The LIVITICAL CODE IS DEAD, I can prove it!!!

a reply to: WarminIndy

I don't want to be rude, but you really should Google before you comment.

Here is a link explaining 40,000 denominations, exactly what I claimed.

So which one is telling us the truth, since their can only be one truth, one interpretation.

BTW I believe Jesus is Lord and savior. I simply believe God sent prophets who taught about the light many times to many different people's.

The truth is not only found in the bible, but can be found by understanding the other non-biblical prophets, like Buddah, Plato and many others.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: WarminIndy

I disagree. He said 40k. Every one of those listed are Pauline based churches.

I'm not the only one that noticed problems about "Paul", and is asking questions, either.

Removing Paul, would mean you would no longer be Pauline. I didn't know Jesus depends on Paul's writings. Wouldn't that make you Paulians?

a reply to: sacgamer25

Did Buddha go seeking God?

And no, one cannot just go off without first taking care of the family responsibility. I think you got that one mixed up. If you are married you are expected to take care of your spouse, but if you do go, then make sure the spouse has means of being taken care of. The Bible does not even give the right of divorce for someone to follow Christ. See, that's the difference. Look at your verse again...

But if the unbeliever leaves, let it be so.

Doesn't the Bible also say "if the unbelieving and the believer choose to live together, then let them live in peace". Wait, it says so just above that verse you chose.

Listen, God does not say it is ok to divorce your spouse to go out and do your own thing, in fact the Bible says the unbeliever is actually sanctified because of the believer.

Think of Hosea and Gomer, he had every right to divorce her, but he didn't.

Buddha was a prophet? That's the first time I have heard that one. But simple question, if Buddha taught that if you deny the pangs of hunger, that you will suffer less....and then go beg for food? Couldn't he deny his own pangs of hunger while telling his disciples to suffer, while he is begging for food?

Buddhism seems to be a worldview of suffering without hope in this life. Maybe they will get it right in the next. But just an endless cycle of suffering without end until one day you just might maybe reach enlightenment....while begging for food. Do you not see the dichotomy in that?

The Bible says "work for your bread by the sweat of your brow" Buddha says "deny those hunger pains, but give me some food, worthless unenlightened peasant".

a reply to: WarminIndy

If you want to understand more about Buddhism, and where Buddhism itself leaves the path that Buddah laid out, I did a thread on it here.

Buddah did not teach reincarnation based on the principles that have been handed down by the tradition of men.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: Not Authorized

Nope, because we still got Peter, James, Matthew, Mark, Luke and two Johns. But first and foremost we have Jesus Christ.

I'm a Christian, and I think you are a Muslim because that's what Muslims always say.

Even without the teachings of Paul, we still believe Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior.

originally posted by: Not Authorized
a reply to: WarminIndy

I disagree. He said 40k. Every one of those listed are Pauline based churches.

I'm not the only one that noticed problems about "Paul", and is asking questions, either.

Removing Paul, would mean you would no longer be Pauline. I didn't know Jesus depends on Paul's writings. Wouldn't that make you Paulians?

Understanding that Paul claims Jesus Christ to be the Holy Spirit within, and not a dead man on a cross, also eliminates what you refer as Pauline churches.

Paul was teaching enlightenment now, in this life, not some Christ that couldn't help you until he returned 2000 years later.

Waiting for Christ to physicality come is the message given by a church who needs you to come back each week. In Paul's version of church, the elders(pastors) worked with their own hands providing for their own families.

a reply to: WarminIndy

Why is it that most sermons focus on Pauls writing and rarely any of those you just mentioned?

The man basically took over Christianity...

And to this day most Christians will quote Paul and know little to nothing about the gospels

a reply to: sacgamer25

The problem with the Wikipedia page is that it lists certain churches that are not entirely Christian identity. But every one of those major denominations are really only offshoots of a parent denomination, hence, not making them a different denomination.

For instance

Lutheranism
Anglicanism
Anglican Communion
Other Anglican Churches
Calvinism
Continental Reformed churches
Presbyterianism
Congregationalist Churches
Anabaptists and Schwarzenau Brethren
Plymouth Brethren and Free Evangelical Churches
Methodists
Pietists and Holiness Churches
Baptists

All of those are under REFORM, they have minor things but overall, they are the same denomination because they came from the same parent church. They might do things slightly different, but the fundamental tenets are the same. I am not seeing them as different denominations, just branches within the same.

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: WarminIndy

Why is it that most sermons focus on Pauls writing and rarely any of those you just mentioned?

The man basically took over Christianity...

And to this day most Christians will quote Paul and know little to nothing about the gospels

You know me, I am a Jesus Firster...hey, did I just make a new denomination? Add that and make it 40,001.

I don't know, maybe you have been in the wrong churches? I've always been taught Jesus First, Jesus is Lord, Jesus is the Author and Finisher of our faith, Jesus said this or Jesus said that. I don't know where you have been going.

originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: sacgamer25

The problem with the Wikipedia page is that it lists certain churches that are not entirely Christian identity. But every one of those major denominations are really only offshoots of a parent denomination, hence, not making them a different denomination.

For instance

Lutheranism
Anglicanism
Anglican Communion
Other Anglican Churches
Calvinism
Continental Reformed churches
Presbyterianism
Congregationalist Churches
Anabaptists and Schwarzenau Brethren
Plymouth Brethren and Free Evangelical Churches
Methodists
Pietists and Holiness Churches
Baptists

All of those are under REFORM, they have minor things but overall, they are the same denomination because they came from the same parent church. They might do things slightly different, but the fundamental tenets are the same. I am not seeing them as different denominations, just branches within the same.

How does this matter? Their can only be one correct interpretation, and the rest must be false prophets. That was the only point I was making.

a reply to: Akragon

Nor this history behind them. Notice the reactions. My link is clear as can be, using only Christian "Canon", and I'm told I'm Muslim now. Paul failed Johns epistle test. They are Paulites, not Christians. If they were followers of Jesus, they would read my link, and listen to the twelve, not Paul.

Funny, I'm Gnostic Christian. Not Muslim lol. I have never read a page of their scripture.

Deflect deflect deflect!!! Danger Will Robinson, Danger!

So predictable. Paul, not Jesus, is their savior.

originally posted by: WarminIndy

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: WarminIndy

Why is it that most sermons focus on Pauls writing and rarely any of those you just mentioned?

The man basically took over Christianity...

And to this day most Christians will quote Paul and know little to nothing about the gospels

You know me, I am a Jesus Firster...hey, did I just make a new denomination? Add that and make it 40,001.

I don't know, maybe you have been in the wrong churches? I've always been taught Jesus First, Jesus is Lord, Jesus is the Author and Finisher of our faith, Jesus said this or Jesus said that. I don't know where you have been going.

Its only what I've been seeing for the past 11 or so years of my life...

I had no Idea of the extent of this issue until I signed up on ATS... then the scope of the matter really hit home, and it seriously upsets me...

When a Christian will attempt to counter the words of Jesus with Paul... there is a problem...

Recently because of the needs of my GF I've been going to her church every sunday... And guess what... I've been going for three months now... and there hasn't been a single sermon on anything Jesus actually said...

Sure the preacher makes a few vague references to the gospels, but then right back to Paul in ALL cases...

IF I didn't love my GF so much I would have had much to say to the people of this church... but sadly I can not

I can only sit back and cringe at the errors...

originally posted by: Not Authorized
a reply to: Akragon

Nor this history behind them. Notice the reactions. My link is clear as can be, and I'm told I'm Muslim now. Paul failed Johns epistle test. They are Paulites, not Christians. If they were followers of Jesus, they would read my link, and listen to the twelve, not Paul.

Funny, I'm Gnostic Christian. Not Muslim lol. I have never read a page of their scripture.

Deflect deflect deflect!!! Danger Will Robinson, Danger!

So predictable.

I fully understand the claims made by that link. If the 40,000 denominations were speaking the truth about being able to interpret Paul, then that link would be correct.

But the 40,000 denominations are wrong. The Koran says the world is waiting for the correct interpretation of the bible, and when it comes all will believe.

Until someone can reconcile Paul to the message of Christ we will wait. I claim I can do this very thing, and soon will release what I believe is Paul's message.

a reply to: sacgamer25

Paul's "vision" was turning early Christianity into a secondary Sanhedrin, to be ruled over. You never read the Pharisee's oral law, have you? Probably not. That was his base teaching, not the Old Testament.

So blind you are. You would argue Cyrus really meant YHWH was the Most high in his Cylinder.. even though he states quite clearly, Enlil, another name for YHWH was lower than Marduk, and Enlil, was an evil god.

You don't hear about that much in Sunday school, as Isaiah 45 is quite clear whom Cyrus was. We won't mention Cyrus thought he was king of the universe too.

Don't worry, Pauline writings will come and save the day.

originally posted by: sacgamer25

originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: sacgamer25

How does this matter? Their can only be one correct interpretation, and the rest must be false prophets. That was the only point I was making.

Huh? The rest of who must be false prophet?

You mean pastors and priests? We don't equate them as prophets, whatever gave you that idea? OK, Joseph Smith might have said that he was, but he also thought of himself as an Aaronic priest, go figure. That's why Mormonism (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints) isn't necessarily Christian, because they still have the Book of Mormon.

But no, what are you trying to say, that our preachers, reverends, ministers, priests and lay people equate to prophets like in the Old Testament?

See, this is why you give yourself away.

a reply to: Akragon

I don't know how you do it, your a better man than me.

a reply to: WarminIndy

It's logic, nothing more.

The fact we have one book, means we can only have one correct interpretation.

So if only 5 people claim to teach the truth, even though they all teach something different, then at least 4 if not all 5 are teaching false interpretation.

You are correct the preachers are false teachers, following false prophets, they are not claiming to know anything new. But they believe the man who gave them the interpretation is a prophet.

Anyone that claims to have the only truth, the only path to God's love, is claiming to be a prophet, knowingly or unknowingly.

a reply to: sacgamer25

I just expounded the texts for you to see. Paul fits the definition of the Pseudo Christ. Per John's own words. Check your fur. There is nothing to explain. All of Paul's writings should be tossed out.

As Akragon said. Everything goes to Paul, never Jesus. Pauline churches glorify Paul. Jesus is an after thought.

They are not in unity with Christ's prayer. The fact so many exist, shows this. Did Christ mess up or something? Or, are they not his house? I lean to the latter. They will fight Christ when he makes himself known.

They worship Jesus and the Father in name only. In reality, they worship Paul and Enlil.

originally posted by: Jesuslives4u
Matthew 5:17 - “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

Out of context, Jesus wasn't talking about Levitical law. If you keep reading, Jesus tells you what HE means when he says "Law" or "Prophets":

Matthew 7:12
Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

originally posted by: sacgamer25
a reply to: WarminIndy

It's logic, nothing more.

The fact we have one book, means we can only have one correct interpretation.

So if only 5 people claim to teach the truth, even though they all teach something different, then at least 4 if not all 5 are teaching false interpretation.

You are correct the preachers are false teachers, following false prophets, they are not claiming to know anything new. But they believe the man who gave them the interpretation is a prophet.

Anyone that claims to have the only truth, the only path to God's love, is claiming to be a prophet, knowingly or unknowingly.

don't put those words in my mouth.

You just can't seem to grasp the idea that pastors are not prophets and generally they are teaching the same thing, the minor differences really have nothing to do with making new religions.

There are not 40,000 prophets of 40,000 denominations. It doesn't work that way.