false apostle Paul is the 1st AntiChrist! Christians quote Paul to counter radical teachings of Jes

Very interesting read there. I will look more into it. I know where you are coming from and you have an argument even though you worded it very weird. But that's probably due to a language barrier so I'm not worried about that. Taking that into consideration, I do understand what you are trying to say regarding the teachings of the Savior vs the teachings of Paul.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

You're mixing thermodynamics with quantum physics, specifically the nature of time.

And the problem with that is?

Secondly, that's what miracles are, event horizons where the natural observable laws of physics, time and space are interrupted by an act of God.

Any evidence of time ever being "interrupted" that you can recall?

Time was created.

What wasn't?

Once energy is created it cannot be destroyed.

Is the spirit not an energy?

Or perhaps we are just meat...

reply to post by Akragon


Oooh I love it when you speak for me with such authority when you don't think I'm here to speak for myself.

BTW. I said I found what he said interesting and will be looking into further. I'm not that obsessed with Paul and yes, I am a Christian.

reply to post by skepticconwatcher






Did i miss something?

Originally posted by skepticconwatcher
Very interesting read there. I will look more into it. I know where you are coming from and you have an argument even though you worded it very weird. But that's probably due to a language barrier so I'm not worried about that. Taking that into consideration, I do understand what you are trying to say regarding the teachings of the Savior vs the teachings of Paul.

Yes and thanks. Why can't Christians use other teachings of Jesus when I'm presenting an idea of Jesus?

They keep saying, the word of God is a 'double edged sword' which tells you to do this, but you can also do that in another context. And they have to quote different verses from different people/perspective to prove their point.

Often when I say, Jesus encouraged very austere living, they counter with OT verses and quote many men of God who are rich. When Jesus said to carry your cross, they can't accept it's literal.

The cross is real. If you try to preach Jesus teachings in its literal context, and I've tried on a few Christians myself. They will get furiously mad. It's very hard to part people with their money. You can see where their loyalties are, and who their God is - money. I'm testing them with make-believe scenarios and guess what? They would be much happier if they get a job with 5x more salary than getting an opportunity to preach the Gospel in a Muslim country. They would pick the former if you can only choose once. They don't believe in giving your everything, including your life to show your love to God (1st commandment). Of course, dying or getting killed is not always the opportunity, but if opportunity presents, this is how a True Christian must live. They are prepared to go through hell for God.

The teaching of Jesus is radical, he hates, despises money and material things and this angered the Pharisees who think they can serve God and money at the same time. That's why they crucify Him. If everyone were to follow Jesus, the world economic and power system would collapse overnight, those in power will lose their power and authority, that's how powerful and dangerous the message is. That's why they desperately want Jesus and his followers dead.

Only FEW are willing to go this far. And the Jesus really meant it when he said only FEW will find the narrow gate and go through the narrow road.

reply to post by Akragon


Apart from a copyright violation, what the heck is that supposed to be?

reply to post by adjensen


highly amusing?



What the hell is skepticconwatcher talking about?

Why would i speak for him/her?

Originally posted by Akragon
What is he/she talking about?

Boy, you got me. That clip is so butchered, apart from the caterpillar asking "Who R U", the remainder is gibberish.

reply to post by adjensen


ya that part was all that mattered

i think it was supposed to be a cheesy sexual joke...

reply to post by Akragon


I thought it was you who said "CHRISTIANS love Paul" and assumed we would not listen to the OP's argument about Paul teaching doctrine opposed to what Jesus taught. If not , I am mistaken.

but i would expect Christians to be on this topic like flies on a turd... They love paul, and routinely use his words to defend against Jesus... how sad is that?

Oh yeah. You did.

reply to post by skepticconwatcher


Thank you for clairifying that...

I was lost

Perhaps i should have said "most" Christians... or even many?

reply to post by Akragon


That would have been better.

reply to post by adjensen

But Paul's letters were included intentionally in the New Testament, because they are of value in understanding Christianity, both historically and theologically.

Christianity can be understood by reading the words of Jesus.
Pauls letters just give insight into what Paul personally believed. He was just a person with an opinion.
The problem began when his letters became canonized and his ideas started to fuse with the real message of Jesus and the prophets.

Why? Because these books have stood over 1,900 years of intense scrutiny by some of the most intelligent minds over that period of time. If Augustine, Martin Luther or Thomas Aquinas didn't find direct contradictions,

Those men were neither prophets nor apostles, so that doesn't validate Paul as an apostle.
If anything at all, they too were misled by Paul.... and made the same mistake as most other christians in thinking "Pauls letters are bound in the bible, therefore it has to be true".

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


Read 2 Peter 3:15-16.. he was an apostle and prophet.

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
Christianity can be understood by reading the words of Jesus.
Pauls letters just give insight into what Paul personally believed. He was just a person with an opinion.
The problem began when his letters became canonized and his ideas started to fuse with the real message of Jesus and the prophets.

Maybe I'm just too hard on Paul. It was ultimately the Canon process that was responsible for the text getting into the Bible.

Imagine this, if the more important Canon process blew it, how much more of the Bible is at odds with the truth?

After I repented as a Christian, I began to read the whole Bible. I also began to search for the real truth behind the world's miseries. ATS was very helpful in this research, probably a few years back. My conspiracies and UFO research background helped immensely.

Only recently I went deeper onto this research. I actually did it on the secular point of view but I was biased towards absolute moralism. I believe that the ideal mindset would not leave anyone and any creature 'behind' and that any progress can only be made if no creature is to be sacrificed or be disadvantaged. Anything we do has to be for the benefit of the least. This is probably what the workings of the Holy Spirit is all about or I am only just a huge Star Trek fan and its ideologies

With this moral bias, I deduced that the Bible only contained a small percentage of truth in it. All of it came from the first hand observation of Jesus and the teachings Himself. Jesus wasn't unreasonable when He told to hate this world (modern human society) because it was built upon oppression of other humans, animals, and nature. If your dreams and desires are in it then your are part of this oppressive system.

Jesus loves animals and He worked to abolish animal sacrifice. This is why partaking in our corrupt system is a sin as you would be breaking law #2 whether you know it or not. It's our responsibility to open our eyes and realize all the evil being done to our planet all in the name of profit (money).

We should no longer partake or even be in this system as true followers of Jesus

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by sk0rpi0n

 

Read 2 Peter 3:15-16.. he was an apostle and prophet.

I'm going to add to this...

Galatians 2:7-9

7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;

8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles.)

9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n

Why? Because these books have stood over 1,900 years of intense scrutiny by some of the most intelligent minds over that period of time. If Augustine, Martin Luther or Thomas Aquinas didn't find direct contradictions,

Those men were neither prophets nor apostles, so that doesn't validate Paul as an apostle.
If anything at all, they too were misled by Paul.... and made the same mistake as most other christians in thinking "Pauls letters are bound in the bible, therefore it has to be true".

I don't think that's reasonable. If Paul said something that contradicted Jesus, rather than just clarified him, I suspect that not only would learned people have jumped on it since the beginning, but that the epistle wouldn't have been included in Canon, because one of the criteria for inclusion was being in harmony with the rest of scripture.

And you don't need to be a prophet or apostle to read and comment on the Bible. If that was the case every bit of Christian writing over the past 1,900 years be invalidated, and what's the purpose of that?

As I do with others who denounce Paul, I encourage you to back up your claim, that he contradicts Christ and his letters shouldn't be in the Bible, by citing specific instances of those direct contradictions.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Of course it did. And we've been over the "greater than" comment a bagillion times. That's not a denial of deity. The Pharisees knew quite well what He was claiming and plotted for His murder for blasphemy.

For someone who only has 3 books to go on, Akragon sure doesn't pay attention to the moods of the people around Jesus and their reactions to what he says to them in those 3 gospels or he wouldn't be confused about who God is. Like:

John 10:33

33 The Jews answered Him, saying, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God.”

John 8:56-58

56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.”

57 Then the Jews said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?”

58 Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.”

59 Then they took up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.

.

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Of course it did. And we've been over the "greater than" comment a bagillion times. That's not a denial of deity. The Pharisees knew quite well what He was claiming and plotted for His murder for blasphemy.

For someone who only has 3 books to go on, Akragon sure doesn't pay attention to the moods of the people around Jesus and their reactions to what he says to them in those 3 gospels or he wouldn't be confused about who God is.

I'm surprised that Akragon doesn't ditch the Gospel of John, as well, given that it's the strongest statement of Christ's divine nature and oneness with God, a testament to the Trinity. Though then all one is left with is Matthew and Mark, a mighty thin canon to hang one's faith on.

reply to post by adjensen


Or if he affirms John why he would reject 1, 2, and 3rd John as well as Revelation which were written at roughly the same time.