Are those that never heard of Christ burning in hell?

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
The one who claimed that Christs death and belief in him as a savior would redeem you, never met Jesus.

That's not true. Paul did meet Jesus.
Paul's own testimony claims specifically that he both saw and heard Jesus, as well as speaking to Him. This occurred to qualify Paul as an eyewitness, which was an essential requirement in order for one to be an apostle (Acts 1:21,22). This means that Saul was a "witness" in the same sense as the other apostles: he was able to tell people that he had personally seen Jesus alive after His death.

1Cor 9:1
Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord?

1Cor 15:8
And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

2 Corinthians 5:16
Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we [him] no more.

Originally posted by Balkan
Searched a bit, but didn't find the question I'm asking, although it's probably already been asked. Serious question, not inflamatory...

Are all the people who died after Christ died, but had never heard of him, burning in hell? Native Americans, for example. Surely thousands and thousands died before any euro came over and introduced (polite way to put it) them to Christ? If they are burning in hell as degenerates or whatever, surely they never got a chance to exercise their freewill? The usual answer I get to this is that the native americans actually knew Jesus in their hearts and always had a choice. Would like to hear all thoughts...

Romans 1:19-20
19. Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed [it] unto them.
20. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

reply to post by texastig


Paul, (and we only have his word and that of Luke) was not claiming he met Jesus in person. He was talking about what he claimed happened on the road to Damascus.

Notice that all you have to corroborate this, is the word of Paul, and that of his physician and traveling companion Luke, who also never met Jesus.

That is, in modern terms, like me coming to you and claiming Jesus had come to me and made me his spokesperson, and then offering my best friend as proof.

And, mind you, I am not saying that Jesus does not have the right to choose someone who was NOT an apostle, (And neither Paul nor Luke were) but when you also consider that Paul substantially changed the message of Jesus, it is even less credible.

Paul contradicts Jesus in many ways, arguing for pay for preaching, 1Tim.5 1Cor.9 when Jesus was clear that it should be done free, Matt.10:8.

As well as arguing that Jesus' death released us from the requirement to live according to the law, despite the fact that Jesus was clear that,

www.biblegateway.com...:19&version=KJV

Matthew 5:19 (King James Version)

19Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

If you cared to, you could find whole lists of specific passages where Paul is in direct contradiction to Jesus, on the internet so that you did not have to hunt them down on your own.

I realize what I am arguing is not the popular view, but I am far from the only person who holds it. IF you believe in Jesus, (have faith in him, in his word as truth) you should follow HIS word, and not the word of someone who came along later, is suspect because of his past actions,

www.biblegateway.com...:18&version=KJV

Matthew 7:18 (King James Version)

18A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

And because we have NO ONES word for what he claims other than his own, and that of his employee and friend.

Im not telling you what to believe. Its your business. A general question was asked, and I answered in the thread. I think the original asker of that question has a right to hear more than one view, not only the one that I believe is corrupt and heretical.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
Paul, (and we only have his word and that of Luke) was not claiming he met Jesus in person. He was talking about what he claimed happened on the road to Damascus.

Notice that all you have to corroborate this, is the word of Paul, and that of his physician and traveling companion Luke, who also never met Jesus.

Where do you get that at? Paul says he met Jesus. Is he lying or telling the truth?

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
And, mind you, I am not saying that Jesus does not have the right to choose someone who was NOT an apostle, (And neither Paul nor Luke were) but when you also consider that Paul substantially changed the message of Jesus, it is even less credible.

How could Paul have changed the message of Jesus when it was Jesus that gave him the message?

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
Paul contradicts Jesus in many ways, arguing for pay for preaching, 1Tim.5 1Cor.9 when Jesus was clear that it should be done free, Matt.10:8.

If you go three verse above in Matt 10:5 you'll see in CONTEXT who Jesus was talking to:
Matt 10:5
"These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them,"
Ya gotta stay in CONTEXT.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
As well as arguing that Jesus' death released us from the requirement to live according to the law, despite the fact that Jesus was clear that.

The law was for the Jews not gentiles.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
If you cared to, you could find whole lists of specific passages where Paul is in direct contradiction to Jesus, on the internet so that you did not have to hunt them down on your own.

I'd rather say that unbelieving people take Bible verses out of CONTEXT.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
I realize what I am arguing is not the popular view, but I am far from the only person who holds it. IF you believe in Jesus, (have faith in him, in his word as truth) you should follow HIS word, and not the word of someone who came along later, is suspect because of his past actions,

Jesus commissioned Paul to preach the Gospel. Since Paul was approved of Jesus then Paul is alright.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
And because we have NO ONES word for what he claims other than his own, and that of his employee and friend.

Unbelieving and believing scholars believe that Paul wrote at least 6-8 of his letters and that they are authentic.
Don't forget Paul wrote some of his letters in prison without his employee and friend.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
Im not telling you what to believe. Its your business. A general question was asked, and I answered in the thread. I think the original asker of that question has a right to hear more than one view, not only the one that I believe is corrupt and heretical.

It's the consensus of scholars who believe and who don't believe that Paul wrote 6-8 of his letters and that they are authentic.
Paul then states that he met Christ. They talked to each other and that means that Christ is real.





[edit on 7/29/2010 by texastig]

Either you are flat our lying, or you really dont know. Paul never met Jesus.

He claimed that, after Jesus had already died, Jesus appeared to him on the road to Damascus.

Its not controversial. Paul was not one of the 12. Ever. No one claims, that. Not even people who accept Paul.

The twelve were,

en.wikipedia.org...

Traditionally, the Twelve Apostles include Peter (whom some denominations consider the "Prince of the Apostles");[3] Andrew, James the Greater, James the Lesser, John, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, Thaddeus, Simon, and Judas Iscariot. Judas had been one of the Twelve, but he betrayed Jesus and killed himself.[4] With Judas gone, Matthias became one of the Twelve.

Paul could not claim in his lifetime that he had met Jesus in person, and so he didnt. Those who actually did travel with Jesus would have easily refuted any such claim to legitimacy. So he did something clever. He claimed something that the real 12 could not as easily deny. He claimed he met Jesus after Jesus died and was resurrected. As the Holy Spirit.

Again, this is not controversial. My stand that he never DID meet the Holy Spirit, and that he is a liar and a heretic may be controversial, but the fact that he never met the living Jesus is an accepted fact.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
Either you are flat our lying, or you really dont know. Paul never met Jesus.

I'm not lying and I do know that Paul met Jesus. Historians and scholars believe that Paul met Jesus.
Two professors at Oxford, Gilbert West and Lord Lyttleton, were determined to destroy the basis of the Christian faith. West was going to demonstrate the fallacy of the resurrection and Lyttleton was going to prove that Saul of Tarsus had never converted to Christianity. Both men came to the opposite conclusion and became ardent followers of Jesus.
From: www.greatcom.org...

Here's the verses again from the Bible that Paul stated he met Jesus:
Acts 9:5 [Paul spoke to Jesus and Jesus spoke back to Paul. If they were speaking to each other how could they have not met?]
"And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: [it is] hard for thee to kick against the pricks."

1Cor 9:1 [Paul is asking a rhetorical question. Which means he said he seen Christ]
"Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord?"

1Cor 15:8 [Paul states that he seen Jesus]
"And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time."

2 Corinthians 5:16 [Paul states that he had known Christ after the flesh]
"Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we [him] no more."

German theologian Johannes Weissin in his Paulus und Jesus, 1909, pp. 23-31 (English Trans. pp. 41-56) and his Das Urchristentum pp. 137ff. and 347ff states this:
"The wholly arbitrary assumption of theology that Paul had not known Jesus in his lifetime is finally excluded by the express statement of the Apostle himself in 2 Cor. 5 16.
The words as they stand admit no other interpretation than... that Paul had seen and known Jesus in person."

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
He claimed that, after Jesus had already died, Jesus appeared to him on the road to Damascus.

Paul was alive as Saul and a Pharisee when Jesus was alive.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
Its not controversial. Paul was not one of the 12. Ever. No one claims, that. Not even people who accept Paul.

I never brought that up.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
Paul could not claim in his lifetime that he had met Jesus in person, and so he didnt. Those who actually did travel with Jesus would have easily refuted any such claim to legitimacy. So he did something clever. He claimed something that the real 12 could not as easily deny. He claimed he met Jesus after Jesus died and was resurrected. As the Holy Spirit.

Again, this is not controversial. My stand that he never DID meet the Holy Spirit, and that he is a liar and a heretic may be controversial, but the fact that he never met the living Jesus is an accepted fact.

I never brought that up either. Paul never stated the Jesus died and was resurrected as the Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit is another manifestation of God.
Your fact that Paul never met Jesus goes against historical and scholarly information.
So I would like to ask you this, why are you kicking against the goads?
Will you accept Christ as your Savior so that your sins can be forgiven and that you can have a new life in Him?
Christ took our punishment and He loved you enough to die for you.




[edit on 7/29/2010 by texastig]

reply to post by texastig


No. Im sorry. Paul did not meet Jesus while alive.

Acts 9:5 Is a conversation Paul is having with Jesus who appears to him as a disembodied voice and a light shining down from heaven, AFTER HE IS DEAD and ascended. Read the verses preceding it.

www.biblegateway.com...

3And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven:

4And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?

5And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

6And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.

7And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.

1Cor15:8 is AGAIN Paul stating he has seen Jesus after he was resurrected. Read what comes before 15:8, such as,

www.biblegateway.com...:4-8&version=KJV

1 Corinthians 15:4-8 (King James Version)

4And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

5And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:

6After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.

7After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.

8And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

You admit that 2Cor5:16 is after death, so no need to quote that.

And I am not sure why you think you need to ask me to accept Jesus. I am not the one forsaking his teachings for those of Paul. You cannot convert me to Pauls religion. Im not buying it.

en.wikipedia.org...

The historical Jesus is fundamental to the teachings of Paul.[3] While not personally an eye-witness of Jesus' ministry, Paul states that he was acquainted with people who had known Jesus: the apostle Peter (also known as Cephas), the apostle John, and James, the brother of Jesus.[4

[edit on 29-7-2010 by Illusionsaregrander]

Can you tell me why the other apostles teach the same things as Paul? (Peter, John) Or can you please tell me why the disciple of Peter (Clement of Rome) and the Disciple of John (Polycarp) all rely heavily on the same teachings and epistles Paul wrote?

One would reasonable think that if Paul were a heretic then Peter, James, John and their disciples would say so instead of rely on his teaching and epistles.

:bnghd:

reply to post by NOTurTypical


James refutes Pauls claim that faith alone is the path to salvation.

1Peter clearly calls for works, not faith alone, as does James. 1Peter has the possibility of actually being Peters work, or inspired by it at least. 2Peter is not considered by most to be Peters work.

You would have to point out to me specific places you feel John, (or any of them) support Pauls claims that faith alone will save you, and the law is no longer applicable. Or where they claim that Paul is indeed chosen by Jesus to come in and mess around with Jesus' message, because none of them do.

Why churches rely on Paul? Because Paul is the source of authority for founding a church that takes money at all. Jesus forbade it. The church as we know it would not exist without Paul. He is the one who moved us away from the Spirit of Truth Jesus promised would come to reside with and in us, to guide and comfort us after his passing, to a church that will guide and comfort us, for a price. He is the one who moved us from Jesus life (example) and words/teachings as the way to salvation, to faith that his death redeemed us, and the belief that the scriptures were the be all and end all.

reply to post by Balkan


According to most, if not all, of Christianity yes they are. According to the bible no they are not, and, as a matter of fact, nobody is at this point in time.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

James refutes Pauls claim that faith alone is the path to salvation.

No James doesn't, James simply says that saving faith WILL produce works or "fruits of the spirit" in someone's life. But that is after saving faith. Jesus says Himself that faith alone is the key to salvation in John 3:16. In most Bibles John 3:16 is in red lettering. I'm sure you know the verse. Nowhere does Jesus say works are needed for salvation, in fact the bible clearly states that all our "RIGHTEOUS acts" before God are "filthy rags" (Isaiah 64:6), and in the Hebrew it's more accurately described as menstrual rags.

James and Paul do not disagree in their teaching regarding salvation. They approach the same subject from different perspectives. Paul simply emphasized that justification is by faith alone while James put emphasis on the fact that genuine faith in Christ produces good works.

1Peter clearly calls for works, not faith alone, as does James. 1Peter has the possibility of actually being Peters work, or inspired by it at least. 2Peter is not considered by most to be Peters work.

Really?? LOL, 2 Peter is not considered by WHOM to be Peter's work? 2 Peter 1:1 says this:

"Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, .." and 2 Peter 3:1 says this:

"This SECOND epistle, beloved, I now write unto you.."

ANYONE who says 2 Peter wasn't written by Peter has never read 2 Peter, sorry that's an absurd statement. Secondly, lets see what Peter says in his first epistle:

"Who are kept by the power of God THROUGH FAITH unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time." ~ 1 Peter 1:5

"Receiving the end of your FAITH, even the salvation of your souls." ~ 1 Peter 1:9

If you're still in doubt, read 1 John chapter 5. You must understand, just because a person SAYS they have faith does not mean they actually have faith. People lie. Or better put, a PROFESSION of faith does not mean a POSSESSION of faith. James says that a person can prove their faith by the works it leads to, but faith is the first step. Works are just the fruits of a born again person.

You would have to point out to me specific places you feel John, (or any of them) support Pauls claims that faith alone will save you, and the law is no longer applicable. Or where they claim that Paul is indeed chosen by Jesus to come in and mess around with Jesus' message, because none of them do.

Sure:

"But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God," 1 John 1:12

"Though you have not seen him, you love him. Though you do not now see him, you believe in him and rejoice with joy that is inexpressible and filled with glory, obtaining the outcome of your faith, the salvation of your souls." 1 Peter 1:8-9

"Very truly, I tell you, anyone who hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and does not come under judgment, but has passed from death to life." John 5:24

"What must I do to perform the works of God?" Jesus answered them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent." John 6:28-29

"Very truly, I tell you, whoever believes has eternal life." John 6:47

"I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies." John 11:25

"Jesus Christ--he is Lord of all. They put him to death by hanging him on a tree; but God raised him on the third day....everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name." Acts 10:36,39,40,43

"Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" They answered, "Believe on the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved." Acts 16:30-31

Why churches rely on Paul? Because Paul is the source of authority for founding a church that takes money at all. Jesus forbade it.

Are you kidding me? You're going to tell me Jesus forbade people to pay tithes and offerings? God says when we keep the 10th that is His we "rob Him".

He is the one who moved us from Jesus life (example) and words/teachings as the way to salvation, to faith that his death redeemed us, and the belief that the scriptures were the be all and end all.

Christ's DEATH was necessary for our justification to the Father through our faith in Him.

“The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” Matthew 20:28

This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." Matthew 26:28

Paul AND Peter both state Jesus died for us and took our sins upon Himself. Paul says that Jesus died “for us” (Romans 5:6-8; 2 Corinthians 5:14; 1 Thessalonians 5:10); he also says that he died “for our sins” (1 Corinthians 15:3; Gal. 1:4). “He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree” (1 Peter 2:24; 3:18).

Jesus’ death is also described as a sacrifice. The idea of sacrifice draws on the rich imagery of Old Testament sacrifices. Isaiah 53:10 calls our Savior a “guilt offering.” John the Baptist calls him the Lamb “who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29). Paul calls him a “sacrifice of atonement,” a “sin offering,” a “Passover lamb,” a “fragrant offering” (Romans 3:25; 8:3; 1 Corinthians 5:7; Ephesians 5:2). Hebrews 10:12 calls him a “sacrifice for sins.” John calls him “the atoning sacrifice for our sins” (1 John 2:2; 4:10).

Sorry to burst your bubble, Paul, Peter, James, John, Luke, Matthew, Mark, Timothy, and JESUS all agree on doctrine.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

No James doesn't, James simply says that saving faith WILL produce works or "fruits of the spirit" in someone's life. But that is after saving faith.

James says,

James 2:14-26 (King James Version)

14What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?

15If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,

16And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?

17Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

18Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

19Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

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

I dont know how much more clear he could be. Works are the perfect expression of faith, and claiming faith without works is empty rhetoric.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Jesus says Himself that faith alone is the key to salvation in John 3:16.

No he doesnt. He says you have to believeth in him. Which means, you have to trust him, take him at his word, believe what he is telling you, believe he is giving you Gods true word, not believe his death will take all your responsibility for following Gods word away from you.

And Jesus is very clear about the law, he does not say you can disregard it,

www.biblegateway.com...

16Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.

17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

19Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

20For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Now Paulians say that by fulfill, Jesus means it as we do today, to complete, and they take that to mean that his death has ended the requirements. Jesus could not be more clear that this is not so, when you read the whole thing, rather than cherry pick.

"Fulfil" means to fill up, fill out, flesh out, make whole, as Jesus is using it. How do we know? Because he goes on in the same chapter to do just that.

INCREASING your requirements, by saying,

27Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:

28But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Among others in that same chapter. He is fulfilling the laws by making them more clear, and filling them out to make their meaning more obvious, not that his life and death make you somehow exempt from them.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Really?? LOL, 2 Peter is not considered by WHOM to be Peter's work? 2 Peter 1:1 says this:

en.wikipedia.org...

Although 2 Peter internally purports to be a work of the apostle, most biblical scholars have concluded that Peter is not the author, and instead consider the epistle pseudepigraphical.[2] Reasons for this include its linguistic differences from 1 Peter, its apparent use of Jude, possible allusions to second-century gnosticism, encouragement in the wake of a delayed parousia, and weak external support.[3]

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
"Who are kept by the power of God THROUGH FAITH unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time." ~ 1 Peter 1:5

"Receiving the end of your FAITH, even the salvation of your souls." ~ 1 Peter 1:9

You are cherry picking again. I am not going to quote the whole chapter, but it is clear that he is saying that you must have faith in Jesus, but that this faith to Jesus word must be evident in your works. Read the whole thing. Dont just scan for the word "faith" and claim that supports your argument.

www.biblegateway.com...

1 Peter 1:22 (King James Version)

22Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently:

He makes it clear your faith is evident in your obedience to Jesus teachings. Not by just believing Jesus died for you.

You oick out phrases that say "faith" and "believe" and you act as though that guarantees that that means faith alone. It doesnt. Jesus is asking you to have faith in him, believe him, do as he says. He never once says that his death redeems you, and relieves you of a duty to live as he did. HE is the way, which means you must live like him. Not just believe he died for you.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Sorry to burst your bubble, Paul, Peter, James, John, Luke, Matthew, Mark, Timothy, and JESUS all agree on doctrine.

And I am sorry to burst yours. No, they really dont. Jesus called you to follow him. To live as he instructed, and to be like him. (As well as we could) He offered no one a free ride to heaven via his death.

Those who claim to be Christian who are judging, hating, and wishing to strike their enemy are not Christian. And the fact that Jesus died will not save them.

www.biblegateway.com...

21Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

22Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

23And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

24Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:

25And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.

26And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:

27And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.

Jesus did not come to give us a free ride. He asked everything of his disciples. They had to give up everything to follow him, and after hearing all of what he said, in context, not in cherry picked snippets that have a word you can commandeer to your meaning by ignoring its meaning in context, you really think he forgot to tell us all we had to do is believe that his death freed us from all obligation to follow his example?

Totally up to you. Its between you and God, and not my business.

But there is a reason Jesus warns of false prophets, and that many will get lost following them.



[edit on 29-7-2010 by Illusionsaregrander]

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
No. Im sorry. Paul did not meet Jesus while alive.

I didn't say that. I said "Paul was alive as Saul and a Pharisee when Jesus was alive."

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
Acts 9:5 Is a conversation Paul is having with Jesus who appears to him as a disembodied voice and a light shining down from heaven, AFTER HE IS DEAD and ascended. Read the verses preceding it.

In 1Cor 9:1, "have I not seen?"

1Cor 15:8, "he was seen of me"

2 Corinthians 5:16, "we have known Christ after the flesh".

To see someone, to have known them, to talk to them and them talk to you means that he met Christ. It doesn't matter how Jesus appeared to him because they met.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
1Cor15:8 is AGAIN Paul stating he has seen Jesus after he was resurrected. Read what comes before 15:8, such as,

Doesn't matter if he was or wasn't resurrected. Paul met him.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
1Cor 15:8And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

You posted a verse stating the Paul has seen Jesus.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
And I am not sure why you think you need to ask me to accept Jesus. I am not the one forsaking his teachings for those of Paul. You cannot convert me to Pauls religion. Im not buying it.

I never did ask you to forsake Jesus teachings for Paul. I think you've been misinformed about Paul. Paul and Jesus were in sync. Paul pointed people to Christ. There is nothing wrong with Paul. He was a very humble man after he got saved and was preaching the message of Christ in that He can forgive us of our sins by just believing in Him.
Where did you get your hatred for Paul at?
Are you a believer in Christ?

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
The historical Jesus is fundamental to the teachings of Paul. While not personally an eye-witness of Jesus' ministry, Paul states that he was acquainted with people who had known Jesus: the apostle Peter (also known as Cephas), the apostle John, and James, the brother of Jesus.

I agree with that.

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander

I dont know how much more clear he could be. Works are the perfect expression of faith, and claiming faith without works is empty rhetoric.

I AGREE. But what you're improperly applying to the text is that salvation is faith PLUS works. But that isn't what James is saying, James is saying a person who says they have faith but no works to back it up most likely means their faith is "dead".

Now, 2 Peter starts with a claim that it's written by "Simon Peter" an "apostle of Jesus Christ". And in the 3rd chapter Peter correctly states that it is his "2ND epistle". It doesn't get any more plain than that. Anyone claiming 2 Peter isn't written by Peter is obviously embarrassed by Peter's statement in chapter 3 verses 15-16...

"OUR BELOVED BROTHER PAUL wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in ALL HIS LETTERS (epistles). There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures."

Note Peter says Paul's epistles are SCRIPTURE.

Our God is a loving and just God who wants all of His children with him in Heaven.

In Revelations it tells us that those who have not had the chance to hear or know about Christ will get their chance at His Second Coming. If you really take the time to read you will see that our Heavenly Father gives chanches to the people 'left behind' after the Rapture to come to Faith.

As I said before, It was NEVER His wish to lose even ONE of his children.

Peace,
Grandma

reply to post by Balkan


I have read the line"hell is before the christ" im not sure if that means a man goes through hell and becomes the christ?

Originally posted by Balkan
Searched a bit, but didn't find the question I'm asking, although it's probably already been asked. Serious question, not inflamatory...

Are all the people who died after Christ died, but had never heard of him, burning in hell? Native Americans, for example. Surely thousands and thousands died before any euro came over and introduced (polite way to put it) them to Christ? If they are burning in hell as degenerates or whatever, surely they never got a chance to exercise their freewill? The usual answer I get to this is that the native americans actually knew Jesus in their hearts and always had a choice. Would like to hear all thoughts...

The short answer is no, they're not.
Aside from anything else, I am a Christian Universalist, who believes that everyone is saved (eventually), but those who have never heard, are held to a different standard from those who have.
When I first became a Christian, when I was in my teens, that was the first question I asked and I was told that those who have never heard of Christ are saved "according to the light they had" - that is according to the tenets of their own culture and religion...
I am confident that all will eventually make it to Heaven anyway, even if it takes millennia in some cases, so it's sort of a non-question!
Vicky