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.
the men which were with him did hear the voice speaking to Paul, but did not see the person who was speaking. So there were witnesses. And the other witness is that of God via inspiration. So they and the word are two witnesses, plus Jesus and the Holy Ghost also so their are at least five witnesses for Paul and none in context that prove your view.
Sometimes love is just stating the truth.
originally posted by: dffrntkndfnml
a reply to: SethTsaddik
Some things to think about your take on Romans 7:7;
I feel Paul brought this up in the sense that for every decision there are consequences.Pain or love are two great teachers in life.Free will permits one to chose, and learn for themselves.
Your perspective on covetousness may change.
Wanting something you don't have is most natural,
wanting to have something of anothers is where it crosses the line.It's fine to want something, but being to tempted to take somebody else possession can become unhealthy.I think it would be good to reflect on the difference between needs and wants as well, contrasting needs like food, clothing or shelter with wants doesn't make for a fair comparison.Often the needy show greater appreciation for the little graces life has to offer,
Do you think his persecution of the early church and what is mentioned about Stephen being stoned for his testimony could have anything to do with this?
He could very easily be reflecting on the way his zeal blinded him, in the earlier part of his life.Perhaps when he saw the light, a part of him realized the damage he was doing to himself the whole time he persecuted others?A part of us tends to die, when we realize our own reflection in others eyes...
And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
originally posted by: SethTsaddik
I just got the bad news that my package of three books, 40$, was stolen off my porch. My mailman knows where to hide them so don't see how it could happen but my neighbor saw them and didn't bring them in the hallway, though he cared enough to ask if I got them I guess he didn't care enough to take two seconds and bring them in the hallway. It's ultimately my fault... and I just reordered but still.
But I'm going to take it out on Paul, and so Chester John can't employ his answer for everything, "Out of context" I will be using only Romans, though I might mention another book if warranted and if I offer an opinion I will label it as such, which I think I am pretty consistent with doing, but I will try to just explain it without my opinion.
Like the Christians do, literally.
But if through my falsehood God's truthfulness abounds, why am I still being condemned as a sinner.?
Two facts can be ascertained with certainty, Paul is admitting to lying in a way he thinks has an effect on God's truthfulness, his lies make God's truthfulness abound.
He was being condemned as a sinner for it and thinks he is being treated unfairly, though he was lying.
What should we say? That the law is a sin? By no means! Although if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. I wouldn't know what it is to covet if the law had not said, "You shall not covet.". Despite the fact that wanting something you don't have is natural and occurs in places it isn't illegal. It's an emotion, not something caused by learning the word for it.
Careful to begin with the statement that the law is not a sin Paul shifts and says it just causes sin. That covetousness is a result of the law against it, which makes it the cause.
If a monkey is starving and sees another monkey eating he will covet, even fight for and steal it, because it's an instinct.
Likewise an illiterate and uneducated person who has never heard a single law in his life, lives in the jungle and never goes into the city will covet something at some point in his life, even in small villages people covet more than they have, it is human nature and the cause of the law, not the other way around. You can't make a law about covetousness if covetousness doesn't exist. The concept has to develop before a law is made banning it. Covet existed as a word before Moses.
I once was alive,apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died, and the very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me. For sin, seizing an opportunity in the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me.
Paul is clearly saying that "the commandment", whatever one he means that promised him life, was the conduit for sin seizing an opportunity IN the commandment, deceived him.
I wonder how a commandment from God could lead one to sin, since God makes the commandmens following them is not sin, can't possibly be or lead to sin.
He says sin was revived, as if it had died, and the coming of this commandment was what revived sin and this commandment promised him life, but gave him death.
After all this talk of the commandment as being the cause of sin, blaming the law for the sin, he has the nizzies to say:
So the law is holy, the commandment is just and good.
Which makes, following Paul's twisted pseudo logic, reviving sin just and good. Because the commandment does that, and it deceives, leads to a metaphorical death, and without it or law there is no sin.
Yet it is just and holy. I can't believe this is what Christianity calls Scripture, and they historically mocked every competing ideology, theology or philosophy. Hypocrisy is a Pauline virtue.
I am going to take a break but am not finished.
Romans 7:15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.
16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.
17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
The verses speak for them selves you either accpet it or reject it in the context of the whole New Testament, Jesus the one you claim to follow but really do not made the teaching very clear about blaspheming against the Holy Ghost.. The Holy Ghoast sent out Paul, sealed his ministry with signs and wonders,
Ever try to quit something but every time you try you failed and did that which you were not wanting to do?
Basically he is saying that the law brings the knowledge of sin.
So to claim Paul was not sent y the Holy Ghost is a liar, and was not guided and approved by the Holy Ghost is to blaspheme against the Holy Ghost plain and simple. Failure to see that then you are truly blind t the word of God. Which I have suspected as such from the beginning.
Psalm 12:-7 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
Sure does look like the Holy Ghost sent them out. Sorry but you are wrong.
Acts 13:2-4 As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away. So they, being sent forth by the Holy Ghost, departed unto Seleucia; and from thence they sailed to Cyprus.