Paul's gospel must be accepted

Discussion in 'Religion' started by newnature, Feb 16, 2013.

  1. newnature Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    59
    Paul’s gospel must be accepted, it must be believed today, and you can be sure that confusion concerning that gospel through the use of a counterfeit gospel; a gospel that looks so much like Paul’s gospel that you’d not know the difference, if you didn’t clearly know Paul’s gospel, will be Satan’s focus in this age of grace.

    One of Satan’s purpose in this age of grace is to confuse Paul’s gospel with a gospel so nearly to it, and there are many people out there today saying all you have to do is to believe in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ and you’re saved. They believe this in almost every church across the board that Christ died, was buried and rose again, but what do they believe was accomplished by that death, burial and resurrection?

    In their minds, they were separating themselves for God by their sin, and Paul is saying that God has already reconciled you where your sins are concerned. God is reconciled where the sins of the world are concerned, because he imputed those sins to Christ, that all who would believe what he imputed to Christ, that that resolved the sin issue forever, and are now joined to his son and have his righteousness freely counted to them, or imputed to their account.

    Paul called it the ministry of reconciliation, Christ fulfilled the law for us, so we are identified with the righteousness of Christ the moment we take God at his word, obedient to the faith, concerning what Christ accomplished on our behalf. Today our service comes not out of apprehension to any of those things; our service today comes based solely on our appreciation for what Christ has already done.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dcdkkkgEcE
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. rodereve Registered Member

    Messages:
    216
    Why do you keep referring to the book of Paul, being actually written by Paul? If you ever looked deeper into the legitimacy of the bible instead of just taking it for face value, most scholars agree that the books were not written by the actual apostles, but written by either their students or later members of the church hundreds of years after. If you read the bible, you'd know that most of the men that Jesus had conscripted as disciples were illiterate laymen. Since the new testament was written in Greek, how would these illiterate hebrews be able to write full books in greek, and not of their native language Aramaic. While it is true some of the disciples knew greek, even Paul wrote about fake epistles being written in his name and told the churches not to trust them, we've already found several fake Pauline epistles (allegedly written by Paul, but contradicting prior epistles' teachings) in history. Many of the letters to the churches had been written in time where the church hierarchy of leaders and deacons were not as orderly/established and developed as Paul's time when it was just starting out as a gathering - so there's an obvious time gap.

    There's multiple reasons why this would occur (by scholar's reasonings). Firstly, most of the disciples believed that Jesus was going to bring them to heaven right away, they never suspected the whole crucification/second coming. Why would they do a written account of it, who were they writing for if they were going to be saved. Secondly, students wrote in their teacher's name, to give credit to the ideas being of the teacher and not of their own. This also happened a lot in history, many greek philosophers teachings/thoughts/lives were found through their student's writings (Plato wrote Socrate's Apology, Zeno was written by Philodemus). Thirdly, people wanted their religious thoughts and philosophies heard, and instead of writing their unknown name, they marked it as a famous apostle for it to be read and popularly disseminated. How did all of these people come to be able to write a through account of Jesus and his disciples if they had not lived in their time period? Through oral transmission, much of the parables of Jesus and his life were spread across the world through story telling and oral evangelism, so many had known his story. But that is why there are so many contradictions in the bible because there will inevitably be stories told differently (broken telephone), such as Peter denying Jesus 3 times, 2 times before the rooster crowed, etc.

    So, once you reach the conclusion that the books of the bible are not written by the apostle, and there are some fake epistles (Timothy 1 is 100% verified to be written by someone other than Paul), the fact that the church has to sort through all the fake ones to hopefully choose one that was actually doesn't contradict biblical canon, then you're one step closer to disproving the legitimacy of the bible as a historical account of the past. There are still books named Judas, Peter, and even Jesus that haven't made it into the bible lol
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Thoreau Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,380
    There is absolutely nothing comparitive in this post. This is simply preaching.

    newnature has only 5 posts in almost 2 years of membership. Can we just cesspool this thread and boot him?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    Nothing, since the resurrection means that he didn't die, so there was no sacrifice.
     
  8. jayleew Who Cares Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,309
    I will not defend a murderer, but the act of a god humbling himself to be subject to cruel torture and martyrdom is in itself a sacrifice of power, however temporary.
     
  9. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    Doesn't that imply that God isn't omniscient? An omniscient being would already know what it feels like to suffer.
     
  10. jayleew Who Cares Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,309
    God is clearly not omniscient if you read the Bible. The clearest example for me is when God wants to kill the Israelites in the desert and start a new nation with Moses. Moses made God change his mind. If you change your mind, you are not omniscient.

    But, no. Even if he didn't know how it would end up or if he knew what it felt like to suffer: to hold back his power and not save Jesus from death is a sacrifice God made. Even Jesus cried out "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me". Matthew 27:46
     
  11. arauca Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,564
    Who the hell are you trowing your weight around ? I can see your hate toward the bible .
     
  12. Thoreau Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,380
    You just love following me around here, don't you? I won't argue with you anymore for two reasons: 1) I am hardly ever able to decipher/translate what it is that you're trying to say, and 2) You have yet to make a valid, standing argument in any thread that I've seen you in.

    So, reply to my posts all that you want. I likely won't respond directly. I don't have time for meaningless debate with someone whom I can barely understand.
     
  13. Freelance Policeman Registered Member

    Messages:
    4
    This thread confuses me. What is "Paul's Gospel?" Could you explain this, please? O__o
     
  14. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Paul wasn't one of the original disciples of Jesus. He lived later on and was an early founder of the Christian church. He started off furiously opposed to the Christians, then had a vision of Christ that convinced him to convert.
     
  15. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    Paul was a convert who originally tried to undermine Christ and Christianity. He was well educated for the time and after his conversion became the person who would address the Roman Senate (Romans). Rome gave him an opportunity to provide testimony before they would kill him for treason. He was told not to prepare but the spirit would give utterance. I would have liked to have been a fly on the wall for that. He said what he had to say and was led to execution.

    His main thesis was the curse of being under law (all law including old testament and Roman law). He differentiated the children of the promise (justified by faith apart from law) and the children of the bondwomen (wish to remain under law). He said all things are lawful, but I will not be mastered by anything, all things are lawful but not all things edify.

    Law of good and evil is binary data in the sense to know to a law you need to know both the good and evil. You need to know what is good for the correct course of action and what is evil so you can avoid the evil. If you try to good by the law and repress the evil side of law, the evil still exists in the unconscious because law is binary.

    Paul said, I would not know about coveting if the law did not say thou shall not covet (what is that?). Sin take opportunity through the commandment produces coveting of every kind.

    Christ was about doing away with all commandments contained in ordinances (laws). The righteous would live by faith which meant there is no longer yes and no (law) but only yes in him. Paul was way ahead of his time and even ahead of modern times, which has yet to figure out how the binary data storage of law creates temptation and compulsion.
     
  16. Cris In search of Immortality Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,199
    jay...,

    But not really. For a human to make a sacrifice usually means a permanent loss. It is that sense of never being able to see that person or thing again is what makes a true sacrifice so devastatingly significant and painful to us. What the bible does is attempt to play on our emotions of how we would feel if we sacrificed our own child - heart rending - and then try to relate that to an immortal being. And the crucifixion as a sacrifice could have worked well in that regard except that there was this awkward issue of a resurrection. Bringing that sacrificed person/thing back nullifies the sacrifice and the whole emotional impact of a sacrifice, i.e. in essence there is no loss, very temporary perhaps, but nothing of a permanent nature that makes sacrifice meaningful.

    It is not meaningful to expect us to relate our own emotions of a personal sacrifice to that of an immortal being who knows it has the power to resurrect at any time. In the case of Jesus mythology there was but a couple of days of loss, e.g. a weekend trip away from home. In the perspective of an infinite being this temporary time loss is utterly insignificant, and certainly should not raise any emotions for us.

    So the gospel passages like John 3:16 and similar attempt to evoke our emotions based on how we would react to a personal sacrifice but in this case there was no loss and no effective sacrifice - the crucifixion story including the resurrection, the heart of Christianity is essentially meaningless.
     
  17. Arioch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,274
    I'd have thought that the clearest example would have been in the Garden when God had to ask Adam and Eve why they were clothed. He didn't know. If there's something, anything, you don't know then you're not omniscient.
     
  18. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    Arioch! Welcome back after such a long absence!
     
  19. Arioch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,274
    Good to be back.
     
  20. Mr Hope Registered Member

    Messages:
    21
    Always differing views. However, I love the epistle of Thomas, 40-140 AD -- it seems quite legit and spiritual.
     
  21. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    Huh? You mean the Gospel of Thomas? Hardly spiritual - entirely dreamlike, dripping in esoteric symbolism, recasting Jesus as almost pure symbol - but a good motivation for the Christians to build their own version of the myth, so Gnosticism wouldn't take over as the new direction for whatever was driving the reformulation of Judaism in the Roman era.
     
  22. arauca Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,564
    Did Socrates or Pythagoras write their teaching ? if not or you don't know , then your questioning for comparison and discussion does not have any meaning .
     
  23. arauca Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,564
    At that time it was good , Atheist hardly were around and if they were around probably they were illiterate.
     

Share This Page