Paul contradicts Jesus

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

The world is a reflection of us because our thoughts mold it into what we want it to be. Our thoughts control our bodies and our bodies and hands are used to build things and change landscapes and build entire cities. All of that originated with thought, so we ARE that "something greater".

I see then where the equal gods comes in. There was a time when I was in danger of being stuck in "Solipsism", where I thought I was the center of the universe. I had to develop a change in outlook, I called it Plenary Metaphysical Solipsism, which means, yes, I am at the center, but then again, so is everybody else.

I should have recognized it sooner. That's pretty much what you believe, I think.

reply to post by pthena


Always.

reply to post by pthena


In a way, yes. We are no greater or lesser than each other and in a sense we are all the center because the universe arises from us. Without us, there would be no universe, but then again, without the universe there would be no us either.

That's the main reason I disagree with Paul, he puts ALL emphasis on Jesus and Jesus alone, taking power away from those who believe him. Paul teaches that Jesus is the center while everything revolves around him, that is absolutely not true because we are all the "center" not just Jesus.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

ALL emphasis on Jesus and Jesus alone, taking power away from those who believe him. Paul teaches that Jesus is the center while everything revolves around him, that is absolutely not true because we are all the "center" not just Jesus.

Paul was trying to develop a "Cosmic Christ" doctrine(Church as Body of Christ) which would have, in my opinion combined the Throne with the Spirit Presence as connection for all Christians. I don't think that he developed it completely. Some theologians went further and called it the Doctrine of Mystical Union.

If the Doctrine of Mystical Union is then projected further than just the Church, then we would have a Cosmic Christ that is Universal rather than restricted to only Christians. I think that some Liberal Christianities are actually doing this.

I'm a Pagan Polytheist so I don't really see Jesus as the totality of the Christ. But then I don't think that Christians should be hindered from eventually breaking out of the exclusiveness club.

It takes more than seeing Fundamentalism as extreme error. It isn't easy for people to get out of it. I'm almost thinking that only Christians may be able to help Christians to see the light.

It's all rather frustrating to watch how slowly things happen isn't it?

reply to post by pthena


Paul taught that Jesus was Yahweh incarnate. Yahweh was a vengeful, merciless god while Jesus was humble and merciful, meaning they are complete opposites.

If Paul was truly led by the holy spirit, he would have seen the error in connecting Jesus to Yahweh, yet he promoted the idea to the fullest. If he truly loved Jesus and his message, he would not have equated him to Yahweh in any way, but he does with no if's and's or buts about it.

Romans 2
3 So when you, a mere human being, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God’s judgment?

This verse shows, in my opinion, that Paul taught that all others besides Jesus were just "mere humans" and were not God alongside Jesus.

If he truly spread Jesus' message then he wouldn't have said this. I believe that Jesus' true gospel was that we are all expressions of God, that we are no different from him, and that we ALL have eternal life already. But those in power suppressed that truth and Paul was their main player in that suppression.

The reason Jesus died on the cross was not to save us from our sins, but because he didn't keep his mouth shut and those in power didn't like that, so they silenced him the only way they could, by killing him. After they killed him, in came Paul to do the clean-up work. They used Jesus' message against him by having Paul write those letters in order to twist it to fit the elites needs.

Paul taught that Jesus died for our sins, when you really think about it that is not true. If anything, he died BECAUSE of our sins, not for. Paul was the beginning of the problem, not the solution as many believe.

And yes, it is very frustrating. Remember though, I'm only stating my opinion not trying to convert you. I respect your right to have your own opinion, just as I would want you to respect mine.

reply to post by windword

Was Jesus playing dress up when he donned his man suit and sacrificed himself to himself?

No. Jesus did not retain his godhood.

Are you playing dress up as a human man, when in reality you're a spiritual being?

No, God is a spiritual being. Before we became what we are now, we were not technically "beings". That was why we needed to create a universe, to be beings.

The natural world, or universe, is the physical manifestation of the spirit and is, in reality, a marriage of both.

No. It is the result of thought, but not a direct 'magical' manifestation, where such a thing is not necessarily possible when it comes to the material.

For you to say that God is a spirit and nothing else put limits on your God.

So? That was a choice, so it was a consensual "limit".

As we know it, the universe is without limit, making the universe greater than your God.

The universe is limited by certain physical laws which we may not be necessarily aware of at the moment.

Why do disbelievers, atheist, agnostics start so many threads about Christ, about the faith? They should just go on and be happy with their choice.

Paul never contradicts Jesus, He is Our Lord's disciple. A contradiction would mean the Bible, God's written Word
is errant, it isn't The error is in man's private judgment" of Scripture. A big fat heresy.

God did not give every person reading the BIble the authority to interpret it. God knew, He gave the authority
to interpret Scripture to the Church who canonized Scripture.

If you can't read Latin, the first Bible is the Latin Vulgate, read the English translation of the Vulgate.

www.drbo.org... The footnotes help you understand tough verses and you can understand better why the
Church teaches what she does.

reply to post by pthena

"Love Brahman with all your heart and soul"

Love that thing that tells you to love your neighbor.
I think that is the source for the recitation of the first law.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

I'm only stating my opinion not trying to convert you.

Convert me from Pagan to Plenary Metaphysical Solipsist?

But seriously, though. I don't really have the motivation to try to reconcile Paul to my beliefs. I just cherry pick and try not to leave the impression that I'm preaching Paul. Others, like jmdewey may feel the need to reconcile Paul.

Paul taught that Jesus died for our sins, when you really think about it that is not true. If anything, he died BECAUSE of our sins, not for.

Yes, agreed. When you think about it, that is not true. I suspect(I don't really know) that many Liberal Christian Churches quit talking about that, and some scholars are trying to keep Paul and make some way to interpret him so that he doesn't say that.(people more motivated than me)

They used Jesus' message against him by having Paul write those letters in order to twist it to fit the elites needs.

They didn't use Paul's writings until after Paul was gone.

If he truly loved Jesus and his message, he would not have equated him to Yahweh in any way, but he does with no if's and's or buts about it.

In my opinion, Paul substituted Yahweh for Jesus, thus, in his mind Yahweh was gone and Jesus was there instead as Lord. The Father is still above the Lord. I don't know how many Christians, if any, understand this.
The Marcionites understood this perhaps (see ANTITHESIS
:Contradictions Between the Old Testament Deity and the New Testament God) But the Marcionites and Gnostics were suppressed by orthodoxy.

The reason that Orthodoxy latched onto Paul was because Paul actually seemed to be ambiguous about whether OT god was God or not, thus greater appeal to Pagans while maintaining the OT for purposes of claiming to be a "very old religion" which held some appeal to people back then. Was the formation of Orthodoxy a dastardly deed? I think so.

If you contrast Paul with Epistle of Barnabas, you see that Barnabas is the one who has Yahweh continue on as is from the OT. Paul doesn't quite do that.

Anyway, that's as far as I can go in defending Paul, not quite "to the death" as you put it.

Hopefully, some motivated Christians can take up from there. It seems a decent enough beginning to me.

3NLIGHT and all,

Here's a pertinent question to ask in this thread and it has been answered. Why Paul powerfully reminds some of the first Christians of Christ's presence in the most Holy Eucharist (1 Cor 11:27).

Was Paul a Catholic priest?

Yes, he refers to his “priestly ministry” in Romans 15:15-16. He administered the sacraments, Paul called himself a “minster of Christ."

Romans 15:15-16
But I have written to you, brethren, more boldly in some sort, as it were putting you in mind: because of the grace which is given me from God. [16] That I should be the minister of Christ Jesus among the Gentiles; sanctifying the gospel of God, that the oblation of the Gentiles may be made acceptable and sanctified in the Holy Ghost.

www.drbo.org...

It is not hard to find contradictions in modern version of the text. It has been edited, had more than 1/2 of the books removed, and mistranslated so often that it would be surprising if it had any cohesion left. I have always been amazed that people will argue points in the bible, but not take the time to learn to read it in the Greek of the new testament. If you have not read the original version than you have to admit that you do not have a grasp of what it really said:

οὐκ ἔστιν θεὸς νεκρῶν ἀλλὰ ζώντων: πολὺ πλανᾶσθε. Mark 12:27

Part of your error is in the translation of νεκρῶν: destitute of a life that recognizes and is devoted to God, because given up to trespasses and sins.
The version that you have quoted translated this word as: the dead.

Also, the word ζώντων means: active, blessed, endless in the kingdom of God
had been translated as: the living. So, in the original Mark 12:27 really meant: He is not the God of the faithless, but the God of the blessed followers.

reply to post by colbe

Why do disbelievers, atheist, agnostics start so many threads about Christ, about the faith? They should just go on and be happy with their choice.

Only speaking for myself here, as the duly appointed inter-faith negotiator for the Crypto Neo-Marcionite sect of the Third Splinter. We want Jesus freed from the linkage to the Old Testament.

Just for myself, the duly appointed shaman of The Remembrance of HWAWG cult: We want Jesus freed completely just as Chiron freed Prometheus of old.

reply to post by pthena


I just had to look up what solipsism means. I'm guessing you think that I am unsure whether anything outside of my mind exists?

If so, I wouldn't take it quite that far, I am almost positive that you exist and everyone else exists. I do not believe I am alone in this universe, I can't exactly prove it, but I'm pretty sure you know that you exist, and I know I exist, so I can't say that you don't.

My thought is that if god is omnipresent and all-powerful, then he is more than capable of perceiving himself from many different directions. We are the universe (god) incarnate and we are the universe experiencing and learning about itself.

I try not to label myself with anything, but if I had to choose something it would be similar to pantheist or panentheist. Could you maybe explain what "Plenary Metaphysical Solipsist" means? I googled it and came up with no results.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

I can't exactly prove it, but I'm pretty sure you know that you exist, and I know I exist, so I can't say that you don't.

I don't exist... Shhhh

reply to post by pthena

Others, like jmdewey may feel the need to reconcile Paul.

More like reconciling the other writers to Paul, who was the original after probably Revelation.
I don't feel it necessary to try to reconcile Paul to anyone else.
He does that himself, I think, where his first letter, 1 Thessalonians, may have been his rebuttal to Revelation which he may have seen as a condemnation of his own theology.

reply to post by Akragon


This post doesn't exist either... don't tell anyone though.

reply to post by jmdewey60


Revelation wasn't written until well after Paul died, by at least 30 years.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Revelation wasn't written until well after Paul died, by at least 30 years.

That is garbage promoted by the rapture cult people to not allow people to think that the tribulation predicted already happened.
No reputable modern biblical scholar accepts the late date.

reply to post by jmdewey60


Pfffft.... whatever dude.

It must be nice to make your own scholarship up. I guess most scholars are not reputable in your opinion? Give me a break.

The funny thing is, I knew this would be your exact response.You're way too predictable.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Could you maybe explain what "Plenary Metaphysical Solipsist" means? I googled it and came up with no results.

I started talking about it here:People who think the world is ending are mentaly ill Then started this thread. Consensual Reality or Consentual Reality?
I'll have to re-read to see if it still makes sense.

Metaphysical_solipsism
Metaphysical solipsism is the "strongest" variety of solipsism. Based on a philosophy of subjective idealism, metaphysical solipsists maintain that the self is the only existing reality and that all other reality, including the external world and other persons, are representations of that self, and have no independent existence.

You take Metaphysical solipsism slap the Plenary in front so it isn't just one person's subjective idealism but a whole bunch of people's subjective idealism.