RE: Paul vs God (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


pahunkboy -> RE: Paul vs God (5/30/2010 4:30:07 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Its MY topic, pa. If you dont like the direction, quit posting to it.


Now we are getting somewhere.

If Paul wrote to CM - to this thread- he would say all factions should live in harmony.

See?




tazzygirl -> RE: Paul vs God (5/30/2010 4:31:07 AM)

I highlighted that part because vincent was implying that was my interpretation when i never made such a claim. The interpretation was the authors.




tazzygirl -> RE: Paul vs God (5/30/2010 4:32:27 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: pahunkboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Its MY topic, pa. If you dont like the direction, quit posting to it.


Now we are getting somewhere.

If Paul wrote to CM - to this thread- he would say all factions should live in harmony.

See?



And that is your interpretation of what Paul is saying. That is not what the Author is saying.




Rule -> RE: Paul vs God (5/30/2010 4:35:16 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: eyesopened
a lot of the first apostles still thought the message was meant for Jews, not gentiles.

That is because they were Abrahamic Jews that were burdened by the myopic cultural baggage of the Abrahamic Jews.

Paul on the other hand was touched by the Divine and to some degree enabled to surpass that cultural baggage. Religion evolves. Paul was a major mover in that evolution.

Abrahamic Jews are to Christians as reptiles are to mammals: an obsolete earlier phase in (religious) evolution.

quote:

ORIGINAL: eyesopened
So nearly every letter Paul wrote he was telling people, "Don't listen to those other guys... Listen to ME because I'm the one who had the vision so it must be me who is right."  Paul was an egotistical jerk who bragged that because he was both a jew and a Roman citizen as well as an educated person, he was a better authority than his peers.

He was a supergenius and therefore indeed he was a better authority - not only better than his peers, but better than nearly all of the pagan gods, including the last pagan god of the Jews.

quote:

ORIGINAL: eyesopened
Paul was interested in starting a new religion and what he didn't corrupt in Jesus' message, Constantine did.  The damage those two did continues to this day.

They made Christianity into the successful, leading and dominant religion that it became since.

Someone having an opinion does not make him right. There is a lot of hubris in you.





pahunkboy -> RE: Paul vs God (5/30/2010 4:39:27 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl


quote:

ORIGINAL: pahunkboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Its MY topic, pa. If you dont like the direction, quit posting to it.


Now we are getting somewhere.

If Paul wrote to CM - to this thread- he would say all factions should live in harmony.

See?



And that is your interpretation of what Paul is saying. That is not what the Author is saying.


The Author is wrong.    You cant change scripture.

Besides what would Paul say?    Maybe it will send a letter to our civilization..  and yet- no need to - as he did.

The same premise applies today.

Our 614 laws- sic- wont replace gods law.

Dont fixate on the circumcision.    All factions are to live in harmony.  It is not that difficult. ( to understand )




tazzygirl -> RE: Paul vs God (5/30/2010 4:41:04 AM)

Someone ask Rule why he is posting to a thread that he cannot even possibly know what the topic is about? Isnt that the height of stupidity? The exact opposite of a supergenious... well, perhaps not since we are working with rules definition here.




tazzygirl -> RE: Paul vs God (5/30/2010 4:44:42 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: pahunkboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl


quote:

ORIGINAL: pahunkboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Its MY topic, pa. If you dont like the direction, quit posting to it.


Now we are getting somewhere.

If Paul wrote to CM - to this thread- he would say all factions should live in harmony.

See?



And that is your interpretation of what Paul is saying. That is not what the Author is saying.


The Author is wrong.    You cant change scripture.

Besides what would Paul say?    Maybe it will send a letter to our civilization..  and yet- no need to - as he did.

The same premise applies today.

Our 614 laws- sic- wont replace gods law.

Dont fixate on the circumcision.    All factions are to live in harmony.  It is not that difficult. ( to understand )



The one fixating on circumcisions at this point is you.

You state the author is wrong. What is wrong about his interpretations of the bible?




eyesopened -> RE: Paul vs God (5/30/2010 4:46:29 AM)

Here's a news flash for you, Skippy.  CM isn't responding to your requests... everyone has a "hide" button.  You really aren't special.   Having 55 people on "hide" says a lot more about your inability to have discourse than it says about anyone you are hiding.
You read the bible once, 23 years ago and you consider yourself to be an expert yet you can't remember when or why you "hid" someone on CM?  This supergenius thing is really messing with your short term memory.  You ought to get that looked into.

Tazzy displays a great deal of grace.




eyesopened -> RE: Paul vs God (5/30/2010 4:52:10 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule
Someone having an opinion does not make him right. There is a lot of hubris in you.

Look in the mirror when you say that.  You read the bible once and you are an expert?  You are entitled to your opinion and that does not make you right.




Rule -> RE: Paul vs God (5/30/2010 4:57:42 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: eyesopened
Here's a news flash for you, Skippy.  CM isn't responding to your requests... everyone has a "hide" button.  You really aren't special.

All people are special in some way. You are especially wrong.




Rule -> RE: Paul vs God (5/30/2010 5:04:17 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: eyesopened
You read the bible once and you are an expert?

I am a supergenius. I have comprehended some of what I read once.

There may be other people who have read it more than once and who did not comprehend anything of what they read.

quote:

ORIGINAL: eyesopened
You are entitled to your opinion.

I am a supergenius. I have no opinions. I have only probabilities of truths.

quote:

ORIGINAL: eyesopened
You are entitled to your opinion and that does not make you right.

I am a supergenius. I am nearly always right.




eyesopened -> RE: Paul vs God (5/30/2010 5:23:14 AM)

Why not just add me to your list?  You can do it.  Really.   Then we can get back on topic.




Rule -> RE: Paul vs God (5/30/2010 5:24:57 AM)

I have no reason to hide your posts.




thishereboi -> RE: Paul vs God (5/30/2010 6:15:42 AM)

quote:

But, i really do have to ask you. IF you cannot see my posts, why are you posting on a thread about religion when you cant even see the OP?


Actually, I have gone on cucky's threads after I had him hidden. I just read the responses. What I really wonder about is why he had to go to the cm moderators to hide someone. How hard is it to click on the hide button yourself?




vincentML -> RE: Paul vs God (5/30/2010 7:45:51 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl


quote:

ORIGINAL: eyesopened

This was taught to me in Sunday School that a lot of Paul's early converts were confused.  There were a lot who thought they would have to first convert to Judism in order to recieve the gospel.  This came from Jesus who had said something to the effect of feeding your family first and not feeding your dogs.  Jesus was challenged by one person saying "Oh yeah?  Dont the dogs eat what the kids drop on the floor?"  Jesus seemed to find  some merit in that argument but a lot of the first apostles still thought the message was meant for Jews, not gentiles.

So nearly every letter Paul wrote he was telling people, "Don't listen to those other guys... Listen to ME because I'm the one who had the vision so it must be me who is right."  Paul was an egotistical jerk who bragged that because he was both a jew and a Roman citizen as well as an educated person, he was a better authority than his peers.

I noticed when I was young that there was a lot of conflicting messages in the Bible.  One major conflict between Paul and Jesus, is that Jesus wasn't interested in starting a new religion.  He preached against the way religion made people's lives miserable.  See, it was really difficult at that time to be a "good Jew" and a good Roman at the same time.  Only the rich could accomplish this because on one hand you had heavy taxes to pay and on the other hand you had to pay the tithes and sacrifices to the temple.  Ya gotta read these things in context for it to make any sense.  Jesus offered a new way to view God and hopefully help people have some peace in thier lives during a difficult time.

Paul was interested in starting a new religion and what he didn't corrupt in Jesus's message, Constantine did.  The damage those two did continues to this day.


Thats how im reading this site, eyes. And i thank you for seeing it that way. Do i agree? Im not sure at this point. But it does spark an interest within me.


tazzygirl, apologies. It was late when I wrote and I was sloppy when I ascribed the interpretation to you.

eyesopened, Paul evidently made many enemies and they had some unkind things to say about his character. He comes across as egotistical and bullying even in his own writing but I am not convinced that either he or Jesus were attempting to start a new religion in the sense that it would last so long. Both Jesus and then Paul expected the End Times to occur within the lifetimes of the Apostles. Jesus was a little unclear as to whether he was the Christ but he was very clear that the only parts of the Law that mattered were the Commandments to love God as the One, and to love your neighbors. Everything else was basically irrelevant or trivial.

After the resurrection, Paul believed that the End Time was still imminent. The Apostles would see the estabishment of God’s Kingdom on earth. He was out there trying to make converts on that basis. Perhaps, he felt an urgency to his mission and was impatient as he waited for the Coming.

Your comment about putting things in context is very important in that respect.

Constantine had a vision, as you know, on the eve of battle that the Cross was his sword. This was the beginning of Catholicism as an Empire. So yeh, I would agree that Constantine had a very deleterious effect on Christianity when he gave it the power of the State for his own purposes.

Tazzy, I am puzzled by this passage that you quoted:

quote:

You see, Paul is suggesting that "Christos" Himself "was set free" of "the enslaving Torah" with the "intent of establishing our" "freedom." And while separating Yahshua from Yahweh and the Messiyah from the Torah is Sha’uwl’s modus operandi, it is the exact opposite of what actually occurred, as the Messiyah Yahshua was held accountable to the Torah so that we would be freed and established.


Well yes, Paul was expecting to be set free by the imminent coming of the Kingdom, so why should it be a surprise he was contemptuous of the Torah? To be “set free” meant not only free from the oppression of the Romans and the Temple but also to be set free of physical ills and most importantly from death.

What puzzles me is how does the author justify that this was “the exact opposite of what occurred and that Jesus as Messiah was held accountable to the Torah." I don’t at all understand from whence he pulled that. What am I missing here?

Again, I am not convinced that Paul was in conflict with God but as eyes said Jesus and then Paul saw God differently.

After the Kingdom was not established on earth as many hoped, the persistent survival of Judaism even after the destruction of the Temple was a sort of "I told you so" rebuttal witness of Jesus as failed Messiah. And that is why, Pahunk, the two groups did not get along.





realcoolhand -> RE: Paul vs God (5/30/2010 8:13:05 AM)

Maybe instead of hiding each other we should all just chill. This should be a fun and informative thread if we can all remain calm.

By the way, Rule, the letter to the Galatians was not written to Abrahamic Jews, it was written to Greek converts living in Galatia in central asia minor, which is why the letter was written in Greek. Supergeniuses notice shit like that.

Back to Tazzy's post, I'll go out on a limb and say that the author of the text she cites is wrong, and wrong because he misses the context of "I say," the phrase on which he focuses. That phrase does not set Paul in opposition to God, but rather to those "judaizers" Paul identified in Galatians 1:6 as "some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ" by insisting on obedience to every detail of levitical law.

Those legalists apparently taught that salvation was the consequence of obeying the law, and therefore as a consequence of human effort. t's already been stated in this thread, but Paul's ultimate point, in Galatians and his other letters, is that we are not saved by our own efforts, but through Christ's grace realized in his sacrifice. As Paul put it in Galatians 2:21, "if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose." Paul is having none of that.

As Paul explains in Galations three, the law is not at the heart of the Abrahamic covenant, since it was not given until nearly half a millennium after that covenant was formed. Rather, the law was given to control our sinful nature until the promise of the original covenant would be fulfilled in Christ, and during that interim we were "imprisoned" by the "yoke" of the law as our "guardian." But as Paul mentions in Galations and expounds upon in his letter to the Romans, the law brings death by highlighting, and thereby actuating, the sinful nature it also restrains. "I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, 'You shall not covet.'" Romans 7:7. Therefore where "I was once alive apart from the law, . . . when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me. For sin, seizing an opportunity and through the commandment, deceived me, and through it killed me."

And the fact that it is PAUL saying this IS relevant, because he was unequaled in his zealous observance of the law. As he stated when on trial for preaching the Christian religion, "My manner of life from my youth, spent from the beginning among my own nation and in Jerusalem, is known by all the Jews. They have known for a long time, if they are willing to testify, that according to the strictest party of our religion I have lived as a Pharisee." Acts 26:4-5. His point, in explaining that "I say" all that he says, is that I, better than you, would know whether it is law or grace through faith that brings salvation, and I say that it is grace through faith.




realcoolhand -> RE: Paul vs God (5/30/2010 8:28:09 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

Well yes, Paul was expecting to be set free by the imminent coming of the Kingdom, so why should it be a surprise he was contemptuous of the Torah? To be “set free” meant not only free from the oppression of the Romans and the Temple but also to be set free of physical ills and most importantly from death.



I largely agree with your last post, but not this comment. Paul was emphatically not contemptuous of the law.

"What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if It had not been for the law, I would not have known sin." Romans 7:7. And later, "Did that which is good [the law], then, bring death to me? By no means! It was sin, producing death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure. For we know that the law is spiritual, and I am of the flesh, sold under sin. I do not understand my own actions. For I do not what I want, but do the very thing I hate. Now if I do what I do now want [sin], then I agree with the law, that it [what I want] is good." Romans 7:13-15.

And further: "I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, but I see in my members [body] another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members." Romans 7:21-22. However, "God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do" through Christ. Romans 8:3 et seq.

So you see, Paul loved the law, because he understood that the law is God's will for us, but did not set his store in the law, because no one but God is capable of keeping it. Rather, Paul recognized that it is only God's grace, in keeping the law on our behalf, that saves us.




pahunkboy -> RE: Paul vs God (5/30/2010 8:31:40 AM)

--yet- what if Paul got real mad- and creative- he set the town bakery on fire and said the outsiders did it.

What is this called- and how does our govt do that today?

He could have staged a false flag and that town could have gone on a war of terror.

Right?




realcoolhand -> RE: Paul vs God (5/30/2010 8:34:06 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: pahunkboy

--yet- what if Paul got real mad- and creative- he set the town bakery on fire and said the outsiders did it.

What is this called- and how does our govt do that today?

He could have staged a false flag and that town could have gone on a war of terror.

Right?



You seem like a sweet guy, but please keep it in your pants. There are plenty of threads dedicated to political issues for you raise these sorts of issues, but this is not one of them. Please please please let us focus on the intent and significance of Paul without dragging contemporary politics into it.




pahunkboy -> RE: Paul vs God (5/30/2010 8:35:19 AM)

Why is scripture relevant if we cant apply it to today?




Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125