User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/25/2014 5:19:16 PM EDT
[#1]
Amen.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2014 6:07:12 PM EDT
[#2]
We all have a little bit of him inside us.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2014 6:16:37 AM EDT
[#3]
Paul was the only of the apostles who had connections to the three dominant cultural currents in the Mediterranean world at that time.
He was a Pharisee, so he was educated in Jewish scripture and religious traditions. Fluent in Greek and familiar with Hellenistic philosophy. Also a citizen of Rome which meant he could travel freely throughout the Empire and wasn't subject to provincial justice. Very under-appreciated for his intellect and writing skill. The man understood human nature and knew how to express himself concisely. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2014 12:25:25 PM EDT
[#4]
Paul reminds me of Peter in some ways, in that he tended to be all in when he committed to doing something. He just didn't do things half way.
When he was against the Church and its members, he was completely committed to the task. When he realized that he had been wrong about the Church and the members, he then became completely committed to supporting the gospel of Jesus Christ. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2014 12:25:54 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Paul was the only of the apostles who had connections to the three dominant cultural currents in the Mediterranean world at that time. He was a Pharisee, so he was educated in Jewish scripture and religious traditions. Fluent in Greek and familiar with Hellenistic philosophy. Also a citizen of Rome which meant he could travel freely throughout the Empire and wasn't subject to provincial justice. Very under-appreciated for his intellect and writing skill. The man understood human nature and knew how to express himself concisely. Good summary. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2014 8:04:45 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Very under-appreciated for his intellect and writing skill. The man understood human nature and knew how to express himself concisely. When I only got out of context quotes, I thought Paul was kind of a dick. When I started reading the bible and other stuff about his letters it really opened up a whole world of challenging wisdom. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2014 8:32:24 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
When I only got out of context quotes, I thought Paul was kind of a dick. When I started reading the bible and other stuff about his letters it really opened up a whole world of challenging wisdom. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Very under-appreciated for his intellect and writing skill. The man understood human nature and knew how to express himself concisely. When I only got out of context quotes, I thought Paul was kind of a dick. When I started reading the bible and other stuff about his letters it really opened up a whole world of challenging wisdom. A lot of historical figures are dicks if we judge them with our own modern cultural moores and standards. Trouble is, you fail to see how "revolutionary" (for lack of a better term) they were in there own time, and you fail to appreciate the things we have today because of what they stood for back then. We talked about this in bible study, we are studying the history of the church and are on Martin Luther and the reformation. He has said some unflattering things about the fairer sex and radical feminist types might be tempted to simply discard all of this writings based on a few utterances that were simply a sign of the times. And in doing so they would miss changes based on the equal respect of people in Christ, that were also a result of his writings. Like the poor and common folks being allowed to be involved in the literacy. That's kind of off topic though. I just wanted to point out how people have made 180 degree changes when they found Christ. There are many lesser known ones as well. Maybe when I get home I will list a couple that made an impression on me when I learned of them. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2014 9:19:33 AM EDT
[#8]
Tag. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/7/2014 2:31:50 PM EDT
[#9]
Interesting. Thanks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/7/2014 3:42:08 PM EDT
[#10]
Yes! Paul was absolutely amazing!
For me at least, a guy who really put a modern "face" to Paul was Anthony Hopkins in: Peter and Paul |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/8/2014 6:27:09 PM EDT
[#11]
I honestly enjoy the books that Paul wrote more than anything in the Bible aside from the words of Christ. He illustrates the Spiritual side of our relationship with God through the Holy Spirit in a profound and, in my opinion, perfect way. I also relate to his story the most of any of the characters in the bible as my founding was also supernatural in nature.
And yes I agree we all have had some Saul and some Paul in our lives. I hope to continue to grow the Paul side. Thanks for posting OP |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2014 6:21:02 AM EDT
[#12]
I have always found Saul and Pontius Pilate to be 2 of the most interesting people written about in the Bible. both cruel individuals, who came into contact with Jesus and had a profound direction on Christianity.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2014 2:15:06 PM EDT
[#13]
My favorite book in the bible, which to me is so powerful is Galatians. So powerful, when you understand what it's about.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2014 2:18:15 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Paul reminds me of Peter in some ways, in that he tended to be all in when he committed to doing something. He just didn't do things half way. When he was against the Church and its members, he was completely committed to the task. When he realized that he had been wrong about the Church and the members, he then became completely committed to supporting the gospel of Jesus Christ. Paul had to get on Peter when he met him at Antioch, because he was eating with the gentiles and then when the Jews showed up he would stop. Paul pretty much told him if you're to spit on the death of Jesus Christ and follow the Mosaic law which Jesus Christ fulfilled, than you have to live by all of it. Not just part of it. In my opinion Paul was the most dedicated to Christianity. This is Jinxsters revised version of what Paul said to Peter, but it's still the same thing pretty much. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2014 3:20:30 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
My favorite book in the bible, which to me is so powerful is Galatians. So powerful, when you understand what it's about. I agree. It can be hard for some to get their head around it, but once they do they see the Christian walk in a totally different way. That's if legalism was an issue to begin with. Galatians 3:3 "Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort?". |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2014 6:38:59 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Paul had to get on Peter when he met him at Antioch, because he was eating with the gentiles and then when the Jews showed up he would stop. Paul pretty much told him if you're to spit on the death of Jesus Christ and follow the Mosaic law which Jesus Christ fulfilled, than you have to live by all of it. Not just part of it. In my opinion Paul was the most dedicated to Christianity. This is Jinxsters revised version of what Paul said to Peter, but it's still the same thing pretty much. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Paul reminds me of Peter in some ways, in that he tended to be all in when he committed to doing something. He just didn't do things half way. When he was against the Church and its members, he was completely committed to the task. When he realized that he had been wrong about the Church and the members, he then became completely committed to supporting the gospel of Jesus Christ. Paul had to get on Peter when he met him at Antioch, because he was eating with the gentiles and then when the Jews showed up he would stop. Paul pretty much told him if you're to spit on the death of Jesus Christ and follow the Mosaic law which Jesus Christ fulfilled, than you have to live by all of it. Not just part of it. In my opinion Paul was the most dedicated to Christianity. This is Jinxsters revised version of what Paul said to Peter, but it's still the same thing pretty much. Are you saying that since The Messiah kept the TORAH perfectly, that we should not even try follow Him? Fulfilled means to succeed, to achieve, to reach a goal, not to do away with or destroy. I'm not saying that obedience brings salvation, but it does bring wisdom, understanding and blessing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2014 3:34:08 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Paul reminds me of Peter in some ways, in that he tended to be all in when he committed to doing something. He just didn't do things half way. When he was against the Church and its members, he was completely committed to the task. When he realized that he had been wrong about the Church and the members, he then became completely committed to supporting the gospel of Jesus Christ. On the other hand, we don't read about Paul doubting or messing up as he spreads the gospel (though he certainly makes no secret of being a sinner--he admits that time and again). We still hear about Peter doubting even as he takes the gospel to the Gentiles, and yet his rock-solid faith comes through every time. That humanity, that constant striving to keep the faith that we see throughout Peter's life is something I find very encouraging and pretty fascinating. It's also a huge contrast between where these two chosen apostles came from. Peter from the first days of Christ's ministry, Paul from after Christ's death, resurrection and ascension. Peter, who believed from the beginning (even if he didn't understand), Paul who persecuted Christ's disciples from the beginning. Peter, who experienced Christ's earthly ministry and dealt with Christ as a human being, Paul who had the gospel revealed to him supernaturally. That'd make a good study sometime. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2014 7:00:34 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Are you saying that since The Messiah kept the TORAH perfectly, that we should not even try follow Him? Fulfilled means to succeed, to achieve, to reach a goal, not to do away with or destroy. I'm not saying that obedience brings salvation, but it does bring wisdom, understanding and blessing. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Paul reminds me of Peter in some ways, in that he tended to be all in when he committed to doing something. He just didn't do things half way. When he was against the Church and its members, he was completely committed to the task. When he realized that he had been wrong about the Church and the members, he then became completely committed to supporting the gospel of Jesus Christ. Paul had to get on Peter when he met him at Antioch, because he was eating with the gentiles and then when the Jews showed up he would stop. Paul pretty much told him if you're to spit on the death of Jesus Christ and follow the Mosaic law which Jesus Christ fulfilled, than you have to live by all of it. Not just part of it. In my opinion Paul was the most dedicated to Christianity. This is Jinxsters revised version of what Paul said to Peter, but it's still the same thing pretty much. Are you saying that since The Messiah kept the TORAH perfectly, that we should not even try follow Him? Fulfilled means to succeed, to achieve, to reach a goal, not to do away with or destroy. I'm not saying that obedience brings salvation, but it does bring wisdom, understanding and blessing. He fulfilled the law, because we cannot follow it. We try to walk in the light, and do so by Faith. If you try to live by Mosaic law you have to follow all of it, perfectly. However you cannot do this. It's why Jesus died for us. Trying to follow the Mosaic Law perfectly, is to us Christians, is a spit in the eye of God, You're saying he didn't send his Son to give us a chance for salvation. I'm probably not explaining this good enough, and you still have to follow the light to the best of you're ability, but things like not eating pork and those types of things are no longer necessary. It's why Paul got in Peter's face. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2014 7:10:58 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He fulfilled the law, because we cannot follow it. We try to walk in the light, and do so by Faith. If you try to live by Mosaic law you have to follow all of it, perfectly. However you cannot do this. It's why Jesus died for us. Trying to follow the Mosaic Law perfectly, is to us Christians, is a spit in the eye of God, You're saying he didn't send his Son to give us a chance for salvation. I'm probably not explaining this good enough, and you still have to follow the light to the best of you're ability, but things like not eating pork and those types of things are no longer necessary. It's why Paul got in Peter's face. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Paul reminds me of Peter in some ways, in that he tended to be all in when he committed to doing something. He just didn't do things half way. When he was against the Church and its members, he was completely committed to the task. When he realized that he had been wrong about the Church and the members, he then became completely committed to supporting the gospel of Jesus Christ. Paul had to get on Peter when he met him at Antioch, because he was eating with the gentiles and then when the Jews showed up he would stop. Paul pretty much told him if you're to spit on the death of Jesus Christ and follow the Mosaic law which Jesus Christ fulfilled, than you have to live by all of it. Not just part of it. In my opinion Paul was the most dedicated to Christianity. This is Jinxsters revised version of what Paul said to Peter, but it's still the same thing pretty much. Are you saying that since The Messiah kept the TORAH perfectly, that we should not even try follow Him? Fulfilled means to succeed, to achieve, to reach a goal, not to do away with or destroy. I'm not saying that obedience brings salvation, but it does bring wisdom, understanding and blessing. He fulfilled the law, because we cannot follow it. We try to walk in the light, and do so by Faith. If you try to live by Mosaic law you have to follow all of it, perfectly. However you cannot do this. It's why Jesus died for us. Trying to follow the Mosaic Law perfectly, is to us Christians, is a spit in the eye of God, You're saying he didn't send his Son to give us a chance for salvation. I'm probably not explaining this good enough, and you still have to follow the light to the best of you're ability, but things like not eating pork and those types of things are no longer necessary. It's why Paul got in Peter's face. Romans 2-5 explains it pretty thoroughly. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2014 9:04:53 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He fulfilled the law, because we cannot follow it. We try to walk in the light, and do so by Faith. If you try to live by Mosaic law you have to follow all of it, perfectly. However you cannot do this. It's why Jesus died for us. Trying to follow the Mosaic Law perfectly, is to us Christians, is a spit in the eye of God, You're saying he didn't send his Son to give us a chance for salvation. I'm probably not explaining this good enough, and you still have to follow the light to the best of you're ability, but things like not eating pork and those types of things are no longer necessary. It's why Paul got in Peter's face. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Paul reminds me of Peter in some ways, in that he tended to be all in when he committed to doing something. He just didn't do things half way. When he was against the Church and its members, he was completely committed to the task. When he realized that he had been wrong about the Church and the members, he then became completely committed to supporting the gospel of Jesus Christ. Paul had to get on Peter when he met him at Antioch, because he was eating with the gentiles and then when the Jews showed up he would stop. Paul pretty much told him if you're to spit on the death of Jesus Christ and follow the Mosaic law which Jesus Christ fulfilled, than you have to live by all of it. Not just part of it. In my opinion Paul was the most dedicated to Christianity. This is Jinxsters revised version of what Paul said to Peter, but it's still the same thing pretty much. Are you saying that since The Messiah kept the TORAH perfectly, that we should not even try follow Him? Fulfilled means to succeed, to achieve, to reach a goal, not to do away with or destroy. I'm not saying that obedience brings salvation, but it does bring wisdom, understanding and blessing. He fulfilled the law, because we cannot follow it. We try to walk in the light, and do so by Faith. If you try to live by Mosaic law you have to follow all of it, perfectly. However you cannot do this. It's why Jesus died for us. Trying to follow the Mosaic Law perfectly, is to us Christians, is a spit in the eye of God, You're saying he didn't send his Son to give us a chance for salvation. I'm probably not explaining this good enough, and you still have to follow the light to the best of you're ability, but things like not eating pork and those types of things are no longer necessary. It's why Paul got in Peter's face. How could trying to follow our Father in Heaven's loving instructions possibly be like spitting in His eye? It doesn't take a scholar to see that the disciples kept these things even after the death, burial and resurrection of our Savior. Why is it that religious types always equate obedience with trying to save one's self, when clearly salvation only comes from the precious spilled blood of the Messiah? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2014 10:53:49 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How could trying to follow our Father in Heaven's loving instructions possibly be like spitting in His eye? It doesn't take a scholar to see that the disciples kept these things even after the death, burial and resurrection of our Savior. Why is it that religious types always equate obedience with trying to save one's self, when clearly salvation only comes from the precious spilled blood of the Messiah? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Paul reminds me of Peter in some ways, in that he tended to be all in when he committed to doing something. He just didn't do things half way. When he was against the Church and its members, he was completely committed to the task. When he realized that he had been wrong about the Church and the members, he then became completely committed to supporting the gospel of Jesus Christ. Paul had to get on Peter when he met him at Antioch, because he was eating with the gentiles and then when the Jews showed up he would stop. Paul pretty much told him if you're to spit on the death of Jesus Christ and follow the Mosaic law which Jesus Christ fulfilled, than you have to live by all of it. Not just part of it. In my opinion Paul was the most dedicated to Christianity. This is Jinxsters revised version of what Paul said to Peter, but it's still the same thing pretty much. Are you saying that since The Messiah kept the TORAH perfectly, that we should not even try follow Him? Fulfilled means to succeed, to achieve, to reach a goal, not to do away with or destroy. I'm not saying that obedience brings salvation, but it does bring wisdom, understanding and blessing. He fulfilled the law, because we cannot follow it. We try to walk in the light, and do so by Faith. If you try to live by Mosaic law you have to follow all of it, perfectly. However you cannot do this. It's why Jesus died for us. Trying to follow the Mosaic Law perfectly, is to us Christians, is a spit in the eye of God, You're saying he didn't send his Son to give us a chance for salvation. I'm probably not explaining this good enough, and you still have to follow the light to the best of you're ability, but things like not eating pork and those types of things are no longer necessary. It's why Paul got in Peter's face. How could trying to follow our Father in Heaven's loving instructions possibly be like spitting in His eye? It doesn't take a scholar to see that the disciples kept these things even after the death, burial and resurrection of our Savior. Why is it that religious types always equate obedience with trying to save one's self, when clearly salvation only comes from the precious spilled blood of the Messiah? Well, what I'm trying to say is like when Peter was eating pork with the gentiles, and then when the Jews came he would stop eating with them, because they were eating Pork. Circumcision is the same thing when Jesus said that is no longer, as when Paul got on Peter. I've just became a born again Christian and I have a lot of learning to do, so I'm not one to preach however telling someone you shouldn't eat Pork because it goes against the Mosaic law is flawed, because in Jesus fulfilled that, and yes I know what fulfilled means. If you have faith, which Faith being a two part deal and walk in the light with actions and put your Faith in Jesus Christ, things like circumcision and not eating Pork doesn't matter. Hopefully you can understand what I'm trying to explain. You can go to Heaven and be with God without Jesus. You can do this with the Mosaic law, but you have to follow the Mosaic law flawlessly. If you don't then you're done for. I don't know a person on this Earth besides Jesus Christ who can do that. The only way to save yourself is to give yourself to Jesus Christ, and follow the light. He gives clear instructions in the Bible on how to do that. In Mosaic law there are much more laws then just the 10 commandments. It gets into huge detail in the five books of Moses. I don't know a single human being who can follow all those perfectly, except for Jesus Christ. Do you? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2014 2:23:21 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How could trying to follow our Father in Heaven's loving instructions possibly be like spitting in His eye? It doesn't take a scholar to see that the disciples kept these things even after the death, burial and resurrection of our Savior. Why is it that religious types always equate obedience with trying to save one's self, when clearly salvation only comes from the precious spilled blood of the Messiah? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Paul reminds me of Peter in some ways, in that he tended to be all in when he committed to doing something. He just didn't do things half way. When he was against the Church and its members, he was completely committed to the task. When he realized that he had been wrong about the Church and the members, he then became completely committed to supporting the gospel of Jesus Christ. Paul had to get on Peter when he met him at Antioch, because he was eating with the gentiles and then when the Jews showed up he would stop. Paul pretty much told him if you're to spit on the death of Jesus Christ and follow the Mosaic law which Jesus Christ fulfilled, than you have to live by all of it. Not just part of it. In my opinion Paul was the most dedicated to Christianity. This is Jinxsters revised version of what Paul said to Peter, but it's still the same thing pretty much. Are you saying that since The Messiah kept the TORAH perfectly, that we should not even try follow Him? Fulfilled means to succeed, to achieve, to reach a goal, not to do away with or destroy. I'm not saying that obedience brings salvation, but it does bring wisdom, understanding and blessing. He fulfilled the law, because we cannot follow it. We try to walk in the light, and do so by Faith. If you try to live by Mosaic law you have to follow all of it, perfectly. However you cannot do this. It's why Jesus died for us. Trying to follow the Mosaic Law perfectly, is to us Christians, is a spit in the eye of God, You're saying he didn't send his Son to give us a chance for salvation. I'm probably not explaining this good enough, and you still have to follow the light to the best of you're ability, but things like not eating pork and those types of things are no longer necessary. It's why Paul got in Peter's face. How could trying to follow our Father in Heaven's loving instructions possibly be like spitting in His eye? It doesn't take a scholar to see that the disciples kept these things even after the death, burial and resurrection of our Savior. Why is it that religious types always equate obedience with trying to save one's self, when clearly salvation only comes from the precious spilled blood of the Messiah? I think he's saying this: Romans 2:12 All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. Romans 3:19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. 20 Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin. Romans 3:27 Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. Because of what law? The law that requires works? No, because of the law that requires faith. 28 For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law. 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, 30 since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. 31 Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law. These are just highlights from Romans 2-5, but it gives the main idea of what it's talking about. What jinxsters is saying is that by trying to follow the law to get to heaven (no one has or ever will except Jesus), then in a way we would be turning down the gift from Jesus. Jesus said himself in Matthew 5:19 that he did not come to abolish the law but fulfill it. Matthew 22:34 Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. 35 One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: 36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[b] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[c] 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2014 4:54:58 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think he's saying this: Romans 2:12 All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. Romans 3:19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. 20 Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin. Romans 3:27 Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. Because of what law? The law that requires works? No, because of the law that requires faith. 28 For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law. 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, 30 since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. 31 Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law. These are just highlights from Romans 2-5, but it gives the main idea of what it's talking about. What jinxsters is saying is that by trying to follow the law to get to heaven (no one has or ever will except Jesus), then in a way we would be turning down the gift from Jesus. Jesus said himself in Matthew 5:19 that he did not come to abolish the law but fulfill it. Matthew 22:34 Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. 35 One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: 36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[b] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[c] 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
How could trying to follow our Father in Heaven's loving instructions possibly be like spitting in His eye? It doesn't take a scholar to see that the disciples kept these things even after the death, burial and resurrection of our Savior. Why is it that religious types always equate obedience with trying to save one's self, when clearly salvation only comes from the precious spilled blood of the Messiah? I think he's saying this: Romans 2:12 All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. Romans 3:19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. 20 Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin. Romans 3:27 Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. Because of what law? The law that requires works? No, because of the law that requires faith. 28 For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law. 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, 30 since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. 31 Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law. These are just highlights from Romans 2-5, but it gives the main idea of what it's talking about. What jinxsters is saying is that by trying to follow the law to get to heaven (no one has or ever will except Jesus), then in a way we would be turning down the gift from Jesus. Jesus said himself in Matthew 5:19 that he did not come to abolish the law but fulfill it. Matthew 22:34 Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. 35 One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: 36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[b] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[c] 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” You're like my teacher. Guy can quote pretty much right from the text. Gives me the meaning behind it, and what the apostle was talking about. He's been a blessing to my family. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 11:44:07 AM EDT
[#24]
Peter never ate pork, the other disciples never ate pork, Christ never ate pork or any other unclean animal.
Act 10:13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat. Act 10:14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean. No one can enter the coming Kingdom without Christ, before or after his death, burial and resurrection. It takes faith that our Father in Heaven provides the true Lamb. Sure, a man can't keep the menstruation ordinances, or the priestly ordinances, or ones that require The Temple. It's true that no one, except the Messiah has kept the TORAH perfectly, but it doesn't take a whole lot of effort to come pretty close. Deu. 30:11 “For this commandment which I command you today is not too difficult for you, nor is it out of reach. Deu. 30:12 “It is not in heaven, that you should say, ‘Who will go up to heaven for us to get it for us and make us hear it, that we may observe it?’ Deu. 30:13 “Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say, ‘Who will cross the sea for us to get it for us and make us hear it, that we may observe it?’ Deu. 30:14 “But the word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may observe it. Deu. 30:15 “See, I have set before you today life and prosperity, and death and adversity; Deu. 30:16 in that I command you today to love the LORD your God, to walk in His ways and to keep His commandments and His statutes and His judgments, that you may live and multiply, and that the LORD your God may bless you in the land where you are entering to possess it. No one has gone or will go to Heaven. Jhn 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven. The coming Kingdom will come to earth, the New Jerusalem. Again, I keep saying obedience does not lead to salvation, but to wisdom, discernment and blessing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 6:36:17 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well, what I'm trying to say is like when Peter was eating pork with the gentiles, and then when the Jews came he would stop eating with them, because they were eating Pork. Circumcision is the same thing when Jesus said that is no longer, as when Paul got on Peter. I've just became a born again Christian and I have a lot of learning to do, so I'm not one to preach however telling someone you shouldn't eat Pork because it goes against the Mosaic law is flawed, because in Jesus fulfilled that, and yes I know what fulfilled means. If you have faith, which Faith being a two part deal and walk in the light with actions and put your Faith in Jesus Christ, things like circumcision and not eating Pork doesn't matter. Hopefully you can understand what I'm trying to explain. You can go to Heaven and be with God without Jesus. You can do this with the Mosaic law, but you have to follow the Mosaic law flawlessly. If you don't then you're done for. I don't know a person on this Earth besides Jesus Christ who can do that. The only way to save yourself is to give yourself to Jesus Christ, and follow the light. He gives clear instructions in the Bible on how to do that. In Mosaic law there are much more laws then just the 10 commandments. It gets into huge detail in the five books of Moses. I don't know a single human being who can follow all those perfectly, except for Jesus Christ. Do you? Peter never ate pork, the other disciples never ate pork, Christ never ate pork or any other unclean animal. Act 10:13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat. Act 10:14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean. No one can enter the coming Kingdom without Christ, before or after his death, burial and resurrection. It takes faith that our Father in Heaven provides the true Lamb. Sure, a man can't keep the menstruation ordinances, or the priestly ordinances, or ones that require The Temple. It's true that no one, except the Messiah has kept the TORAH perfectly, but it doesn't take a whole lot of effort to come pretty close. Deu. 30:11 “For this commandment which I command you today is not too difficult for you, nor is it out of reach. Deu. 30:12 “It is not in heaven, that you should say, ‘Who will go up to heaven for us to get it for us and make us hear it, that we may observe it?’ Deu. 30:13 “Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say, ‘Who will cross the sea for us to get it for us and make us hear it, that we may observe it?’ Deu. 30:14 “But the word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may observe it. Deu. 30:15 “See, I have set before you today life and prosperity, and death and adversity; Deu. 30:16 in that I command you today to love the LORD your God, to walk in His ways and to keep His commandments and His statutes and His judgments, that you may live and multiply, and that the LORD your God may bless you in the land where you are entering to possess it. No one has gone or will go to Heaven. Jhn 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven. The coming Kingdom will come to earth, the New Jerusalem. Again, I keep saying obedience does not lead to salvation, but to wisdom, discernment and blessing. So are you saying Paul was not an apostle of Jesus Christ? Can I ask you who taught Paul the gospel then if Jesus Christ didn't give him instruction? Before he became Paul, he would seem to be a difficult person to talk too about Jesus Christ, I believe. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2014 11:09:10 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So are you saying Paul was not an apostle of Jesus Christ? Can I ask you who taught Paul the gospel then if Jesus Christ didn't give him instruction? Before he became Paul, he would seem to be a difficult person to talk too about Jesus Christ, I believe. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Well, what I'm trying to say is like when Peter was eating pork with the gentiles, and then when the Jews came he would stop eating with them, because they were eating Pork. Circumcision is the same thing when Jesus said that is no longer, as when Paul got on Peter. I've just became a born again Christian and I have a lot of learning to do, so I'm not one to preach however telling someone you shouldn't eat Pork because it goes against the Mosaic law is flawed, because in Jesus fulfilled that, and yes I know what fulfilled means. If you have faith, which Faith being a two part deal and walk in the light with actions and put your Faith in Jesus Christ, things like circumcision and not eating Pork doesn't matter. Hopefully you can understand what I'm trying to explain. You can go to Heaven and be with God without Jesus. You can do this with the Mosaic law, but you have to follow the Mosaic law flawlessly. If you don't then you're done for. I don't know a person on this Earth besides Jesus Christ who can do that. The only way to save yourself is to give yourself to Jesus Christ, and follow the light. He gives clear instructions in the Bible on how to do that. In Mosaic law there are much more laws then just the 10 commandments. It gets into huge detail in the five books of Moses. I don't know a single human being who can follow all those perfectly, except for Jesus Christ. Do you? Peter never ate pork, the other disciples never ate pork, Christ never ate pork or any other unclean animal. Act 10:13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat. Act 10:14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean. No one can enter the coming Kingdom without Christ, before or after his death, burial and resurrection. It takes faith that our Father in Heaven provides the true Lamb. Sure, a man can't keep the menstruation ordinances, or the priestly ordinances, or ones that require The Temple. It's true that no one, except the Messiah has kept the TORAH perfectly, but it doesn't take a whole lot of effort to come pretty close. Deu. 30:11 “For this commandment which I command you today is not too difficult for you, nor is it out of reach. Deu. 30:12 “It is not in heaven, that you should say, ‘Who will go up to heaven for us to get it for us and make us hear it, that we may observe it?’ Deu. 30:13 “Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say, ‘Who will cross the sea for us to get it for us and make us hear it, that we may observe it?’ Deu. 30:14 “But the word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may observe it. Deu. 30:15 “See, I have set before you today life and prosperity, and death and adversity; Deu. 30:16 in that I command you today to love the LORD your God, to walk in His ways and to keep His commandments and His statutes and His judgments, that you may live and multiply, and that the LORD your God may bless you in the land where you are entering to possess it. No one has gone or will go to Heaven. Jhn 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven. The coming Kingdom will come to earth, the New Jerusalem. Again, I keep saying obedience does not lead to salvation, but to wisdom, discernment and blessing. So are you saying Paul was not an apostle of Jesus Christ? Can I ask you who taught Paul the gospel then if Jesus Christ didn't give him instruction? Before he became Paul, he would seem to be a difficult person to talk too about Jesus Christ, I believe. Sorry, the part above "Peter never ate pork..." was supposed to be a quote from an earlier post. I did something wrong. Paul was definitely an Apostle of Yeshua. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2014 12:42:41 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sorry, the part above "Peter never ate pork..." was supposed to be a quote from an earlier post. I did something wrong. Paul was definitely an Apostle of Yeshua. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Well, what I'm trying to say is like when Peter was eating pork with the gentiles, and then when the Jews came he would stop eating with them, because they were eating Pork. Circumcision is the same thing when Jesus said that is no longer, as when Paul got on Peter. I've just became a born again Christian and I have a lot of learning to do, so I'm not one to preach however telling someone you shouldn't eat Pork because it goes against the Mosaic law is flawed, because in Jesus fulfilled that, and yes I know what fulfilled means. If you have faith, which Faith being a two part deal and walk in the light with actions and put your Faith in Jesus Christ, things like circumcision and not eating Pork doesn't matter. Hopefully you can understand what I'm trying to explain. You can go to Heaven and be with God without Jesus. You can do this with the Mosaic law, but you have to follow the Mosaic law flawlessly. If you don't then you're done for. I don't know a person on this Earth besides Jesus Christ who can do that. The only way to save yourself is to give yourself to Jesus Christ, and follow the light. He gives clear instructions in the Bible on how to do that. In Mosaic law there are much more laws then just the 10 commandments. It gets into huge detail in the five books of Moses. I don't know a single human being who can follow all those perfectly, except for Jesus Christ. Do you? Peter never ate pork, the other disciples never ate pork, Christ never ate pork or any other unclean animal. Act 10:13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat. Act 10:14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean. No one can enter the coming Kingdom without Christ, before or after his death, burial and resurrection. It takes faith that our Father in Heaven provides the true Lamb. Sure, a man can't keep the menstruation ordinances, or the priestly ordinances, or ones that require The Temple. It's true that no one, except the Messiah has kept the TORAH perfectly, but it doesn't take a whole lot of effort to come pretty close. Deu. 30:11 “For this commandment which I command you today is not too difficult for you, nor is it out of reach. Deu. 30:12 “It is not in heaven, that you should say, ‘Who will go up to heaven for us to get it for us and make us hear it, that we may observe it?’ Deu. 30:13 “Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say, ‘Who will cross the sea for us to get it for us and make us hear it, that we may observe it?’ Deu. 30:14 “But the word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may observe it. Deu. 30:15 “See, I have set before you today life and prosperity, and death and adversity; Deu. 30:16 in that I command you today to love the LORD your God, to walk in His ways and to keep His commandments and His statutes and His judgments, that you may live and multiply, and that the LORD your God may bless you in the land where you are entering to possess it. No one has gone or will go to Heaven. Jhn 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven. The coming Kingdom will come to earth, the New Jerusalem. Again, I keep saying obedience does not lead to salvation, but to wisdom, discernment and blessing. So are you saying Paul was not an apostle of Jesus Christ? Can I ask you who taught Paul the gospel then if Jesus Christ didn't give him instruction? Before he became Paul, he would seem to be a difficult person to talk too about Jesus Christ, I believe. Sorry, the part above "Peter never ate pork..." was supposed to be a quote from an earlier post. I did something wrong. Paul was definitely an Apostle of Yeshua. RSS could you quote me what Jesus said in Mark 7:19. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2014 2:41:46 PM EDT
[#28]
Jinxsters, I guess you're talking to me. What version do you want me to quote? This is speaking of eating with unwashed hands, not eating what was declared unclean. If you mean one of the versions that have "and he declared all food clean" in parenthesis, then you know that that line was added, and was not in the Greek. Even if it was, food is clearly defined in Leviticus, and pig is not food. Instead of going by what men say is alright to eat, I'll go by what my Father in Heaven says. After all, He created it, and who would know what is food more than Him?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2014 3:38:56 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Jinxsters, I guess you're talking to me. What version do you want me to quote? This is speaking of eating with unwashed hands, not eating what was declared unclean. If you mean one of the versions that have "and he declared all food clean" in parenthesis, then you know that that line was added, and was not in the Greek. Even if it was, food is clearly defined in Leviticus, and pig is not food. Instead of going by what men say is alright to eat, I'll go by what my Father in Heaven says. After all, He created it, and who would know what is food more than Him? Acts 10:9 Galatians 2:11 Jesus changed some things. You still live by an eye for an eye? That was also in the Old Testament. Women were also considered property. That was in the old testament as well. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2014 5:26:28 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Acts 10:9 Galatians 2:11 Jesus changed some things. You still live by an eye for an eye? That was also in the Old Testament. Women were also considered property. That was in the old testament as well. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Jinxsters, I guess you're talking to me. What version do you want me to quote? This is speaking of eating with unwashed hands, not eating what was declared unclean. If you mean one of the versions that have "and he declared all food clean" in parenthesis, then you know that that line was added, and was not in the Greek. Even if it was, food is clearly defined in Leviticus, and pig is not food. Instead of going by what men say is alright to eat, I'll go by what my Father in Heaven says. After all, He created it, and who would know what is food more than Him? Acts 10:9 Galatians 2:11 Jesus changed some things. You still live by an eye for an eye? That was also in the Old Testament. Women were also considered property. That was in the old testament as well. If you read a little further you will see that Acts 10 is about calling men unclean. Act 10:28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean. Galatians 2 is also about calling man unclean. Gal 2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. Gal 2:12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2014 5:32:16 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If you read a little further you will see that Acts 10 is about calling men unclean. Act 10:28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean. Galatians 2 is also about calling man unclean. Gal 2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. Gal 2:12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Jinxsters, I guess you're talking to me. What version do you want me to quote? This is speaking of eating with unwashed hands, not eating what was declared unclean. If you mean one of the versions that have "and he declared all food clean" in parenthesis, then you know that that line was added, and was not in the Greek. Even if it was, food is clearly defined in Leviticus, and pig is not food. Instead of going by what men say is alright to eat, I'll go by what my Father in Heaven says. After all, He created it, and who would know what is food more than Him? Acts 10:9 Galatians 2:11 Jesus changed some things. You still live by an eye for an eye? That was also in the Old Testament. Women were also considered property. That was in the old testament as well. If you read a little further you will see that Acts 10 is about calling men unclean. Act 10:28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean. Galatians 2 is also about calling man unclean. Gal 2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. Gal 2:12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. Well I believe one of us is misunderstanding interpretations of the bible. I do believe Paul was talking about Peter following the Mosaic law that was fulfilled by Christ, like eye for an eye, women being property, not eating pork, etc. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2014 5:39:43 PM EDT
[#32]
Well, the move on from the technical discussion, I'd say I'd find Paul to be a fascinating Apostle, mostly because he had so little to "gain" by conversion.
The core 11, and the others who knew Jesus were deep in it all already. If we assume the whole thing is BS, and Paul's conversion didn't "happen", then him giving up his seemingly fairly senior position to join a movement that had little for him to personally gain except probably getting killed doesn't make much sense. He either had something really major happen to him, or he'd suddenly lost his mind. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2014 6:14:28 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well, the move on from the technical discussion, I'd say I'd find Paul to be a fascinating Apostle, mostly because he had so little to "gain" by conversion. The core 11, and the others who knew Jesus were deep in it all already. If we assume the whole thing is BS, and Paul's conversion didn't "happen", then him giving up his seemingly fairly senior position to join a movement that had little for him to personally gain except probably getting killed doesn't make much sense. He either had something really major happen to him, or he'd suddenly lost his mind. I'll go with something really major happened to him........... |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2014 7:25:33 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well I believe one of us is misunderstanding interpretations of the bible. I do believe Paul was talking about Peter following the Mosaic law that was fulfilled by Christ, like eye for an eye, women being property, not eating pork, etc. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Jinxsters, I guess you're talking to me. What version do you want me to quote? This is speaking of eating with unwashed hands, not eating what was declared unclean. If you mean one of the versions that have "and he declared all food clean" in parenthesis, then you know that that line was added, and was not in the Greek. Even if it was, food is clearly defined in Leviticus, and pig is not food. Instead of going by what men say is alright to eat, I'll go by what my Father in Heaven says. After all, He created it, and who would know what is food more than Him? Acts 10:9 Galatians 2:11 Jesus changed some things. You still live by an eye for an eye? That was also in the Old Testament. Women were also considered property. That was in the old testament as well. If you read a little further you will see that Acts 10 is about calling men unclean. Act 10:28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean. Galatians 2 is also about calling man unclean. Gal 2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. Gal 2:12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. Well I believe one of us is misunderstanding interpretations of the bible. I do believe Paul was talking about Peter following the Mosaic law that was fulfilled by Christ, like eye for an eye, women being property, not eating pork, etc. Why do you insist that because the Messiah fulfilled the TORAH, that it became null and void? He made it full of meaning. He is the living TORAH. I don't know what translation you are going by, but if it actually says, as you said earlier, that Peter was eating pork with the gentiles, then it should be discarded. Paul was not converted from being a Pharisee. His eyes were opened to see the Messiah. After the death burial and resurrection of Yeshua, Paul said: Acts 23:6 But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2014 8:03:25 PM EDT
[#35]
Sure thing.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2014 6:37:04 PM EDT
[#36]
An opposing viewpoint regarding Paul.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2014 2:52:29 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryJust some anti-Christian, false teaching nonsense. This is the truly "new age" garbage. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2014 12:00:51 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Just some anti-Christian, false teaching nonsense. This is the truly "new age" garbage. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Just some anti-Christian, false teaching nonsense. This is the truly "new age" garbage. Did you know some Pharisee's did the same exact thing in the 1st century to try and disprove Paul was an apostle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2014 12:47:21 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Did you know some Pharisee's did the same exact thing in the 1st century to try and disprove Paul was an apostle. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Just some anti-Christian, false teaching nonsense. This is the truly "new age" garbage. Did you know some Pharisee's did the same exact thing in the 1st century to try and disprove Paul was an apostle. Yeah, not much is original at this point when it comes to trying to disprove Christianity and the bible. I was referring more to the website and what this guy is all about. His idea isn't new, but he's claiming that he has "found the truth" and trying to turn old ideas into new ones. The symbols that spell out 'shattering myths' kind of show the new age idea of weaving all the belief systems together, that they all hold some truth and should all be considered. That's just what I got from it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2014 3:13:20 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yeah, not much is original at this point when it comes to trying to disprove Christianity and the bible. I was referring more to the website and what this guy is all about. His idea isn't new, but he's claiming that he has "found the truth" and trying to turn old ideas into new ones. The symbols that spell out 'shattering myths' kind of show the new age idea of weaving all the belief systems together, that they all hold some truth and should all be considered. That's just what I got from it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Just some anti-Christian, false teaching nonsense. This is the truly "new age" garbage. Did you know some Pharisee's did the same exact thing in the 1st century to try and disprove Paul was an apostle. Yeah, not much is original at this point when it comes to trying to disprove Christianity and the bible. I was referring more to the website and what this guy is all about. His idea isn't new, but he's claiming that he has "found the truth" and trying to turn old ideas into new ones. The symbols that spell out 'shattering myths' kind of show the new age idea of weaving all the belief systems together, that they all hold some truth and should all be considered. That's just what I got from it. That is the antithesis of what that guy's all about. He is anti-religion, all of them, but pro God/"Jesus.". The contents of that site are a case against Paul, but they didn't start out that way. Originally, it was meant to explain apparent inconsistencies between the testimony of God/"Jesus" and that of Paul. For those interested, linked is an excerpt from Shattering Myths where it is discussed and what is basically a synopsis is presented: 38:00.. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2014 3:34:21 PM EDT
[#41]
If Paul was wrong in his ministry then the other apostles would have confronted him. There would have been plenty of evidence against him and his writings would not have made it into the bible. So if Paul's writings and teachings are wrong, then the bible is not God inspired. We may as well scrap the whole thing and forget about it.
Or, what Paul taught and wrote is accurate, all the books that are in the bible belong there, and this guy is full of crap. An atheist or anti-Christian posing as a Christian to try to sway people away from the truth and lead them away from Christ. This sounds like what's going on here. Nothing new though, you know, wolf in sheeps clothing and all. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2014 5:37:01 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If Paul was wrong in his ministry then the other apostles would have confronted him. There would have been plenty of evidence against him and his writings would not have made it into the bible. So if Paul's writings and teachings are wrong, then the bible is not God inspired. We may as well scrap the whole thing and forget about it. Or, what Paul taught and wrote is accurate, all the books that are in the bible belong there, and this guy is full of crap. An atheist or anti-Christian posing as a Christian to try to sway people away from the truth and lead them away from Christ. This sounds like what's going on here. Nothing new though, you know, wolf in sheeps clothing and all. I agree, and there is a lot of misunderstanding of Paul. Even Peter said that Paul would be misunderstood. 2Pet. 3:15 and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, 2Pet. 3:16 as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2014 2:59:56 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I agree, and there is a lot of misunderstanding of Paul. Even Peter said that Paul would be misunderstood. 2Pet. 3:15 and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, 2Pet. 3:16 as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If Paul was wrong in his ministry then the other apostles would have confronted him. There would have been plenty of evidence against him and his writings would not have made it into the bible. So if Paul's writings and teachings are wrong, then the bible is not God inspired. We may as well scrap the whole thing and forget about it. Or, what Paul taught and wrote is accurate, all the books that are in the bible belong there, and this guy is full of crap. An atheist or anti-Christian posing as a Christian to try to sway people away from the truth and lead them away from Christ. This sounds like what's going on here. Nothing new though, you know, wolf in sheeps clothing and all. I agree, and there is a lot of misunderstanding of Paul. Even Peter said that Paul would be misunderstood. 2Pet. 3:15 and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, 2Pet. 3:16 as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. Exactly. Peter wouldn't have backed Paul if his teachings weren't accurate. Paul does have some hard teachings that take a good deal of studying to understand. Romans was probably the hardest for me at first, but once you really understand it, it can really impact how we look at our lives as Christians. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2014 4:53:43 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Exactly. Peter wouldn't have backed Paul if his teachings weren't accurate. Paul does have some hard teachings that take a good deal of studying to understand. Romans was probably the hardest for me at first, but once you really understand it, it can really impact how we look at our lives as Christians. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If Paul was wrong in his ministry then the other apostles would have confronted him. There would have been plenty of evidence against him and his writings would not have made it into the bible. So if Paul's writings and teachings are wrong, then the bible is not God inspired. We may as well scrap the whole thing and forget about it. Or, what Paul taught and wrote is accurate, all the books that are in the bible belong there, and this guy is full of crap. An atheist or anti-Christian posing as a Christian to try to sway people away from the truth and lead them away from Christ. This sounds like what's going on here. Nothing new though, you know, wolf in sheeps clothing and all. I agree, and there is a lot of misunderstanding of Paul. Even Peter said that Paul would be misunderstood. 2Pet. 3:15 and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, 2Pet. 3:16 as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. Exactly. Peter wouldn't have backed Paul if his teachings weren't accurate. Paul does have some hard teachings that take a good deal of studying to understand. Romans was probably the hardest for me at first, but once you really understand it, it can really impact how we look at our lives as Christians. Yeah, all of the points in the above posts and then some are addressed in that book. Doubting Paul is not very popular. In fact, the author of that book is hated world wide. It's just an alternative view, that in this instance is pretty well documented and demonstrated. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2014 5:32:01 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yeah, all of the points in the above posts and then some are addressed in that book. Doubting Paul is not very popular. In fact, the author of that book is hated world wide. It's just an alternative view, that in this instance is pretty well documented and demonstrated. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If Paul was wrong in his ministry then the other apostles would have confronted him. There would have been plenty of evidence against him and his writings would not have made it into the bible. So if Paul's writings and teachings are wrong, then the bible is not God inspired. We may as well scrap the whole thing and forget about it. Or, what Paul taught and wrote is accurate, all the books that are in the bible belong there, and this guy is full of crap. An atheist or anti-Christian posing as a Christian to try to sway people away from the truth and lead them away from Christ. This sounds like what's going on here. Nothing new though, you know, wolf in sheeps clothing and all. I agree, and there is a lot of misunderstanding of Paul. Even Peter said that Paul would be misunderstood. 2Pet. 3:15 and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, 2Pet. 3:16 as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. Exactly. Peter wouldn't have backed Paul if his teachings weren't accurate. Paul does have some hard teachings that take a good deal of studying to understand. Romans was probably the hardest for me at first, but once you really understand it, it can really impact how we look at our lives as Christians. Yeah, all of the points in the above posts and then some are addressed in that book. Doubting Paul is not very popular. In fact, the author of that book is hated world wide. It's just an alternative view, that in this instance is pretty well documented and demonstrated. According to this guy half of the New Testament is wrong, in fact, there's really not suppose to be a New Testament because it was made up by Paul. So now this has turned into half the bible not being valid as opposed to only half of the New Testament. Now, this brings us to have to question the validity of the WHOLE bible because if half of it is now known to be wrong, then the other half, or Old Testament, has a very high probability of being invalid too. So in comes this guy, that has now met the true God he claims, to set Christianity straight and lead people to the real truth. After all, we can no longer go by the bible anymore because it's filled with errors. Doesn't sound fishy at all to me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2014 6:22:59 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
According to this guy half of the New Testament is wrong, in fact, there's really not suppose to be a New Testament because it was made up by Paul. So now this has turned into half the bible not being valid as opposed to only half of the New Testament. Now, this brings us to have to question the validity of the WHOLE bible because if half of it is now known to be wrong, then the other half, or Old Testament, has a very high probability of being invalid too. So in comes this guy, that has now met the true God he claims, to set Christianity straight and lead people to the real truth. After all, we can no longer go by the bible anymore because it's filled with errors. Doesn't sound fishy at all to me. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If Paul was wrong in his ministry then the other apostles would have confronted him. There would have been plenty of evidence against him and his writings would not have made it into the bible. So if Paul's writings and teachings are wrong, then the bible is not God inspired. We may as well scrap the whole thing and forget about it. Or, what Paul taught and wrote is accurate, all the books that are in the bible belong there, and this guy is full of crap. An atheist or anti-Christian posing as a Christian to try to sway people away from the truth and lead them away from Christ. This sounds like what's going on here. Nothing new though, you know, wolf in sheeps clothing and all. I agree, and there is a lot of misunderstanding of Paul. Even Peter said that Paul would be misunderstood. 2Pet. 3:15 and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, 2Pet. 3:16 as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. Exactly. Peter wouldn't have backed Paul if his teachings weren't accurate. Paul does have some hard teachings that take a good deal of studying to understand. Romans was probably the hardest for me at first, but once you really understand it, it can really impact how we look at our lives as Christians. Yeah, all of the points in the above posts and then some are addressed in that book. Doubting Paul is not very popular. In fact, the author of that book is hated world wide. It's just an alternative view, that in this instance is pretty well documented and demonstrated. According to this guy half of the New Testament is wrong, in fact, there's really not suppose to be a New Testament because it was made up by Paul. So now this has turned into half the bible not being valid as opposed to only half of the New Testament. Now, this brings us to have to question the validity of the WHOLE bible because if half of it is now known to be wrong, then the other half, or Old Testament, has a very high probability of being invalid too. So in comes this guy, that has now met the true God he claims, to set Christianity straight and lead people to the real truth. After all, we can no longer go by the bible anymore because it's filled with errors. Doesn't sound fishy at all to me. I personally don't think that characterization of the author is very accurate. The case against Paul is generally based only upon his own writings and the scriptural testimony of God and "Jesus." It is true that the author is against the concept of a new testament / renewed covenant, but offers a compelling case against those as well. He also takes issue with the accuracy and content of modern/English translations of the Bible, another unpopular stance. Read it if you want to, or don't. Free will and all that... |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2014 2:07:22 AM EDT
[#47]
Martel C,
The first and main argument this guy uses is that Paul never quotes from the gospels. Sounds like he might have something until you find out that most of Paul's writings are believed to have been written BEFORE the gospels were written. I don't have to read any further than that, even though I did, to know this guy is full of crap. This guy's main purpose is to take people that aren't biblically literate and lead them astray, causing them to doubt the authenticity of the bible; and therefore worshipping someone other than the true Savior Jesus Christ. I urge you not to buy into this guys false teachings. But you can believe him if you want to, you know, free will and all that. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
