It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Nature of Man

page: 3
2
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 16 2014 @ 11:07 PM
link   
a reply to: NOTurTypical


It's actually the theme beginning in Genesis. That faith is counted for righteousness. Abraham was justified when he believed God.


James seems to disagree with that...

20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?


The law wasn't meant to justify anyone, the Law was just given to condemn.


Which also reinforces what I've said in the past... T'wasn't God who gave said law...

Why give a law that no one can keep... Even Paul seems to agree with that, yet he seems to think he was also blameless when it came to the law...


And Jesus clearly made it known that any man who believed on Him would be saved. Think the thief on the cross.


Well in that case I would say that Jesus knew all mens hearts...

The man repented his sin, the other was belligerent


And it was Paul who was sent to the Gentiles, I personally think because he was a Roman citizen and was educated in Greek. Peter was an illiterate fisherman. His only letter that he wrote himself is extremely rough Greek. Peter spent his ministry in Babylon, Iraq. At that time the greatest gathering of Jews outside of Jerusalem was in Babylon.


So Peter says clearly, God wanted ME to go to the gentiles... Yet somehow Paul got the job...

Why do you think peter would go against what "God" wanted of him?

Perhaps it was because of someone's influence? Someone with a quick tongue, and wit... Like Paul?

Peter Got himself Killed where he landed as well though... but we don't know where paul went, He just disappeared...





posted on Dec, 17 2014 @ 07:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Akragon



James seems to disagree with that...


James isn't describing the process of salvation, he is describing the evidence or "fruit" of a saved person. A true salvation experience will change a person. And the point I mentioned about the thief is that he could not go to the temple to make a sacrifice for his sins according to the Law of Moses, he was nailed to a Roman cross. He was saved by grace.

And God did give the Law, but if you remember the Law was broken by men before Moses even came down from the mountain, they had erected the golden calf.


Why give a law that no one can keep...


Quite simple, to show mankind how badly they needed the Messiah. To show mankind they were powerless to save themselves and to point to the cross. Without the law man would be oblivious to their desperate need for a Redeemer.


Peter Got himself Killed where he landed as well though... but we don't know where Paul went, He just disappeared...


I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Peter and Paul were both executed in Rome. Peter was crucified as he was a Jew, Paul was beheaded because while being a Jew, he also was a Roman citizen, and it was illegal to crucify a Roman citizen under Roman law.


edit on 17-12-2014 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2014 @ 03:25 PM
link   
a reply to: NOTurTypical


James isn't describing the process of salvation, he is describing the evidence or "fruit" of a saved person. A true salvation experience will change a person. And the point I mentioned about the thief is that he could not go to the temple to make a sacrifice for his sins according to the Law of Moses, he was nailed to a Roman cross. He was saved by grace


I would say he was "saved" by repentance to the lord...

the blood of the innocent does not save anything... never has never will...

the whole idea of the sacrifice was wrong from the beginning... Jesus clarified that

One can Not place their sins on an innocent being...spill its blood, and expect that to result in forgiveness... Silly laws from a blood thirsty false god... or just man, who is just as blood thirsty sadly enough

a mans sins are his own... they can not be placed on another


And God did give the Law, but if you remember the Law was broken by men before Moses even came down from the mountain, they had erected the golden calf.


Those laws were not given by God... they were in place already... and they pre-exist the mountain top fable


I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Peter and Paul were both executed in Rome. Peter was crucified as he was a Jew, Paul was beheaded because while being a Jew, he also was a Roman citizen, and it was illegal to crucify a Roman citizen under Roman law.


that is just tradition... In fact there is nothing that tells us how Paul died..

Please show me if you believe there is...


edit on 17-12-2014 by Akragon because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2014 @ 04:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Akragon

The tradition comes from the early historians. Just as the details of Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great come from historians of their eras:

"Concerning the time, place, and manner of his death, we have little certainty. It is commonly believed that, when a general persecution was raised against the Christians by Nero, about A.D. 64, under pretence that they had set Rome on fire, both St. Paul and St. Peter then sealed the truth with their blood; the latter being crucified with his head downward; the former being beheaded, either in A.D. 64 or 65, and buried in the Via Ostiensis." - EUSEBIUS, Hist, Eccles. lib. ii. cap. 25,



posted on Dec, 17 2014 @ 04:19 PM
link   
a reply to: NOTurTypical

Your quote says exactly what Akragon is saying.



Concerning the time, place, and manner of his death, we have little certainty.


So at best, Eusebius was guessing based on conjecture. Even if Peter and Paul were killed, Romans 13 says they shouldn't have been.



posted on Dec, 17 2014 @ 04:24 PM
link   
a reply to: NOTurTypical

Hate to say it brother but that's nothing more then speculation...

Just as you said... we don't know what happened to Paul..

And honestly the more I research about him, the more I believe that he was in something like a "witness protection program"... He disappeared, he wasn't killed... or executed

which, like your own statements is nothing more then speculation but its no less believable then the later...




posted on Dec, 17 2014 @ 04:57 PM
link   
just to reinforce what I was saying here...

From the book My friend here was offering as evidence of what happened to Paul...

I submit... the man was conjuring up fantasy to make his book more entertaining...

here is the quote... and if we read further we find that John was tossed into a "cauldron of boiling oil" and managed to escape unharmed...

That is called Fiction... Non reality... BS


if you are not far distant from Macedonia,
you have the Church of Philippi of Thessalonica ; if you go forth into
Asia, you have the Church of Ephesus ; if, however, you wend your way
to Italy, you have the Church of Koine, whence authority is at hand for us
likewise. * Ista quam f elix Ecclesia ! ' Church peculiarly happy, into
which the Apostles poured forth their whole doctrine with their blood !
where Peter was crucified, like his Divine Master; and Paul, like the
Baptist, was beheaded ; where John the Apostle, after having been thrown
into a caldron of seething oil, came forth unhurt, and is banished to the
island (Patmos)."






posted on Dec, 17 2014 @ 05:11 PM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

So then based on both of your arguments then is it safe to assume Alexander Great didn't exist and we cannot believe anything written about him? Because the earliest recorded history of Alexander was about 400 years after he died. Can we apply the same logic to Alexander or just 1st century Christians?



posted on Dec, 17 2014 @ 05:32 PM
link   
a reply to: NOTurTypical

Well we do have evidence of his existence my friend... Solid evidence

not just writing from someone 400 years later... They made sculptures of the man...

they called him pharoh in Egypt... And he had an entire city named after him... and several others with that same base name

theres loads of evidence for the existence of alexander... Nothing to show what happened to Paul

It seems Christians use this same argument for the existence of Jesus... it doesn't work there either

And before you jump on me for that... yes I believe without a doubt Jesus existed....


edit on 17-12-2014 by Akragon because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2014 @ 05:52 PM
link   
a reply to: NOTurTypical

The difference between Alexander and Paul is that many historians wrote about Alexander, Paul has maybe 1 or 2 that wrote about him and only briefly. Acts is not a historical document either.
edit on 12/17/2014 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2014 @ 09:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Akragon




its not a "fall back" as you claim... I bring Paul up because everything that is wrong with Christianity has to do with the OT or Paul...


Your not talking about Christianity if you throw those to things out, and come on your going to try and say we should listen to Jesus but throw the OT out? The whole OT foreshadows Christ....this is what shows me you have never done true biblical research . You keep saying everything I am saying is Paul's doctrine, so do me a favor go back through our post here and give me everything I have said that is only a teaching of Paul and not a teaching of Christ.




too late... and now you've called me a liar as well...


And? Thats not an insult it is simply a statement that is true for everyone in the world lol.




Just because I don't agree with your religion or your version of Christianity does not mean I am lying...


Ah but you are lying when you say the OT and Paul are not coherent with the rest of the Bible. Throwing the OT out and saying the parts about Jesus are true is just silly... throw out the some 300 messianic prophecies but Jesus is still Messiah
how does that seem logical to you?





Way to stay true to form... use a passage from the gospels... then back to Paul...


LOL how is that back to Paul? again your just throwing that statement out there but your not explaining yourself at all..its a cop out.



posted on Dec, 18 2014 @ 12:37 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Ugh... I worked on a reply for the last half hour, and I just hit the back button...

I hate that.... I need a beer and i'll start over

Sigh




posted on Dec, 18 2014 @ 01:15 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb


Your not talking about Christianity if you throw those to things out, and come on your going to try and say we should listen to Jesus but throw the OT out? The whole OT foreshadows Christ... this is what shows me you have never done true biblical research


By true research you basically mean I haven't come to the same conclusions as you... Obviously

And or I have never had a pastor or preacher looking over my shoulder telling me what I should believe... which is true

Personally I don't care if anyone tosses out the OT or Paul... Just try to compare them to the words of Jesus... From our discussions thus far I can clearly see you've never even attempted to do that


You keep saying everything I am saying is Paul's doctrine, so do me a favor go back through our post here and give me everything I have said that is only a teaching of Paul and not a teaching of Christ.


Sigh.... IF I must

From Your OP...


Humans come into world with a strong desire to sin. The desire however is not learned it is simply part of each individuals essence


Original sin... Paul


Without this desire to sin a person loses who they are. If any of us were devoid of the ability to sin we would no longer be the people we are at this moment. We would lose our identity.


We are a new Creation in Christ when we have no desire to sin.... Paul


I do in some aspect hate part of everyone I know. I can't say I don't hate that person because the Truth is I do hate who people are and who I am.


I hate the things I do but I can't help but do them... Very Paul


I hate my life simply because of the choices that I make here. Choices I make simply because its who I am. I don't like being the way that I am, but I know that those actions I regret are part of me and that given the choice I would chose to do them multiple times even though I know they are wrong.


Please refer to the above statement... Paul..


Once a person becomes aware of this nature inside of people it becomes blatantly obvious as to the corruption within our flesh.


Corruption of the flesh, nothing good is in me.... Paul



Sin is something we are fighting its a war and many of you are asleep in the trenches. Wake up. Realize a war is being fought.


The flesh wars against the spirit.... Paul

Need I continue... really?


And? Thats not an insult it is simply a statement that is true for everyone in the world lol.


you prove yourself to be a liar, so everyone else must be as well?

Ok...

At least I try not to lie... You can't seem to even resist while having a decently civil conversation with me...




Ah but you are lying when you say the OT and Paul are not coherent with the rest of the Bible.


NO im not... And the funny thing is more and more people are seeing exactly what I've been saying for years... all it takes is a bit of reading....


Throwing the OT out and saying the parts about Jesus are true is just silly... throw out the some 300 messianic prophecies but Jesus is still Messiah
how does that seem logical to you?


Like I said I don't care what you toss out or keep for that matter... All I want is for Christians to see the issues with the book instead of looking at it like its Gods word wrapped in gold...

Granted there are prophecies about Jesus, I never denied that...Nor did I deny he was THE messiah, OR the LORD

but so what...


LOL how is that back to Paul? again your just throwing that statement out there but your not explaining yourself at all..its a cop out.


See you can't even see it yourself

You're so in love with Paul and his books, you don't even know that you literally exude his preaching

Read what you said to me...


Because flesh until then is a slave to sin. Only through Christ can that bondage be set free.


You might as well just copy and paste some of Paul's writing....

c'mon man...





posted on Dec, 18 2014 @ 01:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: NOTurTypical

The difference between Alexander and Paul is that many historians wrote about Alexander, Paul has maybe 1 or 2 that wrote about him and only briefly. Acts is not a historical document either.


You totally missed the point I made. Which is this, how are we to accept the documentation of historians and writers telling us about Alexander 400 years after his death and then ignore the historians and writers documenting the lives and deaths of the apostles written during their lifetimes or the generation just after? And even people who personally knew them as in their direct disciples? (Polycarp, Irenaeus, and Esubius et al)



posted on Dec, 18 2014 @ 01:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Akragon

See above



posted on Dec, 18 2014 @ 01:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Akragon




I would say he was "saved" by repentance to the lord...


And the Greek term for repentance is "metanoia", meaning 'to change one's mind'. He did change his mind, he believed that Jesus was Lord and had the authority and power to save him from his sins. He expressed that belief on the cross. He was saved NOT by works, but by grace. It was impossible for him to do works, he was nailed to a Roman cross.


the blood of the innocent does not save anything... never has never will...


Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins. This essential truth was first shown to Adam and Eve in the garden when God killed two innocent animals to cover their nakedness. He shed the blood of the innocent to cover them. The theme is consistent throughout the OT.









edit on 18-12-2014 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2014 @ 01:35 AM
link   
a reply to: NOTurTypical

Who told you I accept everything that is written about alexander the great?

I know what you're trying to say, but the comparison is pretty far off....

Most of what is written about the apostles are confined to a few select books, most of which are in the bible...

There are documents, land marks... Cities and towns... sculptures... coins etc etc...

which document Alexander the great's life..... they stand as evidence of his life

the same can not be said about the apostles... Or Jesus for that matter




posted on Dec, 18 2014 @ 01:45 AM
link   
a reply to: NOTurTypical


And the Greek term for repentance is "metanoia", meaning 'to change one's mind'. He did change his mind, he believed that Jesus was Lord and had the authority and power to save him from his sins. He expressed that belief on the cross. He was saved NOT by works, but by grace. It was impossible for him to do works, he was nailed to a Roman cross.


I didn't say he was saved by works... I was saying Faith alone is not enough...

Perhaps in his particular case... speaking directly to the Lord, asking him to "remember me" he was an exception

Jesus was hardly in the right state of mind in any case all things considered


Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins. This essential truth was first shown to Adam and Eve in the garden when God killed two innocent animals to cover their nakedness. He shed the blood of the innocent to cover them. The theme is consistent throughout the OT.


This is simply not true... One can not place their sins on another person or being...

As I've said, the whole idea of spilling an innocent beings blood to forgive sin is wrong...

Honestly I don't care what Genesis says about it either...

Its just a gruesome and disgusting practice...


edit on 18-12-2014 by Akragon because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2014 @ 12:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Akragon




Perhaps in his particular case... speaking directly to the Lord, asking him to "remember me" he was an exception


God doesn't grade on a curve. He is not a respecter of persons. The thief was justified as anyone else in human history. But quite often people see salvation as the finish line, it's not, it's the starting gun. Jesus called His disciples to salvation before He called them to discipleship. The thief was barely justified, he had no rewards, he was just not going to Hell.




This is simply not true... One can not place their sins on another person or being...


You're 99.99999999% right. No sinful person can die for another sinful person. We can only die for our own sins. Have you ever studied the parallel between the two goats on the day of atonement and the scene from the gospels with Jesus and Barabbas? The guilty man was set free and the innocent man was put to death, just like the day of atonement at the temple. The High Priest would symbolically put the sins of the people on one goat and set it free and would slaughter the unblemished goat.



Its just a gruesome and disgusting practice...


Well yeah so was the crucifixion, it only had two purposes. To point to Jesus and the cross and to convey to mankind how gruesome and disgusting sin is to a Holy and Righteous God. Every ritual, holiday and name and number in the OT pointed to Jesus and the cross. Heck, think of the serpent erected on the brass pole in the wilderness. When you read that story in the OT you are like "WTF was that all about that's silly?!?" But then Jesus explains to Nicodemus in the NT that that was a picture of Him being lifted up on the cross and everyone who looked to Him would be justified.


edit on 18-12-2014 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2014 @ 12:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Akragon




Most of what is written about the apostles are confined to a few select books, most of which are in the bible...


No, again that is inaccurate, there were NUMEROUS writings of 1st century secular AND Christian historians, early church fathers and the writings of the direct disciples of the apostles themselves (Polycarp, Irenaeus, et cetra). These were written within the same century of those apostles, in the lifetimes of those who knew them. Unlike Alexander which the only known writings we have of him are 400 years after his death.


edit on 18-12-2014 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
2
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join