Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2015 5:20:02 GMT -5
Sorry Virgo I don't see how that answered the question. Do you think God can speak directly to a person ? Also the verses you quoted were to the original Apostles were they not ? Perhaps they were. That doesn't mean that they're not applicable today. However, these are also the words of Jesus, and are not specific to the 12: "He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet's reward; and he that receiveth a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man's reward." "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me; and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me."
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jun 9, 2015 11:02:55 GMT -5
another trait of very young children is obedience You've obviously never had children LOL.... The trait I know quite well is if there is a rule it must be tested many times ha!
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jun 9, 2015 11:08:03 GMT -5
I find it interesting that many here have said that it is the shedding of the blood of a pure/virgin that saves and the rest is just 'doing'. That is interesting to me because it is a progression of belief. The Jews sacrificed animals to God but Christians upped the requirement to the blood of a human that was pure. Many religions believed that sacrificing a human to God was in order and that human needed to be pure/virgin. Can any one tell me why they believe a blood sacrifice is the only way to appease God in order to be saved/found pleasing in God's books? Does no one think this is barbaric in nature? In Revelation, Jesus is described as "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world". It was God's plan from the beginning that He would send His son as a sacrifice for our sins. The animal sacrifices in the old testament were also instituted by God, not by the Jews, and were a fore-runner or shadow of the final, perfect sacrifice of Jesus that removed all further need for the shedding of blood for the sins of mankind. If you want a deeper understanding of why our sins can only be washed away through the blood of Jesus, then you'll have to ask Him yourself Well Christianity certainly isn't alone in this requirement. I think it's because humans equate blood with life and therefore it was considered sacred and the best way to appease a wrathful God.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jun 9, 2015 15:15:08 GMT -5
They really didn't accept him after they met him. He was made to repent when he finally visited Jerusalem and met a couple of them (not all of them). So if he was considered to be doing what they approved of, why was he required to repent? How do you know everything Paul wrote is true? We can't know that for sure and when we see the attitude of the original apostles towards Paul, one might question the 'truth' he spoke actually. What are you talking about? When was he made to repent in Jerusalem? Barnabas brought Saul to the apostles in Jerusalem in Acts 9 and they accepted him. What attitude of the original apostles towards Paul do you mean? Peter wrote about him - "our beloved brother Paul according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you" Okay, here are some reasons why I say there was no love lost between Paul and the original apostles. Paul’s Rights as an Apostle 9 Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not the result of my work in the Lord? 2 Even though I may not be an apostle to others, surely I am to you! For you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.
3 This is my defense to those who sit in judgment on me. 4 Don’t we have the right to food and drink? 5 Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas. Or is it only I and Barnabas who lack the right to not work for a living?This says to me that the apostles didn't want to grant Paul the title of apostle that Paul took upon himself. There is problems between them as far as acceptance. Why else would he be asking 'am I not an apostle'? He is also saying that although he is not recognized as an apostle to the original apostles, the Church of Corinthians accept him as such. Even Luke in Acts 1:21 gives the requirements to be an apostle and Paul doesn't meet those requirements. Paul was not one of the men which accompanied the other apostles all the time Jesus was alive. King James Bible Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,In 2 Corinthians 11:22-23 he goes as far as to say he is even better than the original 12 in his eyes. He is not only an apostle he is saying, but he is a better one. 22 Are they Hebrews? so am I. Are they Israelites? so am I. Are they the seed of Abraham? so am I.
23 Are they ministers of Christ? (I speak as a fool) I am more; in labours more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons more frequent, in deaths oft.In Galations 2:6 he pretty much dismisses the importance of the other apostles and basically says that he Paul was chosen by God while he was still in his mother's womb. As for those who were held in high esteem--whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not show favoritism--they added nothing to my message.The original apostles preached that you needed to be circumcised and Paul didn't preach this and he has something to say about those who preach circumcision or uphold any of the Jewish law. He calls the 'mutilators of the flesh' Dogs and evildoers. So is there really any wonder why they were upset with Paul if they knew he was preaching this stuff? Phillippians 3 3 Further, my brothers and sisters, rejoice in the Lord! It is no trouble for me to write the same things to you again, and it is a safeguard for you. 2 Watch out for those dogs, those evildoers, those mutilators of the flesh. 3 For it is we who are the circumcision, we who serve God by his Spirit, who boast in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh— 4 though I myself have reasons for such confidence. If someone else thinks they have reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: 5 circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; 6 as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for righteousness based on the law, faultless. In Romans 10:4 he basically says that Jesus was the culmination of the end of the law referring to the Jewish law, but Jesus stated many times he came to uphold the law. In fact Jesus seems to expand the the Jewish law and make it even more rigid. For example the commandment Thou Shalt not Kill becomes if you are angry with your brother or sister you are liable to the same judgement. Does this sound like a man that didn't uphold the Jewish Law and yet Paul doesn't see any reason to uphold that law. Matthew 5:22 Jesus says this: 22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’[c] is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.Also Paul outright contradicts what Jesus says about calling on the Lord. Paul says that everyone that calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved Romans 10:13 but Jesus clearly says in Matthew 7:21 "Not everyone who says to me 'Lord Lord' shall enter the kingdom of heaven". He doesn't even try to meet with the original apostles for 3 years after he starts preaching. It is Paul that talks about Jesus existing from the beginning with God and is likely, imo, the one who got the business of the trinity started and Jesus being God. The original apostles would have been appalled at that slant on who Jesus was. He transforms Jesus into a divine, pre-existant, literal son of God. In Paul's second visit he says that he refused to submit to them, not even for a minute, as neither they, nor their opinion of his ministry made any difference to him whatsoever. So from his own words it seems there was not as much harmony between Paul and the original apostles as people might like to believe. It was important to Paul that he be accepted as an apostle and Luke was a follower of Paul and is the one that wrote Acts. It was not Luke the apostle as some seem to think. Luke tries to make it look like Paul was accepted and all was well, but we find little things that Paul says that paints a different picture, from time to time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2015 15:56:31 GMT -5
What are you talking about? When was he made to repent in Jerusalem? Barnabas brought Saul to the apostles in Jerusalem in Acts 9 and they accepted him. What attitude of the original apostles towards Paul do you mean? Peter wrote about him - "our beloved brother Paul according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you" Okay, here are some reasons why I say there was no love lost between Paul and the original apostles. Paul’s Rights as an Apostle 9 Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not the result of my work in the Lord? 2 Even though I may not be an apostle to others, surely I am to you! For you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.
3 This is my defense to those who sit in judgment on me. 4 Don’t we have the right to food and drink? 5 Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas. Or is it only I and Barnabas who lack the right to not work for a living?This says to me that the apostles didn't want to grant Paul the title of apostle that Paul took upon himself. There is problems between them as far as acceptance. Why else would he be asking 'am I not an apostle'? He is also saying that although he is not recognized as an apostle to the original apostles, the Church of Corinthians accept him as such. There's nothing in these verses to suggest Paul was referring to the original apostles. This chapter would indicate that he's referring to some of those at Corinth who were questioning his authority.
Even Luke in Acts 1:21 gives the requirements to be an apostle and Paul doesn't meet those requirements. Paul was not one of the men which accompanied the other apostles all the time Jesus was alive. King James Bible Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,Paul didn't have to meet the conditions for selecting one to replace Judas. That wasn't the apostleship that Paul was called to. He was sent to the Gentiles. God said about Paul: "he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel"In 2 Corinthians 11:22-23 he goes as far as to say he is even better than the original 12 in his eyes. He is not only an apostle he is saying, but he is a better one. 22 Are they Hebrews? so am I. Are they Israelites? so am I. Are they the seed of Abraham? so am I. 23 Are they ministers of Christ? (I speak as a fool) I am more; in labours more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons more frequent, in deaths oft.There is nothing in this chapter to suggest that Paul was referring to the apostles here.In Galations 2:6 he pretty much dismisses the importance of the other apostles and basically says that he Paul was chosen by God while he was still in his mother's womb. I think you've got the wrong reference there? As for those who were held in high esteem--whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not show favoritism--they added nothing to my message.The original apostles preached that you needed to be circumcised and Paul didn't preach this and he has something to say about those who preach circumcision or uphold any of the Jewish law. He calls the 'mutilators of the flesh' Dogs and evildoers. So is there really any wonder why they were upset with Paul if they knew he was preaching this stuff? Phillippians 3 Paul was correct, and some of the other apostles were in error on the point of circumcision. Afterwards they accepted that Paul was correct. It was a big thing for those who were brought up as Jews to accept that circumcision was not necessary after the resurrection of Jesus.3 Further, my brothers and sisters, rejoice in the Lord! It is no trouble for me to write the same things to you again, and it is a safeguard for you. 2 Watch out for those dogs, those evildoers, those mutilators of the flesh. 3 For it is we who are the circumcision, we who serve God by his Spirit, who boast in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh— 4 though I myself have reasons for such confidence. If someone else thinks they have reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: 5 circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; 6 as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for righteousness based on the law, faultless. In Romans 10:4 he basically says that Jesus was the culmination of the end of the law referring to the Jewish law, but Jesus stated many times he came to uphold the law. In fact Jesus seems to expand the the Jewish law and make it even more rigid. For example the commandment Thou Shalt not Kill becomes if you are angry with your brother or sister you are liable to the same judgement. Does this sound like a man that didn't uphold the Jewish Law and yet Paul doesn't see any reason to uphold that law. Matthew 5:22 Jesus says this: 22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’[c] is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.Jesus said "The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it." Jesus WAS the fulfilment of the old law. Jesus upheld the commandments, but there were other parts of the old law that he changed. There are many times that Jesus quoted the old law and then changed it with the words "but I say unto you ..."
. Also Paul outright contradicts what Jesus says about calling on the Lord. Paul says that everyone that calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved Romans 10:13 but Jesus clearly says in Matthew 7:21 "Not everyone who says to me 'Lord Lord' shall enter the kingdom of heaven". He doesn't even try to meet with the original apostles for 3 years after he starts preaching. Where to you get 3 years from? Barnabas brought Paul to the apostles in Acts 9. It is Paul that talks about Jesus existing from the beginning with God and is likely, imo, the one who got the business of the trinity started and Jesus being God. The original apostles would have been appalled at that slant on who Jesus was. He transforms Jesus into a divine, pre-existant, literal son of God. Not true either - it's the gospel of John that talks about Jesus being from the beginning, and John WAS one of the original 12 apostles. The trinity arguments started after both of them were dead.In Paul's second visit he says that he refused to submit to them, not even for a minute, as neither they, nor their opinion of his ministry made any difference to him whatsoever. So from his own words it seems there was not as much harmony between Paul and the original apostles as people might like to believe. Not true either. The people Paul refused to be subjected to were "false brethren unawares brought in", not the apostles.It was important to Paul that he be accepted as an apostle and Luke was a follower of Paul and is the one that wrote Acts. It was not Luke the apostle as some seem to think. Luke tries to make it look like Paul was accepted and all was well, but we find little things that Paul says that paints a different picture, from time to time. You still haven't provided any scriptures to back up your claim that Paul was made to repent in Jerusalem.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2015 16:37:21 GMT -5
Also the verses you quoted were to the original Apostles were they not ? Perhaps they were. That doesn't mean that they're not applicable today. However, these are also the words of Jesus, and are not specific to the 12: "He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet's reward; and he that receiveth a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man's reward." "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me; and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me." and he who receiveth not me receiveth not who sent Me
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jun 9, 2015 17:53:07 GMT -5
What is the point of putting effort into something that you interpret differently? You believe Paul was an apostle, you believe the workers are apostles and that's that. I really don't agree with what you wrote that he wasn't referring to the original apostles and you don't agree that he was. So at this point I say, agree to disagree. After all, it always makes your day to be able to disagree with me right. Teasing you with last sentence! It's okay, we see things very differently obviously. One major issue is that you are under the impression that they synoptic gospels are written by the apostles but it has been known for quite some time that isn't the case. So it's understandable that you would read the stuff about Paul in a different light. I know that Paul outlived the apostles, that are mentioned in the bible anyway, except for possibly John. So knowing that his follower Luke wrote Acts and Paul contributes a huge amount of what is in the NT, it stands to reason that the content is going to make Paul look authentic. He needed to establish his claim to the title of apostle because it was self proclaimed.
When Paul came to Jerusalem he was quizzed about his preaching about not needing to obey the Jewish law or be circumcised. James did this. He was told he had to undergo a purification. Paul did undergo the purification so that would appear that he did repent? Of course when he left he still continued to preach the way he had been.
20 When they heard this, they praised God. Then they said to Paul: “You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law. 21 They have been informed that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs. 22 What shall we do? They will certainly hear that you have come, 23 so do what we tell you. There are four men with us who have made a vow. 24 Take these men, join in their purification rites and pay their expenses, so that they can have their heads shaved. Then everyone will know there is no truth in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the law. 25 As for the Gentile believers, we have written to them our decision that they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality.”
26 The next day Paul took the men and purified himself along with them. Then he went to the temple to give notice of the date when the days of purification would end and the offering would be made for each of them.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Jun 9, 2015 18:12:44 GMT -5
I don't believe that Jesus did change the law. It seems to me he was merely reinforcing the laws, explaining the reason behind the law.
People were used to keeping the letter of the law, but Jesus was saying that the spirit of the law was just as important.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jun 9, 2015 18:43:03 GMT -5
I don't believe that Jesus did change the law. It seems to me he was merely reinforcing the laws, explaining the reason behind the law. People were used to keeping the letter of the law, but Jesus was saying that the spirit of the law was just as important. Yes I believe that Jesus believed the law should be kept and I think the original apostles thought that too. Why else would James try to establish whether or not Paul was teaching things that were not according to the Jewish Law?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jun 10, 2015 0:42:50 GMT -5
Okay, here are some reasons why I say there was no love lost between Paul and the original apostles. Paul’s Rights as an Apostle 9 Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not the result of my work in the Lord? 2 Even though I may not be an apostle to others, surely I am to you! For you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.
3 This is my defense to those who sit in judgment on me. 4 Don’t we have the right to food and drink? 5 Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas. Or is it only I and Barnabas who lack the right to not work for a living?This says to me that the apostles didn't want to grant Paul the title of apostle that Paul took upon himself. There is problems between them as far as acceptance. Why else would he be asking 'am I not an apostle'? He is also saying that although he is not recognized as an apostle to the original apostles, the Church of Corinthians accept him as such. There's nothing in these verses to suggest Paul was referring to the original apostles. This chapter would indicate that he's referring to some of those at Corinth who were questioning his authority.
Even Luke in Acts 1:21 gives the requirements to be an apostle and Paul doesn't meet those requirements. Paul was not one of the men which accompanied the other apostles all the time Jesus was alive. King James Bible Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,Paul didn't have to meet the conditions for selecting one to replace Judas. That wasn't the apostleship that Paul was called to. He was sent to the Gentiles. God said about Paul: "he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel"In 2 Corinthians 11:22-23 he goes as far as to say he is even better than the original 12 in his eyes. He is not only an apostle he is saying, but he is a better one. 22 Are they Hebrews? so am I. Are they Israelites? so am I. Are they the seed of Abraham? so am I. 23 Are they ministers of Christ? (I speak as a fool) I am more; in labours more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons more frequent, in deaths oft.There is nothing in this chapter to suggest that Paul was referring to the apostles here.In Galations 2:6 he pretty much dismisses the importance of the other apostles and basically says that he Paul was chosen by God while he was still in his mother's womb. I think you've got the wrong reference there? As for those who were held in high esteem--whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not show favoritism--they added nothing to my message.The original apostles preached that you needed to be circumcised and Paul didn't preach this and he has something to say about those who preach circumcision or uphold any of the Jewish law. He calls the 'mutilators of the flesh' Dogs and evildoers. So is there really any wonder why they were upset with Paul if they knew he was preaching this stuff? Phillippians 3 Paul was correct, and some of the other apostles were in error on the point of circumcision. Afterwards they accepted that Paul was correct. It was a big thing for those who were brought up as Jews to accept that circumcision was not necessary after the resurrection of Jesus.3 Further, my brothers and sisters, rejoice in the Lord! It is no trouble for me to write the same things to you again, and it is a safeguard for you. 2 Watch out for those dogs, those evildoers, those mutilators of the flesh. 3 For it is we who are the circumcision, we who serve God by his Spirit, who boast in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh— 4 though I myself have reasons for such confidence. If someone else thinks they have reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: 5 circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; 6 as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for righteousness based on the law, faultless. In Romans 10:4 he basically says that Jesus was the culmination of the end of the law referring to the Jewish law, but Jesus stated many times he came to uphold the law. In fact Jesus seems to expand the the Jewish law and make it even more rigid. For example the commandment Thou Shalt not Kill becomes if you are angry with your brother or sister you are liable to the same judgement. Does this sound like a man that didn't uphold the Jewish Law and yet Paul doesn't see any reason to uphold that law. Matthew 5:22 Jesus says this: 22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’[c] is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.Jesus said "The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it." Jesus WAS the fulfilment of the old law. Jesus upheld the commandments, but there were other parts of the old law that he changed. There are many times that Jesus quoted the old law and then changed it with the words "but I say unto you ..."
. Also Paul outright contradicts what Jesus says about calling on the Lord. Paul says that everyone that calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved Romans 10:13 but Jesus clearly says in Matthew 7:21 "Not everyone who says to me 'Lord Lord' shall enter the kingdom of heaven". He doesn't even try to meet with the original apostles for 3 years after he starts preaching. Where to you get 3 years from? Barnabas brought Paul to the apostles in Acts 9. It is Paul that talks about Jesus existing from the beginning with God and is likely, imo, the one who got the business of the trinity started and Jesus being God. The original apostles would have been appalled at that slant on who Jesus was. He transforms Jesus into a divine, pre-existant, literal son of God. Not true either - it's the gospel of John that talks about Jesus being from the beginning, and John WAS one of the original 12 apostles. The trinity arguments started after both of them were dead.In Paul's second visit he says that he refused to submit to them, not even for a minute, as neither they, nor their opinion of his ministry made any difference to him whatsoever. So from his own words it seems there was not as much harmony between Paul and the original apostles as people might like to believe. Not true either. The people Paul refused to be subjected to were "false brethren unawares brought in", not the apostles.It was important to Paul that he be accepted as an apostle and Luke was a follower of Paul and is the one that wrote Acts. It was not Luke the apostle as some seem to think. Luke tries to make it look like Paul was accepted and all was well, but we find little things that Paul says that paints a different picture, from time to time. You still haven't provided any scriptures to back up your claim that Paul was made to repent in Jerusalem. When you come right down to it, all those things Paul said about himself are just that, -what HE SAID ABOUT HIMSELF! There really isn't anything or anyone else to prove what he said about himself other than Luke who was not only a follower of Paul but no doubt his companion at one time!
We just have to take his own word for even his 'vision' on the road to Damascus !
Snow is right, -Luke was a follower of Paul and is the one that wrote Acts. Because of some of Acts appears to be first hand witness to Paul's travels and often uses the word "we" it is thought that Luke was a companion of Paul's.
There was contention between the church at Jerusalem and Paul from the beginning.
|
|
|
Post by maryhig on Jun 10, 2015 2:33:37 GMT -5
What gave you the idea that I didn't believe that God created the world? I would have thought that was stating the obvious. Do you not believe in the need for repentance? I agree that the flesh is prone to sin, but I don't believe we get blanket forgiveness for sins that we don't repent from and continue to commit. I am sure that you believe that God created the world. It's not obvious to many people. Of course I believe a person needs to repent - that's what happens when a person turns to Christ. They are sorry for their past, turn to Him and commit to live for Him in His Kingdom. However, you will continue to commit sins, and the same sins over and over again, every day until the day you die. Sin is sin and any sin will make you guilty before a Holy Spirit. That's why a complete solution from sin was so essential and it's what we have when we turn to Christ. Obviously, we shouldn't continue to intentionally sin and we are no longer (and should be longer) slaves to sin - Romans 6. But we will continue to make mistakes and possibly some big ones (David did this). And while some of these sins may be public and have all kinds of consequences God doesn't love us any less if we continue to trust in Him and turn to him for forgiveness. He didn't love David any less. Consider Peter - Peter denied Him and turned His back completely on Jesus. But even when he did this and before he wept about it, Christ who would have known exactly what Peter was doing, did not love Him any less. If we belong to Christ and even if we sin and do wrong which we are prone to Him, Christ just like the Father of the prodigal son won't love us any less. He is just waiting for us to turn back to Him. The brother was focused on all the conditions that his sinful brother hadn't met - the brother thought he was more worthy - but this wasn't the way Jesus saw it. Yes I also believe God loves us completely, and it is us who turn from him. Not him from us. But if we sin purposely. I believe there will be consequences. So if once we know what we are about to do is a sin, we shouldn't do it. This is what I believe Jesus is talking about when he says we have to deny ourselves. Self denial is denying the sins of the flesh and temptations from Satan. But we do fail, just hopefully not purposely! Also repentance, how do we know a person has repented? Because you will see it in their life. A liar won't lie anymore, a thief won't steal etc. Their lives will be changing so will their hearts. And you will see it outwardly, and hear them speaking the word of God instead of the words of the world. Thus showing fruits worthy of repentance! This is how you show you have repented! And I believe this is how you show that you love God!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2015 3:06:59 GMT -5
When you come right down to it, all those things Paul said about himself are just that, -what HE SAID ABOUT HIMSELF! There really isn't anything or anyone else to prove what he said about himself other than Luke who was not only a follower of Paul but no doubt his companion at one time!
We just have to take his own word for even his 'vision' on the road to Damascus !
Snow is right, -Luke was a follower of Paul and is the one that wrote Acts. Because of some of Acts appears to be first hand witness to Paul's travels and often uses the word "we" it is thought that Luke was a companion of Paul's.
There was contention between the church at Jerusalem and Paul from the beginning.
What about what Peter wrote - "our beloved brother Paul according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you" Luke wasn't a follower of Paul, he was a follower of Jesus. The vision Ananias had backs up the vision Paul had, but then if you don't believe in God I guess you don't believe in His word either.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2015 3:11:24 GMT -5
What is the point of putting effort into something that you interpret differently? You believe Paul was an apostle, you believe the workers are apostles and that's that. I really don't agree with what you wrote that he wasn't referring to the original apostles and you don't agree that he was. So at this point I say, agree to disagree. Well you started it As an atheist, you don't believe in God, so obviously you don't believe the scriptures were inspired by God. Why then do you appear to believe in the 12 apostles and get so worked up about Paul?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2015 3:24:29 GMT -5
I don't believe that Jesus did change the law. It seems to me he was merely reinforcing the laws, explaining the reason behind the law. People were used to keeping the letter of the law, but Jesus was saying that the spirit of the law was just as important. That's why the law wasn't working, because people were keeping the letter of the law and ignoring the spirit of the law - such as in Malachi and other places where they went through the form of sacrifice but they were giving the torn and maimed, animals that were no use to themselves anyway, and therefore not a real sacrifice. So do you not believe that the sacrifice of Jesus did away with the need animal sacrifices as ordained in the law? Do you not believe that when Jesus died and the veil was rent in twain that men could now have direct access to the presence of God and no longer required the priests/levites to intercede for them before God? What do you think the "New Testament" is? Do you not believe it's a new covenant between God and man, whereby we might be saved by the blood of Jesus and not by the old law?
|
|
|
Post by fred on Jun 10, 2015 3:32:46 GMT -5
I don't believe that Jesus did change the law. It seems to me he was merely reinforcing the laws, explaining the reason behind the law. People were used to keeping the letter of the law, but Jesus was saying that the spirit of the law was just as important. That's why the law wasn't working, because people were keeping the letter of the law and ignoring the spirit of the law - such as in Malachi and other places where they went through the form of sacrifice but they were giving the torn and maimed, animals that were no use to themselves anyway, and therefore not a real sacrifice. So do you not believe that the sacrifice of Jesus did away with the need animal sacrifices as ordained in the law? Do you not believe that when Jesus died and the veil was rent in twain that men could now have direct access to the presence of God and no longer required the priests/levites to intercede for them before God? What do you think the "New Testament" is? Do you not believe it's a new covenant between God and man, whereby we might be saved by the blood of Jesus and not by the old law? Oh, and here was I thinking we were discussing Matthew 5.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jun 10, 2015 10:29:34 GMT -5
What is the point of putting effort into something that you interpret differently? You believe Paul was an apostle, you believe the workers are apostles and that's that. I really don't agree with what you wrote that he wasn't referring to the original apostles and you don't agree that he was. So at this point I say, agree to disagree. Well you started it As an atheist, you don't believe in God, so obviously you don't believe the scriptures were inspired by God. Why then do you appear to believe in the 12 apostles and get so worked up about Paul? I know the Bible have read it many times and studied it when I was younger. I may be an atheist but I do admire many attributes about Jesus. I see him as one of the more enlightened people in this world along with The Buddha and others. Paul on the other hand is someone to 'get worked up about'. He took what Jesus said and pretty much twisted it to be whatever he wanted it to be. He is the founder of Christianity as it stands today as far as I'm concerned and his contribution is not a good thing. Jesus stood for women, Paul did not and you see the repercussions of that through one of the earliest churches the RCC. Many of the early churches did not have this vendetta against women and treated them as equals in the churches unlike the RCC that only allow men to be part of the ministry. The f&w's at least have that partially right, they allow women to be ministers, but they fail when they believe that overseers all need to be male, reflecting in that way the things Paul contributed to the religion. If you read the Gospel of Mary Magdalene you will also have a little more insight into her status with the apostles and Jesus. I know you will likely disregard that gospel because the RCC didn't put it into their cannon, but that was a very well thought out decision on their part. They portrayed her as a prostitute for years and now they don't. That was a deliberate slur on her status to make her disrespected, because in some of the earlier churches that were not influenced by Paul, she was an esteemed figure and that didn't go over well when they decided the RCC would be run by men. So just because I'm an atheist doesn't mean I don't care about the origins of Christianity and how it was shaped by the early contributors. I have to live in a world that is shaped by Paul's version of Christianity and it's not a good thing imo. So yes I care. He has done the female population no end of harm with his contribution. Imo Jesus would have been appalled and those who wrote the gospels that didn't make the cannon wrote about his respect for Mary Magdalene and also the apostles respect for her, except for Peter that is. But then Peter is the Rock of the RCC isn't he? How appropriate that he was the one who tried to undermine her authority. So as an atheist that lives in a world shaped by the Christian religion I definitely do care about who made such a horrendous mark on it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2015 10:34:25 GMT -5
Well you started it As an atheist, you don't believe in God, so obviously you don't believe the scriptures were inspired by God. Why then do you appear to believe in the 12 apostles and get so worked up about Paul? I know the Bible have read it many times and studied it when I was younger. I may be an atheist but I do admire many attributes about Jesus. I see him as one of the more enlightened people in this world along with The Buddha and others. Paul on the other hand is someone to 'get worked up about'. He took what Jesus said and pretty much twisted it to be whatever he wanted it to be. He is the founder of Christianity as it stands today as far as I'm concerned and his contribution is not a good thing. Jesus stood for women, Paul did not and you see the repercussions of that through one of the earliest churches the RCC. Many of the early churches did not have this vendetta against women and treated them as equals in the churches unlike the RCC that only allow men to be part of the ministry. The f&w's at least have that partially right, they allow women to be ministers, but they fail when they believe that overseers all need to be male, reflecting in that way the things Paul contributed to the religion. If you read the Gospel of Mary Magdalene you will also have a little more insight into her status with the apostles and Jesus. I know you will likely disregard that gospel because the RCC didn't put it into their cannon, but that was a very well thought out decision on their part. They portrayed her as a prostitute for years and now they don't. That was a deliberate slur on her status to make her disrespected, because in some of the earlier churches that were not influenced by Paul, she was an esteemed figure and that didn't go over well when they decided the RCC would be run by men. So just because I'm an atheist doesn't mean I don't care about the origins of Christianity and how it was shaped by the early contributors. I have to live in a world that is shaped by Paul's version of Christianity and it's not a good thing imo. So yes I care. He has done the female population no end of harm with his contribution. Imo Jesus would have been appalled and those who wrote the gospels that didn't make the cannon wrote about his respect for Mary Magdalene and also the apostles respect for her, except for Peter that is. But then Peter is the Rock of the RCC isn't he? How appropriate that he was the one who tried to undermine her authority. So as an atheist that lives in a world shaped by the Christian religion I definitely do care about who made such a horrendous mark on it. I see. I totally disagree with almost everything you said but thank you for answering my question and sharing your perspective.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jun 10, 2015 10:39:45 GMT -5
When you come right down to it, all those things Paul said about himself are just that, -what HE SAID ABOUT HIMSELF! There really isn't anything or anyone else to prove what he said about himself other than Luke who was not only a follower of Paul but no doubt his companion at one time!
We just have to take his own word for even his 'vision' on the road to Damascus !
Snow is right, -Luke was a follower of Paul and is the one that wrote Acts. Because of some of Acts appears to be first hand witness to Paul's travels and often uses the word "we" it is thought that Luke was a companion of Paul's.
There was contention between the church at Jerusalem and Paul from the beginning.
What about what Peter wrote - "our beloved brother Paul according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you" Luke wasn't a follower of Paul, he was a follower of Jesus. The vision Ananias had backs up the vision Paul had, but then if you don't believe in God I guess you don't believe in His word either. Since none of the apostles wrote any of the synoptic gospels except John and Paul outlived most of them except John, how easy do you think it would be for Paul to write things that made it appear he was accepted? He had to get people to believe him and one way to do that was to provide information that made it look like he was accepted. The verses I supplied about his purification process indicates that they had heard of his preachings, didn't agree with them, were afraid for his life coming to Jerusalem and wanted him to undergo purification to prove he wasn't preaching all the things that he had been rumored to be preaching. He wisely does, but even then he is arrested. So that really tells me that he was preaching something the apostles didn't approve of, or they would not have said they were trying to believe he wasn't preaching what he had been rumored to be preaching. I probably should have worded the repent part of my post differently. They asked him to undergo purification to prove he wasn't preaching wrongly, he recognizes the wisdom of that and does undergo the purification, but as soon as he leaves again, he goes right back to preaching wrongly. So is that repentance or just saving his skin? Sounds very Paul like to me so I think he had no intention of changing his ways, which we see in other writings in the NT.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jun 10, 2015 10:47:51 GMT -5
I know the Bible have read it many times and studied it when I was younger. I may be an atheist but I do admire many attributes about Jesus. I see him as one of the more enlightened people in this world along with The Buddha and others. Paul on the other hand is someone to 'get worked up about'. He took what Jesus said and pretty much twisted it to be whatever he wanted it to be. He is the founder of Christianity as it stands today as far as I'm concerned and his contribution is not a good thing. Jesus stood for women, Paul did not and you see the repercussions of that through one of the earliest churches the RCC. Many of the early churches did not have this vendetta against women and treated them as equals in the churches unlike the RCC that only allow men to be part of the ministry. The f&w's at least have that partially right, they allow women to be ministers, but they fail when they believe that overseers all need to be male, reflecting in that way the things Paul contributed to the religion. If you read the Gospel of Mary Magdalene you will also have a little more insight into her status with the apostles and Jesus. I know you will likely disregard that gospel because the RCC didn't put it into their cannon, but that was a very well thought out decision on their part. They portrayed her as a prostitute for years and now they don't. That was a deliberate slur on her status to make her disrespected, because in some of the earlier churches that were not influenced by Paul, she was an esteemed figure and that didn't go over well when they decided the RCC would be run by men. So just because I'm an atheist doesn't mean I don't care about the origins of Christianity and how it was shaped by the early contributors. I have to live in a world that is shaped by Paul's version of Christianity and it's not a good thing imo. So yes I care. He has done the female population no end of harm with his contribution. Imo Jesus would have been appalled and those who wrote the gospels that didn't make the cannon wrote about his respect for Mary Magdalene and also the apostles respect for her, except for Peter that is. But then Peter is the Rock of the RCC isn't he? How appropriate that he was the one who tried to undermine her authority. So as an atheist that lives in a world shaped by the Christian religion I definitely do care about who made such a horrendous mark on it. I see. I totally disagree with almost everything you said but thank you for answering my question and sharing your perspective. Your welcome.
|
|