What's with all the hate for Paul?

a reply to: Seede

That was a better response. Thank you.

I guess hate isn't the right word but I was playing off the title of the thread and playing along. If I'm truthful, this is what I think and why I'm not sure I agree with or like Paul.

I do read a lot and have studied Paul and the new testament. I'm not a scholar but I'm not ignorant on the matter either.

It seems to me the the Old Testament is based on Old Jewish beliefs and other more ancient history and knowledge from other civilizations like the Sumerians. I see the need for some history and context but there is so much violence and hatred and contradiction in the Old Testament especially when compared to the words and teachings of Jesus. Most of the "Lunatics in the name of Christianity" -Like the Phelps and those guys comes from the old testament. That's why I say take that away and into a separate book. That's a logical thought process based on years of experience and study.

Secondly, Revelations has been theorized to be a hidden message about Roman military conquest of the holy land. I don't think God would have spoken to the author of Revelations in that manner knowing how badly us humans would have misinterpreted it. I think it's a bad book and not at all compatible with Jesus's teachings. Again that's my opinion but I like to discuss it.

Thirdly, let's take Paul he was a violent persecutor of the early Christians. My theory is that he saw the coming tide of Christianity and saw an opportunity. I posit that his conversion on the road to Damascus was faked. Maybe not, but we do know that Paul had a very strong personality. He was a leader among men. No doubt that this character trait did not go away after is conversion and he became the leader of the early Christian Church.

Also keep in mind that Luke is the one who created that legend of Paul being blinded by Jesus for three days. I don't think Paul ever mentioned it that way himself. Luke, I think seeing Paul's strength as a leader was trying to build him up to help further strengthen the church.

Regardless of whether Paul was a fraud or not, here lies the problem. Let's say that I'm wrong and he really was divinely inspired/converted to be the leader the early church needed. Instead of increasing Jesus message and driving those points home, the points of love and forgiveness and everything that is good with Christianity, he went the opposite direction and solidified the link between the old testament and the new testament. Paul becomes the Pharisee the Jesus despised and railed against. Just my opinion. I think Paul was the leader the new church needed and I think Luke should get even more credit than Paul actually, but I think Paul strayed from the teachings of Jesus. That's why I dislike him.

a reply to: deadeyedick

well many do not adhere to either but still find cause to disagree with the teachings of paul. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Disagree and hate are a different ball park in my eyes.

Its almost a different sport altogether.

How do you equate disagreeing with someone as hating them?

a reply to: Murgatroid

EVERY person who has the ability to change the world...is murdered....coincidence?

So when were you murdered?

when was I?

Are we all dead?

Listen to your own savior who said you have that ability or give it up to others, its your choice.

a reply to: tadaman

Text The apostle Paul says that Jesus "was born of the seed of David" (Romans 1:3). Here the word "seed" is literally in the Greek "sperma." This same Greek word is translated in other verses as "descendant(s)" or "offspring." The point is that the Messiah had to be a physical descendant of King David through the male line. That Jesus had to be a physical descendant of David means that even if Joseph had legally adopted Jesus (as some apologists have suggested), Jesus would still not qualify as Messiah if he had been born of a virgin - seed from the line of David was required.

Actually there are two Messiahs in Judaic thought and I would advise you to make a study of this before you make a final decision based on your atheist web site. But here we are not so concerned with the rabbinic teaching of their understanding but are concerned with the Christian doctrine of Christ Jesus. Jesus was of the house of David.

Romans 1:3 - Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

"According to the flesh" Christians realize that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit God. There was no sperm involved in His procreative existence. Paul is confirming this by completing the thought "According to the flesh".
I see nothing amiss here. Jesus was of the house (Seed) of David counted to be as according to the flesh. He was conceived of the Holy Spirit and born (brought forth) of the flesh of His earthly father’s house which is the house of David
To confirm this Paul also write the following

Rom 11:1 I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.

Common sense will show that Paul is not saying that he is of the sperm of Abraham but only to show you that his known tribal descendant was Abraham. Actually Paul's seed can be traced back to Noah and Noah to Adam and we all know that this is to show Paul's tribal recognition. The tribal explanation is meant to show as house.

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

Ron Paul is only being hated by Armed Chair, lazy War Mongers, interventionists whom haven't seen an actual war conflict of there own demons.

originally posted by: vethumanbeing

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim

originally posted by: AfterInfinity
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

No, no. Don't bid him rot in hell. That's where I'm going, and I've no interest in meeting the guy.

ETA: I have this thing where if my parents are going to hell for being gay, I'm going to hell for supporting them. If hell exists, it's already got a torture rack with my name plastered all over it.

Don't worry, noone's going to hell for such with a faith like yours. Leviticus is the part of Moses' Law which only affects the priests among the Levites. Paul doesn't either speak of being gay or homosexuality, he attacks what he sees as adultary, married men who followed local custom to have male lovers beside their wives. Infact, homosexuality isn't mentioned in the Bible, only religious ritual sex on altars with spectators even involving eh, manlove, like they did in certain areas in the ME back when Moses was around. And as for Paul, like I said, not homosexuality, but what he saw as extra-marital adultary. Stick that one up their faces next time, it might not work that well, but atleast it's the TRUTH.

Are you including the Greeks in this statement;

Indeed I do. In Greece and Rome and many of the other places Paul visited there were certain people and congregations he became acquainted to and seeing some of these people followed local/regional customs where same-sex lovers weren't considered adultery or even shameful-- he saw fit that he his voice was heard, since he was of that personal opinion that having same-sex lovers, again, in his opinion should be considered unfitting for those of his followers who lived in married relationships. Sadly, his expressions 2000 years ago has brought much pain and evil. Homosexuality is a natural thing that occurs throughout nature. God and evolution has made it such.

BTW there is no such thing as hell unless you imagine it for yourself as a place of ultimate destination, even to fear it creates it just for you personalized (OH THE POWER of the IMAGINATION) you have no idea. Prometheus with his attentive eagle caretakers, a rock bed and continuous fresh liver as food. All of you what is your final destination? Sugar Racer in a video game?

Indeed. The mind and our consciousness is a funky thing. Whatever can be dreamt can also be experienced. Karma is a bitch to the haughty in the long run, and as life like everything else we know of seeks to stabilise it's premises. Thus, If you are cruel, you will get cruelty in return. If you hit your slave, who knows, maybe the slavemaster will be reborn as that slave, or something completely different, like an untouchable in India or the guy who got hit by a train. And survived to live the rest of his life in constant pain and darkness. Apparently we can also move our souls from one body to another in real life as we can in dreams. Sometimes reality is a dream, and the dream is reality.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

There is only one statement made supposedly about homosexuality, in Romans 1, but that is about cult prostitution being associated with idolatry. The same sense is when he tells Judaizers to go cut their wangs off if they want a literal circumcision, because that is what was happening with the Cybele cult at the time.

a reply to: Seede

That was just one site I used as reference. There were other points I couldnt provide a source too that I left out. The facts stand even if Atheists found them, catalogued them and articulated them. I was first made aware of these discrepancies in catholic school. NOT by an atheist. We were always encouraged to actually read and learn. NOT follow others interpretations.

Jesus is as much a spiritual son of God as ALL OF US. That is the point of his message. We are all children of God. He is our brother not our father. We are all under God.

As far as having any other claim to being a messiah in any order-

According to Jewish law, from which the very notion of a messiah comes from:Jesus cannot have the house of David assigned to his lineage by his mother's side. You could be a descendant of Aaron on your mother's side and not have that distinction made. Only the fathers side counts for establishing your lineage. HE had no claim to the throne. Not to mention Josephs ancestors were cursed and so disqualified.

3.He was not descended from the House of David. According to Jewish law, tribal identification comes from the father's side, being Jewish, from the mother's side. According to Matthew 1, Joseph was descended from David (Although there are many contradictions between his genealogy there and that listed in Luke, however according to the same text, Joseph did not have sexual relations with Mary, therefore Jesus was not related to Joseph, and not a descendant of King David.

Three answers to this problem are given in classic Christian sources:

a.The genealogy is that of Mary - This is inadequate, since if he is claimed to be the Jewish messiah, and according to Jewish tradition he must be descended on his father's side, Mary's genealogy is irrelevant.

b.He was adopted by Joseph -According to Jewish law, adoption does not change the status of the child. If an Israelite is adopted by a Cohen, (A descendant of Aaron the High Priest), the child does not become a Cohen, likewise if a descendant of David, adopts someone who is not, he does not become of the tribe of Judah and a descendant of David.

c.It doesn't matter, he was a spiritual inheritor of King David - If it doesn't matter, why do Christian scriptures spend time establishing his genealogical pedigree? And if he is claimed to be the Jewish messiah, then according to Jewish tradition it does matter!

ohr.edu...

Jesus was not the universal messiah, since he was not even the Jewish messiah. He may be to some, but not to all. He may even be just a prophet like Islam says. Maybe that is all there is to any "messiah". Its about being a teacher. Being someone with a good message we can learn from. Not a "magical" God man we give superpowers to over time to validate his "godness".

Perhaps we are all "sons of God" as Jesus alluded to. Maybe we judge each other and cast God's wrath upon each other in hopes that we are right and by following "Gods rules" will somehow save ourselves from the terrible things we see happen to each other daily.

Luke and Mathew are contradictory. Jesus is not a Messiah to the Jews because he is NOT of the house of david.
Luke traces Mary back to David, supposedly. The author of Mathew uses Joseph.

Joseph was not the biological father so he has no blood lineage. The law states that the "seed" is passed through the father to establish the tribal lineage.

Mathew also adds five sexually unclean women to the lineage and skips over several Judean kings. He established the lineage of Christ by numerology based on the name of David.

He uses a 14-set genealogy of Jesus in the Greek gospel of Matthew. 14 being the gemmatrical number based on the name of David, DVD 4+6+4. Because that makes sense when establishing blood lineage...../sarcasm.

the 5 (sexually) unclean women are

1. Rachab the Harlot

2. Tamar who was raped by her brother Yehudah

3. Ruth who tried to seduce and have sex with her deceased husband’s cousin Boaz and then lived with her mother in law Naomi in a "questionable" relationship

4. Then the promiscuous Jebusite (Canaanite tribe) princess, Bath-Shebiti. Her name, Bath sheba lit = daughter of the 7 gods. She was married to Uriah the Hittite and committed Adultery with David and bore an illegitimate son who became the clan chieftain Jedediah

5. And finally Miryam of Galilee, known to be a whore (unclean)


so with this much lying and sexually compromised women being included you have to ask: was Jesus really a Davidic descendant?

I also think that Luke was speaking of Joseph. Why would he not say Mary if it was Mary. Why say "supposedly" and mean a different person. That lineage to me is as much a fabrication of Joseph´s ancestors as Mathews account. Luke tries to use Jewish law of lineage by the father to link Jesus to David. It IS NOT referring to Mary.

"Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli."...... ect.

Luke 3:23-38

Why the deception or willing mistranslation? That would not change the message of christ. You would not be able to to force convert the Jews is all. (as was attempted by the church for many years).

These many lies and Your version of Jesus looks like an antichrist for lying and being linked to whores in his lineage almost referring to the whore of Babylon and idolatry by linking him to Canaanite tribes who practiced it.

More BIG OOPS, Luke is inaccurate and deviates from the OT lineages and makes stuff up.

Though they both name Joseph as the father of Jesus, they give different names for the father of Joseph (id est, the paternal grandfather of Jesus). Matthew gives Jacob; Luke gives Heli. And thence the lists diverge completely until we come to Shealtiel and Zerubbabel.

Likewise, Matthew and Luke give different fathers for Shealtiel. Matthew gives Jechoniah; Luke gives Neri. And thence again the lists diverge until we come to David. Matthew traces this part of the line through Solomon and the kings of Judah. Luke traces it through Nathan and an otherwise unknown bevy of names.

The matching names from Abraham to David are easily gleaned from the Old Testament, and even in this solid line of descent Luke manages to deviate with the names Arni and Admin. If Arni is the same man as Aram (or Ram), then the problem is alleviated slightly, but I know of no direct evidence for the identification. Admin, on the other hand, is an extra name no matter how one slices it. One wonders what independent tradition Luke could have had access to that he valued more highly than either the LXX or (what was to become) the Masoretic!

www.textexcavation.com...

Jesus was MADE INTO a messiah. He never outright said I AM THE MESSIAH. He asked: Who do you say I am?

He never mentioned the trinity, he never mentioned allot of things the church added, much through SAUL, that essentially made a patriarchal, systemized, proprietary faith based system of spirituality when in reality Jesus´ message was more like:

Be good to each other because God is in all of us. God is your father too and so we are ALL SONS OF GOD.

All this mess can be traced to SAUL and others looking to the needs of empire and carelessly making issues that later revisionists had to account for and reconcile with.

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
originally posted by: veteranhumanbeing

[I]Utnapisjitim[/I] Indeed I do. In Greece and Rome and many of the other places Paul visited there were certain people and congregations he became acquainted to and seeing some of these people followed local/regional customs where same-sex lovers weren't considered adultery or even shameful-- he saw fit that he his voice was heard, since he was of that personal opinion that having same-sex lovers, again, in his opinion should be considered unfitting for those of his followers who lived in married relationships. Sadly, his expressions 2000 years ago has brought much pain and evil. Homosexuality is a natural thing that occurs throughout nature. God and evolution has made it such.

Its a shame Paul didn't pass this message along with the vow of celibacy; priests (and nuns) within the Catholic Religion he founded in Greece. Maybe fooling around with each other and children in their care was not considered having sex; as it was more recreational, condoned for some reason in the 100s of years later in modern society. Did not someone understand this dynamic of cloistered men or women had the potential to ferment into depravity? Im still trying to understand why Catholic Priests and Nuns live in unnatural life conditions yet have through to ages encouraged their congregation to have as many children as they can (birth control outlawed).

[I]VeteranHumanBeing[/I] BTW there is no such thing as hell unless you imagine it for yourself as a place of ultimate destination, even to fear it creates it just for you personalized (OH THE POWER of the IMAGINATION) you have no idea. Prometheus with his attentive eagle caretakers, a rock bed and continuous fresh liver as food. All of you what is your final destination? Sugar Racer in a video game?

[I]Utnapisjitim[/I]Indeed. The mind and our consciousness is a funky thing. Whatever can be dreamt can also be experienced. Karma is a bitch to the haughty in the long run, and as life like everything else we know of seeks to stabilise it's premises. Thus, If you are cruel, you will get cruelty in return. If you hit your slave, who knows, maybe the slavemaster will be reborn as that slave, or something completely different, like an untouchable in India or the guy who got hit by a train. And survived to live the rest of his life in constant pain and darkness. Apparently we can also move our souls from one body to another in real life as we can in dreams. Sometimes reality is a dream, and the dream is reality.

Thankyou for your response on this; as people do not seem to know how powerful their imagination is; as you say which one is the dream, waking life or the one thinking they are asleep remembering a dream; the reality is both are just as real and powerful as the other once off this planet, shedding the 3rd dimension for the 4th. Equally powerful and detrimental to the fate of individual soul progress.

a reply to: amazing

I do learn daily. I do understand much of what you say and why you understand it in the manner that you have explained. When I was a youngster touring Europe in army boots and a field pack I was a Paul. By the way I am going on ninety years old and still hold lots of doubts. I fight those doubts daily. Not afraid but only confused in many ways. But i was a Paul in the sense that I scoffed at God and Jesus as a weakness in character of cowards. Actually i was worse than Paul. At least Paul had a God and I had none.

It was a cold rainy evening that I woke up in a field MASH unit with lots of questions unanswered. With all the time in the world to lay and think I began my search. We only had libraries and clergy back then and I used the chaplain for advise and means of material to read. My search took me well over 60 years to finally make up my mind.

I also looked very close at Paul and I saw a lot of me in Paul. Paul was a butcher and hated Christ Jesus but more than this Paul hated people who did not agree with him. That was me. Paul and I were brothers under the skin. Paul did not have the many years that I have had to change but he did change. Doesn't matter how he changed but only that he was converted. But even after he was converted he was a tough cookie to say the least but then look at what he put up with in that day. No Paul was not perfect and he probably made a lot of mistakes even as a converted Christian.

Examine the harshness of life back then and the lack of any tolerance for life among all of the human beings. Examine the necessity to fight these anti Christs both Roman and Jews alike. Their understanding was to simply kill you like a dog if push came to shove. How could a converted Jew who was part and parcel of this rotten establishment evangelize the very ones that hated him? That is quite a job in any culture.

In fact it was so bad that after Paul was converted to Christianity that he prayed to this Jesus three different times to be healed from a physical malady that was very troublesome. Jesus told him tree times "No Soap". The reason? Jesus told him this was because if I heal you then you will go right back to the pig trough where you came from. Now by this it showed me that Paul was just like me. He was a butcher and a doubter just the same as I am. But he was still chosen to preach to the Gentiles who he butchered. Mistakes? You bet your life he made mistakes and a lot of them but in the end of his life he bet on Jesus. That was what really counted.

As I would read this I could never understand how Jesus could love a rotten guy like that. Then one day I was reading about another rotten guy named David who lied and cheated and killed and committed about every bad thing in the book. Then one day he had the nerve to bad mouth another guy for the very same thing that he did. It took a prophet to tell him that he was that man that he condemned.

Since then I have been quite defensive in bad mouthing a guy that Jesus loves. Doesn't mean the guy is perfect but it does mean that maybe I best try to understand the Apostles a little more than what I have done in the past. It's not how we run the race but how we finish the race isn't it? Have a good day Amazing and I really mean that.

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
a reply to: deadeyedick

well many do not adhere to either but still find cause to disagree with the teachings of paul. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Disagree and hate are a different ball park in my eyes.



Its almost a different sport altogether.



How do you equate disagreeing with someone as hating them?

yoda said it best fear leads to anger anger to hate and hate to suffering. many followers have traveled down that path and my perceptions of this are true.

Paul is hated because Paul preached the faith, Roman Catholicism. I give you examples in the written Word.

Paul was/is a ministerial priest who confected the most Holy Eucharist. In the Gospel, the Eucharist is called "break bread", "breaking bread." It was Ignatius of Antioch who knew the beloved Apostle John who first used the word
Eucharist. Check the meaning of "oblation." This is reference to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

əˈblāSHən
noun
noun: oblation; plural noun: oblations

1. a thing presented or offered to God or a god.
2. Christian Church -the presentation of bread and wine to God in the Eucharist

Romans 15:16 That I should be the minister of Christ Jesus among the Gentiles; sanctifying the gospel of God, that THE OBLATION of the Gentiles may be made acceptable and sanctified in the Holy Ghost.

Paul admonishes a few of the first Christians, his word, you bring judgment NOT discerning it is the "body" of Our Lord. The most Holy Eucharist is Jesus, His risen, body, blood, soul and divinity. The Eucharist is from God, the Eucharist is supernatural not cannibalism.

1 Corinthian 11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh JUDGMENT to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.

Martin Luther's heresy, Bible Alone (Sola Scriptura) is not of God. Paul speaks of the oral Word of God called Tradition which came first. Important, not all of Tradition is written down in the Bible. The teaching Church, with its oral, apostolic tradition, was authoritative. Paul himself gives a quotation from Jesus that was handed down orally to him: "It is more blessed to give than to receive."

Acts 20:35 I have shewed you all things, how that so labouring you ought to support the weak, and to remember the word of the Lord Jesus, how he SAID: It is a more blessed thing to give, rather than to receive.

Saul was just a man. He was a roman, with warrants in his pockets, who was headed to Jerusalem with a strong mind to enslave those that were in "that way." He, as Saul, was after the blood of believers who looked upon Jesus, who said, "I AM the way, the truth, and the life." Saul was a pharisee. He hated the Jesus way. This man called Saul supposedly had a vision of the Lord on the road to Damascus. It was Jehovah/Jesus who said, "Saul, Saul why do you persecute me?"
It was at this point that Saul became Paul.
Paul said in "his gospels" that he was appointed "chief apostle." No where in the New Testament does it say that Paul was appointed the 13 apostle. Paul had an ego trip. He was no one but a man filled with the Holy Ghost just like any other. Paul was a man who was influenced by the Pharisee's. Paul never had Jesus' message in mind. He had his own agenda. If Jehovah/Jesus were to meet Saul/Paul today, I'm sure that He would ask Paul, "what up with your doctrine man?" It has nothing to do with me.

Paul was martyred, he died for Christ.

The Written Word is inerrant, Paul's words in Holy Scripture reveal the teachings of Christ.

If you go by the God given authority given the RCC to interpret the Bible, the same, it was she who compiled the Canon of Scripture, NOT one verse conflicts with another, Old Testament or New.

www.drbo.org...

Buy a paperback copy of the Douay-Rheims Bible if you can't read the Latin Vulgate Bible. The Douay-Rheims Bible is on the Net but prophecy states we will not always have the Internet. The vile and the daily hate (Twitter, Facebook), God knows what He has to do.

originally posted by: colbe
Paul is hated because Paul preached the faith, Roman Catholicism. I give you examples in the written Word.

Paul was/is a ministerial priest who confected the most Holy Eucharist. In the Gospel, the Eucharist is called "break bread", "breaking bread." It was Ignatius of Antioch who knew the beloved Apostle John who first used the word
Eucharist. Check the meaning of "oblation." This is reference to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Jesus wasn't a Roman, a Christian, a Catholic or a Greek despite the false orthodoxy Paul invented. The Holy Eucharist is simply this, he or the priest becomes the stand in for God/Jesus in order for man to attain that conduit of communication (wrong you can do it yourself without an intermediary). The Eucharist is actually THIS: as is meant to be translated EU=YOU; CHARIST=CHRIST. You are Christ. The performance of the service of the Eucharist is to show you this. YOU ARE CHRIST IN CONCSIOUSNESS of that being and in so doing bring in energy forms to cause change.

originally posted by: vethumanbeing

originally posted by: colbe
Paul is hated because Paul preached the faith, Roman Catholicism. I give you examples in the written Word.

Paul was/is a ministerial priest who confected the most Holy Eucharist. In the Gospel, the Eucharist is called "break bread", "breaking bread." It was Ignatius of Antioch who knew the beloved Apostle John who first used the word
Eucharist. Check the meaning of "oblation." This is reference to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Jesus wasn't a Roman, a Christian, a Catholic or a Greek despite the false orthodoxy Paul invented. The Holy Eucharist is simply this, he or the priest becomes the stand in for God/Jesus in order for man to attain that conduit of communication (wrong you can do it yourself without an intermediary). The Eucharist is actually THIS: as is meant to be translated EU=YOU; CHARIST=CHRIST. You are Christ. The performance of the service of the Eucharist is to show you this. YOU ARE CHRIST IN CONCSIOUSNESS of that being and in so doing bring in energy forms to cause change.

I like you vethumanbeing,

I do not want you think I am here to argue. Jesus is God, He established the RCC. Why do people limit God? I am
not saying you but, the Eucharist is God's plan, His desire to come to us in the humble CONSECRATED host.

It goes right over some folk's head. Why do Satanists mimic the Mass with their Black Masses and why do Satanists
steal consecrated hosts to desecrate? Maybe because the most Holy Eucharist is true. Satan believes. To follow this line to the Great Tribulation coming. Satan's man, the anti-Christ is going to try and abolish the Eucharist. This IS the "abomination of desolation."

Like in the Old but far greater in the New Covenant, there are three priesthoods:

High priest, in the New is Jesus Christ Our Savior, Aron, example of a ministerial priest in the Old. The Catholic
priesthood who stand in the place of Christ *In Persona Christi* and third, the Royal priesthood of believers.

The second, an ordained ministerial priest in line from the Apostles can ONLY confect the Eucharist.

God is going to ask you to come to the faith, become Catholic in the "awakening." Remember...


God bless you,

a reply to: zardust

I didn't know that, but it falls into the same pattern. If we go back to OT, in Sodom and Gomorra and many other places along the desert highways back then, they were into quite a lot of weird sexual magic and religion. Sex was a central part of their religion, and the temples were full of all kinds of prostitutes and even wild animals and things too weird to mention. Thing is, even in the time of Moses such things were still being practiced here and there, and Moses had to relate laws and regulations for proper ceremonial conduct to avoid that Israel should ever worship God in such a way, hence his laws directed at the priests that they should not do the stuff they did in the area around. What people forget when quoting from the third book of Moses, Leviticus, is that this is where you find the ceremonial laws and the laws for the priesthood. To use Leviticus to promote an anti-gay agenda among common people is just wrong and there is no foundation for such hate in the Bible.

With Paul it's mostly the same thing, only another time and another context. With Moses it's ceremonial adultery, with Paul it is adultery of the more down to earth kind.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

I don't know, Israel was supposed to be a nation of priests to the world, and as the Israel of God, the Body of Christ are supposed to be a nation of priests to the world. But I don't think that God gave the levitical law, those ceremonial laws are the law of Moses, and even then I think Moses gets pinned with all of this even though it wasn't him but the post-exilic, or powers right before the exile that gave us Leviticus. Zoro-Babel, the Seed of Babylon.

Why do I think this? "you have heard it said an eye for an eye, but I tell you" And Jesus repeatedly says, "in your law", or "in the law of Moses". The Fathers law is but one. Love, given vertically as God, and Horizontally as Others. All of the other stories are given as part of the map home, the divine archetypes written into the fabric of creation telling the grand story of Love, Redemption, Reconcilliation of God and Man and Man and Man. Though its told through the lens of our Carnal minds and that is where the Law of Moses comes in. Man has to try and live in this very fallen and corrupt realm, so we make laws, and we do war, we honor god in our minds, but often time it is our minds versions of god that come through. And so we have the chaff of Moses, that has the seed buried inside. This chaff carries over into the writings of Paul, which is why I defend him as a brother, who yet

"sees in a mirror, an enigma", or "sees through a glass darkly". He even admits that often he is giving his own opinion. All writings that are scripture are good and evil, they do not fully reflect the divine directive as we are still bound by this realm. Just as the Hebrews justified their genocides by saying that it was Gods will, and James and John two of the inner sanctum of the twelve, trying to call down fire on the unbelieving towns thinking that was gods will, what did Jesus say to them?

"You do not know what spirit you are of". The writers of the scriptures, all of them write with preconceived notions, dross that has to be burned out of us. The inspiration of writings is like the inspiration of man. Man is not perfect and neither are the writings, yet God chooses to use them (man and mans creation/writings) in diverse manners. The seed of truth is there, but surrounded by chaff that has to 'die', for the "much fruit to be born".

So I agree with you that to use leviticus or Romans 1 to promote an anti-gay agenda is wrong in every sense. At the very least if you take a very fundamentalist approach to the bible Leviticus is not meant for us now, as the Melchizedek priesthood has overtaken the Levitical, which was like the glory fading on Moses face, and is like a veiled glory (the veil is the filter of our minds).

But to take a more progressive (revelation) type approach, as how I view things, there is a constant refining of previous views of God, and his laws to us. I think much of this is played out in the NT, as they are trying to come to terms with the fact that the Levitical law was not Gods directive for them. But they can see that there are certain issues that can become problems like cult prostitution, or ritual castration, these were actually literal-izing spiritual truths, which was going backward, like I would humbly suggest is what fundamentalist literalism is doing. Those OT stories were types and shadows, good and evil, part of the map home, but once the real is unveiled we no longer should be seeking those types of outward forms, we have grown up, or should have out of that mindset.

For me God does not care what you do with your physical body sexually (as far as real love is the connection, and not acts that are humiliating, deprecating, or damaging to the psyche), if there was any spiritual truth in the Levitical law I see it as not going after a self-image/ego. We see something similar in the prophets and the NT. The word used for fornication, (that has been to many peoples to create very unhealthy sexuality in our populace, used to enslave mentally and create fear, and self hate) that is used in the LXX is for idolatry, which is partly where I tie in Rom 1. Fornication in the prophets always is in the sense of spirituality, whoring after idols. I'll leave it to the readers imagination but many idols were phalluses. And many a beautiful famers daughter/son were taken in service to the gods, just as now many girls are being stolen worldwide in service of the gods of babylon, the rich men, the principalities and powers that push the worldwide Slave Trade. This was a slight step up from them being sacrificed to the gods, as many lived very lavish lives, eventually becoming free some of them, but not much. And as a note, the prophets also condemned sacrifice at all, saying it was not desired or required, which was also a step up from human sacrifice, which is what the animal sacrifice was a substitute for. And just to touch on another issue you and I have discussed, why I think Jesus was sacrificed. Not as his Fathers will, but as part of the sacrificial system of men (principalities and powers/beast kingdom/babylon), he allowed himself to be butchered to show them who they really were. Pagans. Human Sacrificers.

All this to say why there was an outlaw on cult prostitution, because 'its bad mkay'.

a reply to: tadaman
Your point was a very well legitimate one that I have heard even from clergy themselves. I am not arguing your point but only showing you my understanding which I have debated many times in my life. I cannot blame you for your understanding but am really disappointed in Christian schooling. My schooling comes from Christian Rabbis and may differ from your concept so all of this may lie in what we are taught.

As Jesus stood trial in the Chamber of Hewn Stones the charges against Him were those of blasphemy which is a death penalty of stoning. The charges against Him were not that He was the Messiah of the throne of David but the charges against Him were mainly that He was not the Son of God of the God of Abraham. No charge was brought forth that He falsely claimed to be of the House of David. There was no doubt in the minds of the Sanhedrin of Jesus’ accepted seed of the flesh of man. The votes were cast and the count was 40 to 31 in a full pardon of the charges against Him.

What the Judaic populace believed and what the Apostles believed were two different avenues of belief. The Apostles were certain that Jesus was not the Father God but was the Father God’s only Begotten Son and that He had preexistence in the celestial realm known as the Word of God. The Word of God came forth from God as His visibility in the celestial realm. He then was conceived in the flesh of a woman. Now while in the flesh He was known as Jesus the Begotten Son of God but the Apostles believed that He was not the Father God Himself.

Now the question comes up some two thousand years later as to Jesus’ requirements of being the Jewish Messiah. Actually Jesus was not a king (Messiah) in that respect and Rabbinic Judaism is probably more correct in their understanding this. Almost all humans miss the point altogether because they look at this argument from a misguided perspective. The answer to this question is the following.

Jesus was a man of flesh who died in the flesh and will never return as flesh in this universe. When the Word became flesh so in like manner He returned to the celestial estate as the Word. That is His existence this very day. When the Word of God returns to set up His kingdom for His one thousand years reign, He returns as the Celestial Word. Jesus is dead buried and resurrected back to the Celestial Estate as The Word and now reigns as the Word of God, but He is not flesh and blood and He will never be flesh and again. Jesus is a name given to us for identification only. He was our image of the Father while in the Flesh and He was counted as the Messiah (anointed) of God while in the Flesh by His followers.

Now comes the misunderstanding of most Christians. The Messiah complex pertains only to the Judaic structure. Why? Because the Christian believes that the second advent will not entail any such thing as the Throne of David. That is the belief of unified Judaism and not Christianity. Even though that terminology is vocalized in scripture it is actually reverence given to Jesus. The Orthodoxy believes in a general resurrection but that is not the end of this world. Out of this general resurrection will be revealed the King of the throne of David of this new age which will follow the resurrection. This age will show Israel reinstated as the world power and the seed of David as the King. This earthly king will live and die in this new age and another king will be anointed from his seed. This will go on and on in this future golden age till the end of the world. Their philosophy tells them that the earth will end at the end of the seven thousand year period.

This entire concept requires the argument that exists today over Jesus being that seed of David. When the Word comes to this earth in what is called the first resurrection, He does not require any credentials of this so called Throne of David. Why? Because He is not the seed of David. He is The Word Of God and Begotten of God and not the seed of this world. When the Word was made flesh and dwelt among men, He was also conceived (brought down) and known as Jesus but His seed was of God. The Throne of David actually does not exist in Christian philosophy except as descriptive reverence given to The Word. Literally a future throne of David exists only in the philosophy of Rabbinic Judaism.

So if you want to argue accountable seed or house of David then you must stay with Rabbinic Judaic philosophy and not Christian philosophy. But if you still insist that this Throne of David thing needs worldly conformation then read the following that I quote from another source that I have forgotten.

Quoted from a forgotten source --
“Now compare the 2 genealogies of Jesus in Matthew 1:1-17 and Luke 3:23-38, and you'll discover that Mary (Miriam in Hebrew) and Joseph were both of the tribe of Judah and descendants of David. Joseph descended through Solomon, while Mary (Miriam)'s line was through Solomon's brother Nathan.

Here's the interesting part. Mary (Miriam) had no brothers, and so was entitled to inherit her family's land as long as she married someone also descended from David. Joseph fit the bill and being in the royal line had a claim to the throne, but carried the blood curse. No biological son of his could ever legally qualify as Israel's king, but Joseph could secure Mary (Miriam)'s right of inheritance.

You can study this blood curse if you wish.

When Mary (Miriam) accepted Joseph's offer of marriage she preserved her family's land and also made good her son's claim to the throne of Israel. Jesus was in the royal succession through Joseph but escaped the curse since he wasn't Joseph's biological son. But He was a biological descendant of David's through his mother and therefore of the "house and lineage of David." Correct, both Mary (Miriam) and Joseph were descendants of King David.” - Un Quote

Do not confuse the doctrine of Rabbinic Judaism with that of true Christianity because they are diametrically opposed and are two distinct philosophies which cannot even resemble one another in any form. Your arguments must therefore be directed to those whose philosophy is of Rabbinic Judaic philosophy and even then how can we even discuss this when Jesus is dead and has no known descendants? Where do we even go from here?

Romans 1:3 - Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

As Paul wrote this it should be understood that his education as a Jewish Rabbi and conversion to the doctrine of Jesus is explained in this verse in the last part of "according to the flesh." He knew the two philosophies and he explained this to the Romans in this manner. The Roman Christians very well understood this meaning that Jesus was born of the flesh of woman who was of the House of David and yet Jesus was conceived by God.

Can we agree on some aspects of this? God Bless

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
How can you tell whether something is God's inspired word or not? That has always puzzled me. Humour me!

Only ONE single book throughout history has demonstrated that it is in fact divinely inspired.

The prophecies in the bible are irrefutable proof that the Bible is in fact is a construction of God.

It is a complete impossibility for it to have been just a human invention.

You mentioned recently that you love religion...

WHY do you choose to believe what religion is telling you?

If they all speak of the same God, why do they ALL disagree with one another?

How can you tell whether religion is God's inspired word or not?

The mystery for me is WHY do so many choose to believe the mind control AKA "religion" which ALWAYS lies, instead of believing God, who NEVER lies.

You are believing EXACTLY what the elite's (dis)information is telling you to believe.

All of us have been inundated our entire lives with propaganda telling us that the Bible is a fairy tale.

I am convinced that the ultimate goal of the Illuminati is to to keep the truth as far away from you and me as is possible...

THIS is why they teach that Jesus is a myth...

Religion is about disinformation, God is about demonstration.

The Bible is proven as the word of God by the fulfillment of Bible prophesies. It is mathematically impossible for all of these prophesies to have just happened by chance. This proves that the people that wrote the Bible were inspired by God, for only God could accurately foretell the future, in detail 100% of the time, and at the same time encourage mankind to obey Him. Source

"There are 28 books throughout human history that people claim to be from God. How do we know which one is from God? Only the Christian Holy Bible contains prophecy (foretelling of the future) that has NEVER missed. God tells us, if what the prophet says doesn't come true, he did not speak it." www.standeyo.com...

Over a quarter of all the verses in the Bible contain a prediction about the future. Altogether, 737 separate forecasts are made, from some only mentioned once, to others mentioned hundreds of times.

Of these, 594 (over 80%) have already come true. Since those that have not, are all concerned with the end of the world, which obviously has not happened yet, the Bible has actually achieved 100% accuracy. All that could have taken place already has done so, which should be ample grounds for confidence that the rest will also be fulfilled.

www.danielpipes.org...

"Perhaps the most compelling of evidences demonstrating that the Bible is the word of God is its unswerving ability to accurately predict future events, often in minute details. Specific prophesies are conspicuously absent from the 26 other religious books that claim to be scripture, including the Muslim's Koran, the Book of Mormon, the Hindu Vedas, and Buddhist writings. This in itself should be a major eye-opener to the honest skeptic. " Accuracy Of Prophecy

Professor Emeritus of Science at Westmont College, Peter Stoner, has calculated the probability of one man fulfilling the major prophecies made concerning the Messiah. The estimates were worked out by twelve different classes representing some 600 university students.

After examining only eight different prophecies (Idem, 106), they conservatively estimated that the chance of one man fulfilling all eight prophecies was one in 10^17.

Mathematical Probability that Jesus is the Christ

Another attestation to the Bible’s divine authorship is the vast number of detailed biblical prophecies that have come true exactly as foretold. We see the psalmist, for example, telling of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ nearly a thousand years before it occurred (Psalm 22), and hundreds of years before crucifixion was even invented! Simply put, it would be impossible for human beings to have seen so far into the future with such precision and accuracy hundreds of times. Indeed, it would be completely illogical to believe these proven prophecies are anything other than the work of God. Incidentally, and amazingly, probability experts tell us the mathematical odds of just forty-eight prophecies regarding one person (i.e. Christ) coming true as foretold are one in ten to the 157th power!

Is the Bible a fairy tale?