The narrow path

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by sacgamer25

 

So why are the OT and Paul's letters all about rules and regulations? Didn't you say that anything other than love is religion, which you do not like? You are believing two contradictory statements at the same time. You can't dislike religion and like Paul at the same time because they are one in the same. Paul created the religion of Christianity through his letters. Why do you think it has become so big? Because Paul gave everyone an easy scapegoat to do whatever they wanted, and the elites of the time latched on to his teachings because they made the common folk complacent and uncaring, only looking out for themselves and their own salvation and admittance into heaven after they died.

Paul is the author of religion, yet you can't and won't see it. Jesus never rose from the dead, there was absolutely no need for him to because he said what he needed to say while alive. If his words aren't enough authority, then you don't have very much trust in them.

Don't you have to understand religion before you can understand why it makes no since? I realize I am saying something that sounds opposite to what I just said, so let me explain. Religion is from God, because everything is from God. Therefore I know that religion has/had a purpose.

Religion sets standards up for how you achieve the love of God. Jesus said we are all God's children and loves everyone. Only what he says makes since, and to make a religion out of Jesus is silly.

A man who says there is one God who unconditionally loves all his children. We have turned this into a religion of rules. The OT rules all foreshadow something greater. Some of which has yet to come, and some that has already come. Therefore, their purpose is clear. They are a foreshadowing and prediction to events that were/are to come.

Paul merely worships the spirit of love. There ARE certain rules to love that we must follow if we are to be one with love. Practically all wives believe there husband should have one wife and be faithful. So it appears the rule to love in marriage is monogamy. Just like Christ said. If any of Paul's rules appear to be against love, it is because you don't understand his message.

You are very against some of Paul's writings simply because you read them a certain way. I don't have a problem with Paul, most of what he says that people so adamantly disagree with, psychology would tend to suggest Paul has a point. The roles of men and women as defined by Paul fit perfectly within the context of Psychology.

Women want a loving, intelligent, spiritual, leader of their house. If they have this why would they have reason to speak against such a man? If you still have a problem ask yourself can you be the kind of man that loves a woman so much that she would actually have no desire but to trust everything you say?

Become this man and you will see for yourself the type of woman Paul imagined. A women completely in love with and satisfied by her husband. Actually rejoicing in her man's authority over her. Because any man that loves her like Christ has become worthy of her trust and attention. Yes women who love the alpha male, love the fact that they are in control.

This is the rule that you don't like. But it's not really a rule it is understanding human nature.

If Paul is guilty of anything, it is asking all to worship the spirit of love, and to pursue love as earnestly as he did.

reply to post by Blue_Jay33


The same bible you're reading.

If you don't think Paul's message contradicts Jesus' then you are blind to it. Why would Jesus pick a bad tree to spread a message that he could have easily spread himself while alive? Were his teachings not good enough for you? Why would he leave part of his gospel untold only to give it to one of his persecutors years after he died? You don't find that scenario fishy at all? Because it stinks like rotten fish to me.

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.

If Jesus had let everything he knew be known to his apostles, then why are none of Paul's teachings contained within the gospels? FISHY!

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Paul's doctrine completely and utterly contradicts Jesus' messages in almost every single way.

You keep saying that.
How about a specific example?

reply to post by sacgamer25


So why would god allow religion to pervade Earth for thousands of years if it doesn't make any sense? Why would he condemn the billions who have believed religion throughout history if he wanted them to be saved?

Why would he not only allow, but create something that doesn't make sense and then allow it to take control of Earth? Why? That doesn't make any sense whatsoever, but somehow you justify it!

reply to post by jmdewey60


You mean an example that you will shrug off as me not understanding it? I could list several, but I have a feeling you will write them off without hardly thinking about it.

ETA: I've decided to entertain your request. Here is a specific example just for you.

1 Corinthians 15
31 I die every day--I mean that, brothers--just as surely as I glory over you in Christ Jesus our Lord.

He says that he dies everyday, and that he MEANS it.

Mark 12
He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. You are badly mistaken!"

So how is Jesus Paul's god if he dies everyday? As Jesus said, his was was the god of the living, not the dead.

But I'm sure I'm just taking everything out of context or I just don't understand, right?

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


Paul was a blameless Pharisee, one who did not break the law. He was persecuting those who were rejecting the law and teaching that salvation was available to all through the spirit of love. He held onto his religion with much zeal, because he loved God.

When Christ came to him in light and spirit, Paul finally understood what he was doing. He even admits that he, because of his sin in persecuting his brothers, was the lowest of all men in the Kingdome of God. But remember it is said he who is forgiven much will love much.

There is nothing wrong with choosing Paul. To worship the Sprit of Love, in the name of Christ Jesus, is not a sin. It is likely Paul had no idea that others would turn his words into the "Idol worship" that is today's modern Christianity. Paul was not serving or believing in an Idol. He was merely acknowledging that the spirit of love is something that should be talked about with friends, the church. He was merely providing guidelines to ensure the most productive conversations would take place.

Paul believes that Jesus Christ was the Holy Spirit, the spirit of love. He worships the spirit of love, and the name he gives the spirit is Christ Jesus. This is not a hard concept; it is just one that you choose not only to not believe, but to dismiss without merit.

Who is more likely correct, the one that believes in a contradiction that was created by the church, or the one who is bringing you a new revelation, one that cannot be Goggled? Where do you suppose I came up with all this? Why would I come up with all this? There is absolutely no profit or religion in what I say. I have no motivation outside of helping everyone love one another.

I am claiming the revelation came directly from the Holy Spirit but you say that it's not possible. Believe whatever you like but I have provided you with the Key to the bible. Unlock it if you choose.

reply to post by sacgamer25


Paul also said he was not worthy to be called an apostle, yet he still calls himself one. Apparently he didn't believe what he himself said. Weird.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


Do you include the book of Revelation written by John in your assessment of this too ?
The reason I ask is that Revelation has a lot of information Jesus never talked about either.
Yet, the book of Revelation is for post first century Christians more than any other, especially since it was written at the end of the century and the bible.
Why are some Christians dissecting the bible into pieces that they like and dislike, and discarding what they dislike as bogus.
First it starts with a single verse, then it grows to include the entire book, then it expands to the writer of all his books within the bible. Then the process can start all over again in any area of bible. Soon all you are left with is a swiss cheese version of Christianity, and everybody's slice of cheese looks slightly different.

This is to Satan's advantage. 2 Corinthians 4:4

reply to post by Blue_Jay33


Revelation actually talks about Jesus and how Rome overtook his message and changed it. Read Revelation 12 to see what I mean.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by sacgamer25

 

Paul also said he was not worthy to be called an apostle, yet he still calls himself one. Apparently he didn't believe what he himself said. Weird.

I am not worthy to have the knowledge of the Kingdome of Heaven. Nor am I worthy of the gift of interpretation that has allowed me to understand the bible, in the places where you and church don't.

I am not worthy to be presented to you as a teacher.

But here I stand, In the Kingdome of Love, with all the wisdom and knowledge to continue to walk towards the light. And I am sharing this with you. Worthy or not, I am what I am.

reply to post by sacgamer25


What is the light though? Do you even know what the light you're speaking of is? I'm guessing not.

Why do you feel like you are unworthy? Do you realize just how self-deprecating that is? I mean come on! You believe that because that is what you have been told, not because it is true. Dont you see that is exactly what Satan would want you to believe? That you are unworthy? Looks like you fell for his trap.

reply to post by sacgamer25


IF you are a teacher, and your master is Jesus... why would you listen to another man?

Perhaps you forgot the passage where he said you can only have one master?

reply to post by Akragon


Why do we have to have a master? Why can't we be our own master? I'd rather live and learn for myself than have someone else do all the driving.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Akragon

 

Why do we have to have a master? Why can't we be our own master? I'd rather live and learn for myself than have someone else do all the driving.

I have no master...

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

You mean an example that you will shrug off as me not understanding it?

Of course I am going to say that you don't understand it. That is the point of my asking. I don't think that you understand the Bible, and I see that as the reason why you make the claims that you do, against it.

I could list several, but I have a feeling you will write them off without hardly thinking about it.

Please list as many as you want. This is your thread, so you can do that.
If I was going to "write it off", why would I have asked you? I said I have a blog, readingthebibleingreek, so if you actually quote a verse, then I make a page on my blog to translate it, so there is actually quite a bit of thinking going on, if I am going to deal with it at all.

ETA: I've decided to entertain your request. Here is a specific example just for you.

I think you should anyway, and not just for my benefit.

1 Corinthians 15
31 I die every day--I mean that, brothers--just as surely as I glory over you in Christ Jesus our Lord.

He says that he dies everyday, and that he MEANS it.

You are quoting the old NIV translation. The new NIV is different,

I face death every day--yes, just as surely as I boast about you in Christ Jesus our Lord.

you know that is what it means from the context. He is talking about how sure he is about the resurrection. Here he is saying that he would not be doing what he does, getting into conflicts with the Jews who are always trying to kill him, if he did not "really" believe it.

Mark 12
He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. You are badly mistaken!"

Paul was saying in that passage that your verse was in, that all things are under Christ's subjection, as he defeats all the powers arrayed against us, including death, so in Christ we have life because we can rest assured that he will win because God is the one who put those things under his subjection.

So how is Jesus Paul's god if he dies everyday? As Jesus said, his was was the god of the living, not the dead.

Paul's rhetoric is not so straightforward and simple, and you need to study it to understand it because we are not living in the same culture that he lived in, where his writing style would have seemed normal and understandable to people immersed in both the Greek culture and the Jewish.(specifically the literature of those)

But I'm sure I'm just taking everything out of context or I just don't understand, right?

Looking at a single verse is by definition taking it out of context. This is rhetoric, which is an advanced form of communication that may be difficult to understand.

reply to post by jmdewey60


And this one?

Galatians 2
20 I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

If HE doesn't live then he is dead, right? Christ living in him would mean that he is no longer alive, only Jesus.

James 2
24 You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone.

Romans 3
28 For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law.

Clearly these two verses stand on their own and clearly they contradict one another. Paul says that you can be justified (saved) by faith alone, while James says that works are needed along with faith.

And this one?

Romans 14
9 For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living.

How can he be the lord of both the dead and the living when Jesus said he was only the god of the living and not the dead? Clear contradiction, and the verse stands on its own.

Should I go on?

reply to post by pthena


Very good answers and questions on your part, as well. And I am not, as you are, sitting here looking it up currently in what would be my KJ Scoffield edited version....

However, much of what you are speaking of in Leviticus, I believe, has to do, obviously with the Levites and the Passover meal....which, of course, directly refers to honoring God in such a way as to avoid having to lose one's first born male child to sacrifice. And I would have to read more about that, but it's directly about the making of unleavened bread, really, and not a sacrifice. But I do agree with you that this would warrant more research.
However, many would say that alll those versions you and I are reading, unless we can interpret real Hebrew, aren't so applicable, anyway, which is why I mentioned I believe the text has been edited, expurgated, changed, etc. and a whole lot depends upon translation.

When I replied to you earlier, about your first response with #9, and perhaps sacrificing the lambs to feed the priests, this is what I referred to was not supposed to be acceptable, as no sacrifice of an animal to God, I don't think, was ever supposed to be eaten.

The reason I find much of this very important as it applies to how we are influenced as "consumers" and the world of nature interpreted as a "food chain," today, and I don't believe this was always the case. There is much in the Bible of today that I personally feel (but what do I know) is completely antithetical to a loving God, wanting the best for what and who he supposedly created in His image. I happen to find the whole story of the Last Supper and what Jesus supposedly was to have said to his disciples in regards to comparisons of wine and meat, his continuing to be with them, and the Catholic ritual of taking sacrament, rather unGodly, and have always suspected it was just one more thing that could have been added......

You know, it is said, even hell has its own version of the Bible. And so much blood has been shed over such issues, interpretations, and it's always been very difficult for me to accept that this would have been what God intended, no matter what religion or theology one would believe in. But, I suppose, that's an entirely different matter.
Thanks for your reply.
Tetra50

reply to post by Akragon

Might I suggest you take this into consideration on your search?

Do you recall Matthew 22 where some Pharisees tried to "entangle him in his talk"?

I did think of this passage when I posted a reply on Angle's' Blasphemy and taunts towards God thread.

Because Onkelos Bar Kalonikus who was a non-Jewish necromancer, upon discovering that Israel was highly esteemed in the land of the dead, converted and became a Jew. And was even considered wise enough to be in the Talmud. It struck me at the time that maybe being most honored in the world of the dead is not that great.

So Jesus, answering the Sadducees with regards to Moses, gave them back a conundrum: they could either deny the god who spoke to Moses, or deny the validity of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

"30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven." This verse seems to be what Jesus would believe himself. Seems to me that physical body resurrection isn't necessarily a necessity.

The reason I'm kind of stuck on questions of life and death and resurrection right now, is that we are very many pages into this thread about path to destruction and path to life, and I don't think anyone has defined what destruction and life are. Are they different things or are they the same thing?

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

If HE doesn't live then he is dead, right? Christ living in him would mean that he is no longer alive, only Jesus.

Back to the original thing you were comparing, the statement by Jesus about the God of the living, how are Abraham and Isaac and Jacob living?
I would say that even if Paul was "crucified" with Christ, he is still as much alive as the Patriarchs.