It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
We are all the sons of God, we are as Jesus.
The witnesses of the bible are unreliable and erroneous,
seeing as man is capable to discern for himself right and wrong.
This is a gift from God that everyone has.
the totalitarian man has tried to corrupt this gift using scripture as means to do so.
You say you trust Jesus yet you deny His apostles whom he has chosen as vessels to carry His word.
That doesn't make sense to me. When He says that the others are thieves and robbers, He calls Himself the door. He calls us to Himself, to His Life, that we may have the life that is in Him. Yet if you think that those He chose to point the sheep to the Door, do not point to the Door, how can you say you believe Him?
Furthermore, why do you not believe upon the Most High spoken of by Jesus? You know, the God of Abraham, the God of Jacob, etc. Jesus quotes Isaias so often and Isaias speaks of His life and death so lucidly, how do you deny both Jesus and Isaias?
You hold the cup but you swear off the drink, it makes no sense.
When did I deny his apostles? Paul isn't an apostle.... He was a self appointed false apostle... read the last book John wrote... It says there are 12... not 13
And Pseudo-Peter does not confirm Paul as one of them... Im talking about 2nd peter if you didn't know what I am referring to
IF Christianity held to "the drink" I would proudly proclaim the faith... but they dance around the gospels and prefer Paul to Jesus...
originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Akragon
No, Peter talks about his ready writer. In that time it was a professional trade. Most people were illiterate. They dictated to an "amanuensis" and they wrote the letter for them for a fee. John Mark wrote Peter's gospel, the Gospel of Mark. 1st Peter was much earlier than 2 Peter and was written by Silvanus. Peter says this at the end of the letter:
"By Silvanus, our faithful brother, as I account him , I have written unto you briefly, exhorting, and testifying that this is the true grace of God. Stand ye fast therein." 1 Peter 5:12
2 Peter was his last letter and was written by himself, the Greek is extremely rough Koine and reflects him and being barely literate by that point in his life. 2 Peter was written on the eve of his execution, and was basically his last words to his faithful brothers and friends.
Petrine Souce of Mark
No assumptions at all.
That's nonsense. There is quite a strong effort to apply faulty hermeneutics and misapply the Law and the old covenant to Christian gentiles under the new covenant. Look man, even the apostles held a conference in Jerusalem to come to an agreement on what role and function non-Jew gentiles had in the new Messianic faith which we know today as Christianity. (See Acts 15) And this was after the resurrection and ascension of Jesus and after the birth of the church and gift of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost. Likewise, Christ Himself declared that the entire Law and prophets was summed up in two great commands, to love God with all one's heart, mind, and spirit and to love one's neighbors as themselves.
What does that have to do with Christians preferring Paul over Jesus?
originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: NOTurTypical
Well, perhaps not all Christians, but it certainly seems the majority do... at least from what I've experienced...
Some will attempt to counter Jesus' words with Paul
Most sermons revolve around Paul... and as you can see by some of the posters around here lately, they don't even know the gospels... but they sure know Paul
And I know why... As I've stated in the other thread... Pauls way is easy... Just believe...
Jesus wanted more then just belief... His way isn't a walk in the park like Paul
That is a ridiculous statement. I find most are having this hard debate of the nature of Christ, the same debate that the pharisees had with the Christ.
St. Thomas Aquinas was one of the most intelligent people to walk the earth. He based all of his views on lucid logic and rational philosophy, so they were less views and more factual.He calls Paul: THE Apostle. I trust his words more than I trust the wavering voice of one who says 'at least from what I experienced'. Such a thought is that of one who is not sure of his argument, but one who just argues.
Also, Paul's way is not easy. I read Paul and feel that I am being reproached for my sinful ways, by one who is truly in the presence of Christ.