It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Hilkiah1611
a reply to: Joshuabennone
In reply to your question, no, you cannot be a Christian and disbelieve Paul. Matter of fact, you cannot even be CALLED a Christian without Paul. Without Paul Bible believers would just be called converted Jews. Paul gave the revelation of how God offered his grace and salvation freely to gentiles after His own people (Jews) rejected Him.
Gentiles being saved by grace through faith (me) is nothing more than God's second plan for mankind. He allows gentiles to be saved like we are now in order to make the Jews mad. Yes, that is the reason, plenty of scripture backs this up, wrote by Paul, a Jew of Jews.
To compound the matter and give you a headache, you will go to Hell if all you do is follow what Jesus Christ taught in the Gospels. Matthew 19:17. Look up the verse in a King James Bible. It is the words and command of Jesus. And if you follow it you will go to Hell.
2 Timothy 2:15 is ignored today, which is why there is over 2000+ "Christian" flavors out there.
originally posted by: Hilkiah1611
a reply to: Joshuabennone
In reply to your question, no, you cannot be a Christian and disbelieve Paul. Matter of fact, you cannot even be CALLED a Christian without Paul. Without Paul Bible believers would just be called converted Jews. Paul gave the revelation of how God offered his grace and salvation freely to gentiles after His own people (Jews) rejected Him.
To compound the matter and give you a headache, you will go to Hell if all you do is follow what Jesus Christ taught in the Gospels. Matthew 19:17. Look up the verse in a King James Bible. It is the words and command of Jesus. And if you follow it you will go to Hell.
2 Timothy 2:15 is ignored today, which is why there is over 2000+ "Christian" flavors out there.
originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Matrixsurvivor
no you are just taking things out of context and pretexting an idea into the text which is intellectually dishonest. That is what cultist do, they pretext the Bible, say it has errors and don't believe God is able to preserve his words to all generation. thereby justifying all their claims without any Biblical proof.
Is there a tribe of Israel call the Canaanties?
Simon the Canaanite was a Disciple/Apostle chosen by Jesus how could he represent one of the tribes of Israel?
Not so smart to say the twelve were representatives of the twelve tribes now is it?
so if you are to follow the kingdom gospel you must keep all the commandments found in the OT as well as what Jesus teaches in the four Gospels or you will not be saved.
originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Malocchio
You were already in error parroting about the 12 disciples were chose as a representation the 12 tribes of Israel.
Simon was a Canaanite chosen and named by Jesus as a Apostle.
Which tribe is the Canaanite?
What makes you think we can accept anything you say as truth?
originally posted by: irenialilivenka
It appears to me that there are 2 kinds of disciples in Christendom:
The disciples of Jesus; are usually less dependant on the Bible and concentrate on learning to a greater degree than the:
Pauline "Christian" who reads the Bible a lot, understands very little, denounces "worldly" wisdom and knowledge as if God was not All Wise or All Knowing and didn't want us to be as wise and learned as possible.
The second type forsakes the Gospels for the Epistles of Paul for their "theology"(see: lies), claims a greater understanding than they actually have, for example, saying that Simon the Zealot/Cannanaen was from Canaan and a Canaanite a la Joshua and his battles.
Zealots were Jews, which means so is Simon of Cana.
Only Simon was from Cana of Galilee, not Canaan, and a Jew, so much so he was also a literal Zealot, as were many of James' (Ya'akov) followers who weren't merely zealous but actual Zealots of the fourth philosophy. As was Judas the Sicari. Josephus, now only available through Heggesipus (the Aramaic version), described the 4 philosophies of the Essenes, later said by Eusebius to have been the first Christian monks, though I doubt that.
But the Qumran sectarians definitely fit the bill as both a community of zealots (though they didn't call themselves this, others did, I don't think anyone knows what they called themselves besides Hasidim and Sons of Zadok/Sons of Light, a few other epithets), and they are in all likelihood the Jews from who the faith of Christianity was based off.
But if you see someone who is factually incorrect by theological standards making the argument that someone else is not trustworthy because they were "wrong", although it happens to be they weren't wrong and someone else (me in this case)comes along and points this out, you can bet someone else will be attacked with off topic insults:
This person is a Paulinist, not a Christian.
Paul "adds nothing" to Christianity and removes and replaces Christ's theology with his false gospel.
Beware of the Wolf of Benjamin, who also is leaven of the Pharisees employed by Rome.
Saul of Tarsus, better known as Paul the (false) apostle.
But if you don't know something, like that a town in Galilee called Cana and not the (extinct) country called Canaan was the source of the alt. epithet "Canaanaen" you probably don't know much about the Bible.
If you try (and fail) to label him as something that didn't exist in the time of Jesus (other than Phoenicia), namely a Canaanite, it means you are not only NOT a Bible scholar, you say things without concern for accuracy and are not even well versed in scripture, history, and don't give a damn about honesty.
Unfortunately, Paul thought it was OK to lie if your lie glorified God, he "Became all things" to "all men."
To the Jew, a Jew, to the Greek, a Greek.
In spirit and letter Paul is a liar and proud of it.
And so are most to all Paulinist Christians.