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.
That Jesus died for our sins and that good works are not needed, only faith. Paul's entire doctrine basically.
The Greek says "what he is doing".
What Jesus taught obviously.
I believe that Jesus' death was a necessary part of the plan of salvation. What I don't believe is the mechanism some people insert as a theory of how it is accomplished.
What purpose did his death and ascension serve other than to save us from sin? If I'm not mistaken, you don't believe that part of Christianity.
Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
Jesus came to preach his gospel, yet died before he could say everything he needed to say. Proof of this is in all of Paul's epistles. Why would Jesus not teach Paul's message while on Earth, and why would he choose one of his persecutors to finish his message?
Also, if Paul's message is really Jesus', then how do you explain most, if not all of it being absent from the gospels?
15 I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master's business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you.
Peter was present when Jesus was saying this, so that means that Peter learned everything Jesus had to say while traveling with him. Why then, is Paul's message not in the gospels when the Gospel of Mark was a recounting of Peter's memory?
Why would Peter neglect to mention anything in Paul's message when it is considered to be some of the most important information in the bible?
Remember, Jesus told his apostles EVERYTHING he learned from his Father, so I find it strange that Paul was even needed and why the message Paul taught isn't seen until his epistles.
So, why did Jesus supposedly need Paul when he already told Peter everything he knew? And why is Paul's doctrine nowhere to be found in Mark, which is based on Peter's own words?edit on 27-8-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)
ive tangled with englightened in a couple other threads.....he just likes to stir the pot and get people in an uproar. I think anyone with an ounce of discernment can see quite easily hes not interested at all in solving any biblical quandaries....therefore his posts are an exercise in futility and pseudo intellectual babble. Dont take him seriously.
enlightened....if youre against semantics then youre against making sense of words and their definitions....which must put you in the camp of those who have abandoned literal meaning of anything, which means you are a fool.
If you are getting your opinion from reading any other version of the Bible than the Authorized KJV then you will find contradictions and mistakes, because every other version (NIV, NLT, NKJV, ESV et al...) are gross perversions of the original, perfect word of God.
King James supporters note that the New Testament manuscripts began to be altered very soon after they were written.
Eusebius, the ancient church historian, reported that heresies sprang up early after the turn of the second century, and proponents of these heresies sometimes altered Scripture to accord with their beliefs.(16) Thus, antiquity is not the crucial test. That there are no copies older than the fourth century can be explained by the fact that the material manuscripts were written on was fragile; it's reasonable to conclude that the early copies probably wore out through frequent handling.
Summary and Concluding Thoughts
To summarize, those who support the King James/Received Text tradition emphasize the number of manuscripts, the church's history with the Byzantine text, and God's interest in preserving His Word, whereas those following Westcott and Hort say that the variants in the manuscripts - even between those in the Byzantine family - prove the need for the textual criticism of the New Testament.
The results of their analysis along with the ages of the manuscripts leads them to believe that the Byzantine family is just one text family that can lead us back to the originals - or close to it - but it is not the one best text family.
So, which way should you go on this debate? If you are concerned about the issue, I suggest that you study it more. The texts cited in the notes will give you a place to start. If not, I would recommend using a version that is as close to the Greek text as possible while being understandable to you.
But whichever version you choose, be very sure of your arguments before insisting that others use it, too. It seems to me that, with all the difficulties we face in our often hostile culture, we should not erect walls between Christians on the basis of Bible versions. We are not taking God's Word lightly here. We are simply calling for a more well-reasoned discussion and for the rule of love to govern the debate.
the better question is why do atheists expect all Christians to be Bible scholars
(and the answer is simply that Christians, have faith, that's why we don't need to be bible scholars)
14 Let them alone. They are blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind leads the blind, both will fall into a ditch.”
But what's weirder even is how Atheists become bible scholars to hopefully find holes in Christianity in a pathetic hope to be right so they can justify their existence and hopefully in that truly pathetic way, give themselves hope that their's no afterlife and no hell.
15 Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
9 And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven.
1 Corinthians 4
15 For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel.
38 Now he is not God of the dead, but of the living
9 For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.