

Correct. So why must you be the True Christian™

The Evangelical Right Wing Protestant Literalist said to the Gnostic: "You would find the treasures that I possess and the heights that I walk in exhilirating and fascinating, if you could but comprehend them."

No comment on this one.

You said: "I have seen things and been places very few on this earth have ever even dreamed of."

And if you dared to write about it in detail, some of your Christian friends would say you're "Full of crap."

You said: "The things you post are imaginary and severe heresy."

Sounds like some of your doctrines to me. Ie. when the prophet goes up into the sky in a blazing chariot, or when Jesus resurrected into a fleshy body and asked for a T-Bone steak to eat.

Agape4Robin: "obviously this person prefers to wallow in the filth of their own perversion. Content to be blinded and decieved by satan."

Mark 3:22
And the teachers of the law who came down from Jerusalem said, “He is possessed by Beelzebub!

It was always the dogma worshipers who see Satan in everyone who challenges their established ideas. But the greatest heretic of all time, Jesus, was good at esoterically saying "Did God really say..." when he opening their eyes so that they see that God never said the Law, and they will live forever even if they don't obey what "God said", and that's why his disciples don't have to keep it. That's the bottom line, the rest is just Christian philosophy.

*
Oh, puhleeeeeezzzzeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
:yawn:

Gnostic
April 23rd, 2005, 07:07 PM
Oh, puhleeeeeezzzzeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! what?

*

Lighthouse
April 23rd, 2005, 07:10 PM
You said: "You are aware that the gospel of Thomas is in the Catholic Bible, aren't you?"

You are very amusing.
My mistake. I assumed, because of a conversation I had with a former Catholic once. I misunderstood what he said, I guess.


You said: "http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=733846&postcount=212, for starters..."

And so you pointed me to a post. And, specifically, what? Tell me specifically what you find wrong with it. Always be specific (unless you're being esoteric, of course)
If you need me to explain how muts you are, I can't help you. But I suggest you seek professinal help.


You said: "And what are yo trying to say wiht this verse, anyway? Who are you directing this towards, and why?"

Jesus is saying to cut the BS. Don't do what you hate. Ie. close the porno magazine because someone said it's wrong, or worship Saturdays because some ancient Rabbis said so, or lock yourself up in a room and bring your hands together and close your eyes to pray to Father because otherwise he can't hear you. In other words, Jesus is saying your mind is your own. If you want to have sex with a man, God couldn't give a rats butt where you prefer to stick your weenie. We are all "sinners", but that's how your God made us to be. We are animals, and our behavior is very fitting. So don't think someone is a sinner going to hell because he rejects your particular doctrines, while you are also a sinner yet going to heaven because you believe "this" and "that", otherwise, you're indeed a hypocrite. Just be what you are and let others do the same and leave the judging to God (not Father, but "God").
Jesus would never contradict Himself, and He told us to judge, quite a few times. Do you need references?

I am not a hypocrite,and I am not a sinner. Christ set me free from sin. And I am not a homosexual. Homosexuality is a sin. And I know it is. I will not deny that. And Christ does not desire for men to have sexual relations with men, or women with women. That is not how He created us. And there is only one Father, and that is God. If you perceive another as Father, you are gravely mistaken. People don't go to hell for not knowing the "rigth doctrine," they go to hell for not knowing Christ. And you do not know Christ.

Agape4Robin
April 23rd, 2005, 07:11 PM
Oh, puhleeeeeezzzzeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! what?

*
You said that your god has no testicles....... :doh:
God Himself, describes Himself as a "Father"......
Jesus calls God, Father.......

You must be a P.C., feminist! :Commie:

Lighthouse
April 23rd, 2005, 07:13 PM
You siad: "I go to bars to drink, not check out women."

I also go to bars to drink, and if a woman goes past I'll check her out. Women DO make themselves attractive so that men check them out, that is why they do it. And here you are at the forums saying all their work is in vain for Christian men. Shame on you!
Is that what I said? No, that's not what I said. I said that I am in Christ, and have been set free from lust. That doesn't mean I don't find attractive females attractive.


You said: "You do sound very much like your father, the serpent..."

You do me justice. Just remember what the Serpent did, and what Jesus did, and then tell me it's not the same work. Would you like me to post the scripture that supports this? I, unlike you, can back my doctrines with the Bible.
Then back it up, little man. You are a child of the adversary of God, and by that you are the Lord's enemy.

Lighthouse
April 23rd, 2005, 07:17 PM
Thanks for the chat, lighthouse, and please accept my sincere apology if I've offended you.

I'll leave you with this...

Matthew 21:32
Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you [dogma worshipers].
You got something mixed up.

"For John came unto you in the way of righteousness, and ye beleived him not: but the publicans and the harlots beleived him: and ye, when ye had seen it, repented not afterward, that ye might beleive him."

-Matthew 21:32

Gnostic
April 23rd, 2005, 07:21 PM
Dear Robin, that's better when you're specific.

No my Father has neither testicles nor a vagina. "Father" is a cosmic relationship, not a gender. Why do you take such things literally? So your bottom line is the Father in Heaven has testicles? Jesus was right to call you literalists slaves of your own minds.

Your Trinity is up to its neck in balls.

Father: has testicles
Son: has testicles
Holy Spirit: has testicles

No I'm not a feminist, but I support those poor bashed creatures where necessary. Jesus did the same, but Paul the chauvinist pig spoiled his work when he introduced "another gospel."

BTW, the woman in your avatar is quite attractive. If you don't mind me asking, is it you?

*