Paul The First Heretic

reply to post by Akragon

Anyone claiming that those people are lost do not understand the message... Children going to hell?!? CHILDREN?.... The ones that do not judge anyone because they don't understand judgement... The innocent ones still new to this life....are going to hell...

No, the pastor is not saying "some of our own children" as in literal people under the age of 5 or 6. The pastor is saying children in the sense of sons and daughters. I'm 34 years old and still one of my parents' children. The bible is clear that children are not held accountable until they reach the age of accountability. It's also my opinion that mentally handicapped people are not judged if they cannot understand the gospel and reject it. God is merciful and He understands what a person has the capacity to understand and what they don't. He judges on a person's ability to understand and reject the gospel.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Akragon

 

Great thats an opinion which is what im looking for... Im sure any church would consider me a heretic anyways... im good with that honestly... i consider all churches heretic so *shrug* Cest la vie

No friend, you're not a heretic. A heretic is someone who claims to be a believer yet teaches contrary to the gospel. You're simply an "unbeliever", and I don't mean that in a derogatory sense so please take no offense.

Also, I did post a snippet of an article, but the rule on not posting a part of an article without your own interpretation or commentary is for starting new threads.

P.S. No, that's not my church, I live in Indianapolis, Indiana. My church is this one.

No i take no offence at all, i have my beliefs and if those make me an unbeliever to you thats fine with me. Though you might find we do have some similaritites.

I will take a look at your church and reply accordingly

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Akragon

 

Anyone claiming that those people are lost do not understand the message... Children going to hell?!? CHILDREN?.... The ones that do not judge anyone because they don't understand judgement... The innocent ones still new to this life....are going to hell...

No, the pastor is not saying "some of our own children" as in literal people under the age of 5 or 6. The pastor is saying children in the sense of sons and daughters. I'm 34 years old and still one of my parents' children. The bible is clear that children are not held accountable until they reach the age of accountability. It's also my opinion that mentally handicapped people are not judged if they cannot understand the gospel and reject it. God is merciful and He understands what a person has the capacity to understand and what they don't. He judges on a person's ability to understand and reject the gospel.

thank you for your clairification

reply to post by Akragon


No need to reply concerning my church, just wanted to let you know the sermon I posted wasn't from my pastor, nor do I live in Nebraska.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Akragon

 

No need to reply concerning my church, just wanted to let you know the sermon I posted wasn't from my pastor, nor do I live in Nebraska.

Fair enough, im still gonna look though

Originally posted by Akragon

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Akragon

 

No need to reply concerning my church, just wanted to let you know the sermon I posted wasn't from my pastor, nor do I live in Nebraska.

Fair enough, im still gonna look though

No, no, I didn't mean it like that, feel free to check it out. Just wanted to let you know I wasn't looking for you to respond it it. Just wanted to share where I attend church. I'm in ministry there, I teach the pre-K (4 year olds) children.

Originally posted by eight bits
adjensen

Curiously, the works that tend that way (the Gospels, particularly John, the letters of Peter and James) are the ones that are most often attacked as to the authenticity of the authorship.

I don't think it's curious at all, adj. What lays them open for criticism is that they seem late. And the divinity cum humanity of Jesus, beyond a sense in which we humans are all arguably divine, may be a late idea, or at least late to overtake finally all competing christologies, which apparently were numerous early on among sincere believers.

Well, I think that there's enough of that in Paul's epistles (though not as overtly) to assume that, at least at the time of his writing, it was an accepted notion. That's the curious bit -- even if you disprove, say, the Gospel of John, you're still left with all this stuff over here that preceded it and says much the same thing, just in a different way.

As much as I study the history of the early church and the writings of the church fathers (and the heretics, of course :-) I get really aggravated by that "hole" that exists from about 33AD - 50AD or so. It's very unfortunate that the resources that Luke seemed to have at his disposal for the writing of Acts didn't survive, because I, too, would like to know whether schisms existed in that time and how they came to be. So far as I know, the first "real" organized heresy was the Ebionites, and that was a long time after Paul, though Paul and John both write to churches, cautioning against what appears to be early Gnostic intrusions (though nothing like what came in the mid First Century.)

Originally posted by Akragon
2. Why do you think im trying to sell you something?

EightBits is one of the sharpest agnostics that I've ever met, and I think a part of his sharpness is the recognition that everyone is always trying to sell you something

Originally posted by Akragon
Was it not in that same reply i pointed out that Jesus didn't come to just israel, but to the world?

And, as I noted, that only is applicable to the Gentiles through Paul's teachings. Christ telling people to proclaim the Gospel in all nations can be read (if one dislikes Paul) as being a message to carry it to the Jews who didn't live in Israel, who were very numerous, even in that time.

Isn't it better to prove this artical is wrong rather then bash it all to hell and ruin a good discussion?

Well, I don't understand how one starts a "good discussion" with an article that is both completely wrong and intentionally inflammatory, but, like I said, I'm here for the corrections, not for proselytizing. I still don't think that my first response was particularly rude (apart from mistaking you for someone in another thread who made pretty much the same claims,) but I apologize if you took offence anyway.

If you had done the comparison between the claims in the article and what the Bible actually says before starting the thread, would you still have started it?

reply to post by adjensen

EightBits is one of the sharpest agnostics that I've ever met, and I think a part of his sharpness is the recognition that everyone is always trying to sell you something

I can appreciate that, i actually feel the same way... but i assure you im not.

Let me ask you the same question i asked Notyourtypical...

quote

There are people who do not read the bible. There are people that know nothing of religious matters. There are people who are not spiritual or religious at all, yet they're still good people. There are children who grow up to be very good people yet know nothing of christ.

and i'll add, people of different beliefs such as Islam, or hinduism or what have you... Do you condem these people as he does? Do you say they will end up in "hell" if they don't agree with your (insert affiliation) views of what the bible says? Because your belief is the only correct one?

AND....... Do you believe the pasasge he quoted to back up his view... "the teachings of christ will be taught the world over ( or everyone in the world) regardless of their beliefs....and then the end will come".

reply to post by adjensen

And, as I noted, that only is applicable to the Gentiles through Paul's teachings. Christ telling people to proclaim the Gospel in all nations can be read (if one dislikes Paul) as being a message to carry it to the Jews who didn't live in Israel, who were very numerous, even in that time

I would still have to disagree, i believe this passage says very clearly hes come to the world not just israel...

I'll quote it again so you don't have to go searching... his disciples asked him to send her away because she isn't one of us... As far as i've found Canaan was a different tribe, not part of Israel. Christ was saying it doesn't matter who you are... or where you come from.

22 And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.

23 But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.

24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

25 Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.

26 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs.

27 And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table.

28 Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.

...
..
.

Well, I don't understand how one starts a "good discussion" with an article that is both completely wrong and intentionally inflammatory, but, like I said, I'm here for the corrections, not for proselytizing. I still don't think that my first response was particularly rude (apart from mistaking you for someone in another thread who made pretty much the same claims,) but I apologize if you took offence anyway

Well this is three pages now, we've covered a few things and i've learned a little... At this point we are discussing the matter openly and without attacking each other. I call that a good discussion, how about you?

Regardless of the intentions of the writer it is an opinion shared by many... So again, if you disagree with what is said in it (actually i do myself ) ...instead of bashing the thread or the idea of it.... defend your postion with logical rational discussion... quote if you must to show the writer is wrong...

This is how a discussion works... This is why i made this thread, for a discussion not a fight.

If you had done the comparison between the claims in the article and what the Bible actually says before starting the thread, would you still have started it?

Absolutly!!

Akragon

Since it could have been unclear, I meant the article had shortcomings, not that you were to be criticized for posting the article for discussion.

1. Do you not believe jesus traveled to india and many other places in his 17 year disapearance? I believe its very possible how about you?

Many things are possible. There is a specific "Jesus in India" story which appears fabricated. Might Jesus have gone to India anyway? Sure. Is there anything about him or his teachings that show an unusual affinity for some peculiarly Indian perspective? Not that I can see.

His preaching that is "Indo-European" is easily explained by the pervasive Hellenism of the time, including the various Indo-European influences on the Judaism of his day. Judaism, hands down, is the major influence on his teaching. He didn't pick that up in India, in my opinion.

So, no, I don't think he went to India. My guess is that during the unrecorded years, he worked with his dad (foster dad, if you're a Christian) in construction close to home. Jesus would have met lots of people from lots of places on a job site. I'd bet he learned a few things during lunch breaks that came in handy later on.

2. Why do you think im trying to sell you something?

If you think I'm going to say one word beyond what adjensen said, ... lol

-

reply to post by eight bits


Have you ever heard of St. Issa...? Apparently some believe he was Jesus... I have a thread on it but it was a bad post waaaaaay to long with no link so it died LOL

Take a look...

Lost years...

And heres the full artical...

reluctant-messenger.com...

Its an interesting read to say the least...

Originally posted by Akragon
There are people who do not read the bible. There are people that know nothing of religious matters. There are people who are not spiritual or religious at all, yet they're still good people. There are children who grow up to be very good people yet know nothing of christ.

and i'll add, people of different beliefs such as Islam, or hinduism or what have you... Do you condem these people as he does? Do you say they will end up in "hell" if they don't agree with your (insert affiliation) views of what the bible says? Because your belief is the only correct one?

Well, one correction, first. Neither I, nor NOTurTypical, nor anyone but God condemn anybody for anything (not in the sense that you mean, anyway.) Judgement and condemnation is reserved for God.

Now, there are two answers that I will give you, one theological, one personal, which is somewhat different.

Theologically, yes, Christianity teaches that, without Christ, a person is lost, because we are ALL lost, and always were. If there is an injustice, it is the grace that God extends to those who accept Christ's salvation -- there is no injustice in the condemnation of people who fail to follow God's Law (even if you don't know what it is.)

The depth of that theological answer and its justification is more than we can go into here (Augustine wrote volumes on the subject :-) but that's the gist of it -- God condemns me, because I'm a lazy, greedy and selfish good for nothing, and Christ steps forward and says "no, I've got this", and I'm okay. If you reject Christ's salvation, then you're on your own and no one is going to stand up for you. A person who has asked to live their life without God will be granted their wish, and there is only one place in that realm that a person may be without God.

So that's the theological answer, and the obvious response is "that's just not fair", particularly when, as you noted, it is applied to children. Augustine was one of the first to describe that, and it was a perspective that he felt he needed to go against an ancient heresy, the Pelagians. I am among those who find Augustine's conclusions disturbing, and probably not necessary, but the bottom line is that we are not God, so what seems just or unjust to us is kind of irrelevant.

Now, from a personal perspective, though I am not a Catholic, I lean that way in at least one important doctrinal premise -- purgatory. In a very simplified sense, upon your death, there is an immediate judgement. Those few who are deemed sufficiently "good" (think Martin Luther King, Mother Theresa, Saint Peter, etc) are taken to be with God. Those few who are deemed sufficiently evil (the usual suspects -- Hitler, Stalin, Jim Nabors, lol) are immediately condemned and sent off to hell.

The rest of us, which is pretty much everyone, needs a bit of scrubbing up before we're ready to meet God, and for those who are willing to go through it, something happens to do that, and then you're golden. If, for example, one was an atheist (though not one who actively worked against God and cursed him, I suspect those guys are doomed,) the process might be some sort of thing where you're taught what Christ was all about, and why things would have been better if you'd have had him in your life, and if you accept him, you're in.

This, to me, seems the most "fair", because it's not about what you did in your life, but about faith, and if you can have faith and love and get on board, I have no issue with "second chances." But, again, what I think is fair really doesn't matter -- if I get before God and he condemns me, I can whinge about it, but it's not my opinion that matters.

However, there is another problem against my personal view, a problem that goes by the name of Calvinism. But we can deal with that another time.

AND....... Do you believe the pasasge he quoted to back up his view... "the teachings of christ will be taught the world over ( or everyone in the world) regardless of their beliefs....and then the end will come".

I am not a big student of Christian eschatology for person reasons, so I don't have a wide enough ranging knowledge of the issues involved to venture a guess. It does seem a reasonable criteria, though.

heh, i never claimed to be perfect my friend... i use foul language, i drink, i smoke(unfortunatly)

As someone who is (slowly, sorry, lol) dying of a myriad of lung problems associated with smoking, both by my parents and myself, I hope that you dig deep and drop that habit. I quit cold turkey five years ago as a wedding present for my wife, and that was before any of this stuff really hit, but it was obviously a bit late.

reply to post by adjensen

Well, one correction, first. Neither I, nor NOTurTypical, nor anyone but God condemn anybody for anything (not in the sense that you mean, anyway.) Judgement and condemnation is reserved for God.

Telling people they're going to hell regardless of their beliefs is a judgement my friend... Condeming someone to hell is a judgement... and i can post quotes from him if you like...

Theologically, yes, Christianity teaches that, without Christ, a person is lost, because we are ALL lost, and always were. If there is an injustice, it is the grace that God extends to those who accept Christ's salvation -- there is no injustice in the condemnation of people who fail to follow God's Law (even if you don't know what it is.)

Which leads me back to the question no one can seem to answer.... In a few sentences explain Chirsts teachings. Hes your God right, if you know your God you can answer the question in the manner i suggested. Try not using the bible.... no quotes, your words...

If you reject Christ's salvation, then you're on your own and no one is going to stand up for you.

I would disagree with that. If you are given the tools to "salvation" and still reject them, then you're on your own...i would agree with that, but that still doesn't send you to hell.

Now, from a personal perspective, though I am not a Catholic, I lean that way in at least one important doctrinal premise -- purgatory. In a very simplified sense, upon your death, there is an immediate judgement. Those few who are deemed sufficiently "good" (think Martin Luther King, Mother Theresa, Saint Peter, etc) are taken to be with God. Those few who are deemed sufficiently evil (the usual suspects -- Hitler, Stalin, Jim Nabors, lol) are immediately condemned and sent off to hell.

This i also disagree with and its something we will never agree on unfortunatly. If there is a hell (which i don't believe in) it is reserved for the ones who continuiously choose NOT to learn over several life times. This is another subject which i'll get into in a moment.

It does seem a reasonable criteria, though.

So again, regardless of their belief, even people that are not religious or spiritual...If they don't accept your belief, they're going to hell? Again not something we will agree on...so..

This brings me to my next questions for you...

1. Considering how long our species has existed, considering there is probably life on other planets somewhere in the universe... Do you believe this is the very first time you have existed?

2. Reincaration is taught in various religions all over the world, including some sects of christianity. Theres evidence all over the world of this happening, and you can also find it in the bible if you look. Gnostics taught it as well, which leads me to believe so did jesus... especially if (as you say) every word in the bible is true.

So do you believe in reincarnation?

I'll leave it at that for now...

Originally posted by Akragon
So again, regardless of their belief, even people that are not religious or spiritual...If they don't accept your belief, they're going to hell? Again not something we will agree on...so..

Theologically, yes. Deny Christ and he will deny you, and it is only by being clothed in his righteousness are we saved. Even putting the notion of purgatory into play doesn't resolve it, because there are those who will refuse Christ, even when he's standing right in front of them.

1. Considering how long our species has existed, considering there is probably life on other planets somewhere in the universe... Do you believe this is the very first time you have existed?

Yes, first time, only time. There are logical inconsistencies with the process of reincarnation that I have never seen resolved, and neither orthodox Judaism or orthodox Christianity has any place for it. Since I believe Christianity to be true, I don't either.

2. Reincaration is taught in various religions all over the world, including some sects of christianity. Theres evidence all over the world of this happening, and you can also find it in the bible if you look. Gnostics taught it as well, which leads me to believe so did jesus... especially if (as you say) every word in the bible is true.

It's an attractive notion, particularly if you're not so keen on being judged for your actions (the empirical "you", I'm not singling you out) but still want justice meted out on everyone else who has slighted you. Christ did not teach reincarnation in any sense, and those who claim evidence in scripture are invariably practicing eisegesis -- selectively reading the text to find a basis that isn't there.

The Gnostics taught it because they believed that our spirits are immortal (per Plato) but are imprisoned in the material world and can only escape with the Gnosis that would allow one past the Archons and back to the pleroma. Since that didn't always work out, they needed a resolution of what happens if you've the Divine Spark in you and you die without the passwords -- well, the Archon throws you back and you start over.

So do you believe in reincarnation?

Nope.

reply to post by adjensen

because there are those who will refuse Christ, even when he's standing right in front of them.

do you think you would recognise him if he were standing in front of you?

It's an attractive notion, particularly if you're not so keen on being judged for your actions

Who said you're not judged for your actions? What do you think Karma is for?
Heres a great Karma reference in genesis..

15 And the LORD said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.

What else could the writer be talking about? Especially if it says specifically "people that find him will kill him"? And by your own admission this is the "inspired word of God"... How would vengeance be taken on him that "kills Cain" or any man for that matter, IF he's dead? Or if he ends up in "hell" for his deed... Thats a one time punishment for each, yet the lord clearly says Sevenfold vengeance...

Christ did not teach reincarnation in any sense, and those who claim evidence in scripture are invariably practicing eisegesis

Again we are at odds, i garentee Christ Taught reincarnation though im sure nothing i say will convince you...either way.

Jeremiah 1:4 Then the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, 5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

He chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blemish in his sight and love." (Ephesians 1:4)

4 One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever.
5 The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.
6 The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits.
7 All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again.
8 All things are full of labour; man cannot utter it: the eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing.
9 The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.
10 Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us.
11 There is no remembrance of former things; neither shall there be any remembrance of things that are to come with those that shall come after.

And as he was passing by, he saw a man blind from birth. And his disciples asked him, 'Rabbi, who has sinned, this man or his parents, that he should be born blind?" Jesus answered, 'Neither has this man sinned, nor his parents, but the works of God were to be made manifest in him.'" (John 9:1)

For all the prophets and the law have prophesied until John. And if you are willing to receive it, he is Elijah who was to come." (Matthew 11:13-14)

I can keep going but really my friend, if you say your book is all true, how can you deny the evidence, this is only a portion of what is there, not to mention the gnostic texts and other religious scripture. *shrug*

Since that didn't always work out, they needed a resolution of what happens if you've the Divine Spark in you and you die without the passwords

Again lack of understanding my friend... I don't believe the writers of the gnostic texts understood the teachings fully either, similar to your bible...

Originally posted by Akragon



Can you see now what i say... I know truth my friend....the doctrine of hell isn't truth... its nothing but a fear tactic used to recruit followers.

This 'to recruit followers' line always puzzles me. What for?
Honestly, what evil purpose are you imagining for the recruiting of followers? Strikes me a bit paranoid, sorry.
Vicky

Originally posted by Vicky32

Originally posted by Akragon



Can you see now what i say... I know truth my friend....the doctrine of hell isn't truth... its nothing but a fear tactic used to recruit followers.

This 'to recruit followers' line always puzzles me. What for?
Honestly, what evil purpose are you imagining for the recruiting of followers? Strikes me a bit paranoid, sorry.
Vicky

No problem, its simple...follow the church, go to their sermons, Give them money, in turn you're saved. I didn't say anything about evil. I said Hell is a fear tactic... To get you to believe what they want you to...

reply to post by Akragon

Telling people they're going to hell regardless of their beliefs is a judgement my friend... Condeming someone to hell is a judgement... and i can post quotes from him if you like...

So? How does that change what Adj said that "judgment and condemnation is reserved for God"?? Do you think either he or myself thought this idea up? I'm pretty sure if I repeat something God has said I'm just in agreement with His condemnation and judgment that was written down before I was born.

If you're watching a trial and the verdict is given and you agree with the verdict that doesn't immediately put you on the jury of 12.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Akragon

 

Telling people they're going to hell regardless of their beliefs is a judgement my friend... Condeming someone to hell is a judgement... and i can post quotes from him if you like...

So? How does that change what Adj said that "judgment and condemnation is reserved for God"?? Do you think either he or myself thought this idea up? I'm pretty sure if I repeat something God has said I'm just in agreement with His condemnation and judgment that was written down before I was born.

If you're watching a trial and the verdict is given and you agree with the verdict that doesn't immediately put you on the jury of 12.

Are you God? Why are you making his judgements for him?

Perhaps you think God needs a spokesman?