Why did Jesus preach an incomplete message?

reply to post by wildtimes


Just read her name, that tells you all you need to know about her. She likes to instigate people apparently.

Wow, read the books of the Acts.

Goodness, people need to learn the word of G-d before makeing these posts.


Jesus uses every Christian in a different way.

Paul for the Gentiles, Peter for the Jews ect.

People that don't believe Paul's writings are absurd. Pollycarp and the rest of the founders certainly believed him.

Luke the Doctor certainly knew him, as well as Mark.

Mark the writer of Peter's Gospel was a companion of Paul through his missions.

Can people not read?

Originally posted by Akragon

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by spartacus699

 

I'm not an atheist. I have faith in a lot of things, just not in lies as you do.

Why is everyone who disagrees with Christian doctrine automatically an atheist?

They're not all Athiests...

Some are Satanists!!

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

They're chimps

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

The reason I believe Paul was a fraud is simple, he contradicts Jesus on many occasions going as far as calling himself father when Jesus said not to call anyone father but God himself.

Paul was not telling people that they should call him "father".
Saying that he was a father metaphorically, is not what Jesus was prohibiting.
He was a "father" in the sense that he brought the church of Corinth into existence through his guidance.

He says that Jesus is the God of both the living and the dead where Jesus says otherwise.

This was discussed on an earlier thread without any real resolution.
Jesus was making a point about his power to resurrect anyone he wants at any time, and saying that this is virtually the same as their being alive as far as he was concerned.

reply to post by jmdewey60


He called himself father when Jesus said not to. Semantics my friend, you can make anything mean anything you want when you use semantics. It's an excuse to ignore the obvious.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Semantics my friend . . .

That would be you.
I'm taking the normal, straightforward interpretation while you are making something different out of it from the intention of the original writer.

Calling yourself a father is not the same as people calling a particular person "father".

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1



Who cares if Paul said Father? PAUL is NOT our LORD.

Jesus is Pauls Lord and he and you and I will Bow at his feet.

If it in not clear to you how much Paul suffered for Jesus then I'm not sure what to tell you.

Paul knew he was going to Rome to die for the testimony of a resurected Jesus. Can you do the same?

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.

Also, Paul would probably be the first to tell you many of the things he did was wrong, hell, he even consented to the stoneing of Stephen.

All of a sudden on the road to Damascus did not make him perfect.

reply to post by Kargun


Yet Paul was saved from being stoned and Stephen was not. Why would god save Paul but not Stephen? Doesn't Paul say god doesn't show favoritism? Apparently he favored Paul over Stephen.

Romans 2
11 For God does not show favoritism.

The bible is swiss cheese.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

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.

Paul did not tell anyone to call someone "father".
You can not take what Paul said to mean that he did.
So there is no contradiction between Jesus and Paul.
You are just grasping.
The New Testament was written on purpose to not be contradictory, and this extends to the selection of books for the canonical version of the NT.
The letters of Paul, was the first NT, which is Romans, First and Second Corinthians, and Galatians.
Everything else was added as time went on, where every new book had to conform with the books already in the canon.
Anyone making the claim that Paul contradicts any other book of the NT just does not know what they are talking about.

*for more information, I suggest reading Paul's Letter Collection: Tracing the Origins, by David Trobisch
which is available in Kindle version and paperback for not very much money.

reply to post by Kargun

Originally posted by Kargun
Jesus is Pauls Lord and he and you and I will Bow at his feet.

If "every knee shall bow", then God is proven to be a liar and there is no free-will since he will force everyone to bow against their will...

reply to post by jmdewey60


Yeah, he just claimed to be father. Jesus saying call no one father includes self, so Paul calling himself father was still calling someone father. Your rhetoric is admirable, but I see right through it.

Have a good day.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Yeah, he just claimed to be father. Jesus saying call no one father includes self, so Paul calling himself father was still calling someone father.

Even if what you are saying was true, it still does not fit the criteria of your original premise, which is that Jesus taught one thing, and Paul taught something else.
Even if Paul, as you suggest, disobeyed Jesus in that one instance, he still did not teach people to call him "father".

reply to post by Kargun

Also, Paul would probably be the first to tell you many of the things he did was wrong, hell, he even consented to the stoning of Stephen.

Paul himself never mentions anything like that, saying in his letters that no one in Jerusalem (the place of this alleged event) knew him at the time that he decided to go to Jerusalem to meet with Peter.
The account of the stoning is in Acts, which was written 80 or 90 years after these events are supposed to have happened.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


Paul was also Killed, just like Stephen.

You are claiming to know the bible but show utter Ignorance when talking about it.

Are you daft?

Paul WAS Stoned TO DEATH! but he managed to survive. If anything, Paul was the most beat up of all the people in the bible besides Jesus in my oppinion.

Also, every Knee will BOW by choice. Trust me when you hear me say, friend, when you understand how much Jesus loves you, you will gladly bow. I just pray by the time you realize it, it won't be too late.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Kargun

 

Also, Paul would probably be the first to tell you many of the things he did was wrong, hell, he even consented to the stoning of Stephen.

Paul himself never mentions anything like that, saying in his letters that no one in Jerusalem (the place of this alleged event) knew him at the time that he decided to go to Jerusalem to meet with Peter.
The account of the stoning is in Acts, which was written 80 or 90 years after these events are supposed to have happened.

edit on 28-8-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

WHAT???????????

Acts 8- And Saul was consenting unto his death. And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles.

I guess you don't believe in the Acts of the Apostles of Jesus Christ through the Power of the Holy spirit.
this thread is retarded. /end

reply to post by Kargun

I guess you don't believe in the Acts of the Apostles of Jesus Christ through the Power of the Holy spirit.

Do you mean someone "channeling" Peter and Paul after they were dead and writing a retroactive "eyewitness" account?
No.
I believe what Paul wrote while he was still alive.

this thread is retarded.

As most of them are, sorry for the lack of smart ones on this sub-forum.

reply to post by Kargun


If Paul was stoned to death, does that mean he rose from the dead? If he didn't die, he must not have been hurt all that bad because he got up and walked right back into the city afterwards.

The only thing daft here are people intentionally ignoring obvious contradictions within the NT. I'd claim I am more familiar with the bible than a lot of Christians who claim it to be infallible. I'm guessing you'd say someone who has never read the bible but still takes it as infallible would have a better understanding of the bible than me?

Why would god allow Stephen to die in front of Paul then allow Paul to survive? Apparently god does play favorites.

reply to post by Kargun

Originally posted by Kargun
Also, every Knee will BOW by choice. Trust me when you hear me say, friend, when you understand how much Jesus loves you, you will gladly bow. I just pray by the time you realize it, it won't be too late.

I don't care how nice Jesus pretends to be. If somebody is sending me to an eternal hell, then they aren't worthy of getting my respect.