Why did Jesus preach an incomplete message?

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Why would god allow Stephen to die in front of Paul then allow Paul to survive?

I think that this is a good example of what Klassified was saying, that non-christians can't hardly catch up with Christians in understanding the Bible.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by jmdewey60


What are you talking about? He didn't say anything like that. The only thing I see him saying is that not all atheists are as ignorant to the bible as Christians like to think.

Originally posted by Boomer1951
I think Jesus's message is pretty simple, weaved into parables and preaching. Love one another, work hard, choose to do no harm to another. I was raised Southern Baptist and have never understood why christians want to make his message so complicated. But then, there would be no need for theology schools if it were accepted as that simple.

The only post here that answered the thread here in a few short words. Jesus's 2 teachings were so simple and clear that he said they were for little children to understand not complex. He came to teach how to get Salvation/Eternal Life. And he clearly answered how to do this in Luke 10v25-27

Eternal Life or Salvation is not automatically given, it is earned. It is done by demonstration of living the 2 grand commandments that Jesus brought. Jesus answerd this in Luke 10 v 25-27. "This Do," you must DO something to get it. The race to run with patience is salvation and LIVING this life, to get the crown of life/victory that Evil will try to take from all of us. Many actually believe because Jesus died for their sins they are automatically saved, a easy and lazy thought, like a drug. It's about Love not memorizing the Bible or understanding all of it's mysteries.

You're both right.

It is very hard for someone who has not studied the bible for years to get a grasp of it. In fact, it's hard for those of us who have. It involves desire and study. Book by book, chapter by chapter, verse by verse, and word for word. I have been through the bible cover to cover countless times. Yet, I am no scholar. We do have a few here at ATS, though, I respect for their knowledge and understanding.
My point being, the bible is like any other large volume. It takes intense study to get a feel for the text, and realize what may appear to be contradictory at first, is often not, when the context is read and understood in each instance.

I am not saying there aren't contradictions. But usually, the ones unbelievers pick, aren't contradictions. They are misunderstandings, based on lack of knowledge and understanding.

In my personal opinion, only. Paul does not contradict Jesus teachings. However, some of Paul's teachings and metaphors are hard to grasp at first. The number one rule, is always context. I can't stress that enough. The second thing is, Paul is teaching from a perspective of post resurrection, not pre-resurrection. The difference is important. Here again, it's just my opinion, and I know Akragon and others disagree. That's fine with me. It doesn't hurt my feelings any. Especially considering my personal stance on all religious texts.

As to atheists studying the bible. It is true there are some knowledgeable atheists out there, and here on ATS. But they are few and far between. You will find the "few" are like myself, and some other members here. They were once Christians, and have studied it from that perspective. But an atheist can definitely understand the bible, if they actually have the desire to do so.

Originally posted by Klassified
As to atheists studying the bible. It is true there are some knowledgeable atheists out there, and here on ATS. But they are few and far between. You will find the "few" are like myself, and some other members here. They were once Christians, and have studied it from that perspective. But an atheist can definitely understand the bible, if they actually have the desire to do so.

edit on 8/28/2013 by Klassified because: (no reason given)

edit on 8/28/2013 by Klassified because: clarity

I agree with almost all you posted but one part"

"Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures." Luke 24v45

"Phlip said to the Eunoch, Understand what thou readest? Reply was "How can I except some man should guide me." Act 8v30-31

Understanding the mysteris of the scriptures cannot be done by oneself regardless of desire. Only a certain someone "some man" not "any man," who has been taught the understanding by the grace of God through words of another. Darkness (misunderstanding) does not shine light (understanding,) light shines into darkness. I have yet to meet an Aethiest or anyone that can do this.

reply to post by TheBrother

I understand what you're saying, and from a Christian perspective, it is the "holy spirit" that brings understanding and revelation.

But I have a much different perspective at this point in my life, than I did when I was a Christian.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by guitarplayer

 

That Jesus died for our sins and that good works are not needed, only faith. Paul's entire doctrine basically. It has made the world complacent and passive to the point of not caring because Jesus did it all for us.

edit on 27-8-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)

The body of Christ is not complacent. You have no idea what the individual Christian does or what a group of them do. Would you rather we took up arms and began to persecute those who persecute us? Is that the actions you would like to see?

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by jmdewey60

 

You're applying your own context to fit your preconceived notions. Whether you want to see that or not is up to you. As far as I can tell, Jesus said not to call anyone father, nothing more or less. Create your own meaning, I don't really care because you're blind to it.

Jesus told the religious people of His time that the devil was their father. So did Jesus contradict himself?
John 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

reply to post by guitarplayer


I never said that. I don't know where you got the idea that I believe Christians should persecute others. No one should persecute anyone for any reason, much less for religion.

The fact is, Christians WANT war to happen because war is supposed to break out before Jesus comes back, so yes, them doing nothing to stop war because it's supposed to happen is being complacent. They believe Jesus will come afterward, so they sit on their hands and wait it out. It's probably been that way for centuries, people believing Jesus was coming because there were rumors of war.

reply to post by guitarplayer


No he didn't contradict himself. Obviously the Jewish god did not live on Earth, and he obviously believed he was an impersonator god, so him calling Yahweh the father of lies does not mean he contradicted himself.

reply to post 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?

It is finished. Those were the words used.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Also, if Paul's message is really Jesus', then how do you explain most, if not all of it being absent from the gospels?

John 15
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.

Paul's message agreed with Jesus in every regard. We also need to make sure we know that all that Jesus said is not published.

John 21

Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

As well, Revelation is Jesus message to the churches. That message is in agreement with Paul.

reply to post by EnochWasRight


Yet it wasn't finished. He gave a vision to Paul afterward.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

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?

Paul's message came from the most profound change of heart possible. Paul represented what would later happen to Israel. By a converted Jew (Pharisee) speaking of the Grace and Mercy of forgiveness, the persecutor himself is changed profoundly by the light. This is a mirror of the Gentiles doing the same for Israel in the last days. Paul was persecuting the church before his conversion. After, he was showing how Israel would be the light to the world. Conversely, the Gentiles would then become the raised body of Christ in the last days to save the Jews.

Like Enoch, Paul (Acts 24) stated that BOTH the righteous and wicked would be on Earth in the last days in resurrected bodies. By resurrected, I do not mean glorified bodies. This is a baptism of water to bring the multitudes of 1 Corinthians 10 back into the wilderness to see Christ return.

Mark my words, Christians will reveal Christ to Israel. When this happens, most of the Muslim world will follow suit.

reply to post by EnochWasRight


Speaking of Revelation.

Luke 21
8 He replied: "Watch out that you are not deceived. For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am he,' and, 'The time is near.' Do not follow them.

Revelation is supposed to be Jesus speaking through John, meaning the words that John wrote down scream "I am he" in regards to Jesus.

What is one of the first things said in Revelation?

Revelation 1
3 Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear it and take to heart what is written in it, because the time is near.

Why do you choose to ignore Jesus' warning? Revelation fits it to the T. Let me guess, it's in the bible, therefore it must be true?

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by guitarplayer

 

No he didn't contradict himself. Obviously the Jewish god did not live on Earth, and he obviously believed he was an impersonator god, so him calling Yahweh the father of lies does not mean he contradicted himself.

Christ was not calling Yahwen the father of lies. Where did you get that idea from? Yahweh is not the devil. Where did you get that from and yoes you did say that because of the easy beleife system that Christians are complacent.

John 20:30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book

John 21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

In other words, Not everything Jesus said or did was recorded, but one would assume that Paul, as well as the other disciples, received his message in it's entirety.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by guitarplayer

 

I never said that. I don't know where you got the idea that I believe Christians should persecute others. No one should persecute anyone for any reason, much less for religion.

The fact is, Christians WANT war to happen because war is supposed to break out before Jesus comes back, so yes, them doing nothing to stop war because it's supposed to happen is being complacent. They believe Jesus will come afterward, so they sit on their hands and wait it out. It's probably been that way for centuries, people believing Jesus was coming because there were rumors of war.

edit on 28-8-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)

So all the Christian marching for civil rights and protests against the war were being complacent and wanting war? You do know that Martin L. King was a minister a doctor of theology? I do not know of any Christian that is in favor of war. We may look at the world through the endtimes prophecies but we know that we cannot force the hand of God that what will happen will happen whether we do anything or not. You have a very twisted view of Chirstianity.

reply to post by guitarplayer


The Pharisees and Sudacees worshiped Yahweh, so yes, he was calling their god (father) the devil. Where I got that idea from is the verse you cited.

reply to post by guitarplayer

We may look at the world through the endtimes prophecies but we know that we cannot force the hand of God that what will happen will happen whether we do anything or not.

What makes you think that God would want wars?
What war exactly do you think is prophesied?
When you drive your car, do you sometimes close your eyes and let go of the steering wheel, thinking, "If I am to hit a tree, I will hit a tree"?