And the truth shall set you free...

[Job]

Is this the he said she said game? What topic am I avoiding? Maybe you just need the blanks files in.

If you can't show the contradiction in the 2 passages you posted, you should admit that it's not there and move on.

 

[skyangel]

I will not fault you for your interpretation of Romans 13, but most people, including myself, don't think the interpretation you ascribe to Romans 13 is what Paul meant. If you look at Job's posts, regarding Romans 13, I think you will find he represents most professed Christians beliefs and thus the need for this discussion.

What other people think of my views makes no difference to my views. I am merely sharing what I see from where I stand.
As far as I am concerned, the morals and principles found in the bible stories are far more important than trying to determine whether a story book character meant X or Y or Z.
In this world we have capital punishment whether we agree with it or not and people are punished for crimes all the time according to whatever laws they abide by. It makes no difference if they are killed with a literal sword or hung or electrocuted. Death is death regardless of how you get to that place and any breaking of any laws of the land has a consequence. Lawbreakers pay the consequences according to the law of the land in which they live. Discussing whether people agree with those laws or not will not change the fact that all actions have consequences.

Regarding Paul, as I have mentioned before, Paul was forsaken by all of Asia and John wrote to the churches of Asia which forsook Paul. To the very first church the very first thing mentioned to them is that they tried those who claimed to be Apostles and found them to be liars. We know Paul was forsaken by all of Asia, it becomes clear when one looks at all the evidence that John is referencing Paul.

It seems to be "clear" to you and others who seem to have a bias against Paul. It is not clear to me at all.
Why would the bible story tell about the conversion of Saul to Paul if Paul turned out to be a liar?
If the bible story is telling the truth about Sauls conversion ( Acts 9) and the truth about Paul being filled with the Spirit of God (Acts 9:17) I see absolutely no valid reason to believe that Paul lied about being an apostle.
In Rev 2:2 John is not referencing any single person. The words...." thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars:" are referencing more than one person and it does not indicate how many more so it is foolish and incorrect to presume to name any of them unless you can prove with other scriptures who those people were and how many of them there were in the stories. If you wish to name Paul as one of the liars, who are the others who claimed to be apostles in the bible and were not?
The only people who themselves claimed to be apostles in the scriptures were Paul (Rom 1:1) and Peter ( 1 Peter1:1 , 2 Peter 1:1.
Paul also claimed to be the least of the apostles and not worthy of his apostleship.( 1 Cor 15:9)
Paul was also one (messenger or angel) who condemned the false apostles. ( 2 Cor 11:13)

We are told the bible, which was put together at the very end of the 4th century, is the word of God. To affirm this, men take a couple of verses and build their beliefs around them. You of all People should understand the words Jesus spoke are spirit and must be understood not by the intellect, but by the embracing of them in the way we live: in our spirits response to others. Is it not for this reason you cannot accept Paul's words as being literal, as you cannot accept doing harm to others for their transgressions, as we are all guilty of transgressions and we must seek mercy and not judgment.

As I stated before, I clearly believe Paul was eventually rejected and my goal is to try and have men place their faith in Christ and Christ alone and not get sidetracked by the controversial teachings Paul taught.

Be well.

Whether the bible is the word of God or not has been and always will be thoroughly disputed. Some believe it is and others obviously don't believe. Ultimately it makes no difference to me whose words they are. They are just words in a book and I manage to find wisdom and truth in many of them. However, Truth is not so much in the written words but in the principles conveyed by the words.
Words can be misinterpreted as we all know, especially from one language to another but it is very hard to misinterpret an act of love and kindness or an act of hatred and malice regardless of what language people speak. I fully understand that the "Spirit" is understood through embracing and practising it in every day life.
However, that is not the reason that I do not take the words in the bible, not just Pauls words, "literally". I don't take the words about Jesus literally either in the sense that I do not believe the miracles attributed to the character are physical. I do not believe he rose any physical person from the dead or that dead people were raised out of physical graves. I happen to think it makes far more sense to consider the dead being raised as a spiritual raising from the spiritually dead state not a physical raising from a physically dead state. The same with blind eyes being opened, the lame being made to walk, etc. I no longer believe any of them were physical miracles. I did once when I was a child but I grew out of such childish fantasies.

As for doing harm to people to punish them for their transgressions, I believe that all actions have a consequence and if the law of any land threatens a death penalty as a punishment for a certain crime, the penalty is there as an deterrent. However obviously the consequences of their actions do not deter fools from committing crimes. They most likely don't even consider the consequences of their actions before they do something wrong. Anyway, that is why we have judges and juries and need evidence to find people guilty of crimes.. so where is your evidence of Pauls crimes or lies and what judges and juries condemned him as being a false apostle?
Hearsay and speculation and carnal minded interpretations of the scriptures is not evidence.

Paul may have eventually been rejected but Jesus was also eventually rejected and crucified by people in the stories and many left him when he was ministering to them too. ( John 6:66)

It is very foolish to place ones trust in any man and that includes the man Paul and the man Jesus Christ.
It is far better to place ones trust in TRUTH alone, otherwise people end up idolising a man rather than living in the principles the character taught and following the EXAMPLE which was set. The example and WAY of LIFE in TRUTH is more important than the man who set the example.

Psalm 146:3 Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help.

John 13:15 For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you.

1 Peter 2:21 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:

 

[Pro Jesus Anti Paul]

What other people think of my views makes no difference to my views. I am merely sharing what I see from where I stand.
As far as I am concerned, the morals and principles found in the bible stories are far more important than trying to determine whether a story book character meant X or Y or Z.
In this world we have capital punishment whether we agree with it or not and people are punished for crimes all the time according to whatever laws they abide by. It makes no difference if they are killed with a literal sword or hung or electrocuted. Death is death regardless of how you get to that place and any breaking of any laws of the land has a consequence. Lawbreakers pay the consequences according to the law of the land in which they live. Discussing whether people agree with those laws or not will not change the fact that all actions have consequences.



It seems to be "clear" to you and others who seem to have a bias against Paul. It is not clear to me at all.
Why would the bible story tell about the conversion of Saul to Paul if Paul turned out to be a liar?
If the bible story is telling the truth about Sauls conversion ( Acts 9) and the truth about Paul being filled with the Spirit of God (Acts 9:17) I see absolutely no valid reason to believe that Paul lied about being an apostle.
In Rev 2:2 John is not referencing any single person. The words...." thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars:" are referencing more than one person and it does not indicate how many more so it is foolish and incorrect to presume to name any of them unless you can prove with other scriptures who those people were and how many of them there were in the stories. If you wish to name Paul as one of the liars, who are the others who claimed to be apostles in the bible and were not?
The only people who themselves claimed to be apostles in the scriptures were Paul (Rom 1:1) and Peter ( 1 Peter1:1 , 2 Peter 1:1.
Paul also claimed to be the least of the apostles and not worthy of his apostleship.( 1 Cor 15:9)
Paul was also one (messenger or angel) who condemned the false apostles. ( 2 Cor 11:13)




Whether the bible is the word of God or not has been and always will be thoroughly disputed. Some believe it is and others obviously don't believe. Ultimately it makes no difference to me whose words they are. They are just words in a book and I manage to find wisdom and truth in many of them. However, Truth is not so much in the written words but in the principles conveyed by the words.
Words can be misinterpreted as we all know, especially from one language to another but it is very hard to misinterpret an act of love and kindness or an act of hatred and malice regardless of what language people speak. I fully understand that the "Spirit" is understood through embracing and practising it in every day life.
However, that is not the reason that I do not take the words in the bible, not just Pauls words, "literally". I don't take the words about Jesus literally either in the sense that I do not believe the miracles attributed to the character are physical. I do not believe he rose any physical person from the dead or that dead people were raised out of physical graves. I happen to think it makes far more sense to consider the dead being raised as a spiritual raising from the spiritually dead state not a physical raising from a physically dead state. The same with blind eyes being opened, the lame being made to walk, etc. I no longer believe any of them were physical miracles. I did once when I was a child but I grew out of such childish fantasies.

As for doing harm to people to punish them for their transgressions, I believe that all actions have a consequence and if the law of any land threatens a death penalty as a punishment for a certain crime, the penalty is there as an deterrent. However obviously the consequences of their actions do not deter fools from committing crimes. They most likely don't even consider the consequences of their actions before they do something wrong. Anyway, that is why we have judges and juries and need evidence to find people guilty of crimes.. so where is your evidence of Pauls crimes or lies and what judges and juries condemned him as being a false apostle?
Hearsay and speculation and carnal minded interpretations of the scriptures is not evidence.

Paul may have eventually been rejected but Jesus was also eventually rejected and crucified by people in the stories and many left him when he was ministering to them too. ( John 6:66)

It is very foolish to place ones trust in any man and that includes the man Paul and the man Jesus Christ.
It is far better to place ones trust in TRUTH alone, otherwise people end up idolising a man rather than living in the principles the character taught and following the EXAMPLE which was set. The example and WAY of LIFE in TRUTH is more important than the man who set the example.

Psalm 146:3 Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help.

John 13:15 For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you.

1 Peter 2:21 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:

You stated: "Discussing whether people agree with those laws or not will not change the fact that all actions have consequences."

Actually lawmakers are influenced by public opinion all the time. If laws are seen to be to burdensome people eventually revolt: a good example of this is the Boston tea party, which caused the united states to separate from England.

Tolstoy once stated: if you change public opinion governments are forced to change.

May I suggest you spend a little time reading these 2 webpages? I think you will be glad you did.

Leo Tolstoy - Wikiquote

The Atlantean Conspiracy: Leo Tolstoy on Anarchy



As for Paul being the target of Revelations, ask yourself this question: why is John writing to Paul's followers? We know Paul went to Asia and that all of Asia forsook Paul. What are the chances that John writing Revelations has nothing to do with them forsaking Paul?

I think a blind person can see that John writes to the churches of Asia because they forsook Paul, but why are they not reprimanded if what they did was wrong? Why does John commend the first church, in the very first thing mentioned, regarding them trying ones claiming to be Apostles? So we know all Asia forsook Paul and John doesn't reprimand them for forsaking Paul and that John, in the very first thing mentioned to the first church, praised them for trying and rejecting someone masquerading as an Apostle. If you look at the Greek you will see Revelations 2:2 is not plural, in other words: John did not say "them", "they" or "Apostles" plural.

 

[skyangel]

You are missing the point: Jesus's words will judge all malefactors who transgress them; earthly kings are obligated to and will be judged by Jesus's teachings: there is no exception for transgressing the teachings of Christ for any man.

Where exactly does it say that Jesus words will judge all malefactors etc?

You stated: "Discussing whether people agree with those laws or not will not change the fact that all actions have consequences."

Actually lawmakers are influenced by public opinion all the time. If laws are seen to be to burdensome people eventually revolt: a good example of this is the Boston tea party, which caused the united states to separate from England.

Tolstoy once stated: if you change public opinion governments are forced to change.

May I suggest you spend a little time reading these 2 webpages? I think you will be glad you did.

Leo Tolstoy - Wikiquote

The Atlantean Conspiracy: Leo Tolstoy on Anarchy



As for Paul being the target of Revelations, ask yourself this question: why is John writing to Paul's followers? We know Paul went to Asia and that all of Asia forsook Paul. What are the chances that John writing Revelations has nothing to do with them forsaking Paul?

I think a blind person can see that John writes to the churches of Asia because they forsook Paul, but why are they not reprimanded if what they did was wrong? Why does John commend the first church, in the very first thing mentioned, regarding them trying ones claiming to be Apostles? So we know all Asia forsook Paul and John doesn't reprimand them for forsaking Paul and that John, in the very first thing mentioned to the first church, praised them for trying and rejecting someone masquerading as an Apostle. If you look at the Greek you will see Revelations 2:2 is not plural, in other words: John did not say "them", "they" or "Apostles" plural.

I understand where your coming from regarding public opinion changing laws but the fact is there will always be people in this world who are for capital punishment as well as those who are against it. What the punishment ends up being is quite irrelevant to the principle that all actions have a consequence. Even nature teaches us that principle.. If you stick your hand in a fire you will be burned. If you are not careful around prickly objects, they will prickle you eventually. If you do wrong, your own conscience condemns you even if no other people know you did anything wrong.
When you do right, the consequence is receiving pleasure from whatever you did. If it made someone happy, it also makes you happy.
It's all about the principle of sowing and reaping. Everyone reaps what they sow regardless of whether they believe in the principle or not. Love begets love.. Hate begets hate. That's the way it always was and is and always will be.

I still think it is very foolish to teach that Paul was a false apostle but you are entitled to your judgement of the character and your opinion of him.
If I was on the jury, I would not be so fast to condemn with such superficial and circumstantial evidence that you are trying to use.

 

[Job]

Go back and reread my posts, I posted a response to it. See post 108

I'm not Marymog.

 

[Pro Jesus Anti Paul]

I'm not Marymog.

Sorry I stated 108 but it is 104: it is always possible someone removed 4 of their posts and the number might have changed.

 

[mjrhealth]

I condemn no one. I merely call a spade a spade. If spades feel condemned by the Truth of what they are, that is not my problem.

What was it that JEsus said to teh woman,

Joh 8:10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?

I guess you would of raised you hand and said " here I am Jesus i saw her do it. Who is teh accuser Jesus or teh devil.??

 

[Job]

Sorry I stated 108 but it is 104: it is always possible someone removed 4 of their posts and the number might have changed.

This is not my first rodeo. I know a dodge when I see one.

No matter. You were wrong and everyone knows it. Especially God. How do you think He feels about your false allegations? (against one of His hand picked) I would be worried if I were you.

 

[Pro Jesus Anti Paul]

This is not my first rodeo. I know a dodge when I see one.

No matter. You were wrong and everyone knows it. Especially God. How do you think He feels about your false allegations? (against one of His hand picked) I would be worried if I were you.

Let's take this talk to the average Joe on the street and see if your "everyone knows it" still holds true.

You are causing me of dodging your question, have you even read the post? You have a terrible spirit; I have in no way intended to dodge you or your post and find your accusation very offensive.

 

[Job]

Let's take this talk to the average Joe on the street and see if your "everyone knows it" still holds true.

Thanks for the laugh.

You are causing me of dodging your question, have you even read the post?

I've read every one of your replies to my posts. You are unable to defend your claim that Paul is a liar. If your claim had any substance, this conversation would've ended pages ago.

You have a terrible spirit; I have in no way intended to dodge you or your post and find your accusation very offensive.

I offend a lot of people. Especially those who have little understanding of the scriptures. I'm not going to apologize for defending the Word of God. You are unable to defend your claim. That should tell you something.

 

[Pro Jesus Anti Paul]

Thanks for the laugh.


I've read every one of your replies to my posts. You are unable to defend your claim that Paul is a liar. If your claim had any substance, this conversation would've ended pages ago.


I offend a lot of people. Especially those who have little understanding of the scriptures. I'm not going to apologize for defending the Word of God. You are unable to defend your claim. That should tell you something.

Did you read my post? Here is the post for you again.

"1 Samuel 8 verse 7 quotes God as stating: they have rejected me, that I should not reign/rule over them.

Now if Kings were ministers of God, then God would be ruling over them, as it is with those who are subjects of Christ.


In verse 18 we read:
18And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the LORD will not hear you in that day.

Very clearly you see that Samuel distinguishes the king as belonging to the People: they are not servants/ministers of God.


In Chapter 10 we read:
19And ye have this day rejected your God, who himself saved you out of all your adversities and your tribulations; and ye have said unto him, Nay, but set a king over us.

If kings are ministers/servants of God, as Paul teaches the gentile Kings are, then the children of Israel were not rejecting God, that he should not rule over them: because he would be.


Now Paul states:

1Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.2Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. 3For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: 4For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

Not only does Paul condone the evil done by Kings, Paul claims they are righteous for returning evil for evil, which is very clearly against the teachings of the King of kings.

Now hear Daniel, in chapter 9:

5We have sinned, and have committed iniquity, and have done wickedly, and have rebelled, even by departing from thy precepts and from thy judgments: 6Neither have we hearkened unto thy servants the prophets, which spake in thy name to our kings, our princes, and our fathers, and to all the people of the land.

7O Lord, righteousness belongeth unto thee, but unto us confusion of faces, as at this day; to the men of Judah, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and unto all Israel, that are near, and that are far off, through all the countries whither thou hast driven them, because of their trespass that they have trespassed against thee. 8O Lord, to us belongeth confusion of face, to our kings, to our princes, and to our fathers, because we have sinned against thee.9To the Lord our God belong mercies and forgivenesses, though we have rebelled against him; 10Neither have we obeyed the voice of the LORD our God, to walk in his laws, which he set before us by his servants the prophets.

Notice how both Samuel and Daniel distinguish the kings belonging to the people and how Samuel stated God said: they have rejected me, that I should not reign/rule over them.

Still want to call Samuel a liar: by claiming earthly rulers are ministers/servants of God as Paul did?"


Now maybe you can address the contradiction, instead of trying to avoid it.

 

[Job]

Now maybe you can address the contradiction, instead of trying to avoid it.

Dude, let it go. I already addressed that post.

You lost the debate. It happens. Go home and lick your wounds.

 

[brightmorningstar]

Now maybe you can address the contradiction, instead of trying to avoid it.

There is no contradiction. You have made one for yourself. Jesus fulfills the OT law and prophets, if you wish to stick with 1 Samuel then thats also ok if you wish to continue under law.
Christianity is based on the whole Bible, the NT is the witness of Christ. You are not upholding Christ but setting up the witness of the gospel writers against the epistles of Paul
NB I note you didnt address my point that the source of such 'jesus isnt paul' heresy is lgbt and secular liberalism.... would you care to?

 

[skyangel]

What was it that JEsus said to teh woman,

Joh 8:10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?

I guess you would of raised you hand and said " here I am Jesus i saw her do it. Who is teh accuser Jesus or teh devil.??

I think you totally miss the point of the parable. The woman was an adulteress. Jesus never said she was not. The spade was still called a spade. In the end none punished her for her adultery. No one stoned her but that does not mean she was not an adulteress. It only means she was forgiven. The bible still calls sinner sinners does it not? Calling a person what they are is not a condemnation it is an accusation. If she had been stoned to death, that would have been her condemnation. Jesus himself accused Pharisees of being hypocrites and fools but he did not condemn them for it. He still forgave them for their stupidity. I also forgive you for not understanding the difference between accusation and condemnation. I hope it is clearer for you now.

 

[skyangel]

Let's take this talk to the average Joe on the street and see if your "everyone knows it" still holds true.

You are causing me of dodging your question, have you even read the post? You have a terrible spirit; I have in no way intended to dodge you or your post and find your accusation very offensive.

I will butt in here and point out that people who are walking in the Spirit are not offended by accusations any more than Jesus was offended by accusations against him. If the accusation is untrue and unfounded and your conscience is clear, there is no need to let it upset you. On the other hand, if it pricks your conscience, you are the one who needs to put things right in your own conscience and you are the only one who can.
Psalm 119:165 Great peace have they which love thy law: and nothing shall offend them.

 

[skyangel]

What was it that JEsus said to teh woman,

Joh 8:10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?

I guess you would of raised you hand and said " here I am Jesus i saw her do it. Who is teh accuser Jesus or teh devil.??

Jesus accused Pharisees of being hypocrites, fools, etc. Who is the accuser, Jesus or the devil?
The Pharisees thought Jesus was of the devil.

 

[Job]

I will butt in here and point out that people who are walking in the Spirit are not offended by accusations any more than Jesus was offended by accusations against him. If the accusation is untrue and unfounded and your conscience is clear, there is no need to let it upset you. On the other hand, if it pricks your conscience, you are the one who needs to put things right in your own conscience and you are the only one who can.
Psalm 119:165 Great peace have they which love thy law: and nothing shall offend them.

What an awesome post.

 

[Pro Jesus Anti Paul]

I will butt in here and point out that people who are walking in the Spirit are not offended by accusations any more than Jesus was offended by accusations against him. If the accusation is untrue and unfounded and your conscience is clear, there is no need to let it upset you. On the other hand, if it pricks your conscience, you are the one who needs to put things right in your own conscience and you are the only one who can.
Psalm 119:165 Great peace have they which love thy law: and nothing shall offend them.

You are talking in ignorance.

 

[Pro Jesus Anti Paul]

There is no contradiction. You have made one for yourself. Jesus fulfills the OT law and prophets, if you wish to stick with 1 Samuel then thats also ok if you wish to continue under law.
Christianity is based on the whole Bible, the NT is the witness of Christ. You are not upholding Christ but setting up the witness of the gospel writers against the epistles of Paul
NB I note you didnt address my point that the source of such 'jesus isnt paul' heresy is lgbt and secular liberalism.... would you care to?

Moses gave the old covenant law not Samuel. Who or what is NB? If you knew your church history you would understand that Paul has been rejected and debated for almost 2000 years: nothing new here.

 

[Pro Jesus Anti Paul]

Dude, let it go. I already addressed that post.

You lost the debate. It happens. Go home and lick your wounds.

End of conversation; you obviously fail to see, with the blinds covering your eyes.