Can you reject Paul and still be a "Christian"?

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

There are two ways to heaven, the first way is to be perfect never sin once . . .

So how is it that Moses appeared with Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration?
Moses did sin and his god told him so.

Moses wasn't saved because he was perfect. Please explain your objection.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

So you're choosing to ignore what he said about heaven and Earth passing away? Ok, whatever.

I'm not ignoring it at all, he said heaven and earth would not pass away until the law was fulfilled, and He came to fulfil.

He was not a failure, He fulfilled the law.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by jmdewey60

 

Either way, he was telling them to be like God, who is perfect. Jesus wouldn't have told them to be like god if they could never achieve it.

I hope you're not referring to Jesus's comment to the man who asked what he needed to do to "earn" eternal life.

I believe that we're talking about Matthew 5(?) Which starts out:

And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him: 2 And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying,

And ends with:

48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

There are two ways to heaven, the first way is to be perfect never sin once, the other path is redemption through Christ. Jesus answered the man in that manner because of the question the man asked. He asked what he needed to do himself to earn it on his own.

I'm not ignoring it at all, he said heaven and earth would not pass away until the law was fulfilled, and He came to fulfil. He was not a failure, He fulfilled the law.

Why do you do that? Who are trying to convince?

Let's try this again.

Mtthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18 For 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.

19 Whosoever 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.

So even sinners, those who break the commandments, and who are poor in spirit, (faith) get into heaven. In fact:

3 Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Okay, now it get's tricky.

20 For 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.

You know why? Because the scribes and Pharisees didn't have a clue to the meaning of the "Law." They were going through the motions perfectly! But they had no idea what the "LAW" was.

Now, Jesus was about to make it a whole lot harder, as he continues to run through the 10 Commandments and takes the outward and turns it inward. It's not enough to do, you must be the same on the inside as you are on the outside. If you screw up, you'll still be better than the Pharisees and the scribes who were faking it.

21 Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

Now, I don't know "what cause" is okay, or what "Raca" means, or what Jesus meant exactly about calling someone a fool. but I do understand that simply "not killing" someone you're seething hatred against, isn't really in the spirit of the "LAW."

When there is separation, and one is different outside than they are inside, there is a wall, or a floor, dividing the upper from the lower, the inner from the outer. When there is separation it's like banging against a closed door, hitting your head against the wall or finding yourself on the "threshing floor."

The kingdom of heaven is within. Find the kingdom of heaven within, and then bring it to the outside so that the inside and the outside are one. Then there will be heaven on earth!

Law fulfilled! Easie peasie!

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Moses wasn't saved because he was perfect. Please explain your objection.

I was asking how it was that Moses was 'saved' since it seems he was, despite not fitting your criteria for salvation.
I don't understand why I have to ask twice.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


But according to you no one except Jesus can attain perfection, so why would Jesus imply that the man could reach perfection if he really couldn't?

If Jesus knew the man couldn't reach perfection, then why didn't he tell him about faith and salvation?

Matthew 19
18 “Which ones?” he inquired. Jesus replied, “‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, 19 honor your father and mother,’ and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’”

The Law is dead? Not according to Jesus. Nowhere does he say anything about faith or salvation. Faith is a thing that you "do", and the man asked Jesus what he had to do, yet Jesus says nothing about faith. Paul is the one who put all the emphasis on faith in Jesus, not the other way around.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

But he's one of the most respected people in history!

OK, go back to everyone who posted a negative remark about Paul on this thread, and say, "But he is one of the most respected persons in history" and see if that changes their minds. If it works, then I will accept your answer.

Why would they use his teachings if they we're trying to demonize him? That doesn't make any sense to me.

You seemed to have missed my earlier point that it does not accurately represent Paul's teaching, that's the whole idea.

I think it's more likely that Acts was a fictional story created to promote a fictional character named Paul. I don't see why the church would try to demonize Paul when he is the founder and creator of the majority of their doctrine.

That doesn't work because there is nothing to suggest that there was no real Paul.
The reality is that there was, and he greatly influenced Christianity into realizing they needed no approval by the rabbis because they were accepted by God.
The Jews hated him for that and they went to great lengths to oppose him.
I believe that opposition would not be limited to something short of drawing up a history purporting to support him on the surface while undermining him by misrepresenting what he stood for. As an example:
Paul did not grovel to seek the approval of men (and the Jews in particular) like it repeatedly portrays him as doing.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


You are twisting his words, read it again.

Matthew 5
18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

He says nothing will pass from the law until heaven and Earth disappear. He says nothing about the law being fulfilled. And either way you lose because if he fulfilled the law then we wouldn't be here right now according to you.

reply to post by jmdewey60


So you're comparing this tiny forum to the billions of Christians who respect him and follow his every word? You can't be serious... That's not even including the other billion or so throughout the past 2,000 years, you can't seriously believe he isn't respected can you?

Yet they fully supported Paul's letters and even made them canonical, he comprises over half of the NT alone. Your idea makes NO sense at all, seriously.

Undermining Paul would mean undermining half of the NT, which would end up exposing them as frauds. Why would they try to demonize him?! There's no sense in that at all.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Yet they fully supported Paul's letters and even made them canonical, he comprises over half of the NT alone.

That already happened before Acts was added.

Undermining Paul would mean undermining half of the NT . . .

That's the idea, if you see Paul as the enemy, which the Jews did.

. . . which would end up exposing them as frauds.

People who do unscrupulous and fraudulent undermining of people's character and teachings don't worry about exposure because they plan it out that way, where they push the envelope to the edge for maximum effect for the people who do except it, and disregard the minority who see it for what it is.

Why would they try to demonize him?!

Money. Bottom line. They saw his teaching as a threat to a very lucrative business at the temple, the same thing that Jesus objected to and the same reason why they killed him.
Acts would have been written while the temple still stood and had a million visitors a year, and that was when there probably was barely that many people who lived in Rome.

reply to post by jmdewey60


If they were somehow trying to undermine Paul, they did a terrible job of it. If anything they helped him out! Acts hardly swayed people's opinions about him, Christianity's popularity proves that.

So the Jews inserted Acts into the bible. How when Constantine and his people didn't decide what was canonical until 300 years later? If Acts is suspect, wouldn't you also have to say Luke's gospel is as well? The two were most likely written at the same time.

You do realize that Jews probably control Christianity right? Why would they try to bring their own business down?

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Moses wasn't saved because he was perfect. Please explain your objection.

I was asking how it was that Moses was 'saved' since it seems he was, despite not fitting your criteria for salvation.
I don't understand why I have to ask twice.

I guess we're saying the same thing, Moses was not perfect. Only Jesus was.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

But according to you no one except Jesus can attain perfection, so why would Jesus imply that the man could reach perfection if he really couldn't?

Because that's what it takes to inherit eternal life on one's own efforts. Jesus was specifically answering the man's question with the truth. The man wasn't concerned with Christ, he asked what he himself needed to do to inherit eternal life on his own merits.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

You are twisting his words, read it again.

Matthew 5
18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

He says nothing will pass from the law until heaven and Earth disappear. He says nothing about the law being fulfilled. And either way you lose because if he fulfilled the law then we wouldn't be here right now according to you.

edit on 28-3-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)

Not twisting at all, I don't know why but you really seem to be struggling with this. Perhaps this piece can do a better job of explaining how you're misreading what Jesus was saying:

here.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


You said:

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
I'm not ignoring it at all, he said heaven and earth would not pass away until the law was fulfilled, and He came to fulfil.

He was not a failure, He fulfilled the law.

So tell me, if Jesus fulfilled the law and the Earth won't pass away until the law is fulfilled, then how are we here right now?!

You are contradicting yourself SO BAD right now.

Jesus didn't say ANYTHING about fulfilling the law in that verse, NOTHING! Can you not read? Either way, you are wrong! If Jesus truly did fulfill the law as YOU say (Jesus didn't say that), and if the Earth doesn't disappear until he has fulfilled the law, then we shouldn't be here right now!

You are completely and totally changing what he said around, to fit your conclusion. Your obvious lack of critical thinking is very worrying.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

If they were somehow trying to undermine Paul, they did a terrible job of it.

I disagree, based on the posts I've seen on this forum over the last few days. He might as well be Satan himself in the eyes of many people. That opinion can only come from one source, the Book of Acts. So, if Acts was a put-up job by the Jews to have a professional novelist write up a biographical tale that looks supportive of him superficially but replaced the real person with a fabricated version, then it has been very effective.
I don't know if in fact it was intentional, but I think if it was, then we don't have to look very far to see who would have done it and why. It could have been someone who wanted a historical account to give readers a general idea of where Christianity came from, and just used a Paul type character to bring out concepts of the religion and how the beliefs evolved over time.
An example is the story of the Apostolic council meetings to decide on the 'gentile' issue. Such a meeting would never have happened and Paul would not have attended more than one of them if any. But it illustrated in a succinct manner the evolution that the writer imagined would have had to have happened to get from standard Judaism to the form of Christianity that existed in his day.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

If anything they helped him out! Acts hardly swayed people's opinions about him, Christianity's popularity proves that.

"Christianity's popularity" is not dependent on the popularity of a single individual, if you were a Christian yourself, you wouldn't think. Rather, you would believe Christianity encapsulates an eternal truth that will support itself once people are exposed to it with an open mind.
I said earlier that Paul's writings were already phenomenally popular before Acts was written so it defiantly did not need any help from a pseudo-biography.

How when Constantine and his people didn't decide what was canonical until 300 years later?

How was it "inserted"? I don't think you quite understand the process. Lots of Christian books were accepted and read in churches. What happened later was the systematic removal of books that maybe were unsupportive of pet doctrines of whoever was in power at the time. What was left at the end of this 'cleansing' is what we have today. The very notion of a 'canon' comes from Judaism.

If Acts is suspect, wouldn't you also have to say Luke's gospel is as well? The two were most likely written at the same time.

Suspect by who? Luke is very supportive of Judaism, as Acts is. Now Luke is also supportive of Christianity, but it does so by making Judaism the thing that gives it its legitimacy. The same with Acts, that makes it out that Paul never would have been able to understand the Gospel unless it was for the greatness of the purported rabbi of the fictional version of Paul's early life.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

I guess we're saying the same thing, Moses was not perfect. Only Jesus was.

I was applying some things I learned about Moses and that event on the mount with Jesus, from reading Yarbro-Collins' commentary on Mark, something I would recommend anyone to read if they can get their hands on a copy.
The mythology of the day on Moses was that he was translated directly to heaven and why there wasn't something like a "tomb of Moses". And also the company of Elijah, who went in the same way.
What I was taught in church is different, that they represent the two ways one can get to heaven: raptured, or resurrected. According to their belief then, he was taken 'body and soul'.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

You are contradicting yourself SO BAD right now.

It's that Dispensationalism.
He has to support the idea that the Law is perfectly legitimate so that the Jews can build their temple.
This is something I definitely think was a put-up job by the Zionists, the invention of this philosophy and the commissioning of creating it and promoting it back in the early 1800's (with a lot of financial backing).
It's a fabricated framework that has to be supported at all cost, otherwise the whole system collapses.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

But according to you no one except Jesus can attain perfection, so why would Jesus imply that the man could reach perfection if he really couldn't?

Probably because, even if we fail in the attempt, by trying to mimic Christ, we can't help but make the world a better place.

How when Constantine and his people didn't decide what was canonical until 300 years later?

Is there any hope of you abandoning the Dan Brown conspiracy theories that claim that Constantine decided what would go into the Bible? Given that said canon was determined about a hundred years prior to Constantine, your only solution for that claim is that Constantine had a time machine. Is that your claim? That Constantine had a time machine?

Jesus didn't say ANYTHING about fulfilling the law in that verse, NOTHING! Can you not read?

Are you blind? That's exactly what he says:

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. (Matthew 5:17 NIV)

reply to post by jmdewey60


No, the dislike of him comes mostly from the letters he wrote. Ask anyone what Paul is known for and they will say his epistles 99% of the time. Ask most why they don't like Paul and they will most likely say the teachings within his epistles, not his story in Acts.

As I said before, a few people on this board not liking Paul doesn't even begin to compare with the billions that do like him and follow his every word around the world and throughout history.

His teachings are as stronger today than they have EVER been before, so please enlighten me on how the Jews have demonized him? If anything, the epistles he wrote with his own hands are what demonize him, not Acts.