Say a phrase, and you are saved...

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by adjensen

 

Persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire began during the Ministry of Jesus and continued intermittently over a period of about three centuries until the time of Constantine when Christianity was legalized.

Link

Just because the persecution didn't happen IN Rome doesn't mean it wasn't carried out by the Romans.

Geez, you quote Wikipedia, in an article that has an unsourced statement, and you think that matters?

But, let's say that I concede the point, and say that, in spite of the fact that the ONLY document that is accepted by historians to be an accurate recounting of the life of Jesus, the New Testament, says absolutely nothing about persecution by the Romans, who cares? What's the point?

The fact still remains that Paul never met Jesus, killed his followers, then claimed to have a vision from him saying things never said while alive. You are completely ignoring the obvious. You refuse to even acknowledge what I'm saying because of the indoctrination.

When did I dispute your claim that Paul persecuted Christians? Your statement that "Paul never met Jesus" is falsifiable, in his experience on the road to Damascus, as well as being non-provable, in that he could have met him during or prior to his ministry, had dinner and played a few hands of bridge -- just because it isn't testified to doesn't mean it didn't happen.

The indoctrination, I'm sorry to say, is on your part -- you've been brainwashed into ignoring historical fact, making absolutely ridiculous claims, and arguing points that you have no understanding of, solely due to your hatred of Jesus Christ, and the church that he established.

reply to post by adjensen


Considering he did convert to Christianity after persecuting christians... Don't you think he would have mentioned meeting him somewhere in his documents?

At least something like... i met the cause of all of this once?

I find it quite obvious he never met Jesus... You're actually the second person i've heard this from... and its nothing but speculation. Similar to the idea that Jesus traveled to india, which i personally believe but none the less... both ideas are complete speculation

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by adjensen

 

Considering he did convert to Christianity after persecuting christians... Don't you think he would have mentioned meeting him somewhere in his documents?

At least something like... i met the cause of all of this once?

I find it quite obvious he never met Jesus...

Well, hooray for you, we can add it to your claim that Judaism and Christianity support reincarnation, which has been repeatedly demonstrated as complete fantasy.

Paul is clearly a follower of Christ, which is testified to in his follower, Luke's, book recalling the Acts of the Apostles, and needs no explicit restatement of fact.

So, shall we put our faith in Luke? Or in Akragon, who has been shown to state claims which are clearly invalid are true?

See how that works?

reply to post by adjensen


How is your claim of Paul meeting Jesus with no proof any different from my claim of Roman persecution? Hypocrite much?

"Just because it isn't testified to doesn't mean it didn't happen."

reply to post by adjensen

Well, hooray for you, we can add it to your claim that Judaism and Christianity support reincarnation, which has been repeatedly demonstrated as complete fantasy.

Would you mind showing me where i said either of those religions "support" reincarnation?

I said its mentioned in the bible if you know where to look...

Paul is clearly a follower of Christ, which is testified to in his follower, Luke's, book recalling the Acts of the Apostles, and needs no explicit restatement of fact.

I believe another poster argued "why trust a murderer"?

So, shall we put our faith in Luke? Or in Akragon, who has been shown to state claims which are clearly invalid are true?

Tell you what... lets revisit that question when some religion writes a gospel according to Akragon

In the mean time can we drop the attitude?

Originally posted by adjensen
Bah... I'll stack a Christian's ability to defend what the New Testament has to say against a critic any day. Critics either rely on emotional arguments ("Oh, look at how horrible this god is!") or they take what's in the text and twist it to make their point.

The critics have many reasons to curse God. The main reason being that nearly all Christians disobey the commands of Jesus. They don't follow what Jesus teaches!

They only follow what is easy, and what will give them a long and good life. They twist even their fallible Bible to feed the lusts of their flesh.

Woe to those who make evil good and the good evil!

Instead, they do what everybody and the world loves to do, to enrich themselves in this world, to run after dreams but in reality, everybody is headed towards a cliff. They trust the comfort of MANY, they have been blinded to the destruction waiting for them!

Christians paint a God who is dead! They go after empty beliefs! They win people into destruction!

reply to post by ahnggk


Wow, it seems as though you have completely changed your tune since the last time we crossed on these boards, at least from what I remember. I don't mean that in a bad way either.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


Yea it's been a while. I'd rather quote from what the Spirit teaches and reality these days than from the Bible. We could go on and on, discussing our understanding of the Bible. But the Spirit and real world goes way beyond theology.

I am also taking these unorthodox discussions in dedicated religious forums as well(other than ATS). Much more bible experts out there, but they can't really argue when the discussion turns to facts and the miserable performance of those who profess to 'believe' is brought out.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

The persecution of Christians by Rome started during Jesus' ministry... how could Paul have sent the letters to Rome about his conversion before Rome started persecuting Christians?

Paul didn't convert until after Jesus died and Rome started persecuting Christians before Jesus died so where are you getting this information from?

No it did not, for the first many years after Christ's death the persecution came from the Jewish authorities, Rome didn't begin persecuting Christians until a couple decades later. About the time of Nero and especially Domitian.

Originally posted by jhill76
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

So why does the Holy Spirit gift and call pastors?

The fundamentals, the stepping stones to that relationship. Once you have the basics down, then you can go to Father on your own.

I didn't say a person could not go to the Lord in their own, I asked why the Holy Spirit calls and gifts pastors and if you have read Ephesians 4.

Asking for forgiveness (repentence) is the first step.................................

Nothing is free, so just mouthing the words will not save "ya ass". Actions speak louder than words.
The cliches, get diluted but forever they will stand higher than any skyscraper./
Golden rule indeed/ There's a start.
Father, I thank you and all the world shall see it.

reply to post by HamrHeed


Asking for forgiveness isn't repentance, repentance must come first before a person can even think they are wrong to ask for forgiveness. I'd suggest seeing what "metanoia" means in Koine Greek.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by HamrHeed

 

Asking for forgiveness isn't repentance, repentance must come first before a person can even think they are wrong to ask for forgiveness. I'd suggest seeing what "metanoia" means in Koine Greek.

You're right..
repentance
grace
acceptance of forgiveness
change

Every story is written different. I understand my ignorance may lead to people thinking I'm heretical. He taught me to understand that not everyone hears what I hear but the message in the end is the same.
Do unto others..

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by adjensen

 

How is your claim of Paul meeting Jesus with no proof any different from my claim of Roman persecution? Hypocrite much?

Because, on the one hand, you have the documentary evidence of Paul's "Road to Damascus" experience, in Acts, and then you have his own statements, which were accepted by the church at the time (contrary to some beliefs, Paul was not the whole of the church, lol,) and then you have Peter's support of Paul. Acts makes it pretty clear that there was a lot of suspicion about Paul right after he had that experience, so one would come to the reasonable conclusion that there was enough evidence at the time (most likely the testimony of the men who were with Paul on said road) for the people he previously persecuted to accept him.

Now, on your side, we have a complete lack of evidence to support your claim, and, in fact, we have contrary evidence that disproves it. Persecution of the Christians didn't begin until Christianity was declared a separate religion from Judaism, by Domitian around 80AD. Why did that matter? Because the Romans had an odd way of viewing religion -- they didn't care what god or gods you believed in or followed, so long as you agreed that the Emperor was one of them. For most people, that didn't matter, because if you believe in multiple gods, who cares about adding another one to the mix?

But for the steadfastly monotheistic Jews, that was blasphemy in the highest degree, and they would go to the death, rather than proclaim anyone, Emperor or not, to be God, apart from the God of Israel. After dealing with all the problems that caused, the Romans finally just established a policy of Religio licita, which applied to Jews, and Jews alone, that said it was okay for them to not worship Caesar.

As long as followers of Christ were still considered to be Jews (Jews with weird beliefs, to the Romans, but Jews nonetheless,) they were covered by that policy, and were left alone in matters of religion. That changed with Domitian's decree (Christians at the time tried to make the case that, yes, they were separate religions, but they were actually the "true Jews", not the ones who had rejected the Messiah, but, as Domitian had aims that had little to do with religion, their claim was rejected,) and Roman persecution, on a state level, began.

Prior to that time, organized persecution of Christians was at the hands of Jews, who viewed Christianity as blasphemy (hence all the stonings -- that's what you did with a blasphemer.)

And that's how my claim, and yours, differs. Historical facts support mine, and historical facts refute yours.

Originally posted by ahnggk

Originally posted by adjensen
Bah... I'll stack a Christian's ability to defend what the New Testament has to say against a critic any day. Critics either rely on emotional arguments ("Oh, look at how horrible this god is!") or they take what's in the text and twist it to make their point.

The critics have many reasons to curse God. The main reason being that nearly all Christians disobey the commands of Jesus. They don't follow what Jesus teaches!

Why would someone curse God because of the actions of people?

Thanks for the great example of an emotional and irrational argument!

reply to post by adjensen

Why would someone curse God because of the actions of people?

Thanks for the great example of an emotional and irrational argument!

Actually it is not. Many people claim there is no God because of the murders, rapes, etc. that go on today in the world. These are the actions of man, not God performing these actions. But yet, many place the blame on God. They recognize him in a sense, but don't believe in him because of what man has done.

Originally posted by jhill76
reply to post by adjensen

 

Why would someone curse God because of the actions of people?

Thanks for the great example of an emotional and irrational argument!

Actually it is not. Many people claim there is no God because of the murders, rapes, etc. that go on today in the world. These are the actions of man, not God performing these actions. But yet, many place the blame on God. They recognize him in a sense, but don't believe in him because of what man has done.

And this is the "falling man" mentality. Am I reading this right?

reply to post by HamrHeed

And this is the "falling man" mentality. Am I reading this right?

I am not well versed on phrases here, so I could not answer this correctly.

Originally posted by jhill76
reply to post by HamrHeed

 

And this is the "falling man" mentality. Am I reading this right?

I am not well versed on phrases here, so I could not answer this correctly.

Some people accept that mankind is falling and they choose to look away because they're a) scared
b) don't understand
c) understand but love immaterial

Originally posted by jhill76
reply to post by HamrHeed

 

And this is the "falling man" mentality. Am I reading this right?

I am not well versed on phrases here, so I could not answer this correctly.

Some people accept that mankind is falling and they choose to look away because they're a) scared
b) don't understand
c) understand but love immaterial