First Defense for Paul: Spoken by Jesus

page: 2
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 1 2013 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by backcase
 



and read Leviticus 18:22 if you think it is paul's fault for anti homosexuality.


I thought Paul said that the law was abolished and nailed to the cross etc.




posted on Apr, 1 2013 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by backcase
 



and read Leviticus 18:22 if you think it is paul's fault for anti homosexuality.


I thought Paul said that the law was abolished and nailed to the cross etc.



For those who abide by the Spirit of Christ in faith.



posted on Apr, 1 2013 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by backcase
 


So what did you mean when you said

"read Leviticus 18:22 if you think it is paul's fault for anti homosexuality."

Why blame the law that Paul said was abolished?
edit on 1-4-2013 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2013 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 


Well the guy I was talking to said that it is Paul's fault for religion being against homos.

I put that the root goes deeper than paul.



posted on Apr, 1 2013 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by backcase
reply to post by Theflyingweldsman
 
I think it has nothing to do with justified hate or fear. I would like to remain on topic. If you do not believe the bible then why bother arguing with me about it?
I refuse to argue, believe what you want to believe.


If you refuse to argue, then so do I.
I don't want to argue, only deny ignorance.

Everyone has their own wonderful individual "beliefs" and that is fantastic.

But if you think that Jesus "Predicted" paul with that parable, then it is my duty as a member of ATS to take time with you and Input my view to the discussion that you started.

Which is that "Jesus Never Met Paul" and "That Parable Has Nothing To Do With Paul".
The rest was me letting off steam about Paul and then replying to your reply.

I meant no offense to you, but after being brainwashed by the catholic church for 17 odd years (me),
I think I can offer a contemplated opinion. That is all.

I could also comment on "Moby Dick" even though I don't believe that the book is completly true.

Peace to you, Bro,
Believe what you want to believe also, but we are here to deny ignorance, not to interpret the bible to suit our own beliefs.


Originally posted by backcase
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 

Well the guy I was talking to said that it is Paul's fault for religion being against homos.

I hope you don't mean me....I never used that term.

edit on 1/4/2013 by Theflyingweldsman because: extra reply to backcase
edit on 1/4/2013 by Theflyingweldsman because: A single interaction can have multiple interpretations.



posted on Apr, 1 2013 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by backcase
 



Well the guy I was talking to said that it is Paul's fault for religion being against homos.

I put that the root goes deeper than paul.


I got that.
So are you telling me its ok for people to be gay... because Paul abolished the law... which includes the law being against gays?



posted on Apr, 1 2013 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 


But paul kept the idea that homosexuality is a mortal sin. In no way do I agree with the practice of homosexuality.

But once again, remain on topic.



posted on Apr, 1 2013 @ 12:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Theflyingweldsman
 


Just because you put no offense in front or after a rude remark does not mean it is not offensive.

Jesus did not predict paul, but His words apply to him. But then again, Jesus is unexcelled and knows everything so maybe He did predict paul.



posted on Apr, 1 2013 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by backcase
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 

But paul kept the idea that homosexuality is a mortal sin. In no way do I agree with the practice of homosexuality.

But once again, remain on topic.


My point exactly. Thank you OP. It was a minor point in my original comment to your "Jesus-Paul Prediction theory" Thread.




Just because you put no offense in front or after a rude remark does not mean it is not offensive.

Edit to ask: What rude remark did I make?



edit on 1/4/2013 by Theflyingweldsman because: extra reply to backcase



posted on Apr, 1 2013 @ 12:15 PM
link   
reply to post by backcase
 



But paul kept the idea that homosexuality is a mortal sin.

I don't wish to hijack your thread but you are giving me the impression that Paul was a hypocrite for teaching that the law (inlcuding the law against homosexuality) was abolished.... yet maintains that homosexuals are damned.


In no way do I agree with the practice of homosexuality.

Neither do I.
But you are the one who seems to be agreeing with Paul....a hypocrite who says the law is abolished... but still condemns homosexuals referring to either the Old Testament law against it... or speaking from his own bias.



posted on Apr, 1 2013 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 


no man is condemned until his soul is dies to grace. Paul says that it is a sin.

The law is abolished to the extent that brings death and not life, but there is still life in the OT.

The sins in the OT that were punishable by death are now abolished by the law of mercy, but they are still sins.

Paul says something like "all things are lawful for me, but not all things are helpful", do you get what I'm saying yet?



posted on Apr, 1 2013 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Theflyingweldsman
 


"I meant no offense to you and being brainwashed by the catholic church for 17 odd years, I think I can offer a contemplated opinion. That is all."

That was the remark, but I take no offense. I do not consider myself brainwashed.



posted on Apr, 1 2013 @ 12:25 PM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 




I don't wish to hijack your thread


You just did by focusing it on Paul's, and your's and the OP's anti-homosexual stance.
So, carry on using Paul to justify whatever feelings you have against people of a different sexuality.



posted on Apr, 1 2013 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by backcase
 

I never said You were brainwashed, I said I was.
How can I offend you by considering myself to have been brainwashed by a particular Religion?

I have edited my comment for clarity.
May I refer you to This article?

Peace.
edit on 1/4/2013 by Theflyingweldsman because: I never meant to hurt you.
edit on 1/4/2013 by Theflyingweldsman because: A single interaction can have multiple interpretations.



posted on Apr, 1 2013 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Theflyingweldsman
 


Sorry, I suppose I did not read your sentence correctly.



posted on Apr, 1 2013 @ 01:32 PM
link   
the real jesus may have been talking about paul in this instance, according to a more researched history than what christians usually allow themselves...

Saul (Roman cognomen was Paul), whose real name was probably Nethanel (Dositheus) was born to the wealthy Jewish Sarmatian High Priest line in exile of the Tribe of Menasheh (Manasseh) living in Tarsus in Cilicia (Turkey) -born a year after the birth of John the Baptist.


The ancestors of Saul included several infamous High Priests and claimed royal heritage to the Messiah line as a sub-branch of the House of Joseph


During this period, the ancestors of Saul developed a unique version of Judaism, which blended the occult and demonic gods of the Assyrians and Judaic beliefs to form the basis of the duality of Sadduceean mind.


Saul is also related through to the Manasseh (known as Menelaus), High Priest of Mount Gerizim (Samaritans) and High Priest of Israel 172-162 BCE who is infamously supposed to have alerted the Assyrians to the wealth hidden in the bowels of the Temple


This event has enormous political and social implications both for the priestly family of Saul (Paul of Tarsus) and the Sarmatians for when John Hyrcanus was in power, he beseiged Mount Gerizim and utterly destroyed the Temple and township of Shechem of 15,000 people to the ground.


sins of the father here beign attributed to paul who, as history shows, was not capable of leading a religion and should not have been selected to dictate the words of god to the world...

In the famous episode with Pontius Pilate and the choosing of Jesus versus "Barabbus"- a choice between two Messiahs, it was Saul (Paul of Tarsus) as Barabbus who was freed and promptly sent into exile in Damascus.



link



posted on Apr, 1 2013 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by tinhattribunal
 


Thank you for the info, I appreciate it.

The man set free by Pilate known as Barnabas was a known murderer, therefore he could not be a Pharisee. The pharisees shunned a man of such a reputation, so if Barnabas were Saul, Saul would not have been of the priestly castes.



posted on Apr, 1 2013 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by tinhattribunal
the real jesus may have been talking about paul in this instance, according to a more researched history than what christians usually allow themselves...

Seriously? You think that fiction, and it's very obviously fiction, is "more researched history"?

Did you notice the complete lack of sources, barring the following?


Someone "talks to the dead", comes up with this dreck, and you think it's credible?



posted on Apr, 1 2013 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 

Q... what does the bible use for it's sources?

A... every 'pagan' religion that came before it!


as far as that author goes, he has about 70 different websites and for the one i linked to and several others he has said he will provide a detailed list of his sources in hopefully a year from now, that i am looking forward to.

it's not that i belive in his, or anyone's conclusions. i know that there is a true story contained in the bible, it is not, however, the surface story that is being dictated to the masses.
one must know the real history and the relationship of the characters involved, plus the meanings of many words that have been twisted thru history in order to even begin to comprehend what story is really beign told.
it may seem offensive to some when info is shared by those who don't hold to the established programming, but it's likely that a much larger (and probably more 'glorious' )story than what people percieve is to be found...
i won't let your criticisms dissuade me.



posted on Apr, 1 2013 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by tinhattribunal
 


Oh, for pete's sakes. Read what he wrote -- he's making it all up, and he admits to it. The simple fact that Paul was adamantly against marriage and this bozo claims that he was married and had children should be enough of a clue to anyone with an IQ over 50 that he's not only inventing facts, he doesn't have the foggiest idea what the evidence actually is.

I don't care if he has a million websites, if they're anything like that, the whole lot of it is crap. He'll post sources in a year? Reminds me of a joke, along the lines of "How do you keep an idiot in suspense for 24 hours?"



i won't let your criticisms dissuade me.

Of course not. You won't even let someone who freely admits that he's making up stories dissuade you, why would someone who tells you the truth?





new topics
top topics
 
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join