paul is a hypocrite right?[poll is not related to the title]

[ThePuffyBlob]

can you serve two masters
God and money
Matthew 6:24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.


serving money is sin
i heard paul did serve sin in the flesh and God in the spirit
Romans 7:25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

Romans 8:5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
Romans 8:8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
but paul is also in the flesh though at the same time claim he is also in the spirit

paul teaches us this and yet he admitted that's why shouldn't we just listen to christ jesus not on his 12-1=11 apostles?

but what about that
John 14:11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.
i also saw somewhere in the bible that true christians can also be in the christ and the christ in them

so the work of the apostles can also mean that it may be the work of God himself...
the same as the work of other christian users here too

 

[JazzyJeff15]

I believe Pauls saying we need to set our minds on the desires of the spirit and not the desires of the flesh. But hes also speaking on how strong the desires of the flesh are and how difficult it can be battling them

Its taken me a long time to realize how difficult it is for us Christians to overcome sin. We cant, which is why im becoming increasingly thankful that we are saved by Gods grace

The book of Romans is incredible. Im just learning it now. On one hand i find it very convicting. But on the other hand im learning about how much God loves us

Just one more thing. I dont remember the exact verse and im and sometimes when i go to look things up my post gets deleted. But Paul did say i think to start off chapter 6 or 7 in Romans "Should we sin more so that grace may abound? Of course not!"

 

[Robert Gwin]

can you serve two masters
God and money
Matthew 6:24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.


serving money is sin
i heard paul did serve sin in the flesh and God in the spirit
Romans 7:25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

Romans 8:5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
Romans 8:8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
but paul is also in the flesh though at the same time claim he is also in the spirit

paul teaches us this and yet he admitted that's why shouldn't we just listen to christ jesus not on his 12-1=11 apostles?

Paul was a Biblically documented apostle of Christ, personally selected by him to be the apostle to the nations. He was no hypocrite! I agree there are many hypocrites in the faith today, but Paul certainly was not.

but what about that
John 14:11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.
i also saw somewhere in the bible that true christians can also be in the christ and the christ in them

so the work of the apostles can also mean that it may be the work of God himself...
the same as the work of other christian users here too

 

[Enoch111]

can you serve two masters

How does this relate to the Bible being perfect or imperfect? The Bible is indeed perfect.

 

[ThePuffyBlob]

How does this relate to the Bible being perfect or imperfect? The Bible is indeed perfect.

first it did not come to mind the word relate i only ask for me to hit two birds with one stone

but why yes? since there are some books removed from the bible
yes because no matter what we are destined to follow the will of God? and by removing some books from the bible made the bible perfect?

 

[Eternally Grateful]

not sure how one admits they are not perfect makes them a hypocrite. it makes him honest in my view.


what books were removed from scripture.

 

[ThePuffyBlob]

not sure how one admits they are not perfect makes them a hypocrite. it makes him honest in my view.


what books were removed from scripture.

hypocrite is 1 thing perfect is another thing don't mix them

 

[Eternally Grateful]

hypocrite is 1 thing perfect is another thing don't mix them

Paul never claimed to be perfect. Hence he would not be a hypocrite.

Who is it that claims those books are inspired?

 

[Enoch111]

since there are some books removed from the bible yes because no matter what we are destined to follow the will of God?

If you are referring to the apocryphal books, they did not even belong in the Bible in the first place. We have a perfect biblical canon since the 2nd century.

 

[Jay Ross]

We have s perfect biblical canon since the 2nd century.

Yes I can agree with this statement as it is only a list of the Books that have been included in what we call the "Bible," today.

However, the "Bible" that most people people read, which is their language, is littered with "man's understandings" and interpretations of the original language texts.

This distortion of the context of the original Biblical texts in the respective language translations of today is misleading many away from the Biblical truths that are found in the source language texts.

Now whether or not Paul is a hypocrite can only be determined by comparing what Paul wrote with what is also written within the whole holy scriptures outside of what Paul penned.

If Paul's writings are consistent with the rest of scripture, then he is not a hypocrite as the title suggests. If however, if Pauls writings are not consistent with the rest of scripture, then there may be grounds for hold the expressed views. However, even Peter acknowledged that what Paul wrote was difficult for him to fully comprehend.

This is also true today where people's posts are not understood because of the blind spots that many have of God's truths. The problem we have is that the shear volume of what people pen is difficult to keep up with and so their misunderstandings tend to become accepted as Biblical truth, even though they are not.

The problem that we have is being able to sift through the shear volume of material to find the pearls of wisdoms that may be found.

The problem is that we all have our blind spots in our understanding and so we too perpetuate untruths in what we pen.

Shalom

 

[Enoch111]

This distortion of the context of the original Biblical texts in the respective language translations of today is misleading many away from the Biblical truths that are found in the source language texts.

I believe you are seriously mistaken. Regarding the Old Testament (originally the Hebrew Tanakh with 24 books) the same books and the same texts have come down to us from the time of Moses. At the time of Christ, Jesus Himself put His stamp of authority on the Tanakh. He said that the Scriptures consisted of (a) the Law of Moses (5 books), (b) the Prophets (8 books) and the Psalms or Writings (11 books). Because the Hebrew scribes were absolutely meticulous in making copies, we can be 100% confident that the text we have represents the original text. And those 24 books are exactly the same as the 39 books in the Protestant OT. However, they were simply split up and rearranged. Regarding the New Testament, the Received Text represents 95% of the existing manuscripts. It is the traditional Greek text since the time of the apostles.

IOW there is nothing in our bibles (setting aside modern bible versions) which is concocted, and therefore misleading (as you claim). Whether or not you interpret incorrectly what is written is something else.

 

[ThePuffyBlob]

Who is it that claims those books are inspired?

If you are referring to the apocryphal books, they did not even belong in the Bible in the first place. We have a perfect biblical canon since the 2nd century.

ohh that's another fish bone been taken care of but still need more so i better pm you

 

[ThePuffyBlob]

However, the "Bible" that most people people read, which is their language, is littered with "man's understandings" and interpretations of the original language texts.

that's why i do wonder where can i get a copy of dead sea scroll and codex sinaiticus

If Paul's writings are consistent with the rest of scripture, then he is not a hypocrite as the title suggests. If however, if Pauls writings are not consistent with the rest of scripture, then there may be grounds for hold the expressed views. However, even Peter acknowledged that what Paul wrote was difficult for him to fully comprehend.

i see i do not really intend to mock anything i am just studying the word and i want to know the truth but i do not have the source to get the true truth

This is also true today where people's posts are not understood because of the blind spots that many have of God's truths. The problem we have is that the shear volume of what people pen is difficult to keep up with and so their misunderstandings tend to become accepted as Biblical truth, even though they are not.

at the moment i am not fixed with anything yet
i claim to be a double minded 50:50 not yes nor no cannot decide which way to go

IOW there is nothing in our bibles (setting aside modern bible versions) which is concocted, and therefore misleading (as you claim). Whether or not you interpret incorrectly what is written is something else.

ohh now i cannot decide even further i really need a copy of those 2 sources even if they are in the dark web i will go there and get it for free that is
because money has nothing to do with me

 

[Enoch111]

ohh now i cannot decide even further i really need a copy of those 2 sources even if they are in the dark web i will go there and get it for free that is

The last thing you want to do is go to the dark web. Its denizens are generally criminals. Forget about Sinaiticus (a very corrupt manuscript). And the Dead Sea Scrolls have a conglomeration of all kinds of texts, including some OT Scriptures, but some which are questionable.

 

[ThePuffyBlob]

The last thing you want to do is go to the dark web. Its denizens are generally criminals. Forget about Sinaiticus (a very corrupt manuscript). And the Dead Sea Scrolls have a conglomeration of all kinds of text, including some OT Scriptures, but some which are questionable.

then where would i search for answers
how will i suffice my doubts toward the bible where did bible came from

 

[Enoch111]

then where would i search for answers how will i suffice my doubts toward the bible where did bible came from

You could go to this link:
A History of the Masoretic Hebrew Texts | AHRC

 

[ThePuffyBlob]

You could go to this link:
A History of the Masoretic Hebrew Texts | AHRC

thank you very much i will first study this with my below average iq before going forward

 

[Desire Of All Nations]

I believe you are seriously mistaken. Regarding the Old Testament (originally the Hebrew Tanakh with 24 books) the same books and the same texts have come down to us from the time of Moses. At the time of Christ, Jesus Himself put His stamp of authority on the Tanakh. He said that the Scriptures consisted of (a) the Law of Moses (5 books), (b) the Prophets (8 books) and the Psalms or Writings (11 books). Because the Hebrew scribes were absolutely meticulous in making copies, we can be 100% confident that the text we have represents the original text. And those 24 books are exactly the same as the 39 books in the Protestant OT. However, they were simply split up and rearranged. Regarding the New Testament, the Received Text represents 95% of the existing manuscripts. It is the traditional Greek text since the time of the apostles.

IOW there is nothing in our bibles (setting aside modern bible versions) which is concocted, and therefore misleading (as you claim). Whether or not you interpret incorrectly what is written is something else.

That last sentence is incorrect. In Jdg. 18:30, the Orthodox Jews made a deliberate change in the text to hide the fact that the idolatrous priest was none other than Moses' grandson. Where it says "Manasseh", it's supposed to read "Moses". Jdg. 18 clearly identifies the idolatrous priest in the account as Gershom's son, and Gershom was one of Moses' sons(Exo. 2:21-22, 18:2-3).

 

[Enoch111]

Both the Leningrad Codex and the Aleppo Codex have Manasseh, as does Biblia Hebraica. So does the Septuagint. So someone corrupted that to "Moses" (not the other way around).
מְנַ‪‬שֶּׁ֜ה mə-naš-šeh
Leningrad Codex.
וַיָּקִ֧ימוּ לָהֶ֛ם בְּנֵי־דָ֖ן אֶת־הַפָּ֑סֶל וִ֠יהֹונָתָן בֶּן־גֵּרְשֹׁ֨ם בֶּן־מְנַשֶּׁ֜ה ה֣וּא וּבָנָ֗יו הָי֤וּ כֹהֲנִים֙ לְשֵׁ֣בֶט הַדָּנִ֔י עַד־יֹ֖ום גְּלֹ֥ות הָאָֽרֶץ
Aleppo Codex
ל ויקימו להם בני דן את הפסל ויהונתן בן גרשם בן מנשה הוא ובניו היו כהנים לשבט הדני עד יום גלות הארץ
Swete's Septuagint
καὶ ἔστησαν ἑαυτοῖς οἱ υἱοὶ Δὰν τὸ γλυπτόν· καὶ Ἰωναθὰμ υἱὸς Γηρσὸμ υἱὸς Μανασσή, αὐτὸς καὶ οἱ υἱοὶ αὐτοῦ ἦσαν ἱερεῖς τῇ φυλῇ Δὰν ἕως ἡμέρας ἀποικίας τῆς γῆς.

 

[JohnPaul]

can you serve two masters
God and money
Matthew 6:24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.


serving money is sin
i heard paul did serve sin in the flesh and God in the spirit
Romans 7:25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

Romans 8:5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
Romans 8:8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
but paul is also in the flesh though at the same time claim he is also in the spirit

paul teaches us this and yet he admitted that's why shouldn't we just listen to christ jesus not on his 12-1=11 apostles?

but what about that
John 14:11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.
i also saw somewhere in the bible that true christians can also be in the christ and the christ in them

so the work of the apostles can also mean that it may be the work of God himself...
the same as the work of other christian users here too

Money is a necessary evil, without it you cannot survive and will be homeless, so by working to have money is not evil but to be able to have a roof over your head and pay your bills, I am not serving my money nor do I care about wealth just what I need to carry on living, my Master is God, I also help the needy when I can with that money I earn.