"I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


The idea of "Original Sin" is an idea that's inserted into Christianity to give their savior some legitimacy and something to save us from. The Old Testament confirms again and again that a person is responsible for their own actions only. Jesus made it a lot harder by insisting that we were also responsible for our thoughts and attitudes.

A person isn't born righteous. Righteousness is something that is learned and earned after many mistakes. It isn't a gift, and having faith in ones beliefs isn't what makes a person righteous. The purity and the goodness of the way they live their life, and their actions towards others is what makes a person righteous.

In my humble opinion.........

reply to post by the2ofusr1


We all stand accused.

So, you don't tithe? Even I, a heathen, tithe. In my own way, I find ways to give back and "pay it forward".

reply to post by windword


Question: "Why did God accept Abel’s offering but reject Cain’s offering? Why did Cain then kill Abel?"

Answer: The stories of the first act of worship in human history and the first murder are recorded in Genesis chapter 4. This follows the account of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, their disobedience to God, and the entrance of sin into the human race. Death, the judgment pronounced upon them by God, soon made its entrance in the first family.

Cain and Abel, the sons of Adam and Eve, "in the course of time" brought offerings to the Lord (Genesis 4:3). Without doubt, they were doing this because God had revealed it to them. Some question, “How were Cain and Abel supposed to know what to sacrifice?” The answer is that God must have instructed them. It is clear that the offering was to be a substitutionary atonement, because we read in Hebrews 11:4, "By faith Abel offered God a better sacrifice than Cain did." When Abel came for worship, it was by faith that he brought his offering, the "fat portions from some of the first-born of his flock" (Genesis 4:4). The Lord looked with favor on Abel and his offering, and it was accepted.

His brother Cain brought "some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the Lord" (Genesis 4:3). But on Cain and his offering the Lord did not look with favor. We do not know how He expressed His rejection, but it was evident. In Jude’s epistle, verse 11, we read, "They have taken the way of Cain," referring to lawless men. This may mean that they, like Cain, disobediently devised their own ways of worship; they did not come by faith. Cain’s offering, while acceptable in his own eyes, was not acceptable to the Lord. The result was that Cain became very angry, and later, in the field, he killed his brother Abel (Genesis 4:8).

Why did Cain kill Abel? It was premeditated murder, caused by anger, jealousy, and pride. John wrote, "Do not be like Cain, who belonged to the evil one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his own actions were evil and his brother’s were righteous" (1 John 3:12). The evil in his heart was further revealed when the Lord asked Cain, "Where is your brother Abel?" "I don’t know," he replied. "Am I my brother’s keeper?" (Genesis 4:9). The Lord brought a curse on Cain, and he went out from His presence.

When Jesus Christ died upon the cross, He became the substitutionary atonement for our sins. He died in our place and arose from the grave that we might have everlasting life with Him. As Abel made his sacrifice by faith, we accept Jesus’ death by faith and are made right before Him. "This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe." We "are justified freely by His grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented Him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in His blood" (Romans 3:22
www.gotquestions.org...

reply to post by the2ofusr1

It is clear that the offering was to be a substitutionary atonement, because we read in Hebrews 11:4, "By faith Abel offered God a better sacrifice than Cain did."

No, that's not clear at all. And, please don't quote Pauline scripture to me. I reject Saul/Paul's testimony, and count him as a liar.

And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD.
4 And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering
5 but unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.

Anyone whose ever foraged for fruit knows that the fruit of the ground is full of worms. The fruit that's ripe, but still on the tree, is the best fruit. Cain didn't offer, and it was an offering, not a sacrifice, his best. He offered what was wasted. Abel offered his (still on the tree) young lamb. Not a chewy old tough ram, that was on it's last leg.

If you MUST have a sacrifice, then Cain offered Abel, his own brother, as a sacrifice to abate the shame of having his offering called out and rejected by God. Cain sacrificed Abel, something that God loved, to atone for his lazy a$$ attitude. A sacrifice that God also rejected.

Notice, also, that God didn't kill Cain. He banished him. God doesn't employ the death penalty on any man until much, much later.

reply to post by windword


Good for you ...I usually put a few shekels in plates that are on the street put there by street people not in the pockets of some kingdom cult minion ....peace

I think Jesus told the Pharisees and the teachers of the law that he had not come to call the righteous to repentance but sinners is because the Pharisees thought, believed they were righteous. If they believed they were righteous and had no sin, they wouldn't come to him anyway. That was their one problem.

LewisStulePhD
reply to post by sk0rpi0n

 

I think the strawman should be named King of Debate....

Ok, strawman, let's help you get rid of some of your straw so you'll be more comfortable.

And when Jesus asked why the Churches and Temples were continuing to be built while He walked by 100's of the hungry and lame

There were no more temples being built, and churches had not been built yet. In fact, the temple at Jerusalem was built by Herod the Great and Jesus said it was going to be torn down.

Jesus also said to Judas "the poor you will have with you always, but THIS woman ministered to me and should be mentioned as a memorial to her wherever the Gospel is preached". So why aren't you mentioning her?

Adam(u) and Lilith, "made from the same dirt" When Lilith wouldn't bow to Adam(u) (remember they are =) and bear Adam(u) any children, Lilith split. Then the "Quorum" created "Eve" 'made from Adam's rib...'

reply to post by windword


Whether or not you count him as a liar and reject him, does not mean the rest of us do. Why not use what Paul said? The T&C at ATS says we are allowed to cite any source.

And that's not really conducive to discussion when you say "Let's not even use your sources because I reject them already". Listen to what the man had to say, but don't say to someone else they can't use him as a source.

Many of us do not agree with Bart Ehrmann or Richard Dawkins either, but we don't tell others that we reject what they said because we disagree with them.

I think then it would only be fair that on every thread the rest of say "Nope, don't even tell me what they said, I reject it already". Don't you think that's fair?

reply to post by WarminIndy



The wind must be blowing north from Gas City and distorting what You read earlier o'er at HuffinPaint™... hahaha

Don't take St. Pete off the gate!!!

reply to post by WarminIndy


We don't need Paul's interpretation of his kind of Christianity to expand upon or to understand what Jesus, himself, was saying. Jesus' own words are sufficient.

Quoting Paul, who never knew Jesus, and never quoted Jesus or referred to any of his deeds or miracles, to explain what Jesus meant, is useless and will always be rejected by me.

Paul may be a Christian father to you, but he's the anti-Christ to me.

windword
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

We don't need Paul's interpretation of his kind of Christianity to expand upon or to understand what Jesus, himself, was saying. Jesus' own words are sufficient.

Quoting Paul, who never knew Jesus, and never quoted Jesus or referred to any of his deeds or miracles, to explain what Jesus meant, is useless and will always be rejected by me.

Paul may be a Christian father to you, but he's the anti-Christ to me.

edit on 27-9-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)

Yet again, to dismiss any source in any discussion is intellectually dishonest. I don't care whether you believe him or not, that's not the point I am making. What I am saying that to be fair, then we should tell all atheists and agnostics that we reject Richard Dawkins and don't even mention what he said. You then don't agree that it would be fair to do that?

Definition of Debate

1de·bate noun \di-ˈbāt, dē-\ : a discussion between people in which they express different opinions about something

You may voice your opinions all you want, but if you say "don't tell me what he said" means you no longer want to discuss. So is it fair if we said the same thing to your side?

I think ATS is all about free exchange of information given in a respectful manner.

And as far as Paul goes, the person you told not to mention him, has every right according to the rules of discussion to mention him. As far as your opinion of Paul, then you can say "in my opinion...." and then tell us what you think, but you should not say "don't even tell me what Paul said, I reject it" simply goes against the spirit of fairness.

LewisStulePhD
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

The wind must be blowing north from Gas City and distorting what You read earlier o'er at HuffinPaint™... hahaha

Don't take St. Pete off the gate!!!

Meh.

reply to post by windword

The idea of "Original Sin" is an idea that's inserted into Christianity to give their savior some legitimacy and something to save us from.

We don't need Paul's interpretation of his kind of Christianity to expand upon or to understand what Jesus, himself, was saying. Jesus' own words are sufficient.

Most Christians do not make any distinction between the words spoken by God, His prophets, Jesus, Paul and even commentaries by the authors of the gospels.

Christian methodology of interpreting scripture is flawed because they read the original material in the light of what Paul said. It should be the other way round - Pauls words should be read in the light of the older books. Pauls teachings were, at best, a commentary on an earlier body of work. And no commentary supersedes the original material.

Quoting Paul, who never knew Jesus, and never quoted Jesus or referred to any of his deeds or miracles, to explain what Jesus meant, is useless and will always be rejected by me.

To Paul, Jesus was a mere sacrifice. In fact, a great deal of Christian theology revolves around the doctrine of "sacrifice", which was needed because of another doctrine called "original sin".

reply to post by sk0rpi0n

Christian methodology of interpreting scripture is flawed because they read the original material in the light of what Paul said. It should be the other way round - Paul's words should be read in the light of the older books. Paul's teachings were, at best, a commentary on an earlier body of work. And no commentary supersedes the original material.

Exactly! Thank you for expressing my thoughts better than I have!

reply to post by WarminIndy


You have a way of misconstruing what people say. I've seen it multiple times here lately in more than one thread. Her point was that quoting Paul to her is like presenting evidence of evolution to Christians, it's pointless. Quoting Paul to prove his message is right is circular logic.

I don't see how non-Christians dismissing Paul's message is any different from Christians dismissing the mountains of evidence in favor of evolution.

Windword makes a very good point. Why would you cite Paul as an authority on Jesus when he never quotes Jesus, met him, or even mentions the works he did while alive? The antichrist has already come and been in the world for 2,000 years in the form of Paul and Peter's doctrine and church.

3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

You have a way of misconstruing what people say. I've seen it multiple times here lately in more than one thread. Her point was that quoting Paul to her is like presenting evidence of evolution to Christians, it's pointless. Quoting Paul to prove his message is right is circular logic.

I don't see how non-Christians dismissing Paul's message is any different from Christians dismissing the mountains of evidence in favor of evolution.

Windword makes a very good point. Why would you cite Paul as an authority on Jesus when he never quotes Jesus, met him, or even mentions the works he did while alive? The antichrist has already come and been in the world for 2,000 years in the form of Paul and Peter's doctrine and church.

edit on 27-9-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)

Let me ask you this, if it is wrong to quote Paul because Paul didn't know Jesus, then should we throw out everything written about anyone dead, because the people writing books now didn't know the original person?

I have not misconstrued anything. I replied on the post with the quote. So if you can answer my question, are we allowed on our side to say "don't even quote what Richard Dawkins said about Charles Darwin to me, because Dawkins didn't live when Darwin did and I will reject anything you say about Richard Dawkins before you even start". Would that be fair to you?

I don't want to hear what Dawkins said, I don't want to know what Christopher Hitchens said. Before you even start, I am rejecting them now because they quote Darwin and didn't know Darwin. So don't even mention them in conversation.

(Now that isn't very fair to your side trying present evidence).

And it has nothing to do with rejecting mountains, only the ones who talked about the mountains. It's pointless to talk about evolution to me.

So how can we have a civil discussion if we both reject who said what?

reply to post by WarminIndy


But Paul doesn't appear to know what Jesus did or said. He never quotes him or cites his deeds. Dawkins, on the other hand, has studied Dawinian evolution and read Darwin's writings and cites Darwin. Dawkins is a specialist in the same field that Darwin was.

You can't turn to someone for deeper clarification on a subject that they are unfamiliar.

reply to post by celticsea

Dear celticsea,

I couldn't pass this up without agreeing with you completely. You have answered the OP's question.

How many people say, "Doctor? I don't need no stinkin' Doctor?" Only to fall over dead from a blockage due to cholesterol. If we say, "I'm just fine. I donate some money, and I don't sleep around, I don't need to be checked for sins," we fall into the same trap.

Nice work, celticsea.

With respect,
Charles1952

Here's an interesting discussion about Paul's writings:

The most common arguments I see are:

1) Paul never mentions any of Jesus' miracles

Whenever a critic says this, I always point them to several passages written by Paul which mention His resurrection (such as Romans 1:4, Romans 6:5, 1 Corinthians 15:12, among others). Do the critics believe that His resurrection wasn't a miracle? Their response is usually, "I mean any miracles OTHER than that one."

It's true that Paul never mentions a virgin birth, or the turning of the water into wine, or the walking on water. But that hardly means that Paul was unfamiliar with them, just that there was no need to mention it. If a reporter writes several articles about President Obama but never mentions that he was born in Hawaii, does that mean that the reporter is unfamiliar with the birthplace of our President? No, it just means that there was never an occasion, or need, to mention it.

Paul was not writing a biography of Jesus. He also wasn't a witness to any of Jesus' miracles, other than His having met the resurrected Jesus on the road to Damascus. His mentioning them would have been unnecessary. Exactly where in all of Paul's texts would you expect the 'water-into-wine' or virgin birth to show up?

2) Paul never quotes Jesus

Again, Paul did, and again, the critics say "I mean OTHER than that." In Acts 22:10, Luke records Paul as saying, "And I said, What shall I do, Lord? And the Lord said unto me, Arise, and go into Damascus; and there it shall be told thee of all things which are appointed for thee to do."

As for other quotes from Jesus' pre-resurrection life, Paul was again neither writing a biography of Jesus, nor did he hear any of Jesus' pre-resurrection words first-hand, so giving second-hand quotes would be optional. Had Paul quoted them, this would have been dismissed by critics as 'hearsay'.

3) Paul never mentions any of the Apostles

Again, Paul did, and again, the critics say "I mean OTHER than that.". He mentions meeting Peter, John and James in Galatians chapters 1 and 2. While he never mentions Luke, Luke mentions Paul frequently and no historians doubt that Luke and Paul were good friends.

kingdavid8.com...

Hope it helps.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


Another conclusion that can be drawn is that the righteous do not know that they are sinners. Most of the inmates in jail say I did not do it. I am innocent. To be called by Jesus, one must know his sins and acknowledge them.

The Pharisees would rather crucify Jesus than admit to their own sins. They see themselves as the righteous ones.