It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
However, many would say that alll those versions you and I are reading, unless we can interpret real Hebrew, aren't so applicable, anyway, which is why I mentioned I believe the text has been edited, expurgated, changed, etc. and a whole lot depends upon translation.
I happen to find the whole story of the Last Supper and what Jesus supposedly was to have said to his disciples in regards to comparisons of wine and meat, his continuing to be with them, and the Catholic ritual of taking sacrament, rather unGodly, and have always suspected it was just one more thing that could have been added......
9 For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living.
No, it is not "clearly" that they stand on their own. You are pretending that Paul sometimes does not write rhetorically, and in those cases it is ok to look at a verse out of context.
Clearly these two verses stand on their own and clearly they contradict one another.
How do you get "saved" from "justified"? Being justified, as used by Paul, means to be made right, such as those "things you do" that James mentioned. You become "right" by doing righteous things.
Paul says that you can be justified (saved) by faith alone, while James says that works are needed along with faith.
Going back to what Jesus said according to Luke, if you go to the end of his statement, you see him saying, " . . . to him all are alive."
How can he be the lord of both the dead and the living when Jesus said he was only the god of the living and not the dead? Clear contradiction, and the verse stands on its own.
Should I go on?
Are you saying that no one is dead, and that Jesus is saying that everyone who has ever lived is still alive?
"Let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them; and I will make thee a great nation" (Exodus 32:10). Moses is better than his God, as the deprecator and indeed, the averter of his anger, "For Thou shalt not do this; or else destroy me along with them" (Exodus 32:32). "
Looking at the verses related to the Last Supper, I think it may be that the most important part Is the wine.
This is cutting a bit close to the core of my own understanding of Jesus as present.
In the Gospel quote, Jesus says that God is the God of the living.
Apparently you missed the point. Paul says that Jesus is the god of both the living and the dead, Jesus says that god is only god of the living. Can you really not see it? Take your blinders off.
See my comment above.
If to him all are alive, why did Paul say that he was the god of the dead?
What premise? All I see is you not understanding things, but thinking that you do, based on garbage that your cult pretending to be a church taught you.
Stop ignoring it, it's so obvious what you're doing. You're twisting what he says to fit your premise.
No, James said "doing things".
Paul says that people are justified apart from the law, meaning the law is not needed. James says that the law is needed along with faith. Stop twisting the words, you're only fooling yourself.
All I can say is that you are weird, thinking that there is no such thing as dead people.
Yes, and apparently you are saying the same thing and so was Jesus. Paul doesn't agree with that and says that Jesus is god of the dead. How can he be god of the dead if he doesn't think anyone is dead?
m not sure I agree with that... I seem to think Paul was looking for a following... and he used the name of Jesus to gain exactly that... IF he had known Jesus, even if it was in a vision... one must assume he would have taught something from his lessons...
Claudius' expulsion of some Jews from Rome
There were at least two expulsions of Jews from Rome before the event that Suetonius mentions. In 139 BC the Jews were expelled after being accused of aggressive missionary efforts. Then in AD 19 Tiberius once again expelled Jews from the city for similar reasons. By the beginning of the reign of Claudius (i.e. AD 41) Jews had come to Rome once again and were in such numbers that the emperor was worried. However, according to Cassius Dio (see below), instead of them being expelled, this time the Jews were forbidden from holding meetings, so synagogues were closed. Silvia Cappelletti describes Claudius's motivation as the need to control the population of Rome and prevent political meetings. (He "did not have an anti-Jewish policy.") The expulsion event Suetonius refers to is understood to be later than 41. Donna Hurley explains that Suetonius includes the expulsion "among problems with foreign populations, not among religions"
Robert Jewett's Romans commentary talks a lot about "tenement" churches, meaning not free-standing churches, but in homes within larger multi-family buildings, in Rome, as the start of recognizable Christianity.
There is much we don't know.
So you think every time Jesus talked about God, he was talking about and to himself?
You don't think Jesus was god now?
Because there is none. All there is going on is Jesus talking one way to Sadducees, and Paul talking another way to Christians, and you not understanding the nuance involved in the different types of rhetoric.
Why not acknowledge the clear contradiction?
You are weird by thinking that you are God.
I guess god is weird too huh? Because Jesus said "to him all are alive", meaning no one is dead in god's eyes, which makes sense because his eyes are our eyes and the only eyes that can see are those that are alive.
You should "wake up" to the reality that Paul did not write that. That is something written by a forger placing Paul's name on something he wrote himself.
You are suffering from the "strong delusion" that Paul has given you. Wake up.
It's not an attack and it isn't meant to be a way to "win" an argument.
I see you're resorting to personal attacks now by calling what I think "garbage" and saying part of my brain is turned off and that I'm somehow part of a "cult" even though I don't believe in christian dogma anymore.
For you to be right, everyone else would have to be wrong, and also that the New Testament was put together by people who had no idea what they were doing.
. . . you KNOW that I'm right . . .
This is what I was talking about when I said part of your brain is not working.
Who was Jesus' father again? God right? Who did Jesus say he was "one" with? His father right? So he implied that he was one with God right? Or do you deny his words?