Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Saul, Adherent of Christ or Anti Christ?

page: 3
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 25 2010 @ 11:06 AM
link   
OK. What you say. I was looking at books that talk about the deuteronomist theory. When you examine the things they discuss, it kind of dawns on you that there is some sort of gigantic hoax being perpetrated in the Bible.
Joshua 5 is an example I mentioned earlier. According to some theory, priests could have taken parts of Joshua, and made a reconstruction of the early history of Israel, and came up with the Book of Exodus. Here you have the nations of the West Bank in fear of them because of their crossing the Jordan with dry feet. The institution of circumcision and passover and the setting up of the twelve stones. All these parts of the story could have been retrofitted and expanded to an earlier tale.
We might think of ourselves, being modern man, smarter, but someone like Paul could have all the equipment himself to figure all this out. He could have realized that there was no real law other than a cultic practice perpetuated by a priesthood that he saw as being thoroughly corrupt and that this thing that hung over the heads of the people was useless for becoming morally advanced.
True conversion is from the heart and that comes by God's spirit being allowed into a person and that Jesus had a mission to make that fact known, and not just by words but by actions. Jesus said that Satan would come for him and would find nothing in him.

[edit on 25-1-2010 by jmdewey60]




posted on Jan, 25 2010 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by badmedia
I am the one who Olive oil is quoting and talking about.


Background before I even begin. This hits pretty close to home to me. I am an ardent believer that the original texts are infallible. I've weathered doctrinal issues, namely Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons, etc. However, the Serpent Seed Doctrine (ie, the Tree of Life comment), coupled with Paul the AntiChrist shook my faith long enough to take me out of God's service and teaching for almost 2 years.

Why? Because I believe Acts 17:11, in which I search the scriptures daily to see whither or not these things be so. I did so. It was enough to put me on the sidelines, even to the point of stopping my prayer life and walk. God did pull me back to reconcile what was being said and studied the scriptures to make sure of my election.

As a result, it made me stronger as a follower of the way, and I came to the opposite conclusion. Paul was indeed an Apostle.

As a disclaimer, I will point to Peter a few times. The response to this is either to claim that Peter was 'corrupted' by Paul, or that 2 Peter is a fraudulent book. Namely because Peter validates Paul's ministry in 2 Peter 3:15. If Paul's books are taken away, then the Bible's inerrant nature is compromised, allowing for the false teaching that Paul and Peter warns about repeatedly in almost all of his letters.

Ironically, Islam has a problem with Paul as well, so attacking of Paul (or the scriptures in general) from within the 'church', and externally, should be no surprise as Satan is the father of all lies.


1. Religion in the name of Christ? Check.


Paul did not create Christianity, he was a follower of "The Way" after the Damascus Road experience. "The Way" stems from John 14:6. "The Way" in this context can be seen in Acts 16:17, Acts 18:26, Acts 19:9,23, Acts 24:14, Romans 3:12, 1 Cor 16:7, etc.

Remember, Peter came First opening the door to the Gentiles. "The Way" was already well on it's way -- no pun intended. Acts 9:2

The word "Christian" was not only in Acts 26:28, but 1 Peter 4:16. Christianity in today's sense, came later, in which the initial word meant to be a Christ like one.


Paul of course came after Jesus


And James, Jude, Apollos, Phillip, Silvas, Barnabbas, Timothy, etc and the thousands of others converted by the Apostles came 'after', if thats one of your criteria.

I guess we'll lump James in there as well (Acts 15:29) as I don't see Christ commanding 3 of the 4 the council of Jerusalem came up with during his time on Earth.

The Church of Ephesus was the "Desired One" (Which is what Ephesus means) doctrinally, in which not only was Paul apart of, but Timothy AND John were Bishops of. Timothy being under Paul's teaching, and Paul being one of the keys to that Church.

Funny thing is they followed Paul's Warnings in Acts, and Jesus gives them an accommodation because of it. Hard to do so if Paul was not who he said he was.

The prince of this world does infact cometh, as Christ is alluding to Daniel 9:26. Problem is that Paul if he was the "prince" Christ was talking about, he was already dead. He was executed from 62AD to 68AD. We know for certain he was dead by 68AD. Jerusalem was destroyed in 70AD as historical record.

Moreso, the people that came were Legion X, led by Titus -- not Paul. Titus was not a Christian, or a follower of the Way, and Nero certainly was not as well. Paul simply does not doesn't fit the profile of the prince Christ and Daniel were talking about. In fact, Paul does the opposite and expounds on the AntiChrist even more (Son of Perdition), etc.

The verse there is the people of the prince that shall come. At the very least grammatically, the prince must be after 70AD (Destruction of Jerusalem).

Paul didn't come in his own name. His focus was the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit. It's stated in each one of his letters in some variation. This is echoing Matthew 28:19.


While some may say that it's great that "Jesus choose Paul", it completely ignores that Paul contridicts Jesus, and does things which Jesus directly says not to do.


Paul quotes Jesus or alludes to his words over 1000 times if you read the scripture carefully. In fact, some of Christ's quotes from from not the synaptic Gospels, but from Paul. Ie, "It is better to give than Receive". You will not find that in Luke, John, Matthew, or Mark, but in Acts 20:25.


Paul of course has a book named after the political powers of the time.


Chapter names are an invention of man. Not Paul. He wrote to the Church at Rome, and thus "Romans". It could easily just be called "Paul", as the book was basically the Gospel according to Paul, or it could have been called the Gospel of God. Just like Acts of the Apostles technically should be "2nd Luke".

As such, this is a weak argument. Christ wrote to Smyrna, which had the Synagogue of Satan. That implies there was indeed a Church there -- Rev 2:9. Pergamos as the 'Seat of Satan', yet there was a Church there. How is Rome any different?

If this is a criteria, then clearly if Revelation was named "Letter to Pergamos", then Christ is the Anti Christ.

Maybe Daniel was the AntiChrist, after all, Chapter 4 was written by Nebuchadnezzar. That has to be even worse than just writing to Rome. You let Neb Write a whole chapter in your book of one of only 1 of 2 of the 'beloved' prophets (John and Daniel)? AntiChrist, for sure!


He appeals that all governments are not evil, but are of god - all of them(romans 13). This is of course KEY in establishing the anti-christ 1 world government stuff.


So did Peter in 2 Peter 2:10

"But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous [are they], selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities."

Jesus himself said power is given from above, John 19:11.

Even Cyrus, who was stated by name, was a Shepard of God. (Isaiah 44:28).

Governments are ordained by God, and I don't need Romans 13 to state as such either. He has willed the Governments for his Glory. The key being this:

Isaiah 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times [the things] that are not [yet] done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:

More...



posted on Jan, 25 2010 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Jesus does not submit to the powers of earth, he turns such things down.


He submitted only to the Father, if he had done any thing else, he would not be the perfect lamb. "Never the less, thy will be done" (Matt 26:42). He did submit as he gave himself up for being the Sacrifice. (John 13:37). The Cross didn't kill Jesus, he gave himself willingly.


He just doesn't fight back because he realizes if he does then he would be breaking the commandments.


Sin is ignoring God's will and substituting your own. The "Fight" is reserved for his second coming. He stopped short of something with his quote Isa 61:2, in Luke 4:19,20. That comma hangs in history.

Part of being a Kinsman Redeemer is also being the Avenger of Blood.


It is the fact that Jesus does not just submit to those powers and speaks against them that he is killed in the first place.


No, he laid down his life for the sheep and did submit. If Christ did not, he would still be there today -- alive -- hanging on that Cross. Luke 23:45 and Isaiah 53. Those nails didn't hold him on the cross, only his will did. He could have ended it differently at any time and called legions of Angels to his side.


It's not submission to worldly authority as Paul says, but is instead merely a result of keeping the way and not committing sin.


Do not speak evil of dignitaries. James 4:11, Jude 1:10,18, Acts 23:5, Tts 3:2, 2: Peter 2:10.

Seems they are all on the same page here.



Holy Roman Empire... I am shocked that anyone can even suggest this one isn't true. Again, Roman empire and the book of Romans. Coincidence? No.


That's because you're not studied and do not know the history of the Roman Catholic Church, nor understand the 7 letters in Revelation.

Rome is not equal to the Vatican. State Sponsored Church was not done until 300 some odd years later. Remember, Constantine legalized it under the Edict of Milan in 313AD. Before then, Christians were yummy snacks to lions.

Paul is writing to home fellowships in Rome at the time -- not the Vatican, not to Constantine, not to Augustus, not to the Popes. If anything, it was a letter to Peter.

How quickly we forget that the Roman Empire, for all it's faults, is never spoken of in a negative light in the New Testament by Jesus, Peter, James, Jude, Paul, John, Matthew, Mark, or Luke. Even Christ commended a Gentile Roman Centurion for having so much faith.

Btw, the "Married" Church, was Pergamos, which spread onward. Read the Revelation Letter carefully as it's an admonition to the Churches -- plural. It didn't start at Rome, but Asia minor.


5. Imbeded with "Pagan/Mystery Religion"? Check.


The letter to Thyatira covers this introduction of Paganism. I don't feel like getting into it here. Again, it was a warning to the churches (plural) and did not start in Rome. The Rome Church did not heed the warnings and fell victim to it.


6. killing everyone who doesn't convert to their religion? Check.


Sure -- the RCC but did you know that Protestants did so as well? The campaign led against not only the RCC, but home churches not affiliated with either? The Peasant War?


7. Is not persecuted, but instead does the persecution. Check.


Saul was not the only one that stoned Stephen. He was one of many. Only after he sets out to kill more so does Jesus stop him. He was later persecuted by the same Sanhedrin he was probably apart of and spent a good many years in Prison because of it.

Seems to be a conversion here. The Sanhedrin didn't welcome him with open arms -- quite the opposite. They wanted to kill him.


The dark ages are pretty well documented, as are the crusades and so forth. These people did honestly believe they were doing the good and right things, but they simply didn't understand unfortunately.


True. The Papacy in general caused this, and largely because they did not follow Acts 17:11. I don't blame Paul, I blame the Church for not searching the scriptures daily to see whither or not those things be so. The Eastern Orthodoxy did to some extent.

The RCC just isn't to blame either. The Holocaust can be laid directly to blame at the Pulpits of Protestantism endorsing replacement theology in Germany.


much less understand them as even if they did happen to come across the book itself, they were certainly not educated in the language of the bible.


Then how did the Bereans have copies of the scriptures, Jesus quoting from the Scriptures, Paul quoting from the Scriptures, Peter quoting from the Scriptures, John quoting from the scriptures.. etc etc etc.

The Old Testament is the New Testament concealed, the New Testament is the Old Testament revealed.

Much later (Past 600AD) where Latin was the "ONLY" Language allowed and common people prohibited from reading the scriptures. Even so, there were STILL underground churches with a copy of the bible in their hands from the other translations all throughout the dark ages. If the first 'bible' was from the Gutenberg press and the like, how did the Waldenses and other "pre-reformation" churches have a copy?

The 'real' church has ALWAYS been underground to some extent, even through the Holy Roman Empire.


Jesus scolds the Pharisees for trying to get religious converts. Saying they will travel the seas for a single convert, to turn him into a child of hell.


Yes, because he called them White Washed Walls. In case you missed it, he was calling them corpses. Clean on the outside, dead on the inside. They didn't understand the law and it's purpose.

Jesus clearly elaborates it, when he talks about being born again. They being teachers should have understood this. They didn't. (John 3)


Of importance in this is notice - they carried the same scripture that Jesus speaks of, came from the same religion of Jesus, and yet still they were converting them into an "anti-christ" religion. How can that be?


Because they did not recognize the hour of their visitation. They rejected him as Messiah. Luke 19:44. Daniel gave a specific prophecy to the very day the Messiah would come, and they missed it.

more...



posted on Jan, 25 2010 @ 04:32 PM
link   
Yet they were looking for him. Namely 3 people, "Elijah", "That Prophet", and the "Messiah". (John 1:21). They didn't want the suffering messiah, they wanted the David like one.


What is it that Jesus does differently? He gives understanding and wisdom. As required in order for someone to keep the commandments. If someone lacks the understanding itself, then they will not keep the commandments.


If you think you can uphold the commandments, then you need to re-read the sermon of the mount. Good luck doing so. You can't do it because even if you THINK of it, you sinned. It's impossible, and even Peter recognized this and stated as such in Acts 15. If you transgress 1 law, you break them all (James 2:10)

So which commandments by the way? Just the 10? How about all 300+ of them?

This is why we need a new heart, and a new body, and to be born again spiritually. We wait earnestly for the redemption of our Body so I don't have to fight the flesh every day.

The sum of the law is simple. Love the Lord Your God with all your Heart, Mind, Soul and Strength, and do unto others as you would have done unto you. In such, there is no law. (Mark 12:30,31 Matthew 22:37-40, Luke 10:27) etc

Only Christ could fulfill it. That is why we rest on his completed work but ONLY if we repent, and believe. John -- not Paul, elaborates on this fully. Paul is echoing John and the other Gospel writers at this point. Yes, even Phillip before Paul is on the scene.



To simply get someone to follow the scriptures, take the scriptures as authority


Psalm 119:105, 2 Peter 1:19 (and many others), disagrees with you. Peter claimed they have MORE of a sure word of Prophecy; than even Isaiah, Daniel, Ezekiel and yes, Moses.

Peter in turn validated Paul's ministry. At that point, the discussion is moot. Peter, who has more sure word than any of the OT greats, vouched for Paul.


and to follow the traditions of the religion was in the time of Jesus to turn that person into a "child of hell". Because they will be blinded to the understanding itself. Understanding which is btw available through the father and doesn't need the scripture itself to be found. How do you think the people who wrote the scriptures found it?


They wrote it through the Holy Spirit, which has intricate design spread across the broad bandwidth of the message. I do not need Paul's books to tell me I need am justified by faith.

The Bible was written by the Holy Spirit in anticipation of hostile jamming. This is why there's not one chapter on Salvation, Justification, Baptism, etc. The message is spread out through the available 'bandwidth' of the book.

You can even find the "rapture" in the OT if you look hard enough.

This is why I can remove John 1:1, and still prove Christ was God without it.


Thus why Jesus told people - they were the authority, not the scribes.


Jesus was the Word Incarnate. The Volume of the Book speaks of him.


But Paul of course teaches the opposite. That all things are the authority of the father - except YOU. And because YOU are not of the authority of the father, you must submit to it. I will speak on this at the end, when I stick up for Paul.


I don't understand what you are saying here.

As for Matthew 7, he taught from the scriptures as having authority because he IS the Word. Not the scribes. He quoted the Prophet's that came before him. This has nothing to do with Luke, Peter, Paul, James, Jude, or the like. He wasn't quoting the Pharisees, and if anything Matthew 7 commands respect of the Bible, ie, the Old Testament as he quoted obsessively from them.

As I said, Peter said they had more of a sure word of prophecy. That should be stunning as to the authenticity of the NT and you should take it seriously.


This is sad but true. Christianity has in fact worked towards this goal, and their entire vision of "the end" and when Jesus comes is to say that Christianity will be the 1 world religion and all will follow it - because only they will be left.


No. Woe unto you that desire the Day of the Lord! To what end is it for you? The Day of the Lord is darkness, not light... Shall not the day of the LORD be darkness, and not light? even very dark, and no brightness in it? (Amos 5:18,19)

We look for his coming -- not the Day of the Lord.



10. Promotes ignorance and deception? Check.


Which Paul pleaded to the Church of Ephesus with Tears -- day and night, as he knew this would happen. They took his warning to heart, as apparently they did so well on Doctrine, they lost the love for the king (Rev 2).

---

With all that said, I really do not have time to participate into a full theological discussion about this past this point. Ultimately in my experience, it has shown to be unfruitful to not only people in the faith, but those externally who are not.

I believe what the Bible says, and means what it says. If you don't, that's fine. But I think I've made my case enough to realize that I will point to the texts for the answers.

I leave all with this.

"I know thy works: behold, I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it: for thou hast a little strength, and hast kept my word, and hast not denied my name."

I will not deny his Word, and I will not deny his name. Although my faith is small, I grasp hold of that crown.



posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 12:25 AM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60


OK. What you say. I was looking at books that talk about the deuteronomist theory. When you examine the things they discuss, it kind of dawns on you that there is some sort of gigantic hoax being perpetrated in the Bible.
Joshua 5 is an example I mentioned earlier. According to some theory, priests could have taken parts of Joshua, and made a reconstruction of the early history of Israel, and came up with the Book of Exodus. Here you have the nations of the West Bank in fear of them because of their crossing the Jordan with dry feet. The institution of circumcision and passover and the setting up of the twelve stones. All these parts of the story could have been retrofitted and expanded to an earlier tale.
We might think of ourselves, being modern man, smarter, but someone like Paul could have all the equipment himself to figure all this out. He could have realized that there was no real law other than a cultic practice perpetuated by a priesthood that he saw as being thoroughly corrupt and that this thing that hung over the heads of the people was useless for becoming morally advanced.
True conversion is from the heart and that comes by God's spirit being allowed into a person and that Jesus had a mission to make that fact known, and not just by words but by actions. Jesus said that Satan would come for him and would find nothing in him.

A coup.

What we have is a similar problem as all the lost Christianities. It could be a case of priesthood taking over the government. By controlling the temple and the archives, the Aaronic priests through the Yahwist editor could change history and insert into existing texts the name YHWH wherever they thought appropriate. So the house of Aaron the Levite ended up ruling the Jews instead of David's house.

It's obvious that David never ruled again after the Nebuchadnezzar deportation. From then on it was Levi all the way. The return, Zechariah has 'the Branch' shifted to high priesthood of Joshua. The governor Zarubabal was of David's line, yet sidelined. Aaronic priesthood all the way after that. A coup plain and simple. The only authorized messiahs were to be priestly family.

I heard a rumor that in the times of Jesus, the book of Daniel was forbidden by the priests to be read. Mostly, read in Diaspora. Daniel the prophet was of the royal family of Judah, a prince.

Jerusalem was firmly under the iron grip of priesthood who had arrangements with the Romans. The Romans weren't interested in crushing the city, they just wanted to collect taxes and be recognized as imperial overlords.

It was common people who still had the memory of a promise of a messiah son of David. They called Jesus son of David. He therefore merely by being, was a political threat to priesthood and Empire.

The Way of Jesus had nothing whatsoever to do with the priestly YHWH(2700-3200 yrs old). His Father is The Ancient of Days, who always has been, active force in the universe since the beginning, a part, through logos of every nation, tribe, and people ever to exist on this earth. It's not a matter of 'God was in Christ, reconciling the world to Himself' but rather 'God is in all His Messiahs(Sons) reconciling all to the One.'

Saul of Tarsus was zealous for the Law, and YHWH in the Law demands the death of any one speaking for other gods. He certainly wasn't charged with murder or public disorder by the authorities for killing followers of the way. Obviously, he was doing his YHWH given duty for defense of the Law.
His conversion included not just the acceptance of a messiah but of a greater God and Father of Jesus Christ.



posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 02:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Not Authorized
Background before I even begin. This hits pretty close to home to me. I am an ardent believer that the original texts are infallible. I've weathered doctrinal issues, namely Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons, etc. However, the Serpent Seed Doctrine (ie, the Tree of Life comment), coupled with Paul the AntiChrist shook my faith long enough to take me out of God's service and teaching for almost 2 years.


Serpent Seed Doctrine? The tree of life is mentioned in Genesis, and it is not just about eating from the tree of life to get "eternal life". However, if you look more closely, it also talks about the "way of the tree of life" that men will not keep, and that is the reason why they are removed from the garden. The way of the tree of life is simply the "way" Jesus shows in his actions.

Skipping over the rest for space, but as for Paul, Jesus directly warns of that which will come after him, and in no manner ever says in his life to go do what Paul does to any of the disciples. These things suddenly and magically appear after the death of Jesus, and these works are what enables the Catholic church and Christianity of today is the doctrine of Paul and is anti-christ. It is Paul that the modern church follows. If you would like, we can go into another list of contridictions Paul has with Jesus, and why I say these things of Paul.





1. Religion in the name of Christ? Check.


Paul did not create Christianity, he was a follower of "The Way" after the Damascus Road experience. "The Way" stems from John 14:6. "The Way" in this context can be seen in Acts 16:17, Acts 18:26, Acts 19:9,23, Acts 24:14, Romans 3:12, 1 Cor 16:7, etc.

Remember, Peter came First opening the door to the Gentiles. "The Way" was already well on it's way -- no pun intended. Acts 9:2

The word "Christian" was not only in Acts 26:28, but 1 Peter 4:16. Christianity in today's sense, came later, in which the initial word meant to be a Christ like one.


It's still a religion in the name of Christ, no matter what excuses or things you throw on it. I could honestly care less what you quote in Acts, if you want to talk about Jesus, then quote Jesus. Since you did quote John 14:6, then you should also be aware of things later in John 14, which completely nullify the church doctrine of "only Jesus".




John 14

6Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.


This is often quoted by Christians as a way of telling people that only by becoming a Christian, or someone who "believes" in Jesus, that one can come by the father. This is a blatant lie and a misrepresentation of what is being said. Jesus is saying it is only by those things that one can come by the father. That only by one following the way, the truth and the life could one come by the father. The way btw, is the way of the tree of life.

This is proven later in John 14, when Jesus speaks of those who do not know his sayings, and will thus hear the father instead. Which according to church doctrine and the doctrine of Paul is impossible.



John 14

24He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.

25These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you.

26But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.


This part is ignored by Christianity, and if someone is to speak of such an experience it is dismissed as demonic, false or whatever - unless of course that person happens to speak in the manner those people expect and want to hear. Which coincidentally is exactly the manner in which Jesus learned, and is exactly the manner in which he was also treated.





Paul of course came after Jesus


And James, Jude, Apollos, Phillip, Silvas, Barnabbas, Timothy, etc and the thousands of others converted by the Apostles came 'after', if thats one of your criteria.

I guess we'll lump James in there as well (Acts 15:29) as I don't see Christ commanding 3 of the 4 the council of Jerusalem came up with during his time on Earth.


And he has nothing in me is the rest of that quote. All Paul does is quote/praise the name of Jesus, while at the same time teaching doctrine against what Jesus taught. This is directly warned about in Matthew 7. Please, don't insult me by suggesting it was simply a matter of order, and not a combination of things.



The Church of Ephesus was the "Desired One" (Which is what Ephesus means) doctrinally, in which not only was Paul apart of, but Timothy AND John were Bishops of. Timothy being under Paul's teaching, and Paul being one of the keys to that Church.


The only true church is within a person. It is built of that which is seen as wealthy in the eyes of god - wisdom and understanding(Proverbs 8). Those who find the father early are also rewarded with these riches. When you read in Revelation of the church that is poor, but is actually rich, it is talking about these kind of riches, rather than riches of the material. Because the church is within, it can not be touched by men, and what is gained in understanding and knowledge on that church in earth is present also in heaven, and what is lost is also lost etc.

The rock Jesus mentions is like the rock he mentions also in Matthew 7 and the wise man, and the foolish man. This rock the church is founded on is that wisdom and understanding, not a physical rock. Jesus is a carpenter, because he helps people build their churches within. The entire Last Super scene with Jesus is a re-enactment of Proverbs 9. In which, rather than "Jesus" doing those things, it is instead "Wisdom" who does them. It is Wisdom who builds the house, makes the table, puts the bread and wine on the table and tells those to eat of them(eat of the understanding) which the bread and wine represent.

As such, Jesus with his life is giving people understanding and wisdom and is the carpenter helping them build their churches/houses. The "word in the flesh". But people then instead of taking this understanding and wisdom instead worship the idol and that is what is anti-christ, and that is what Paul does and enables. Take note of how many times Paul praises the name of Jesus, verses the number of times he actually quotes and tells people to do what Jesus said. Again, warned of in Matthew 7.

It's the equivalent of you giving your cat a bowl of milk, and rather the cat drinking the milk you have given it, the cat sits back and praises the bowl for bringing the milk, but never actually drinks it. And should someone actually drink of it, or speak of drinking it they have been killed/persecuted in the past as warned of.



Funny thing is they followed Paul's Warnings in Acts, and Jesus gives them an accommodation because of it. Hard to do so if Paul was not who he said he was.


Actually, extremely easy to fake and is not in any manner a true way of testing things.

have to cut this one off short.



posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 03:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Not Authorized
The prince of this world does infact cometh, as Christ is alluding to Daniel 9:26. Problem is that Paul if he was the "prince" Christ was talking about, he was already dead. He was executed from 62AD to 68AD. We know for certain he was dead by 68AD. Jerusalem was destroyed in 70AD as historical record.

Moreso, the people that came were Legion X, led by Titus -- not Paul. Titus was not a Christian, or a follower of the Way, and Nero certainly was not as well. Paul simply does not doesn't fit the profile of the prince Christ and Daniel were talking about. In fact, Paul does the opposite and expounds on the AntiChrist even more (Son of Perdition), etc.

The verse there is the people of the prince that shall come. At the very least grammatically, the prince must be after 70AD (Destruction of Jerusalem).


In Daniel 9, Jesus is also called a prince. But does Jesus build up a physical city? No. He does build up peoples understanding and so forth. The prince that comes after the Messiah in Daniel 9 only destroys that which the previous Prince did. Paul destroys the understanding of Jesus among his followers and blinds people with praise, symbolism and so forth. Which is more rich/valuable? Wisdom and understanding, or gold and silver? Proverbs 8. If you can't recognize what was built, you surely can't recognize when it was destroyed.



Paul didn't come in his own name. His focus was the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit. It's stated in each one of his letters in some variation. This is echoing Matthew 28:19.


Of course, that verse ends with a colon, which is followed by "Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you". And that is exactly the reason I draw issue with Paul. His praise of Jesus doesn't bother me, it's that he isn't teaching them to observe all things Jesus commanded etc(to follow the commandments). Paul instead teaches that Jesus is the end of the law, where as Jesus says think not he has come to destroy, but to fulfill.

The reason he fulfills the law is to give men the proper understanding needed in order to keep the commandments. This understanding is required before one can keep the commandments(Psalms 111:10). When Jesus says, "Let those with ears hear", he is talking about those who can hear are those who can understand him(his sheep), where as those who can not understand him do not hear the understanding. He gives the bases of this understanding with the 2 laws/rules he gives, on which all the laws/commandments are based on in understanding.

What does it mean "to believe in Jesus"? It says those who truly believe will keep the commandments as he does. Thus, if you are keeping the commandments, then you are also keeping the way of the tree of life, which is required in Genesis in order to once again eat from the tree of life, which is as Jesus says gains eternal life.

Removed because people wouldn't keep the way in their evil, and the only "way" back is to keep the way. Jesus is the way in that he shows the proper way to do that in his life, and so those who believe in him, will also keep the way, which would of course lead to eternal life.

The significance of Jesus being risen is that it would prove that he was sin free, and is thus a valid example on how to keep the commandments, and that which can be followed by the people.

But Paul and the church changes all this into being about a blood sacrifice. That Jesus died for their sins in a ritual sacrifice. This is satanic. It is designed to make people believe they are saved and can have eternal life without keeping the commandments. Just "believe in Jesus". 1 John 2. Paul even goes so far as calling it a free gift, but yet this is not what Jesus tells the rich man who comes to him. Jesus says that in no case shall anyone enter into the kingdom of heaven unless their righteousness exceed that of the pharisees. But this is all undone and the focus is put onto the death of Jesus as being what saves, and his literal blood, rather than the blood being what it represents as per proverbs 9, wisdom/knowledge/understanding.

While Jesus is supposed to be the norm, Paul and the church teaches these things are impossible, to instead just praise/worship the idol/person. Paul says that no man is capable of doing such, but Jesus says - in John 14 which you quoted, that those who believe can do even greater things than what he did. People are taught to not believe in themselves, to not believe in the father within them, and that if they in any manner try to do such a thing, they are by default wrong.

These are all things designed to get men to walk the broad path of death and destruction. It is why it is warned of in Matthew 7. Those who enter into the narrow gate are those who keep the commandments. Those who enter into the broad gate are those who subscribe to the sacrifice and they walk the broad path of destruction. Even the rich man Jesus turns away is accepted by the church doctrine, so long as that rich man give up a bit of coin, which shows what it truly desires - richs of this world, not the riches of the father.

To find salvation in the death/sacrifice in the death of the truth is to find salvation in the lie. The true salvation is found in the life of the truth, and it is that life which should be embrassed and carried on.

Go and learn what this means: I desire mercy, and not sacrifice. For I come not for the righteous, but to bring sinners to repetence.



Matthew 9:13 But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.


He is quoting Hosea 6.



Hosea 6

5Therefore have I hewed them by the prophets; I have slain them by the words of my mouth: and thy judgments are as the light that goeth forth.

6For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.

7But they like men have transgressed the covenant: there have they dealt treacherously against me.

8Gilead is a city of them that work iniquity, and is polluted with blood.


Christians desire sacrifice and blood, over knowledge of god and understanding. Paul enables these things with his writings.




Paul quotes Jesus or alludes to his words over 1000 times if you read the scripture carefully. In fact, some of Christ's quotes from from not the synaptic Gospels, but from Paul. Ie, "It is better to give than Receive". You will not find that in Luke, John, Matthew, or Mark, but in Acts 20:25.


I can name alot of things Paul says that I like, owe nothing to any man but to love him. But that is the way of Politicians is it not? Anyone can speak hollow words.



Chapter names are an invention of man. Not Paul. He wrote to the Church at Rome, and thus "Romans". It could easily just be called "Paul", as the book was basically the Gospel according to Paul, or it could have been called the Gospel of God. Just like Acts of the Apostles technically should be "2nd Luke".


It's named Roman's for it's appeal to authority/government, which would have been the Romans of the time.



As such, this is a weak argument. Christ wrote to Smyrna, which had the Synagogue of Satan. That implies there was indeed a Church there -- Rev 2:9. Pergamos as the 'Seat of Satan', yet there was a Church there. How is Rome any different?

If this is a criteria, then clearly if Revelation was named "Letter to Pergamos", then Christ is the Anti Christ.

Maybe Daniel was the AntiChrist, after all, Chapter 4 was written by Nebuchadnezzar. That has to be even worse than just writing to Rome. You let Neb Write a whole chapter in your book of one of only 1 of 2 of the 'beloved' prophets (John and Daniel)? AntiChrist, for sure!


Actually, Daniel was in some ways "anti-christ". And I do not mean that in a bad way, it was not really of his own doing, but was rather a result of the Jews themselves rejecting God. Check into why they were given David. The Jews rejected god with Samuel, they wanted to be a nation. As such, God gave them David and said - this is the manner in which you will be ruled.

So Daniel is "anti-christ" in the manner of the Jews had chosen him over God, but again this is not a reflection on Daniel himself or anything or his fault. We can't exactly call these things anti-christ, because he didn't work or manipulate his way into such things etc, but was rather appointed there as a result of the actions etc.

And this carries on into Jesus as well. As once again the Jewish people rejected Jesus as they rejected God, and instead wanted another David. Paul of course works towards being that David, the political messiah that they wanted. And of course, many more people accepted Paul over Jesus.




So did Peter in 2 Peter 2:10

"But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous [are they], selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities."

Jesus himself said power is given from above, John 19:11.


Evil has it's purpose and reason in the end, and all things do in fact serve the will of the father. Not trying to argue that. But what I am trying to say is while this things have their purpose, that does not mean it is supposed to be what you yourself do, nor does it mean you should support it.

It is this same line of thinking you present that causes the RCC to say that even if Satan himself is pope, he is to be followed. Does this mean that Saddam should still be in charge of Iraq? Or is it all about pure and raw power on earth? It is that power that Paul also worships. But who's kingdom is this?



posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 04:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Not Authorized
He submitted only to the Father, if he had done any thing else, he would not be the perfect lamb. "Never the less, thy will be done" (Matt 26:42). He did submit as he gave himself up for being the Sacrifice. (John 13:37). The Cross didn't kill Jesus, he gave himself willingly.


He just doesn't fight back because he realizes if he does then he would be breaking the commandments.


Sin is ignoring God's will and substituting your own. The "Fight" is reserved for his second coming. He stopped short of something with his quote Isa 61:2, in Luke 4:19,20. That comma hangs in history.


Jesus first off never calls himself a sacrifice. He says he lays down his life for others, and he does. They don't call soldiers who go off and die in war ritual sacrifices do they? What you are saying is that dieing was the point of it all. Such is false.

Jesus also says if this was his kingdom, then angels would show up and so forth. But it is not his kingdom. Who's kingdom is it?

Government is by it's very nature evil. It is considered a necessary evil on earth because this is a planet that as evil. In other words, you only need cops when their are criminals. If there are no criminals, then there is no need for cops. So, a society without this necessary evil is only possible in a society that doesn't contain evil.

On earth, you leave your house for 2 years, come back and you've probably been robbed a few times. Thus, we have government/cops because of this. In a society without evil, you leave your house, come back in 2 years and nothing is untouched.

As such, if you are a thief, then you can not expect to live in a society without thieves. Your very presence makes that society no longer exist. Thus the reason men were removed from the garden once they knew both good and evil. To protect the rest of the life that does follow the way of the tree of life(good).

Jesus shows that it is better to die sin free, than to fight back and become evil committing sin and walking the path of death and destruction. You show which prince you look for.

God will not take your will even if you offer it. If God wanted your will, then you would have not been given free will to being with. Instead of God taking your will, he will instead give you the understanding required in order to keep his will(Psalm 111:10 again). Big difference between those 2 things.



That's because you're not studied and do not know the history of the Roman Catholic Church, nor understand the 7 letters in Revelation.

Rome is not equal to the Vatican. State Sponsored Church was not done until 300 some odd years later. Remember, Constantine legalized it under the Edict of Milan in 313AD. Before then, Christians were yummy snacks to lions.

Paul is writing to home fellowships in Rome at the time -- not the Vatican, not to Constantine, not to Augustus, not to the Popes. If anything, it was a letter to Peter.


Again, Paul is only an enabler. If you read my in defense of Paul, you will see that I do not personally or exactly blame Paul the person. That when we talk about "Paul" and such, all we are really talking about are the writings that were selected and chosen by others to be in the bible. Imagine if someone decided to come to these forums in a few hundred years and select some of our writings here as being the word of god and base a religion on it. I myself would be absolutely mortified.

And so I think of Paul also in this manner. But yet, if in a few hundred years by chance someone does decide to take these writings and create a religion based on them and try to pass me off in the same manner, then I hope and pray that someone will please come along and fix the errors on those peoples parts. And I certainly would not consider that person as having bad will towards me for doing that, or for pointing out any errors or misunderstandings in my writings that may be there.

While you obviously consider what I'm saying to be disrespectful to Paul, I do not see it that way. This is also exactly the way I would want Paul and others to treat me if I have errors.




5. Imbeded with "Pagan/Mystery Religion"? Check.


The letter to Thyatira covers this introduction of Paganism. I don't feel like getting into it here. Again, it was a warning to the churches (plural) and did not start in Rome. The Rome Church did not heed the warnings and fell victim to it.


The list that was originally quoted was actually in regards to the RCC, which is the base of most all Christianity, rather than towards Paul. But the writings of Paul were chosen for a reason.

At any rate, this is simply an excuse and #5 is in fact true.




6. killing everyone who doesn't convert to their religion? Check.


Sure -- the RCC but did you know that Protestants did so as well? The campaign led against not only the RCC, but home churches not affiliated with either? The Peasant War?


Pointing the fingers at others does not change that it's the actions themselves that matter. Those who did those actions are those who are guilty. The only reason I am pointing it out is because that is the reason why we have the version of Christianity as we have today. Furthermore, Jesus says those who truly believe and follow are those who will be persecuted, rather than those who do the persecuting. Those who truly believed were killed, while those who did not, or didn't speak up were not, and as such that is the version that was pushed and what we have today.

It doesn't mean that anyone who is a Christian is guility by association or anything. Just the reason why it is what it is today.



7. Is not persecuted, but instead does the persecution. Check.


Saul was not the only one that stoned Stephen. He was one of many. Only after he sets out to kill more so does Jesus stop him. He was later persecuted by the same Sanhedrin he was probably apart of and spent a good many years in Prison because of it.

Seems to be a conversion here. The Sanhedrin didn't welcome him with open arms -- quite the opposite. They wanted to kill him.


Once again, bulk in numbers or pointing fingers does not make something right. I can see that you are thinking the list is in regards to only Paul, but that is not what the list was in regards to. It was in regards to Christianity as a whole. Any personal thing Paul did can be forgiven, that is really nothing. I am not mentioning these things in order to accuse, but only in order to inform. It's just how the version of Christianity everyone has today got here, and that is in itself important.




True. The Papacy in general caused this, and largely because they did not follow Acts 17:11. I don't blame Paul, I blame the Church for not searching the scriptures daily to see whither or not those things be so. The Eastern Orthodoxy did to some extent.

The RCC just isn't to blame either. The Holocaust can be laid directly to blame at the Pulpits of Protestantism endorsing replacement theology in Germany.


The problem is that Paul in his letters creates and says these positions of authority should exist. But this is on the contrary to Jesus, who says there is only 1 true authority - the father(again, back to samuel and when the Jews rejected God and wanted to be a nation). Jesus lays out these things not to do in Matthew 23, and Paul does them directly. Incidentally, I learned from the father and the father taught me not to do what Paul does.




much less understand them as even if they did happen to come across the book itself, they were certainly not educated in the language of the bible.


Then how did the Bereans have copies of the scriptures, Jesus quoting from the Scriptures, Paul quoting from the Scriptures, Peter quoting from the Scriptures, John quoting from the scriptures.. etc etc etc.

The Old Testament is the New Testament concealed, the New Testament is the Old Testament revealed.

Much later (Past 600AD) where Latin was the "ONLY" Language allowed and common people prohibited from reading the scriptures. Even so, there were STILL underground churches with a copy of the bible in their hands from the other translations all throughout the dark ages. If the first 'bible' was from the Gutenberg press and the like, how did the Waldenses and other "pre-reformation" churches have a copy?

The 'real' church has ALWAYS been underground to some extent, even through the Holy Roman Empire.


Well, the Jewish people are very big on the oral keeping of things etc. In the times of Christianity, which is what I was talking about, you address later and agree with.

I am in somewhat of agreement about the real church, but I can only say this - 2 beasts.




Yes, because he called them White Washed Walls. In case you missed it, he was calling them corpses. Clean on the outside, dead on the inside. They didn't understand the law and it's purpose.

Jesus clearly elaborates it, when he talks about being born again. They being teachers should have understood this. They didn't. (John 3)


Christians don't understand being born again either. My entire point is that Christianity is just a continuation of the Pharisees, and that the modern day church is the same thing as the Pharisees in function(why you look at fruits).



Because they did not recognize the hour of their visitation. They rejected him as Messiah. Luke 19:44. Daniel gave a specific prophecy to the very day the Messiah would come, and they missed it.


That is crazy. Surely you do not mean to suggest it was simply a matter of timing, rather than all the terrible things they were doing and specific things Jesus names.



posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 04:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Not Authorized
Yet they were looking for him. Namely 3 people, "Elijah", "That Prophet", and the "Messiah". (John 1:21). They didn't want the suffering messiah, they wanted the David like one.


And why did they not recognize them? Because they were instead looking for their own ideas of what that would be(David like).



If you think you can uphold the commandments, then you need to re-read the sermon of the mount. Good luck doing so. You can't do it because even if you THINK of it, you sinned. It's impossible, and even Peter recognized this and stated as such in Acts 15. If you transgress 1 law, you break them all (James 2:10)


No, those with understanding will keep the commandments. They are actually not very hard to keep really once you have understanding and a little wisdom behind you.

While we may fall in the ditch from time to time, the point is to get back on the road and keep walking. Wisdom and understanding is what guides people on this path in Proverbs 8/9, Jesus is the "light" in this manner as well by his example.

The highest form of atonement has always been to repent for your sins. This literally means - to fix/change your mistakes. Once you fix your mistakes, you are automatically forgiven by the father because that is all the father really asks you to do anyway - fix your mistakes. No different than how you treat your own children(Matthew 7). So as you fix your mistakes, or change your ways when it's something you can't exactly fix, then you have repented for your sins. Again, Jesus gives the understanding required for us to fix our mistakes.



So which commandments by the way? Just the 10? How about all 300+ of them?


Jesus gives the understanding in 2 commandments. Love one another as yourself and love god. Based on these things you can get the understanding behind the 10 commandments. If you love something, you will set it free, if it loves you it will come back. Thus loving god brings you back to him. As such, to love one another as yourself means to not infringe on the free-will of others. Live and let live. From this you can get the understanding behind the commandments of do not kill, steal and so forth. This should be applied in all situations however.



This is why we need a new heart, and a new body, and to be born again spiritually. We wait earnestly for the redemption of our Body so I don't have to fight the flesh every day.


This is just treating the spiritual as another form of the physical. Being born of the spirit is going to change your flesh, it changes your spirit. Being born of spirit is described in John 14. You will on that day know the father within you, and so forth. It was that chapter that got me to look at the bible, because I couldn't believe Jesus was describing what I experienced.

I'm gonna stop here. I got most of the stuff and I'm running out of time, already spent a few hours on this.



posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by pthena
 

It was common people who still had the memory of a promise of a messiah son of David. They called Jesus son of David. He therefore merely by being, was a political threat to priesthood and Empire.
Not to disagree with you, exactly, I wonder if you could consider something close to the opposite to be true. I mean as far as who God is.
Jesus goes out into the wilderness for forty (times) after an encounter with a major (in Israelite terms) body of water (Jordan River).
He goes to Zion (Jerusalem) and proclaims himself King (saying he is the Son of God), as a counter-coup to David, who conquers the Jebusites and takes Zion by force, and basically puts the ark into the hands of Canaanite priests and establishes a new type of kingship that was not of the pure Yahwistic form. Jesus claims the kingship under YHWH, and annihilates the Jebusite kingship under the Canaanite god El Elyon.



[edit on 26-1-2010 by jmdewey60]



posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60


He goes to Zion (Jerusalem) and proclaims himself King (saying he is the Son of God), as a counter-coup to David, who conquers the Jebusites and takes Zion by force, and basically puts the ark into the hands of Canaanite priests and establishes a new type of kingship that was not of the pure Yahwistic form. Jesus claims the kingship under YHWH, and annihilates the Jebusite kingship under the Canaanite god El Elyon.

Are you suggesting David kept the Jebusite priesthood of El Elyon and Jesus brought in 'true' YHWH kingship?



posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by pthena
 
I'm suggesting the possibility.
I was asking for your opinion about that.
I have these wonderful books but some of these I make progress excruciatingly slowly through, Like F. M. Cross' Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic. I wonder if anyone has ever read that and understands it perfectly. I can spend a whole day on a single page because he does things like distill ideas from twenty different authors, describing really abstract (to the non-specialist) ideas. Anyway, like I mentioned earlier, there is a whole science of examining the interplay of apparent divergent religious beliefs going on in some sort of struggle for the ascendancy, in the Old Testament, where there is a clinging to the old beliefs, from the merger of two similar, but divergent in their identifying their gods, cultures.
Anyway, he brings up some ideas that might pertain to what you were saying, about the introduction of a new cultus by David. The cult of the King. Somehow the carrying in of the ark is like the march of the warrior, but it steals the glory of the conquering warrior, YHWH in his taking of Israel, in favor of David's victory that he claims as his own.



posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by badmedia

Serpent Seed Doctrine?


I owe you an apology on this then badmedia, as it seemed like a flavor/variation of the Serpent Seed Doctrine. I won't get into it here as it's easy to find on wikipedia. Generally, the Serpent Seed Doctrine also considers Paul THE Anti-Christ (much as some flavors of Islam do).


Skipping over the rest for space, but as for Paul, Jesus directly warns of that which will come after him, snip.


Like I said in my previous post badmedia, generally these conversations are unfruitful. I think we've both made our points, and as such, I respectfully agree to disagree. You have spent several hours on it, as I have.

I could whip out about a hundred scriptures refuting everything you had posted below from the Old and New Testaments. Some reading this might like me to do so, but then we'd both be stuck in a quagmire of theological debate, coming from two fundamentally different schools of thought and this would go on indefinitely.

It's really the same pattern, over and over again, and simply is not edifying to me, nor the Body.

I believe that the 66 books of the bible are infallible and interlinked, and as thus, any "revelation" you get, that does not match the scriptures fully, I toss out and considered accursed.

Years of Study on my part has shown this to be true. From the Hepatic structure of the text itself, to the Alpha and Omega (Aleph and Tau) hidden in the Hebrew in key messianic passages, and to the very Gospel being hidden in the Genealogy of Genesis Chapter 5. All of this is consistent, even through Paul's texts.

We could go back and forth for days, months, years, or even centuries and it won't matter. Neither of us will change our mind or our schools of thought. In all honesty, that's not my job, but the Holy Spirits.

This is why I NEVER expect results when practicing apologetics. Whither it be from evolution to the rapture.

So on a nutshell, what this boils down to is your faith in God's promise about his Word, and text written by his Apostles. Obviously you don't believe them, whereas I do.

If you have no faith in the New Testament, then that is something not between me and you, but you and the Holy Spirit.

As such, I stand by Gal 1:8,9 at this point, which is a dire warning to all that would contradict the Apostles and preach another Gospel.

"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

As we said before, so say I now again, If any [man] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed."

I contented for the faith as per Jude's instruction and I'll move on from there. As such, I also do not believe every spirit, and test them (1 John 1:4).

----

With that said...

I will concede that you are absolutely right about one thing as "Christianity" or "The Way" did not come until AFTER Christ's resurrection. None of the Apostles "got it", when Christ was alive.

Even Christ had to explain the scriptures to them after he was dead, in his Resurrection body. They were with him for 3 and a half years and STILL didn't get it. Sure, they understood the "How", as they witnessed it. They did not understand the "Why".

Later, only after the ascension, and through the Holy Spirit at Pentecost (Acts), did they finally get the "why".

So that means one thing. John, Matthew, Mark, Luke, Peter, James, Jude, etc are all wrong. Paul whom they agreed with (Acts 15), came after the fact as they preached the same message with one accord. The former, were preaching it first.

If anything, your contention of the "one after" that they would "receive", was not Paul, but the Holy Spirit which fell upon them, as they "received" him, and to those they preached that also "received" it.

Nevertheless, as the topic is about Paul, I focused on Paul, and did my best to show that not only was he who he said he was, but the Apostles agreed with his message.


[edit on 26-1-2010 by Not Authorized]
Silly quote boxes

[edit on 26-1-2010 by Not Authorized]



posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60


Anyway, he brings up some ideas that might pertain to what you were saying, about the introduction of a new cultus by David. The cult of the King. Somehow the carrying in of the ark is like the march of the warrior, but it steals the glory of the conquering warrior, YHWH in his taking of Israel, in favor of David's victory that he claims as his own.

I'm very much caught in the current of various approaches right now. To compare some:

badmedia: taught by the Father. disdain for any text that does not sound like a final truth. Therefore doesn't see progression of revelation. No degrees, either true and of the father or wrong. Absolutism.

pasttheclouds: starts with Oneness, accepts all texts as standing now, sees progression, logically connects all the symbolism at various levels and arrives back at One. The past can't be known, therefore disdain for textual criticism and historical reconstruction.

You seem to have preconceived doctrines of god and Jesus that you want to see triumph in the end. To that end you use textual criticism and historical reconstructionism to arrive at a 'purer story', 'purer text'. But those are still for the purpose of confirming the preconceived doctrine.

I am caught in the currents because I see the validity in all the above mentioned approaches. Absolutism, progression to Oneness, textual criticism, historical reconstructionism, and even validation of preconceived doctrine( I even have some of that in my own self).

Then I've got my approach of existential logic, build a system then let it collapse when I'm done with it. I've got an underlying pagan pantheism which speaks to Oneness, my preconceived doctrine, and a specialness of Jesus, also preconceived but free of orthodoxy. Because of limitations to textual criticism and historical reconstruction I fill the gaps with mythology. Each personage in the stories goes through progression and discovery. Thanks to rileyw at least I have a label for god: god of pathos, intimately involved in our struggle and journey, eventually leading back to One.

Yes, David did act like the conquering hero. We don't know if he got a copy of the book that Samuel gave to Saul, which did not include priestly sacrifice. David may have in fact just taken that over from the Jebusite practice already in place in the city. He left the tent in Gibeon and pitched his own tent for the ark in his palace. Many crimes he committed and paid for in his life. A crime still stands though:

2 Sam 21 The human sacrifice in Gibea of Saul's heirs. Everything after that is a downhill slide. As far as I'm concerned he lost it all right there. David did a lackluster negotiation there. His whole life he defended Saul the LORD's anointed and his family, only to fail in the end and hand them over to death. There's no record of any one denouncing David. Yet I hold a grudge against him.

Symbolically now: If Israel represents humanity in microcosm, the political exercising religious authority and ecclesiastical exercising political authority are both morally bankrupt, and unable to reach a true knowledge of deity. Jesus introduced a way different from both. A priesthood of all believers who govern themselves and serve all, in whatever manner possible. It's a self governing anarchy, but not anarchy at all, because God is One, and all is for the common good.

I think this combines all the above approaches, including defending Paul's attempt to preach Christ(messiahship) in such a way that all humanity (Jew, Gentile, whatever) can benefit.



[edit on 26-1-2010 by pthena]



posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by pthena
 
Thanks for your input.
Maybe there is something to be said for paganism, as far as being something local.
It may be that the politics of Ancient Israel and Judea are really nothing to concern ourselves with, compared to what we have to deal with just as a life.
The problem is, that so much of today's what-passes-as-religion is involved in an entanglement of just what you said is corrupt. It might be smart for a few people at least to have some sort of understanding of the situation to be able to counteract some of that thing that looks like the slide into Armageddon.
I think there is something important about individuality and something to be feared in a unity of sameness. In the New Testament, churches were local entities, and until the questionably authored books of Ephesians and Timothy, there was not a "Church", meaning one universal church, and history shows us what happens when such a thing is forced upon the world. The ant-christ is the conglomeration into the hive, and the loss of the individual who has the freedom of conscience to develop his own understanding of God.



[edit on 26-1-2010 by jmdewey60]



posted on Jan, 27 2010 @ 04:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by pthena
badmedia: taught by the Father. disdain for any text that does not sound like a final truth. Therefore doesn't see progression of revelation. No degrees, either true and of the father or wrong. Absolutism.

I dont' have disdain for any text that does not sound like a final truth. In fact, I tend to see things in terms of "A+B=C", rather than "1+1=2". I look at things in terms of the equation, rather than in terms of the variables.

For example, the "way". The way is like an equation, in that there are things you do and so forth. A variable is used to express the equation. Even as I said before "A+B=C", those are still variables used to express the equation(understanding). Because this is what we as humans are reduced to in communicating with each other. I can not give to you in the form of the equation, I can only give you the expressions. The father does not give in this form, as men do. The father instead gives the understanding itself in a pure form - hard to even explain as a result, this is the closest I can come to it.

Jesus is a variable in a true expression of the way. Meaning, the actions and such of Jesus are that which expresses the understanding and follows the way. And it is for that very reason alone that I am such a big fan of Jesus himself and how I know he is true/right.

But there can be many expressions of that understanding. And each of us is supposed to be a true example of that expression if we are doing the right things etc. You can see this in the similarities of the different religions around the world. If you look beyond the variables and see what is being expressed, then you can see the same understanding. That is to mean, if you can see beyond "Jesus, father, Great Spirit, Allah, Ra, etc" and look at what they are actually expressing you will see that at heart they express many of the same things. Not all, but the major religions all have in some form the 10 commandments for example.

If an American Indian says "Great Spirit", I know what they are talking about. Even as I call god "father", that is in itself a label from Jesus. I like the term father as an expression of the father and son relationship between god and man.

1+1=2, 2+2=4, 5+5=10 etc, these are all true expressions of the same expression.

The father taught me to not get caught up in the variables, to instead focus on the meaning/actions/equations. Do not get caught up in the idols(Jesus), but instead look at what they do and bring in terms of understanding. And so that is what I do.

And when I look at Paul, then I do not see the same true expression that I see in Jesus. I see things which I was taught not to do, which are also the contradictions Paul has with Jesus that I mention. For me, it is no different than seeing that 1+1=2 is a true statement, and 2+3=5 is not.

It's not about being "absolute" or whatever, as I am open to many different expressions, regardless of what symbolisms are used to express it. I am very open to someone showing me how I am misunderstanding Paul, and how his expression when understood properly is of the way and so forth. However, thus far not a single person has should me a context/way in which what he is saying is a true expression, but instead I am just told that I must be wrong.

In these religions the majority of the people do not have the understanding itself. Instead they are taught to accept the text and that is that. It is for this reason that Jesus gets on to the Pharisees in Matthew 23 for traveling the seas and making them children of hell. Because all they were doing was making people accept the scriptures, and then from there pretty much did what they want, taking the seat of moses. The true understanding required was denied of those people.

Thus why Jesus was such a threat, because he was able to heal the blind/deaf. Those who were denied of the understanding, Jesus gave to them. He shared his riches with them(that which is rich in the eyes of god). He gave them the understanding and showed them the true way and so forth. This understanding would completely undermine the authority of the pharisees.

Paul lacks this understanding and does not give it as a result. Instead, he praises the idol and teaches others to do likewise. Yes, this to me is very very wrong and is idolism. This is what politicians do. Paul takes things from a level of understanding given by Jesus, and brings things back to the literal form where the scribes, pharisees and so forth are once again in charge, and they once again travel the seas getting people to convert to their expression. They only know 1+1=2, they are denied the understanding. In this manner, saying Jesus is truth, I accept Jesus, or whatever else is about as useful as someone who memorized only 1+1=2 trying to take a math test - you're gonna fail.

There is most certainly a progression. In the OT, the law was basically given in the form of 1+1=2. Thus as mentioned the people did not understand. The importance of understanding was certainly written about, but there really wasn't an easy way of understanding. Some importance was put into the verbal things among the Jewish people probably for this reason, but such things are bound to break over time.

Thus in comes Jesus, who then gives the understanding and by that understanding people can see how and why to keep the commandments as I mentioned before. That is progression. Paul turning it back into a literal is not progression.

If you seek salvation in the death of Jesus, then you are saying the truth must be sacrificed in order for you to live. This means you must be living in the lie. And that is why they conspired to kill him, so their lie could live. The blood sacrifice and such is a manipulation designed to keep people from seeing that it is in the life and example of Jesus that true salvation can be found, not his death.

A rose by any other name still smells the same.



[edit on 1/27/2010 by badmedia]



posted on Jan, 27 2010 @ 05:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Not Authorized
I owe you an apology on this then badmedia, as it seemed like a flavor/variation of the Serpent Seed Doctrine. I won't get into it here as it's easy to find on wikipedia. Generally, the Serpent Seed Doctrine also considers Paul THE Anti-Christ (much as some flavors of Islam do).


No problem, but I read about that and it's not even close to me. I don't think of original sin in terms of sex at all, but is instead ignorance itself. They ate from the tree of knowledge, to learn both good and evil. How do you know the difference between hot and cold? Well, you have to experience them both. You could always be hot or cold, but you would never understand either of them. Thus, in order to learn both mankind become ignorant in order to be able to experience both. If they still had their completely good nature, as they did before, then they could never do or be subject to evil, thus ignorance is required. We are born ignorant.

But that's really just an anology on how we got here IMO. The serpent represents wisdom usually in ancient times. And I can see this as meaning they were tempted by the wisdom of knowing both good and evil as god does. Yet, as I look into the world it's rather obvious that this choice has already been made for those born into this world. So, at this point all that we can do is finish learning, and then gain the experience, knowledge and understanding in order to make the correct choice between them 2, which is wisdom. The correct choice is of course to follow the way of the tree of life, which is what Jesus does.

So you have the fall, and then the rise back. Obviously goes deeper, but I don't see it as being rooted around sex.



Like I said in my previous post badmedia, generally these conversations are unfruitful. I think we've both made our points, and as such, I respectfully agree to disagree. You have spent several hours on it, as I have.


Well, I personally think such conversations are extremely fruitful. Just have to look at things on a bigger picture. I never expect that anyone is going to up and change their mind and suddenly agree with me out of the blue. I would likely have to question the sanity of such a person. But conversations like these plant seeds. Things of a true nature tend to stick with people. And while they might not agree with it at the time, any time in the future when a similar situation presents itself, that little "seed" will be there in the back of their mind and it's true nature and how it applies. They will remember it. Everytime that happens, that "seed" is being watered. Thus it will grow within them. As it grows within them, it gets larger and larger to the point where they will no longer be able to ignore it, and thus revelation and such happens within that person and they change their minds.

All people will think they are right, if we thought we were wrong we would change our minds. Can't throw a seed in the ground in the morning and expect to have dinner that evening.



I could whip out about a hundred scriptures refuting everything you had posted below from the Old and New Testaments. Some reading this might like me to do so, but then we'd both be stuck in a quagmire of theological debate, coming from two fundamentally different schools of thought and this would go on indefinitely.


Well, lets narrow it down a bit. How about this - prove me wrong with the words of Jesus alone. I will debate with you on these topics, but we can only quote Jesus, or that which Jesus quotes/mentions in the OT. IE: In John 10 he quotes Psalm 82 etc.



I believe that the 66 books of the bible are infallible and interlinked, and as thus, any "revelation" you get, that does not match the scriptures fully, I toss out and considered accursed.


Which books do you take over the others when they disagree?



Years of Study on my part has shown this to be true. From the Hepatic structure of the text itself, to the Alpha and Omega (Aleph and Tau) hidden in the Hebrew in key messianic passages, and to the very Gospel being hidden in the Genealogy of Genesis Chapter 5. All of this is consistent, even through Paul's texts.

We could go back and forth for days, months, years, or even centuries and it won't matter. Neither of us will change our mind or our schools of thought. In all honesty, that's not my job, but the Holy Spirits.


I was an atheist until 3 years ago. I don't study at all. I should be lightweight for you right? But then again, Jesus says it's the holy spirit that will teach you, not the books of men.



This is why I NEVER expect results when practicing apologetics. Whither it be from evolution to the rapture.

So on a nutshell, what this boils down to is your faith in God's promise about his Word, and text written by his Apostles. Obviously you don't believe them, whereas I do.


When did god make this promise to you? Can you describe that experience for me please?



If you have no faith in the New Testament, then that is something not between me and you, but you and the Holy Spirit.

As such, I stand by Gal 1:8,9 at this point, which is a dire warning to all that would contradict the Apostles and preach another Gospel.

"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

As we said before, so say I now again, If any [man] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed."

I contented for the faith as per Jude's instruction and I'll move on from there. As such, I also do not believe every spirit, and test them (1 John 1:4).


Can you show me where I have ever came close to saying not to keep the commandments? Can you show me where I have said that Jesus is wrong?



1 John 2

3And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.

4He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

5But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.


See, I am not telling you not to do these things, I am telling you that you must. That is what the disagreement is with Paul, who claims that Jesus is the end of the law - because none of us can keep the commandments. Yet, this is in direct contradiction to what is being said here. Thus, is the bible itself not telling you that Paul is a liar and the truth is not in him?

I speak of the narrow path, not the broad path of the church and Paul, that even the rich man Jesus turned away can enter.



I will concede that you are absolutely right about one thing as "Christianity" or "The Way" did not come until AFTER Christ's resurrection. None of the Apostles "got it", when Christ was alive.

Even Christ had to explain the scriptures to them after he was dead, in his Resurrection body. They were with him for 3 and a half years and STILL didn't get it. Sure, they understood the "How", as they witnessed it. They did not understand the "Why".

Later, only after the ascension, and through the Holy Spirit at Pentecost (Acts), did they finally get the "why".

So that means one thing. John, Matthew, Mark, Luke, Peter, James, Jude, etc are all wrong. Paul whom they agreed with (Acts 15), came after the fact as they preached the same message with one accord. The former, were preaching it first.


I'm not sure where I said that. Because "the way" is as old as Genesis and known to all those who understand. John for example knew it before Jesus came along, was the spirit of Elijah and came to the people in righteousness, but they didn't recognize him. John is easily my favorite writer in the bible and of all the writers in the bible is the one with the most understanding.

This just sounds like an excuse and reason to accept Paul over the others. Yet, at the same time you say this is infallible?



If anything, your contention of the "one after" that they would "receive", was not Paul, but the Holy Spirit which fell upon them, as they "received" him, and to those they preached that also "received" it.


The holy spirit is not the prince of this world. The holy spirit is really just the process and that which brings the gifts of those who find the father early, as described in Proverbs 8. It is that which brings understanding and teaches men. This experience will change your entire reality, and you will know that which is taught not by scripture, but by the understanding.

You are just making using the holy spirit as a way of saying the scribes are the authority. You claim that this is of the holy spirit, but how can one know that it is of the holy spirit if they themselves do not know the holy spirit? If they do know the holy spirit, then for what reason would those people need the scripture, and for what reason would that person accept scripture over their experience?



Nevertheless, as the topic is about Paul, I focused on Paul, and did my best to show that not only was he who he said he was, but the Apostles agreed with his message.


It's fine, I understand the topic was a bit off on the list itself. But there are direct contradictions between Paul and Jesus. Basically your basis thus far has been that because others accepted him, it must be right.



posted on Jan, 27 2010 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by badmedia


There is most certainly a progression. In the OT, the law was basically given in the form of 1+1=2. Thus as mentioned the people did not understand. The importance of understanding was certainly written about, but there really wasn't an easy way of understanding. Some importance was put into the verbal things among the Jewish people probably for this reason, but such things are bound to break over time.

Yes, this is progressio. 1200 yrs of progression. From Moses to John and Jesus. From what Jesus said to people in his day, he approved of some of the best scribes as in, 'You are very close'. That had to do with the 2 laws upon which hang all the law. 1200 yrs for the best of the rabbis to come to this understanding. That's progression.

If Saul came from the best school, he sure didn't show it, with his persecution and killing. He was still back in the old 1+1=2.



I can not give to you in the form of the equation, I can only give you the expressions. The father does not give in this form, as men do. The father instead gives the understanding itself in a pure form - hard to even explain as a result, this is the closest I can come to it.

This is absolute. You received the pure understanding. The Father is your 'genius'. Look up etymology of genius and demon. Demon, from the root means 'of divine origin'. So you will seem to many people as 'demon possessed' in the same way Jesus seemed demon possessed to many people in his day. Don't be surprised when people call you all sorts of nasty things because you have the Father, they did so to Jesus before you.

So you are the genius in the class. You have the answer while everyone else is still working it out on the scratch paper. They can show their work. You have no work to show. Even if some get the final answer wrong, the work itself still counts and will be credited as righteousness. Such is Paul, in his short life he was required to progress 1200 yrs worth. So what if his final answers weren't completely right. The progress he made will still be counted as if it were, by the Father.

It's not Paul's doing that his writings would be turned into a new Law, and even be added to by forgers. The Law was 1+1=2. Paul is 1+x=2. It still remains for his followers to arrive at X+Y=1. Was it supposed to be easy? I don't think so. And Paul even wrote, "You are my work". If I am Paul's work to show, then I can redeem him, and the Father can judge whether I have or not.

The day is coming, and indeed is here, when all those who belong to God will seem to be anti-christ in the judgment and estimation of man and his religions. If we tear each other up and agree with man's estimation then we are under the same delusion. If you condemn Paul, you condemn me too.



posted on Jan, 27 2010 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by badmedia
No problem, but I read about that and it's not even close to me.


It was my error, as I assumed with the linkage to the "Tree of Life" you were referring to it. As you are familiar with the background theology on it, we both disagree with it, and we shouldn't waste more time on it. Again, my apologies. Too many different voices in this thread.


I will attempt to be more focused between me and you.


...Thus, in order to learn both mankind become ignorant in order to be able to experience both.


I'm not so sure we were ignorant. Maybe. But I view it as we are rebellious. Adam was given one commandment, "don't eat that fruit", and what did he do? Eve ate it, but Adam was expressly told not to do so. Only after Adam ate it, did we fall.

Adam couldn't even get one simple commandment right.

Either way, God was not surprised. He was already working on our salvation before the foundation of the world. He knew we would fall and become who we are today. (Rev 13:8, 1 Peter 1:18-20, Ephesians 1:3-7, 2 Timothy 1:9, Romans 8:29-30, Hebrews 12:2, Job 19:25, etc). I look at it simply, that God was already dealing with you and your sin, before the world began.

Example. Creation, has 2 chapters dedicated to it, some occasonal verses, some Psalms. How about your redemption? Pretty much the whole book. God could easily speak into existence another universe but what did the redemption cost him? His Son.


If they still had their completely good nature, as they did before, then they could never do or be subject to evil, thus ignorance is required. We are born ignorant.


You are fond of John which ironically, is what I'm studying at the moment. I agree that we did NOT have a good nature -- but not ignorant. In fact, our heart is evil (Matthew 15:19, Gen 6:5, and many others), and unrepairable and has to be replaced (Ezekiel 36:26).

More so, Yeshua defined our problem, in which it's not ignorant per say, but that men (me and you) love darkness, more than they love light. That also is our condemnation. (John 3:19). Also further to back that up is Job 24:12-17, Isaiah 29:15

Ignorance in it's pure-form, would require us to love neither darkness nor light. If we were truely ignorant, we would still be in the garden today, as how would we be accountable for sin we did not commit willingly? We were held accountable the moment God said to Adam, "don't eat that!".


But that's really just an anology on how we got here IMO.


Well, I'll toss a seed in here. And this is conjecture, and you can take it any way that you want. Christ said that there was no greater love, than for a man to lay down his life for his friends. (John 15:13)

He's also called the "Last Adam", and that Adam was a "type" of Christ (Romans 5:14 and 1 Cor 15:45). My conjecture is that Adam willingly ate the fruit, not out of ignorance (he knew what he was doing 1 Ti 2:14), but because he loved Eve so much, that he chose willingly, to join her in her predicament.

I'm assuming you agree with the "type" model, namely a "type of the Anti Christ" as you seem to hold. If I'm wrong, then that's ok.

Is this in the scripture? No, but it certainly is a type that does fit the Christ model. This type also shows up in other parts of scripture, namely Ephesians 5 when Paul turns the whole marriage model upside down and applies it to Yeshua and the Church.

Don't put to much into it, as it's just conjecture. I do not want to derail the conversation. This is why I spoke of inter-linkage, as types are plastered all over the Bible. To me, these idioms, and types, etc, used are the same throughout 66 books, written by over 40 authors, over a period of thousands of years. It shows finger prints of design, not by men, but the Holy Spirit.

From Genesis to Revelation -- one book, by one author.


The serpent represents wisdom usually in ancient times.


The Serpent, actually could be considered not a literal serpent, but the Nachash (נחש) or more appropriately the "Shining One" in Genesis 3. If you do a word study on "serpent", throughout the Old Testament, the nachash, is never spoken of as wisdom, but cursed, sin, fiery, poison, and the like. Thus "serpent" is a "type" of sin.

As Christ said in John 3:14 that he would be lifted up, he's referring to an odd event in Numbers 21. In short, fiery serpents came, and started attacking the camp. Moses was asked to pray to God. He was commanded to create a brass serpent, and lift it up on a pole. If bitten, the people were to look at the pole and be healed, if not, they died. Here we have a "type" of sin and Christ. Brazen (Brass) is signification of the judgment of sin (Ex. 26:19; Num. 21:9; Rev. 1:15; Is. 48:4). The serpent of brass being on a "pole" was a future signification of Christ on the cross.

The message? Look to the cross for the judgment of sin and be saved. This is why Paul alludes to this in 2 Cor 5:21.

If serpents are Wisdom in the scripture, we have a problem here by the typological model that Christ was pointing out. Does that make sense?


And I can see this as meaning they were tempted by the wisdom of knowing both good and evil as god does.


Wisdom is not place there, but knowledge. I focus on the other part the Shining One said. "Ye shall be as gods". Ironically, that same lie is perpetuated throughout history, even today. How many think they are God, or can be God? Satan doesn't change his tricks. Being God, knowing Good and Evil is still tempting today, as it was at the beginning.

Solomon asked for Wisdom, and he got it. Yet David, was a man after God's own heart. There is a difference between the two. David is never spoken ill of, yet Solomon is never spoken of in a positive light. Thats because David wanted fellowship with God -- not wisdom.


Yet, as I look into the world it's rather obvious that this choice has already been made for those born into this world. So, at this point all that we can do is finish learning, and then gain the experience, knowledge and understanding in order to make the correct choice between them 2, which is wisdom. The correct choice is of course to follow the way of the tree of life, which is what Jesus does.


What choice? Sorry, i'm confused here. Are you talking about Predestination? I don't want to assume what you mean here.



posted on Jan, 27 2010 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Well, I personally think such conversations are extremely fruitful...


I give you Kudos on this, so well said badmedia. Unfortunately almost 100% of whatever I get into on these discussions ALWAYS seems to turn negative, defensive, etc. I want to dialog, not debate. I love discussing God and the Word, as I literally can stay up all night talking excitedly about him and EVERY bit of text. I don't like it turning into a negative to do so though.

In person it's always different, but online? People hide behind the screen to mock, irritate, or just outright ignore what is being said. I am very weary of that, as it's just not edifying to me, or others.


All people will think they are right, if we thought we were wrong we would change our minds.


I will agree to say that I might not be right, as long as the same thing is accepted of you in this dialog. I might be wrong, you might be wrong -- heck we both might be wrong.
I point to Acts 17:11, when it says don't believe a word I say to you, but search the scriptures daily to see whither or not these things be so. I will hold you likewise to that agreement, if we are to continue this topic.

And yes, you're right, don't expect a seed to grow overnight.


Well, lets narrow it down a bit. How about this - prove me wrong with the words of Jesus alone. I will debate with you on these topics, but we can only quote Jesus, or that which Jesus quotes/mentions in the OT. IE: In John 10 he quotes Psalm 82 etc.


Lets start from scratch here. Lets set some rules, and if we agree to them, we move on. I think they are fair.

First.. no debating. Dialog only please.


To limit ourselves as to what Christ said, and ONLY things that Christ quoted in the OT is very narrow. Indeed, if we followed this route, we couldn't go over the 100 or so prophecies regarding his first coming as he quotes very little of them as the Apostles wrote or inferred much of them.

So..

1.) Christ said that not one Jot or Tittle would pass until the law be fulfilled. Matthew 5:18-20 In this like, I should be able to quote the Old Testament as he's referring to the "law". Indeed he wrote it. As such he validated prophets, such as Isaiah, Jonah, etc.

2.) In the case of translational errors (Yes, there are some KJV supporters), I should be allowed to revert to the Greek, Aramaic, or Hebrew in these cases to extrapolate the meaning. Namely, the NT will primarily be in the Greek. Primary example below.

3.) Background and context of the situation, namely the Pharisee's and Sadducee's. Ie, what they believed in, how it was applied, as a matter of historical record.

4.) In the cause of Paul, as that is our focus, if there is a "contradiction", then I should be allowed to quote other verses that Jesus, Paul, James, Jude, Matthew or the like also clarified to show not a contradiction, but agreement.

There is a saying by Rabbi's. When the Messiah comes, not only will he explain the Jot and Tittle's, but the very spaces between words.


Which books do you take over the others when they disagree?


I believe they are all one book, not different. The only partial EXCEPTION is Revelation, which has the audacity to promise a blessing to those that read it. I think I know this blessing, and it's because Revelation is in code. But that code is explained in every book of the bible (minus Ruth). That's including the NT. There's over 700 illusions to the NT and OT, and searching each of them one will gain knowledge.

If there's a contradiction, then we simply have not done our homework in the OT, and NT. Put Christ in the center of it, and see what happens.

Any contradictions I've ran across can be resolved by those rules above.


I was an atheist until 3 years ago. I don't study at all. I should be lightweight for you right? But then again, Jesus says it's the holy spirit that will teach you, not the books of men.


The Holy Spirit does teach all things, but the Wisdom of men does not.

As far as lightweight, or against the staunchest most educated scholars, does it matter? What does matter is your walk with God. There's no reason to hold medals on my shoulders and such.
I'm sure some of the most educated scholars around would rip my text here to shreds. It was more of a general statement with my background. I'll explain below.


When did god make this promise to you? Can you describe that experience for me please?


Background, in my 20's I was always a believer, but I didn't know why I believed. After a nice brush with the world, I finally asked myself the question why I believe what I believe. Sure, i knew the basics, but as such, I was only on the 'milk'. What did Yeshua fulfill prophetically, was he really God, what was the promises of his Second coming, etc.

I took it seriously for the first time. One of those first issues I addressed was the text itself. Is it relevant? Is it corrupted? Is it true? How sure I can believe? I pleaded with God to show me.

That lead to a treasure hunt in the Bible, which I still find new things in it everyday.

First, the statement by Yeshua (John 10:35) comes to light. The scripture CANNOT be broken. Christ is clearly referring to what we call the Old Testament. In such, Christ's words validated the law and the prophets. As Daniel stated it as "the scripture of Truth". (Dan 10:21).

If I don't believe what Yeshua says, I got bigger problems as to the in errancy of the text, don't I?

Second, the "Word of the LORD" shows up a bunch of times in the Old Testament. As such, it is NOT surprising that John took the "logos", or "word" as a Title of Jesus Christ. "The word of the LORD came to Isaiah", "The word of the LORD came to Ezekiel", etc. Additionally all throughout scripture, the prophets were commanded to write down things in a book, etc. A word study on either of those is fascinating.

In fact, I'll toss you a gold nugget. Did you know God writes it down in a book or remembrance every time you think of him? (Mal 3:16).





new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join