Another wolf is marked/exposed/identified.

[freelight]

Touching the core issue and context at hand........

Touching the core issue and context at hand........

There you go, TOL audience.....Another wolf is marked/exposed/identified....marhig. Beware of wolves....I do not like wolves.....saint John W the Rifleman, I am.

Marhig's presentations are spot on, concerning the fundamentals of a judeo-christian faith that holds the value of both faith and works as ESSENTIAL to true religion, and that just happens to be the case with 'true religion'. Faith produces action, inspires service, fosters obedience to the divine will, PRODUCES FRUIT. (therefore works ARE a part of salvation)

~*~*~

TOL is a zoo in its own right, therefore wolves of all kinds may exist here, among other strange animals

Paul himself claims to be from the tribe of Benjamin,...their tribal insignia is a wolf ! Maybe you ought to look at Paul as a wolf in sheep's clothing who came into to hijack, change, subvert and modify the original apostles teaching for his cosmic-Christ concept, only based on a voice and a light (wholly visionary experience). In the early days, a good ratio of early Jewish followers of Jesus rejected Paul deeming him the 'spouter of lies', a 'false apostle', an 'anti-christ', etc. (see the Ebionites). So Paul may NOT be all what he's cracked up to be, granted you can even know what he wrote that has not suffered the creative doctoring of scribes/redactors, and considering only about half of those letters "ascribed" to him are not genuine, but 'pseudographical' (forgeries).

So, Paul is one 'strange animal' of a tribe whose symbol is a WOLF, and was rejected by a good number of faithful Jewish apostles and disciples of Jesus who KEPT their original Jewish faith-customs and principles, only with some slight innovations and modifications given by Jesus, adding true spiritual insight and revelation into some of the older teachings. Paul came in with his own vision, so to speak, and is so worshipped by some so that many popular forms of 'Christianity' are in fact some form of 'Paulianity' in various colours or shades. - this doesn't discount some spiritual truths, allegories or concepts found in the words ascribed to him, but shows that any sincere researcher ought to be aware of the total history and all the elements involved in the formation of scriptural canons and doctrinal evolutions, before POINTING the finger at who is a wolf in sheep's clothing. - I mean seriously.

~*~*~

Now concerning 'blood atonement' and the penal substitutionary atonement (PSA) concept, these can be challenged on different levels as to their validity and efficacy, as I've done elsewhere in older threads, - see another call out thread - 'Atonement without blood according to freelight' - LA closed this thread early as more commentaries were coming forth. For the most part 'blood' is symbolic and figurative of the life-essence or the soul-life, to be interpreted withing any given context, while there is no magical power in blood itself to effect an atonement, beyond the 'belief' of one in any given application. One can shed the blood of a thousand animals, pious men or even demi-gods, but this will not necessarily affect an atonement, unless a soul actually repents, surrenders, returns to righteousness by some inward sacrifice of the soul to the divine Spirit, which is what all the exterior sacrifices and rituals are actually outwardly expressing as what a soul is to do inwardly anyways. Hence 'repentance' (metanoia) is fundamental STILL, and always will be the way of salvation, progress, enlightment,...as being a 'transformation' of consciousness. This alone is the initiation and process that avails for any religious, social or spiritual change, in one and all.

This subject has many levels, layers and dimensions, as so does the concept of 'atonement' itself, yet the fundamental message of the prophets has always been REPENTANCE, the actual returning to God, return to 'right doing', which is the effect of a change of heart, mind, spirit, consciousness. The 'sinner' then via repentance and returning to God is restored, and then thru a right heart/soul inclination does all he can to effect a restitution, resolve, compensation to the anyone or thing harmed, changes his way, affecting forgiveness and new way of life, going on to sin no more. Divine grace, holy spirit are also afforded to the soul, to sustain, empower his new life in 'right standing' and 'right doing', the mind and heart having been converted to the Lord.


~*~*~

Finally, here on this forum, as far as 'behavior' and 'ethics' are concerned, one can see various animals, some more lamblike, while others certainly more wolflike, being a bit more ravenous, mean and hostile, besides egotistical. In this context is the tone, spirit and demeanor of our words that describe our disposition, mentality and general nature. It is these actions and expressions that we look upon to determine their quality, motivations and intent. Likewise, to see what kind of fruit such actions really produce, - do such words edify, inspire, empower or encourage others, or do they demean, devalue, depress or degrade others? (beyond fun harmless jest, this is what God is looking at moment to moment) - are the words you're using inspired by genuine love, empathy, mutual respect and consideration within a context of 'true dialogue',... or some subterfuge of false piety, pride and egotism, or outright cruelty or jest done at the other persons expense or reputation? Things to consider.

I've taken a creative route to my engagements here, and will continue to do so, holding my own. I will join the other defenders of marhig here, since I see no justification or proof of her being a 'wolf' except by some presupposition based on doctrinal presumption and dogmatic formalism that is loosely grounded in its own 'easy believism' formula, much weaker in conviction than a true religion that inspires one to actually DO God's will (which marhig actually endorses as did Jesus), not just harp about a salvation that is somehow simply granted by no effort of your own. In true religion there is determination of action, resolve, committment, engaged service. If you're gonna uphold or preach a 'true religion', it still holds that 'faith without works' is dead...or else your 'religion' is without life and worthless, in the total scheme and finality of all what is culminated in space and time (in the context of eternity).

 

[JudgeRightly]

More from the wolf:

You responded to my post, yes, congrats. But I want answers to my two questions, which you, in fact, have NOT answered. MARHIG: How many times did Jesus utter the word grace? (in the four gospels) MARHIG: How many times did Jesus say words like "commandment," "law," "Moses," "statute," etc? (in the four gospels) I haven't got a clue, So you don't know what Jesus said? Why am I not surprised. and that isn't important. It's not important that you don't know what Jesus Christ said? No wonder you teach false doctrine. What is important is grace came by Jesus Christ! So whether he said the word grace or not it doesn't matter. Well you wouldn't know, considering you don't even know what Jesus said. Sure, you can quote scripture left and right, but you don't actually know what it says. Why should I believe your claims on what the Bible says WHEN YOU YOURSELF don't even know what it says? Why are you asking anyway? Because I'm trying to show you that you don't know what Scripture says, which leads to your false beliefs. ---- Marhig, you just admitted you don't know what Jesus says. I recommend you find out, before preaching any more of your beliefs on here about what the Bible says. It's hypocritical, at best. Go read the four gospels, counting how many times Jesus utters the word grace, and then read the gospels again, counting how many times Jesus utters words such as Moses, commandment, statute, law, etc.

 

[marhig]

More from the wolf:

Blimey are you going to put that on every thread? Are you that sad JR!

It's not important how many times Jesus said the word grace, it's more important that grace came by him.

You need to stop acting like a child.

 

[marhig]

Marhig's presentations are spot on, concerning the fundamentals of a judeo-christian faith that holds the value of both faith and works as ESSENTIAL to true religion, and that just happens to be the case with 'true religion'. Faith produces action, inspires service, fosters obedience to the divine will, PRODUCES FRUIT. (therefore works ARE a part of salvation)

~*~*~

TOL is a zoo in its own right, therefore wolves of all kinds may exist here, among other strange animals

Paul himself claims to be from the tribe of Benjamin,...their tribal insignia is a wolf ! Maybe you ought to look at Paul as a wolf in sheep's clothing who came into to hijack, change, subvert and modify the original apostles teaching for his cosmic-Christ concept, only based on a voice and a light (wholly visionary experience). In the early days, a good ratio of early Jewish followers of Jesus rejected Paul deeming him the 'spouter of lies', a 'false apostle', an 'anti-christ', etc. (see the Ebionites). So Paul may NOT be all what he's cracked up to be, granted you can even know what he wrote that has not suffered the creative doctoring of scribes/redactors, and considering only about half of those letters "ascribed" to him are not genuine, but 'pseudographical' (forgeries).

So, Paul is one 'strange animal' of a tribe whose symbol is a WOLF, and was rejected by a good number of faithful Jewish apostles and disciples of Jesus who KEPT their original Jewish faith-customs and principles, only with some slight innovations and modifications given by Jesus, adding true spiritual insight and revelation into some of the older teachings. Paul came in with his own vision, so to speak, and is so worshipped by some so that many popular forms of 'Christianity' are in fact some form of 'Paulianity' in various colours or shades. - this doesn't discount some spiritual truths, allegories or concepts found in the words ascribed to him, but shows that any sincere researcher ought to be aware of the total history and all the elements involved in the formation of scriptural canons and doctrinal evolutions, before POINTING the finger at who is a wolf in sheep's clothing. - I mean seriously.

~*~*~

Now concerning 'blood atonement' and the penal substitutionary atonement (PSA) concept, these can be challenged on different levels as to their validity and efficacy, as I've done elsewhere in older threads, - see another call out thread - 'Atonement without blood according to freelight' - LA closed this thread early as more commentaries were coming forth. For the most part 'blood' is symbolic and figurative of the life-essence or the soul-life, to be interpreted withing any given context, while there is no magical power in blood itself to effect an atonement, beyond the 'belief' of one in any given application. One can shed the blood of a thousand animals, pious men or even demi-gods, but this will not necessarily affect an atonement, unless a soul actually repents, surrenders, returns to righteousness by some inward sacrifice of the soul to the divine Spirit, which is what all the exterior sacrifices and rituals are actually outwardly expressing as what a soul is to do inwardly anyways. Hence 'repentance' (metanoia) is fundamental STILL, and always will be the way of salvation, progress, enlightment,...as being a 'transformation' of consciousness. This alone is the initiation and process that avails for any religious, social or spiritual change, in one and all.

This subject has many levels, layers and dimensions, as so does the concept of 'atonement' itself, yet the fundamental message of the prophets has always been REPENTANCE, the actual returning to God, return to 'right doing', which is the effect of a change of heart, mind, spirit, consciousness. The 'sinner' then via repentance and returning to God is restored, and then thru a right heart/soul inclination does all he can to effect a restitution, resolve, compensation to the anyone or thing harmed, changes his way, affecting forgiveness and new way of life, going on to sin no more. Divine grace, holy spirit are also afforded to the soul, to sustain, empower his new life in 'right standing' and 'right doing', the mind and heart having been converted to the Lord.


~*~*~

Finally, here on this forum, as far as 'behavior' and 'ethics' are concerned, one can see various animals, some more lamblike, while others certainly more wolflike, being a bit more ravenous, mean and hostile, besides egotistical. In this context is the tone, spirit and demeanor of our words that describe our disposition, mentality and general nature. It is these actions and expressions that we look upon to determine their quality, motivations and intent. Likewise, to see what kind of fruit such actions really produce, - do such words edify, inspire, empower or encourage others, or do they demean, devalue, depress or degrade others? (beyond fun harmless jest, this is what God is looking at moment to moment) - are the words you're using inspired by genuine love, empathy, mutual respect and consideration within a context of 'true dialogue',... or some subterfuge of false piety, pride and egotism, or outright cruelty or jest done at the other persons expense or reputation? Things to consider.

I've taken a creative route to my engagements here, and will continue to do so, holding my own. I will join the other defenders of marhig here, since I see no justification or proof of her being a 'wolf' except by some presupposition based on doctrinal presumption and dogmatic formalism that is loosely grounded in its own 'easy believism' formula, much weaker in conviction than a true religion that inspires one to actually DO God's will (which marhig actually endorses as did Jesus), not just harp about a salvation that is somehow simply granted by no effort of your own. In true religion there is determination of action, resolve, committment, engaged service. If you're gonna uphold or preach a 'true religion', it still holds that 'faith without works' is dead...or else your 'religion' is without life and worthless, in the total scheme and finality of all what is culminated in space and time (in the context of eternity).

Thank you freelight, I've only just seen this and true and undefiled religion includes remaining unspotted from the world. Which many don't seem to want to do, seeing as they don't agree with living by the will of God. And in doing so we don't indulge in the world and the pleasures of it, that can separate us from the father. We go into the world to help others but we don't get pulled in. And if we are walking in the Spirit, then God will help us to overcome through Christ.

As for the apostle Paul, I believe he is a true apostle of God, but people change what he says to suit their doctrine because they don't understand him. When he talks about the cross, he's talking about the cross that Jesus bore, the same cross that he tells us to take up to follow him. The death that Paul speaks of in many instances is death to self. But many don't see him talking in Spirit and just take what he says naturally.

And here's some verses where Paul speaks about works. Paul was a firm believe in works. They go hand in hand with faith because if we have faith we will do the works and we will live by the will of God which will then bring forth more and more of the fruit of the Spirit as we grow stronger in God.

Anyway here's some verses about works from Paul, and many here slate us for believing we are to do the works of God. But to do the works of God is to live by his will and in doing so we are showing our real faith in him and he blesses us with the fruit of the Spirit and changes our hearts to be more like that if his precious son, Christ Jesus.

Romans 2

But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;
Who will render to every man according to his deeds:
To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:
But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile; But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile: For there is no respect of persons with God.

Acts 26

But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.

Titus 1

Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled. They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.

Titus 3:1 Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work,

Titus 3:8 This is a faithful saying, and these things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable unto men.

Titus 3:14 And let ours also learn to maintain good works for necessary uses, that they be not unfruitful.

2 Timothy 3

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works

 

[JudgeRightly]

Blimey are you going to put that on every thread? Are you that sad JR!

Considering this is the only other thread I've posted this on....

:dunce:

It's not important how many times Jesus said the word grace, it's more important that grace came by him.

Yeah, that's right, just keep twisting scripture to fit your beliefs.

You need to stop acting like a child.

I'm not the one complaining about someone quoting my post in a thread about me. You should look in a mirror sometime.

 

[marhig]

Considering this is the only other thread I've posted this on....

:dunce:



Yeah, that's right, just keep twisting scripture to fit your beliefs.



I'm not the one complaining about someone quoting my post in a thread about me. You should look in a mirror sometime.

Just wondering why did you feel the need to post it on another thread?

 

[freelight]

Just a rant from your friendly neighborhood heretic..........

Just a rant from your friendly neighborhood heretic..........

Thank you freelight, I've only just seen this and true and undefiled religion includes remaining unspotted from the world. Which many don't seem to want to do, seeing as they don't agree with living by the will of God. And in doing so we don't indulge in the world and the pleasures of it, that can separate us from the father. We go into the world to help others but we don't get pulled in. And if we are walking in the Spirit, then God will help us to overcome through Christ.

As for the apostle Paul, I believe he is a true apostle of God, but people change what he says to suit their doctrine because they don't understand him. When he talks about the cross, he's talking about the cross that Jesus bore, the same cross that he tells us to take up to follow him. The death that Paul speaks of in many instances is death to self. But many don't see him talking in Spirit and just take what he says naturally.

And here's some verses where Paul speaks about works. Paul was a firm believe in works. They go hand in hand with faith because if we have faith we will do the works and we will live by the will of God which will then bring forth more and more of the fruit of the Spirit as we grow stronger in God.

Anyway here's some verses about works from Paul, and many here slate us for believing we are to do the works of God. But to do the works of God is to live by his will and in doing so we are showing our real faith in him and he blesses us with the fruit of the Spirit and changes our hearts to be more like that if his precious son, Christ Jesus.

I agree with Paul when the letters ascribed to him agree with universal truth, true religious principles, spiritual laws, analogies and so on. Otherwise, some of his opinions I dont agree with, - neither did some of the original apostles of Jesus, since they stayed true to most of Jewish tradition, theology and culture,...while Paul went on to institute his own religious movement as it were, customized by his own personal experience with a 'voice and a light' who he claimed was Jesus.

As a mystic, I'm not against visions or mystical experiences, but reviewing Paul in the light of the whole Bible and evolution/history of Christianity, there is some shady stuff about him. There are whole teachings and programs showing Paul to be a false apostle, and alot is pretty convincing, but thats another thread. Again, I can agree with alot found in the Pauline corpus, but not all of it, as I think alot of it has been redacted and interpolated, like patchwork quilt. Diving deeper can get a bit messy, but if you consider James letter, and the teaching of the original apostles of Jesus, it fully upholds good works inspired by faith as the "proof" of one's faith. James held true to the essentials of Judaism, ....Paul crafted his own brand of religious teaching, heralding it as 'his own gospel', and boasts about being an 'apostle', among other things. If you review the teachings of the James and the Jewish apostles with Paul's teaching, there are problems, no matter what solutions are given by various groups on this. Again, another thread.

Anyways,....true religion is of full devotion, committed faith revealed thru ACTION and SERVICE. One can glean or cherry-pick what they can out of the formal 'canon',....but the teachings must be spiritually true, religiously sound, true to law and principle, on all levels of truth, ethic, morality, wisdom, etc.

The idea that someone else (however humanized or defied) did everything FOR YOU (thru vicarious atonement or penal substitionary sacrifice), is against religious law, ethic and personal responsibility, for starters. Since the law is love, any violation, falling short of, or transgression of love, is sin. When the soul is wholly governed by love, and moved by love...there can no be no sin, in that dynamic of life, because that is life itself, fulfilling itself, being itself. Such is LOVE. There is no free pass or 'ticket' to heaven. Each soul must strive, choose life, and by faith and love, obey and follow the divine motivation and inspiration to live BY THE SPIRIT. Each soul must REPENT, transform his own life, CHOOSE to walk in God's way, return to love, there is no substitution EVER for this.

 

[glorydaz]

Laying down his life doesn't mean naturally dying, it means laying down his life to live by the will of God and bring the love of God to others with the hope of saving as many as he could. And he could have took it up again, but he never, because he loved God before himself and lived by his will as he was sent to do and denied his own will.

Jesus says that no greater love has a man than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. Does that mean that we all have to be murdered for our friends? No, it means that we don't live to please ourselves but that we lay down our lives and deny ourselves live by the will of God and truly follow Jesus living it out, and bringing the gospel and the life of Christ to others, so that Christ in us can work through us and carry on saving those in darkness and the world.

He had to bare whatever he went through, and in doing so he overcame Satan and the world!

Just updating the record:

This one is still insisting "laying down His life" doesn't mean dying. And, He didn't "take it up again". Satan murdered Jesus against God's will is her mantra. :nono:

 

[marhig]

I agree with Paul when the letters ascribed to him agree with universal truth, true religious principles, spiritual laws, analogies and so on. Otherwise, some of his opinions I dont agree with, - neither did some of the original apostles of Jesus, since they stayed true to most of Jewish tradition, theology and culture,...while Paul went on to institute his own religious movement as it were, customized by his own personal experience with a 'voice and a light' who he claimed was Jesus.

As a mystic, I'm not against visions or mystical experiences, but reviewing Paul in the light of the whole Bible and evolution/history of Christianity, there is some shady stuff about him. There are whole teachings and programs showing Paul to be a false apostle, and alot is pretty convincing, but thats another thread. Again, I can agree with alot found in the Pauline corpus, but not all of it, as I think alot of it has been redacted and interpolated, like patchwork quilt. Diving deeper can get a bit messy, but if you consider James letter, and the teaching of the original apostles of Jesus, it fully upholds good works inspired by faith as the "proof" of one's faith. James held true to the essentials of Judaism, ....Paul crafted his own brand of religious teaching, heralding it as 'his own gospel', and boasts about being an 'apostle', among other things. If you review the teachings of the James and the Jewish apostles with Paul's teaching, there are problems, no matter what solutions are given by various groups on this. Again, another thread.

Anyways,....true religion is of full devotion, committed faith revealed thru ACTION and SERVICE. One can glean or cherry-pick what they can out of the formal 'canon',....but the teachings must be spiritually true, religiously sound, true to law and principle, on all levels of truth, ethic, morality, wisdom, etc.

The idea that someone else (however humanized or defied) did everything FOR YOU (thru vicarious atonement or penal substitionary sacrifice), is against religious law, ethic and personal responsibility, for starters. Since the law is love, any violation, falling short of, or transgression of love, is sin. When the soul is wholly governed by love, and moved by love...there can no be no sin, in that dynamic of life, because that is life itself, fulfilling itself, being itself. Such is LOVE. There is no free pass or 'ticket' to heaven. Each soul must strive, choose life, and by faith and love, obey and follow the divine motivation and inspiration to live BY THE SPIRIT. Each soul must REPENT, transform his own life, CHOOSE to walk in God's way, return to love, there is no substitution EVER for this.

What is it about Paul that you don't agree with? Thanks

 

[glorydaz]

Blimey are you going to put that on every thread? Are you that sad JR!

It's not important how many times Jesus said the word grace, it's more important that grace came by him.

You need to stop acting like a child.

Marhig considers herself quite the teacher. Watching the flesh sermonize is not a pretty sight.

 

[marhig]

Just updating the record:

This one is still insisting "laying down His life" doesn't mean dying. And, He didn't "take it up again". Satan murdered Jesus against God's will is her mantra. :nono:

So when Jesus says that we are to lay down our lives for our friends does that mean that we are to die naturally?

As seen here

John 15

Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

And here

1 John 3

Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren

 

[glorydaz]

So when Jesus says that we are to lay down our lives for our friends does that mean that we are to die naturally?

As seen here

John 15

Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

And here

1 John 3

Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren

Try and read what is actually written. Jesus didn't say we are to do anything. :doh:

It means there is no greater love than that.

Yes, our very LIFE....as our military and police are willing to do. Not some little pretend like I'm laying down my life by sharing my breakfast burrito with the homeless man.

 

[freelight]

Paul, from the tribe of Benjamin, the wolf clan.........

Paul, from the tribe of Benjamin, the wolf clan.........

What is it about Paul that you don't agree with? Thanks

Your PM inbox is full, so that no one can send you a Private Message. Go inside and delete messages from your inbox and sent folder, to make room.

A few problems with Paul -

- Claims a visionary or spiritual experience of meeting Jesus, but teaches a different gospel than the Jesus portrayed in the gospels, and different from the pillars of the church and original apostles of Jesus. Jesus also warned against anyone appearing claiming to the 'Christ' in the desert, or elsewhere, etc. - he had his 'vision' in the desert. 3 different versions of his vision are given.

- Teaches faith alone, conflicts with James teaching, and is generally rejected by most of the Jews (followers of Jesus or not) in Jerusalem, so goes to the Gentiles to make a name and following for himself. Note that Acts records Peter being the apostle to the Gentiles, and he gave the first sermon to them. Paul is an outsider and earlier enemy to the followers of Jesus. Paul is in cahoots with the Romans, Sadduccees, and has political ties that help in his persecuation against the original Jewish followers of Jesus. More behind the scenes may reveal he had ulterior motives for promoting his gospel and attempting to gain favor with the original apostles of Jesus.

- Uses OT scripture for his own purposes, even if allegorically interpreting such, but then rejects the Torah and main principles of Judaism, to give his own gospel a 'freeway' to make it more palatable to new converts. He allows eating of food sacrificed to idols, renigs the sabbath, almost all religious feasts/festivals, etc.

- oppressive teaching on woman, restricted views on marriage. Shares little about the life and actual teachings of Jesus himself, focuses mostly on "his own gospel" (centered more on a 'celestial Jesus figure', a 'spiritual Christ'). Claims he did NOT get his teaching or gospel from any man (in other words admits he did not receive it from Jesus original apostles (the pillars) as any teaching handed down to him, distinguishing it from theirs) Boasts, continual claims of not lying (hmmmm), defense of his own ministry, claims of authenticity based on personal experience (only special interpretation of scripture and revelation), demeaning Peter and the James group in Jerusalem as being 'nothing to him', being so called 'apostles', aggrandizing his own self appointed mission, etc. Cursing any that did not preach or accept his gospel. The list goes on.


---------------

- Just pointing out that many have 'issues' with him. Some are fine to resolve all this or explain things away to include Paul as actually appointed by Jesus, but he never was appointed by Jesus in the flesh, and his teachings seem to go against what Jesus actually taught, concerning the law and the prophets, his emphasis on the kingdom of God, and other subjects. This is just the tip of the iceberg, if interested in the subject. (regardless of what MAD might say to explain the differences between Jesus and Paul's gospels).

- My former commentary holds, unless further insights or learning ensues - I think most of the 'complexity' or 'controversy' with Paul is mostly when considering the 'total context' of the Bible in its Jewish predominance and theology, and how Paul changes, modifies and 'innovates' his own theology out from it, while still relating within it (throw in some greek metaphysics, gnosticism, pagan memes and mystery religion spice in the pot). Just some interesting stuff.

- there are some positive and good words by Paul, so again,...one's opinion will be their own within any given context, theological disposition or bias.

 

[JudgeRightly]

A few problems with Paul -

The only problems you see are because the paradigm you're trying to interpret the Bible by is wrong.

Correct the paradigm, and everything else falls into place.

- Claims a visionary or spiritual experience of meeting Jesus, but teaches a different gospel than the Jesus portrayed in the gospels, and different from the pillars of the church and original apostles of Jesus. Jesus also warned against anyone appearing claiming to the 'Christ' in the desert, or elsewhere, etc. - he had his 'vision' in the desert. 3 different versions of his vision are given.

Using this logic, you'd have to reject the four Gospels because they give four different accounts of the same Man.

The fact that all of what is in scripture is in fact in scripture suggests that what happened did in fact happen as it says it happened, and that Saul (whom Jesus later changed his name to Paul) did in fact see Jesus on the road to Damascus, as recorded in Acts.

The fact that Paul teaches a different Gospel than Jesus taught in the four Gospels is because God had set aside Israel and His plans for them and shifted His attention to the whole world. But again, your paradigm won't allow you to see that.

Jesus warned against any men appearing claiming to be Christ. Jesus is both Man and God, and since He IS Christ, then obviously He's excluded from the warning.

- Teaches faith alone, conflicts with James teaching, and is generally rejected by most of the Jews (followers of Jesus or not) in Jerusalem,

Another example of your paradigm preventing you from seeing the truth. You're so close, yet so far off. Take a step to the side so that what is clearly written comes into focus and lines up properly.

Your statement is correct, even though your paradigm is wrong. He (Paul) did all those things, but again, it's because of what I said above.

so goes to the Gentiles to make a name and following for himself. Note that Acts records Peter being the apostle to the Gentiles, and he gave the first sermon to them. Paul is an outsider and earlier enemy to the followers of Jesus. Paul is in cahoots with the Romans, Sadduccees, and has political ties that help in his persecuation against the original Jewish followers of Jesus. More behind the scenes may reveal he had ulterior motives for promoting his gospel and attempting to gain favor with the original apostles of Jesus.

- Uses OT scripture for his own purposes, even if allegorically interpreting such, but then rejects the Torah and main principles of Judaism, to give his own gospel a 'freeway' to make it more palatable to new converts. He allows eating of food sacrificed to idols, renigs the sabbath, almost all religious feasts/festivals, etc.

- oppressive teaching on woman, restricted views on marriage. Shares little about the life and actual teachings of Jesus himself, focuses mostly on "his own gospel" (centered more on a 'celestial Jesus figure', a 'spiritual Christ'). Claims he did NOT get his teaching or gospel from any man (in other words admits he did not receive it from Jesus original apostles (the pillars) as any teaching handed down to him, distinguishing it from theirs) Boasts, continual claims of not lying (hmmmm), defense of his own ministry, claims of authenticity based on personal experience (only special interpretation of scripture and revelation), demeaning Peter and the James group in Jerusalem as being 'nothing to him', being so called 'apostles', aggrandizing his own self appointed mission, etc. Cursing any that did not preach or accept his gospel. The list goes on.

---------------

- Just pointing out that many have 'issues' with him. Some are fine to resolve all this or explain things away to include Paul as actually appointed by Jesus, but he never was appointed by Jesus in the flesh, and his teachings seem to go against what Jesus actually taught, concerning the law and the prophets, his emphasis on the kingdom of God, and other subjects. This is just the tip of the iceberg, if interested in the subject. (regardless of what MAD might say to explain the differences between Jesus and Paul's gospels).

- My former commentary holds, unless further insights or learning ensues - I think most of the 'complexity' or 'controversy' with Paul is mostly when considering the 'total context' of the Bible in its Jewish predominance and theology, and how Paul changes, modifies and 'innovates' his own theology out from it, while still relating within it (throw in some greek metaphysics, gnosticism, pagan memes and mystery religion spice in the pot). Just some interesting stuff.

- there are some positive and good words by Paul, so again,...one's opinion will be their own within any given context, theological disposition or bias.

If I were to respond to the rest of this, I would end up repeating myself over and over and over and...

My advice to you, Freelight, is to begin reading THIS thread from the beginning (yes, I said the beginning, of a 1400+ post long thread (I'm doing it too, because the topic interests me.)). [MENTION=2589]Clete[/MENTION] does an excellent Job explaining why Paul's message is different, but also explains how and why so many people, including those in the thread, cannot seem to understand why it's different.

 

[marhig]

Try and read what is actually written. Jesus didn't say we are to do anything. :doh:

It means there is no greater love than that.

Yes, our very LIFE....as our military and police are willing to do. Not some little pretend like I'm laying down my life by sharing my breakfast burrito with the homeless man.

It may include losing our natural life if it comes to it, but we are to lay down our lives for each other, and that means stop living by our will, and live by the will of God, and care for and help each other by bringing the life of Christ in our hearts to others.

Here's how we lay down our lives, here's how we lose our life for Christs sake.

Matthew 16

Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.

And Jesus said, that those not willing to take up their cross, are not worthy of him! And if we are trying to save our life in the flesh, we will lose it, because we will be putting our flesh before the living God.

And by the way that's not a natural cross that we have to be crucified on either! It's Spiritual!

Are you willing to die for Jesus's sake? If you are, then you will give up your life in the flesh now, die the death, and turn from the world to live by the will of God

 

[marhig]

Your PM inbox is full, so that no one can send you a Private Message. Go inside and delete messages from your inbox and sent folder, to make room.

A few problems with Paul -

- Claims a visionary or spiritual experience of meeting Jesus, but teaches a different gospel than the Jesus portrayed in the gospels, and different from the pillars of the church and original apostles of Jesus. Jesus also warned against anyone appearing claiming to the 'Christ' in the desert, or elsewhere, etc. - he had his 'vision' in the desert. 3 different versions of his vision are given.

- Teaches faith alone, conflicts with James teaching, and is generally rejected by most of the Jews (followers of Jesus or not) in Jerusalem, so goes to the Gentiles to make a name and following for himself. Note that Acts records Peter being the apostle to the Gentiles, and he gave the first sermon to them. Paul is an outsider and earlier enemy to the followers of Jesus. Paul is in cahoots with the Romans, Sadduccees, and has political ties that help in his persecuation against the original Jewish followers of Jesus. More behind the scenes may reveal he had ulterior motives for promoting his gospel and attempting to gain favor with the original apostles of Jesus.

- Uses OT scripture for his own purposes, even if allegorically interpreting such, but then rejects the Torah and main principles of Judaism, to give his own gospel a 'freeway' to make it more palatable to new converts. He allows eating of food sacrificed to idols, renigs the sabbath, almost all religious feasts/festivals, etc.

- oppressive teaching on woman, restricted views on marriage. Shares little about the life and actual teachings of Jesus himself, focuses mostly on "his own gospel" (centered more on a 'celestial Jesus figure', a 'spiritual Christ'). Claims he did NOT get his teaching or gospel from any man (in other words admits he did not receive it from Jesus original apostles (the pillars) as any teaching handed down to him, distinguishing it from theirs) Boasts, continual claims of not lying (hmmmm), defense of his own ministry, claims of authenticity based on personal experience (only special interpretation of scripture and revelation), demeaning Peter and the James group in Jerusalem as being 'nothing to him', being so called 'apostles', aggrandizing his own self appointed mission, etc. Cursing any that did not preach or accept his gospel. The list goes on.


---------------

- Just pointing out that many have 'issues' with him. Some are fine to resolve all this or explain things away to include Paul as actually appointed by Jesus, but he never was appointed by Jesus in the flesh, and his teachings seem to go against what Jesus actually taught, concerning the law and the prophets, his emphasis on the kingdom of God, and other subjects. This is just the tip of the iceberg, if interested in the subject. (regardless of what MAD might say to explain the differences between Jesus and Paul's gospels).

- My former commentary holds, unless further insights or learning ensues - I think most of the 'complexity' or 'controversy' with Paul is mostly when considering the 'total context' of the Bible in its Jewish predominance and theology, and how Paul changes, modifies and 'innovates' his own theology out from it, while still relating within it (throw in some greek metaphysics, gnosticism, pagan memes and mystery religion spice in the pot). Just some interesting stuff.

- there are some positive and good words by Paul, so again,...one's opinion will be their own within any given context, theological disposition or bias.

Blimey I don't see Paul like that at all, he's just very strong in the Spirit and he's hard to understand for some, but what he speaks isn't all natural. And I think that he preaches the same gospel as Jesus. For instance the cross of Christ isn't the natural cross, but the cross Christ Jesus bore. When Paul says that the cross is foolishness to those that perish, many believe he is talking about the natural cross that Jesus died on, but it's not, he means the cross Christ bore, the and cross that we are to take up. Because that cross is foolishness to those that perish, because they are quite happy living in their flesh and they don't want to take up their cross and suffer for Christs sake. He doesn't believe in faith alone, he also speaks about the works. We know each others faith by our works, if Paul didn't believe in works, then he wouldn't have done them, but he did.

I believe that Paul speaks the truth, he just has a different style of speaking and he is a true apostle of Jesus and he is very strong in God.

Btw, I've deleted some messages

 

[clefty]

Your PM inbox is full, so that no one can send you a Private Message. Go inside and delete messages from your inbox and sent folder, to make room.

A few problems with Paul -

- Claims a visionary or spiritual experience of meeting Jesus, but teaches a different gospel than the Jesus portrayed in the gospels, and different from the pillars of the church and original apostles of Jesus. Jesus also warned against anyone appearing claiming to the 'Christ' in the desert, or elsewhere, etc. - he had his 'vision' in the desert. 3 different versions of his vision are given.

- Teaches faith alone, conflicts with James teaching, and is generally rejected by most of the Jews (followers of Jesus or not) in Jerusalem, so goes to the Gentiles to make a name and following for himself. Note that Acts records Peter being the apostle to the Gentiles, and he gave the first sermon to them. Paul is an outsider and earlier enemy to the followers of Jesus. Paul is in cahoots with the Romans, Sadduccees, and has political ties that help in his persecuation against the original Jewish followers of Jesus. More behind the scenes may reveal he had ulterior motives for promoting his gospel and attempting to gain favor with the original apostles of Jesus.

- Uses OT scripture for his own purposes, even if allegorically interpreting such, but then rejects the Torah and main principles of Judaism, to give his own gospel a 'freeway' to make it more palatable to new converts. He allows eating of food sacrificed to idols, renigs the sabbath, almost all religious feasts/festivals, etc.

- oppressive teaching on woman, restricted views on marriage. Shares little about the life and actual teachings of Jesus himself, focuses mostly on "his own gospel" (centered more on a 'celestial Jesus figure', a 'spiritual Christ'). Claims he did NOT get his teaching or gospel from any man (in other words admits he did not receive it from Jesus original apostles (the pillars) as any teaching handed down to him, distinguishing it from theirs) Boasts, continual claims of not lying (hmmmm), defense of his own ministry, claims of authenticity based on personal experience (only special interpretation of scripture and revelation), demeaning Peter and the James group in Jerusalem as being 'nothing to him', being so called 'apostles', aggrandizing his own self appointed mission, etc. Cursing any that did not preach or accept his gospel. The list goes on.


---------------

- Just pointing out that many have 'issues' with him. Some are fine to resolve all this or explain things away to include Paul as actually appointed by Jesus, but he never was appointed by Jesus in the flesh, and his teachings seem to go against what Jesus actually taught, concerning the law and the prophets, his emphasis on the kingdom of God, and other subjects. This is just the tip of the iceberg, if interested in the subject. (regardless of what MAD might say to explain the differences between Jesus and Paul's gospels).

- My former commentary holds, unless further insights or learning ensues - I think most of the 'complexity' or 'controversy' with Paul is mostly when considering the 'total context' of the Bible in its Jewish predominance and theology, and how Paul changes, modifies and 'innovates' his own theology out from it, while still relating within it (throw in some greek metaphysics, gnosticism, pagan memes and mystery religion spice in the pot). Just some interesting stuff.

- there are some positive and good words by Paul, so again,...one's opinion will be their own within any given context, theological disposition or bias.

I suggest you read this study:

http://www.fogwhistle.ca/acts/evidence.html

 

[john w]

- Just pointing out that many have 'issues' with him. Some are fine to resolve all this or explain things away to include Paul as actually appointed by Jesus, but he never was appointed by Jesus in the flesh

1. Judas was also "appointed." And?

Acts 1 KJV

23 And they(The 11 apostles-my note) appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.

24 And they (The 11 apostles-my note)prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen,

25 That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.

26 And they (The 11 apostles-my note)gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

So, you are on record, by your argument, that there are just 11 apostles, as the "appointment" of Matthias, was not by "Jesus after the flesh?"


And, thus, you are on record, that this scripture should be deleted:

Revelation 21:14 KJV

And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

2. If you could show me where "Jesus in the flesh," or "God in the flesh," ever appointed you to anything, I would be much obliged. Chapter, verse, in Matthew-John, where your name is cited. Remember, you cannot cite Roman-Philemon, as that is not legitimate, as it is not of "Jesus after the flesh/God in the flesh."

Sophistry.

3. Did the Lord Jesus, "in the flesh," ever teach, say, "It is more blessed to give than to receive?"

 

[Zeke]

I suggest you read this study:

http://www.fogwhistle.ca/acts/evidence.html

I use Acts sparingly because it's suspect concerning the Pauline conversion. Your article has some salient points but Acts is leavened with false info among its wheat.

Wayne Lamar Harrington in his article is God the author of confusion, exposes the Acts letters contradictory approach on explaining Paul's conversion, Galatians doesn't match the Acts version.

 

[Zeke]

Your PM inbox is full, so that no one can send you a Private Message. Go inside and delete messages from your inbox and sent folder, to make room.

A few problems with Paul -

- Claims a visionary or spiritual experience of meeting Jesus, but teaches a different gospel than the Jesus portrayed in the gospels, and different from the pillars of the church and original apostles of Jesus. Jesus also warned against anyone appearing claiming to the 'Christ' in the desert, or elsewhere, etc. - he had his 'vision' in the desert. 3 different versions of his vision are given.

- Teaches faith alone, conflicts with James teaching, and is generally rejected by most of the Jews (followers of Jesus or not) in Jerusalem, so goes to the Gentiles to make a name and following for himself. Note that Acts records Peter being the apostle to the Gentiles, and he gave the first sermon to them. Paul is an outsider and earlier enemy to the followers of Jesus. Paul is in cahoots with the Romans, Sadduccees, and has political ties that help in his persecuation against the original Jewish followers of Jesus. More behind the scenes may reveal he had ulterior motives for promoting his gospel and attempting to gain favor with the original apostles of Jesus.

- Uses OT scripture for his own purposes, even if allegorically interpreting such, but then rejects the Torah and main principles of Judaism, to give his own gospel a 'freeway' to make it more palatable to new converts. He allows eating of food sacrificed to idols, renigs the sabbath, almost all religious feasts/festivals, etc.

- oppressive teaching on woman, restricted views on marriage. Shares little about the life and actual teachings of Jesus himself, focuses mostly on "his own gospel" (centered more on a 'celestial Jesus figure', a 'spiritual Christ'). Claims he did NOT get his teaching or gospel from any man (in other words admits he did not receive it from Jesus original apostles (the pillars) as any teaching handed down to him, distinguishing it from theirs) Boasts, continual claims of not lying (hmmmm), defense of his own ministry, claims of authenticity based on personal experience (only special interpretation of scripture and revelation), demeaning Peter and the James group in Jerusalem as being 'nothing to him', being so called 'apostles', aggrandizing his own self appointed mission, etc. Cursing any that did not preach or accept his gospel. The list goes on.


---------------

- Just pointing out that many have 'issues' with him. Some are fine to resolve all this or explain things away to include Paul as actually appointed by Jesus, but he never was appointed by Jesus in the flesh, and his teachings seem to go against what Jesus actually taught, concerning the law and the prophets, his emphasis on the kingdom of God, and other subjects. This is just the tip of the iceberg, if interested in the subject. (regardless of what MAD might say to explain the differences between Jesus and Paul's gospels).

- My former commentary holds, unless further insights or learning ensues - I think most of the 'complexity' or 'controversy' with Paul is mostly when considering the 'total context' of the Bible in its Jewish predominance and theology, and how Paul changes, modifies and 'innovates' his own theology out from it, while still relating within it (throw in some greek metaphysics, gnosticism, pagan memes and mystery religion spice in the pot). Just some interesting stuff.

- there are some positive and good words by Paul, so again,...one's opinion will be their own within any given context, theological disposition or bias.

Well faith was the main ingredients in the Jesus motif, love your enemy, man as God's dwelling place, can do nothing of myself, didn't learn from men, interpreted the parabolic OT for spiritual eyes and ears, many more symbiotic teachings that for some reason your unable to congeal, unless your giving merit to exoteric symbols meant to read with esoteric glasses.

After all these years I'm still baffled why you have dug such a wide trench between Jesus and Paul, Dispensationalist I know why they try to divide them not sure about your motives because I can see plenty of dots that connect.

I guess we will never agree on this one.