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

page: 6
11
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 08:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by Murgatroid
 


Paul traveled all across the Mediterranean, someone had to pay for all those trips he was taking. Who could it have been? Hmmmm.... maybe the Romans? He was one of them you know.

Why would Rome pay a guy to go around the area and preach the gospel they were trying to suppress? Probably because he was spreading a false message. Paul's message is totally different from Jesus'. They're not even close, it's so obvious!

I love how you come to such ridiculous conclusions.

Paragraph one... "How did Paul pay for travel? Maybe it was the Romans!"

Paragraph two then proceeds with an argument based on the absolute conclusion that it was the Romans, lol. In your mind, I'm sure that Paul was a Roman stooge because the government paid for his travel.

Paul was a missionary, supported by the people of the churches that he founded, as well as his own work as a tentmaker. That's what the actual evidence says, as opposed to your idle and baseless speculations that he must have been a secret agent for the Roman government (which arrested him numerous times, and eventually executed him, for spreading that message you say they put him up to.)




posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 09:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 


Hello Op; here's how I understand Paul:

Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles (all of Man who were not Sons of Abraham through Isaac). Paul was the man appointed by Jesus (by Divine Revelation) and approved of by Peter, James and the Christian Church to carry Jesus words to these Gentiles.
Jesus was a Jew. Judaism was confined to the children of Isaac- not open to non-Abrahamic peoples- by Jewish Law. To be a good Jew, the Law had to be followed to the letter, in total absoluteness. By the time Jesus died, he had fulfilled the Law in completion. Now, a new Law began for Jews. Part of this meant that now non-Jews could share in the Jewish God's offer of Eternal life and Perfection. How this was to be done became an issue because for the first time Jews had to separate God's dealings with Abraham (Jewish Nation) from God's dealings with Adam (Humanity: ALL Nations). The new Non-Abrahamic Jews had no part of the God's offer to Abraham (the Jews), yet had a part of God's offer to Adam (Humanity).

To be a Christian, a non-Jewish person should also be a good Jew, as a good Jew is what God calls the peoples of Abraham to be in order to be right by Him. To be Christian means that you believe that the person identified as Jesus, the person whose life is the topic of the four Gospels, is the promised “Holy One”. The Holy One is He who was promised to Adam that would come and return Man to his original perfect condition:

When God created Adam and Eve, they were perfect in every way. Entities that would be the ultimate example of a creation made by a true “God”. When they “fell”, they became Human Beings as we are; they felt the cold, got sick, felt pain, could age and die. They were sorry for their transgression and wanted to return to their original God-like state. NOW, the only way back was to PROVE that they were WORTHY of such a God-like state by living out their existence in their “human” state, whilst obeying everything God would command of them. During the course of this imperfect existence they had children, their children had children and so on: all imperfect humans as they had been created by now-physically imperfect creatures. What about them? God decided to offer them this perfect state too, but they also had to prove that they deserved it. People having children, having children, having children could feasibly continue forever so God set a time limit to this. At the end of the allotted time-frame God promised HE Himself would come to Earth and full fill His promise of Redemption. This form was called “The Holy One”. The four Gospels are accounts of this man's (Jesus') life offered to demonstrate that HE is this individual that has been expected since Adam fell.

Up 'till Jesus, this awaiting was kept within the children of Abraham. BUT they are not the sole descendants of Adam; we all are, every nation on Earth. So, the Apostles had to preach this Good News to all: starting with Israel and then outward. Whilst they were about this with the House of Israel, Jesus appointed them a helper to assist with the non-Jews. Non Jews would first have to understand their place within Jewishness as non-Jews. Jesus offered a man who made sure Jews were good Jews, living by the Jewish God's Laws and Statutes, (a Pharisee), one who could easily explain to non Jews what it means to be “Jewish”, a well-connected man of influence within both Jew and Roman circles so he could probably move about more freely, using his connections to protect preachers were ever possible, and being a leader of men knew how to gain peoples trust and following etc.
Paul's writings explain to non-Jewish Christians how “Jewish”, if you like, they should be. And to Jewish Christians, Paul's writings help understand how Jewish a non-Abrahamic person should be.

God Bless.
Seeker7



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 09:28 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


Okay, I'll bite. I'll list the most obvious one, something that cannot be taken out of context whatsoever, it speaks for itself.


1 Corinthians 4
15 Even if you had ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel.


So Paul calls himself father? What did Jesus say about calling someone on Earth father?


Matthew 23
9 And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.


Why is Paul calling himself father when Jesus says not to call anyone father? It's a clear contradiction, the most obvious in my opinion. How exactly am I taking it out context here? It's pretty clear cut if you ask me.
edit on 28-3-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 09:41 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


What's more likely? That a murderer disguised himself as an apostle to destroy Jesus' movement from the inside, or that a guy really rose from the dead and walked on water?

My money is on Paul being a spy. How many people have you ever heard of that walked on water? One. Now how many spies has there been throughout history? LOTS.

Paul's heretical teachings stray so far from what Jesus taught that it's almost funny you can't see it, but it's mostly sad.

Why did Jesus wait until after he died to give the "most important" part of his message to a liar and murderer? Why didn't he spread Paul's teachings himself? Why would he pick a bad tree to bear good fruit? How have Paul's teachings benefited the world in any way?



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by adjensen
 


How many people have you ever heard of that walked on water? One.



Actually two: This one's from a buddhist tale.

A devoted meditator, after years concentrating on a particular mantra, had attained enough insight to begin teaching. The student's humility was far from perfect, but the teachers at the monastery were not worried.

A few years of successful teaching left the meditator with no thoughts about learning from anyone; but upon hearing about a famous hermit living nearby, the opportunity was too exciting to be passed up.

The hermit lived alone on an island at the middle of a lake, so the meditator hired a man with a boat to row across to the island. The meditator was very respectful of the old hermit. As they shared some tea made with herbs the meditator asked him about his spiritual practice. The old man said he had no spiritual practice, except for a mantra which he repeated all the time to himself. The meditator was pleased: the hermit was using the same mantra he used himself -- but when the hermit spoke the mantra aloud, the meditator was horrified!

"What's wrong?" asked the hermit.

"I don't know what to say. I'm afraid you've wasted your whole life! You are pronouncing the mantra incorrectly!"

"Oh, Dear! That is terrible. How should I say it?"

The meditator gave the correct pronunciation, and the old hermit was very grateful, asking to be left alone so he could get started right away. On the way back across the lake the meditator, now confirmed as an accomplished teacher, was pondering the sad fate of the hermit.

"It's so fortunate that I came along. At least he will have a little time to practice correctly before he dies." Just then, the meditator noticed that the boatman was looking quite shocked, and turned to see the hermit standing respectfully on the water, next to the boat.

"Excuse me, please. I hate to bother you, but I've forgotten the correct pronunciation again. Would you please repeat it for me?"

"You obviously don't need it," stammered the meditator; but the old man persisted in his polite request until the meditator relented and told him again the way he thought the mantra should be pronounced.

The old hermit was saying the mantra very carefully, slowly, over and over, as he walked across the surface of the water back to the island.

www.dharma-haven.org...
edit on 093131p://444 by backcase because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 09:52 AM
link   
reply to post by backcase
 


I guess that means Jesus' feat wasn't all that great after all since someone else has done it too.

So two people, both from stories that are easily fabricated, outweigh thousands or millions of real life spies? I don't think so.



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 09:56 AM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 

That a murderer . . .
Where do you get that, Paul being a murderer?
Even if you were to believe that the story in Acts was somehow true, it never says he killed anyone.
Paul admits to persecuting the church in a letter actually written by him.
What you have to understand is that Paul's 'weapon' was rhetoric.
That means he argued against Christians.
That was in debates.
The writer of Acts took that and for dramatic effect, made his fictional version of Paul a prosecuting attorney in a make-believe Jewish court with the power to impose the death penalty.
Don't be so gullible.
edit on 28-3-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 09:59 AM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 


I was just answering that one question. And for the matter, there were many other prophets who had done the things which Jesus had done, all things but the transformation of Death into Life, which only God could do.

But, I am not trying to argue with you and your judgement, as it would be useless. I just wanted to add the story because of the humility the old man shows.

Try reading it, be sincere



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 10:02 AM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


I agree that Acts is completely pseudo-historical. I don't believe a man named Paul ever existed, but I do believe Peter did.

Take a look at this link, it goes into great detail on how Acts is almost entirely fictional and how Luke was actually a famous author/historian named Plutarch. It's very interesting if you ever get a chance to check it out.



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by adjensen
 


Okay, I'll bite. I'll list the most obvious one, something that cannot be taken out of context whatsoever, it speaks for itself.


1 Corinthians 4
15 Even if you had ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel.


So Paul calls himself father? What did Jesus say about calling someone on Earth father?

Matthew 23
9 And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.

First of all, this is hardly a fundamental issue.

Secondly, Jesus admonishes people frequently about receiving or granting unmerited titles, though he doesn't ban the use of words or concepts. Let's put your quote back into context, since that's the only way we can understand what Christ is really saying.


Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.

“Everything they do is done for people to see: They make their phylacteries[a] wide and the tassels on their garments long; they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; they love to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces and to be called ‘Rabbi’ by others.

“But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Messiah. The greatest among you will be your servant. For those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted. (Matthew 23:1-12 NIV)

So, unlike your stark "call no man father" quote, we can see that Christ is admonishing the hypocrisy of the Pharisees, and is, in addition, tells people not to call others "Rabbi" or "instructors".

However, later in Matthew, we find this from Jesus:

Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” (Matthew 28:19-20 NIV)


And earlier, we see Jesus using the word "father" in a context that is not about God.

“Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death. (Matthew 10:21 NIV)

So Jesus isn't saying that people shouldn't have those roles, or use those words, but rather that they should not seek undeserved titles for themselves.

As for Paul using the term, yes he does. As does Jesus, Stephen, the author of Acts, the author of Hebrews, and the author of 1 John.



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 10:28 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 





As for Paul using the term, yes he does. As does Jesus, Stephen, the author of Acts, the author of Hebrews, and the author of 1 John.




Are you saying that Stephen was the author of Acts, Hebrews and John 1?
edit on 28-3-2013 by windword because: sticky F on my keyboard



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen
Please cite an instance where Paul and Christ clearly differ on a fundamental issue.
Okay, I will give your challenge a shot.


As I mentioned in my earlier post, it is my understanding that Paul heavily promoted that Jesus' ascension was about Jesus, and only Jesus, physically ascending into the sky to the heavens above. This belief about the physical body of Jesus ascending into the heavens was more readily acceptable back then given people believed the earth was flat and the sky was a crystal vault arching over it, with God above that. This, coupled with the promise of salvation if one believes in Jesus this way, made for many believers!

Jesus' message relative to ascension was about a process of communing with the Divine Spirit Light above, a mystical process that he called his most prepared followers to - those who lived his core commandments of love/selflessness. Such prepared followers were granted his blessing of the Divine Light above and this communion allowed them to ascend beyond the physical confines and illusions of being only a mortal body-mind. Such a revelation was their true salvation, and this ascension was not a physical ascension but a spiritual one - and not just associated with Jesus solely, as Paul and other exoteric institution-making types liked promoting to the masses.
edit on 28-3-2013 by bb23108 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


So when he says not to call ANYONE father, he really meant anyone but Paul? The context is pretty clear when he says "anyone".

You say the context is that he was talking about the Pharisees. Did you forget that Paul was a Pharisee before his "conversion"?

How exactly did Paul "deserve" the title of father that he applied to himself? By persecuting Jesus and his followers? Bad trees do not bear good fruit, Jesus said so himself, so why did Jesus choose a murderer (bad tree) to spread his message (good fruit)?

Here's another one:


Romans 10
4 For Christ is the end of the law, that every one who has faith may be justified.


Paul says that Jesus is the end of the law. There's no taking that out of context, it speaks for itself.

What does Jesus have to say about the law?


Matthew 5
17 Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them. 18 For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.


Jesus says he didn't come to abolish (end) the law, but to fulfill it. He then goes on to say that not one iota would pass from the law until all is accomplished.

All obviously isn't accomplished yet, otherwise Jesus would have come back by now for judgement day. So why does Paul say the law ended with Jesus when Jesus clearly says that the law will not end until all is accomplished?

No taking out of context here, both verses fit their own contexts and both are contradictory to each other. Who's right, Paul or Jesus?
edit on 28-3-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 


"He takes away the first, so that He may establish the second", I think that's the quote...



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by adjensen
 





As for Paul using the term, yes he does. As does Jesus, Stephen, the author of Acts, the author of Hebrews, and the author of 1 John.




Are you saying that Stephen was the author of Acts, Hebrews and John 1?

Of course not. That is obviously a list, and it does not say "Jesus and Stephen, who was the author of Acts, the author of Hebrews, and the author of 1 John."



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by bb23108
Jesus' message relative to ascension was about a process of communing with the Divine Spirit Light above, a mystical process that he called his most prepared followers to - those who lived his core commandments of love/selflessness.

That is Gnostic teaching, which is not in the Bible, and thus is abjectly speculative. Speculation is not evidence of a contradiction between Paul and Jesus, as represented by their teachings in the Bible.



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 10:56 AM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 




Actually here it is:

"Then he said, "Here I am, I have come to do your will." He sets aside the first to establish the second."
Hebrews 10:9

Jesus took away the old meaning of the Torah, which was of a literal interpretation as dictated by the pharisees, and established the mystical, or spiritual, introducing the Holy Spirit which enlivens the words.

The words went from commandments and death, to Spirit and Life.

Do you not yet understand the Crucifixion?
edit on 103131p://444 by backcase because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by adjensen
 


So when he says not to call ANYONE father, he really meant anyone but Paul? The context is pretty clear when he says "anyone".

You say the context is that he was talking about the Pharisees. Did you forget that Paul was a Pharisee before his "conversion"?

And you, apparently, ignored the fact that at least four other people in the Bible, including Jesus, use the term father, applied to an earthly person. Does Jesus contradict himself? Or have you just misunderstood the whole concept?


Here's another one:


Romans 10
4 For Christ is the end of the law, that every one who has faith may be justified.


Paul says that Jesus is the end of the law. There's no taking that out of context, it speaks for itself.

What does Jesus have to say about the law?


Matthew 5
17 Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them.

I'm not sure why you don't understand it, but what Paul and Jesus say there are exactly the same thing -- Jesus is the fulfillment of the Law. Paul didn't say "Jesus ended the Law", he said "Jesus IS the end of the Law" (in your translation, NIV uses the term "culmination".)



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by backcase
 


Did Jesus ever say those words? No, so why put so much trust into them? That was not written by the son of god, it was written by a man/woman. Mankind is pretty good at tricking people into believing lies. They did it for thousands of years before Jesus ever showed up with countless other religions.


John 10
7 Therefore Jesus said again, “Very truly I tell you, I am the gate for the sheep. 8 All who have come before me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep have not listened to them. 9 I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved. They will come in and go out, and find pasture. 10 The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.


This passage makes it pretty clear that Jesus did not support the Torah or its god Yahweh. Yahweh came before Jesus' incarnation and Jesus says that ALL that came before him were thieves and robbers. That all includes Yahweh.

Yahweh also killed and destroyed just as Jesus' thief did. That's not a coincidence.



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 11:12 AM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 


The context of that passage would be false teachers. They are the thrives and robbers. Jesus explains their massive failure of leadership in Mark 7. His problem wasn't with the Torah, but with them elevating their traditions to the par of the Torah.





new topics
top topics
 
11
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join