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

reply to post by Akragon


That's completely unfair. Jesus is the authority and this has been explained by me to you before that one needs to go to the Christian epistles for Christian doctrine because the church was not born until Pentecost. The new covenant of grace being instituted at the last supper and the old covenant being completely fulfilled with His crucifixion. Historical context must be accounted for.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Because Matthew's audience was Jews who care about the genealogy going back to Abraham. Luke has a gentile audience (as well as Mark) who couldn't care less about His genealogy going back to Abraham.

Yet luke Goes further back then Matthew...

Sure you know what you're talking about bro?

That's completely unfair. Jesus is the authority and this has been explained by me to you before that one needs to go to the Christian epistles for Christian doctrine because the church was not born until Pentecost. The new covenant of grace being instituted at the last supper and the old covenant being completely fulfilled with His crucifixion. Historical context must be accounted for.

You keep saying this... Yet Jesus did not teach the doctrine of "grace"...

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Yet luke Goes further back then Matthew...

Sure you know what you're talking about bro?

Right, I just said Matthew has a Jewish audience who cared about Christ's genealogy going back to Abraham. There was 2000 years of human history from Adam to Abraham. And don't start with me, you never care about understanding what I am talking about. There are a plethora of commentaries explaining the different genealogies and their different focuses as well as different author's intended audiences.

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
reply to post by Akragon

 

Interesting story... sounds simliar to mine actually... but i came to reject Christianity because i've found that its full of liars/hypocrites and people looking to profit from it... Obviously not everyone involved, but even one ruins the whole batch.

Faulty logic. Humanity is hypocritical in general, not just one religion or group of people. You might as well reject being human at all then, because there isn't a perfect man alive that is walking this world right now. It's a foolish thing to judge everyone for what some people do, that by definition that makes you a hypocrit, because you yourself are not perfect. Welcome to the corrupted human race. What did Jesus tell the pharisees who wanted to stone the adulteress? Right "let him amoung you have has no sin cast the first stone". No one is perfect and when someone thinks they are ot's called narcisism. Are you a narcicist?

Hardly...

I've seen what certian sects of christianity do to people... And chose not to involve myself...

I know im not perfect... but why add a flawed religion to the flaws i have already?

Thats what i call faulty logic

reply to post by Akragon


Of course He didn't. Up until His death the Jews were under the covenant of the Law. The new covenant was not enacted until the eve of His crucifixion. But there are numerous hints to it, specifically John chapter 6.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Yet luke Goes further back then Matthew...

Sure you know what you're talking about bro?

Right, I just said Matthew has a Jewish audience who cared about Christ's genealogy going back to Abraham. There was 2000 years of human history from Adam to Abraham. And don't start with me, you never care about understanding what I am talking about. There are a plethora of commentaries explaining the different genealogies and their different focuses as well as different author's intended audiences.

You just said lukes audience couldn't care less about His genealogy going back to Abraham... IF that is the case why does his gospel go back Farther then matthews?

reply to post by Akragon

Christ may be intertwined in that religion, but he also spoke out against much of it... as i've said before, he "might" have been a jew, but he wasn't a very good one.

You have that backwards, he was one of the only good jews. The church suffered from the same things the jews did, as i said before we shadowed their footsteps. They had apostates at the very beginning, so did the church. Everything that befell them befell us, because the Church began to fall away from it's jewish roots and in the Dark Ages biblical knowledge faded from the world as learnign to read and write for the peasantry became outlawed by the Popes and the fuedal lords. BTW we're not christians we are jews bought and paid for by the blood of Christ and adopted into the House of Israel. The word "christian" was intended to be an insult to the early believers, not much different than calling a muslim a hadji today, except they took it and turned it into a compliment, a badge of honor of sorts

Originally posted by Akragon

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Yet luke Goes further back then Matthew...

Sure you know what you're talking about bro?

Right, I just said Matthew has a Jewish audience who cared about Christ's genealogy going back to Abraham. There was 2000 years of human history from Adam to Abraham. And don't start with me, you never care about understanding what I am talking about. There are a plethora of commentaries explaining the different genealogies and their different focuses as well as different author's intended audiences.

You just said lukes audience couldn't care less about His genealogy going back to Abraham... IF that is the case why does his gospel go back Farther then matthews?

Where does Matthew stop his genealogy? Luke is writing to gentiles, he presents Christ as the Son of Man taking his back to the first man Adam. Matthew is writing his gospel to Jews presenting Christ as the awaited Messiah and Jews care about Abraham which Gentiles couldn't care less about. They have different audiences and different presentational focuses. John presents Christ as the Son of God, the pre-existent One and begins his implied genealogy with God.

Here is simple scholarship that just took me 10 seconds to look up:

Genealogy of Christ Luke.

This stuff isn't hard bro, just look at the reason things are done a certain way. The Bible isn't a Dr. Seuss book, it must be diligently studied for nuggets of gold not quickly skimmed over like a novel.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Ken Palmer lives in middle Tennessee with his beautiful wife and daughters.

He is the author of LifeofChrist.com, a successful Christian website with over 2.7 Million visitors since it's inception in 1998.

A graduate of David Lipscomb University, Ken is a Senior Web Developer. In his spare time, Ken is an amateur gardener and tree planter (17 trees to date in his back yard, and still counting).

He uses a large personal library of commentaries and study guides to prepare Bible lessons that he writes for LifeofChrist.com and for the Sunday morning Bible class he regularly teaches.

Ken is a member of the church of Christ, which is a non-denominational church with the tenet of "Speak where the Bible speaks, and be silent where the Bible is silent." Hopefully the content at LifeofChrist.com reflects that principle.

Yup... thats some scholar.

This guy is no more a scholar then you or i... And anyone could have found that info on Wikipedia as well...

Either way i see what you're saying...

reply to post by Akragon


I didn't say he was, I was demonstrating basic scholarSHIP. Just searching out an answer to something. Re-read my post, didn't say he was a scholar. His site was the first down on a search,.. saying the same things I just finished saying.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Merely because Marcion was quite anti-Semetic. He also heavily altered Paul's epistles for his 130ish AD Gnostic bible, again to align with their doctrines. They were known for "mutilating" the texts.

Marcion was not Gnostic or antisemitic. He just did not see the OT version of God being accurately portrayed as YHWH.
The fact that he made his own version of a canon is not evidence of widespread "mutilation" of NT texts.
You keep making this claim without any support.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

That actually comes from Irenaeus 2ns in apostolic succession from John the apostle.

There was never such a thing in order to be passed on, and was a later invention by the Catholic Church to legitimize the authority of Bishops.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Merely because Marcion was quite anti-Semetic. He also heavily altered Paul's epistles for his 130ish AD Gnostic bible, again to align with their doctrines. They were known for "mutilating" the texts.

Marcion was not Gnostic or antisemitic. He just did not see the OT version of God being accurately portrayed as YHWH.
The fact that he made his own version of a canon is not evidence of widespread "mutilation" of NT texts.
You keep making this claim without any support.

No, Marcion was definitely not Gnostic, he probably would have hated those guys with a passion. But he was definitely anti-Jewish. His proposed canon, the first in Christian history, excised the texts that were aimed at predominantly Jewish audiences, which pretty much left Paul and, by extension, the Gospel of Luke, heavily redacted.

The Christian canon was developed largely as a response to Marcion, so ultimately, he did a good thing in waking up the church fathers to the notion that they needed to get ahead of all these heresies and develop their own canon and accepted teachings.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

. . . one needs to go to the Christian epistles for Christian doctrine because the church was not born until Pentecost. The new covenant of grace being instituted at the last supper and the old covenant being completely fulfilled with His crucifixion. . . .

Pentecost is in Acts, not the Epistles.
The new covenant was not instituted at the last supper, but a celebration of his death was instituted. The actual putting into effect of the covenant would have been after Jesus' final ascension into heaven.
The old covenant was never "completely fulfilled" seeing how Hebrews and 2 Corinthians describe it as just being made old and fading away. Jesus ransomed us from the old system administered by angels, and did not "satisfy" its demands.

reply to post by adjensen

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.

For a detailed list of instances where Paul contradicts Paul....
www.jesuswordsonly.com...

Paul not only contradicts Jesus, but even God in the old testament.

You may not have realized but, there exists a Paul vs Jesus debate among Christians.
The Christians who oppose Paul know not to accept Paul just because his words are bound in the bible.

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by adjensen

 

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.

For a detailed list of instances where Paul contradicts Paul....
www.jesuswordsonly.com...

How about we pick one or two and you state them yourself? I can't debate a web site.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
Marcion was not Gnostic or antisemitic. He just did not see the OT version of God being accurately portrayed as YHWH.

Thanks, Marcion on wiki was a good reading. Helped expanded my research. From my own opinion when I first read the Bible whole some years ago without consulting Christians, OT was incompatible in many regards to the Gospel of Jesus. And if the Gospel was the 'baseline' of morality, would make many OT text evil by comparison.

I was reading from another research with the Book of Enoch (which is fully compatible with teachings of Jesus) by another researcher to conclude that the OT God(s) was some of the fallen angels. I can't help it but agree.

In the Book of Enoch, which tells the Pre-Deluvian scenario, bloodshed committed was that of the fallen angels and their offsprings, and eventually man.

The book also tells that you can actually sin against animals, not just through bestiality but can be through killing, abuse, etc. Did not sanction animal sacrifice even though the Book included Abel and Cain. So it could have been a different story altogether. The only entity(s) that favored bloodshed including animals are the fallen angels. Before the fall, we were all vegetarian and nobody did animal sacrifices.

Malachi 3:6 "For I am the LORD, I do not change; Therefore you are not consumed, O sons of Jacob.

Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

So before the fall of man, God did not sanction animal sacrifice(a hint in the OT), why would He after the fall?? Jesus is in the Book of Enoch. Come Jesus, He abolished animal sacrifice and cleared the temple of such animals to be sacrificed for sale. Clearly Jesus' Father is the same God in the Book of Enoch. The bloody God who promised worldly blessings in the OT is not the same God, Jesus calls Father who promises the opposite.

The God of the OT who promises men worldly riches is probably the same entity that promised Jesus kingdoms and riches. Jesus promised the cross, the God in the Book of Enoch although did not mention cross but promised persecution, even death, and utter rejection by the world. It's on the same page with Jesus. The rationale for this extreme practice is that after the fall, returning back to our roots, living off the land as an animal would has become taboo, and telling others to do the same is asking for your death sentence as it endangers the corrupt economic system. Living off this worldly system is not apart from promoting injustice, inequality, and oppression that sustains the system. If you are in this system, you are part of the atrocities they commit whether you know it or not.

reply to post by adjensen

How about we pick one or two and you state them yourself? I can't debate a web site.

For starters...take the "law" for example.
God, the OT prophets and Jesus all taught that a person who keeps the "law" is righteous.
Then Paul comes along and spoke against the law.

"For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight"
(Rom 3:20)

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


The law being done away with in christianity is a result of Pauls influence.
Of course, this is backed up by a strange teaching that the law is done with because Jesus fulfilled the law.

Jesus said the law is to remain till heaven and earth pass away...
Jesus did NOT say "I'm going to fulfill the law once and for all".