Another wolf is marked/exposed/identified.

[freelight]

Blimey I don't see Paul like that at all, he's just very strong in the Spirit and he's hard to understand for some, but what he speaks isn't all natural. And I think that he preaches the same gospel as Jesus. For instance the cross of Christ isn't the natural cross, but the cross Christ Jesus bore. When Paul says that the cross is foolishness to those that perish, many believe he is talking about the natural cross that Jesus died on, but it's not, he means the cross Christ bore, the and cross that we are to take up. Because that cross is foolishness to those that perish, because they are quite happy living in their flesh and they don't want to take up their cross and suffer for Christs sake. He doesn't believe in faith alone, he also speaks about the works. We know each others faith by our works, if Paul didn't believe in works, then he wouldn't have done them, but he did.

I believe that Paul speaks the truth, he just has a different style of speaking and he is a true apostle of Jesus and he is very strong in God.

Btw, I've deleted some messages

:thumb:

I agree, since as I noted, we look to the inner meaning, spiritual teaching, essential value of what is being communicated thru the images, concepts, archetypes ...via analogy and allegory. I've read alot of those against Paul, and some of their points are tenable and noteworthy, but these are being interpreted within a larger scope or context as far as biblical teaching is concerned, especially how it relates to his view on the law, and the fundamental tenets of Judaism. Otherwise, I've defended your intuitive and spiritual interpretation of scripture, from a healthy marriage of faith and works perspective, while chiding those who "cry wolf"

 

[freelight]

Well faith was the main ingredients in the Jesus motif, love your enemy, man as God's dwelling place, can do nothing of myself, didn't learn from men, interpreted the parabolic OT for spiritual eyes and ears, many more symbiotic teachings that for some reason your unable to congeal, unless your giving merit to exoteric symbols meant to read with esoteric glasses.

After all these years I'm still baffled why you have dug such a wide trench between Jesus and Paul, Dispensationalist I know why they try to divide them not sure about your motives because I can see plenty of dots that connect.

I guess we will never agree on this one.

From a purely religious/spiritual view, all the NT books come from their own perspective and context, and of course have their meaning and value within those paramaters, or within whatever greater context we consider them. From the esoteric viewpoint, all universal truths and principles hold, no matter what author is assumed. It just so happens that a fair share of bible believers do not accept Paul for many reasons, I've considered some of their points, and some seem considerable. On that note, I agree "the letter kills, the Spirit gives life",..and "those who are led by the Spirit of God are the sons of God", so Paul does teach some truths. I think we'll leave it there for now.

 

[Zeke]

From a purely religious/spiritual view, all the NT books come from their own perspective and context, and of course have their meaning and value within those paramaters, or within whatever greater context we consider them. From the esoteric viewpoint, all universal truths and principles hold, no matter what author is assumed. It just so happens that a fair share of bible believers do not accept Paul for many reasons, I've considered some of their points, and some seem considerable. On that note, I agree "the letter kills, the Spirit gives life",..and "those who are led by the Spirit of God are the sons of God", so Paul does teach some truths. I think we'll leave it there for now.

Bible correcting wolves can't always howl the same tune, some diversity is to be expected.

 

[freelight]

Records are subject to translation......

Records are subject to translation......

1. Judas was also "appointed." And?

I merely noted a fact that Paul was NEVER appointed by Jesus while he was on earth, neither did he ever meet Jesus in the flesh as far as anyone knows. I also did not mention that this was the only way that anyone could be a true apostle, just noting this fact.

Paul says very little about Jesus as he is presented in the gospels, says little about his teachings recorded there, no virgin birth, parables, the sermon on the mount, the Lord's prayer, his great miracles, etc. Paul only mentions one saying of the Lord as you note below, but its nowhere shared verbatim in the gospels. Also, his teaching on the Lord's supper (Eucharist) is claimed to have been given to him by personal revelation, NOT something he got down from any tradition. The gospels are dated a few decades or more after his letters, so it seems the Eucharist event could have been imported into the gospels from Paul's letters, not the other way around. I've covered this elsewhere.

Acts 1 KJV

23 And they(The 11 apostles-my note) appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.

24 And they (The 11 apostles-my note)prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen,

25 That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.

26 And they (The 11 apostles-my note)gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

So, you are on record, by your argument, that there are just 11 apostles, as the "appointment" of Matthias, was not by "Jesus after the flesh?"

Not so, as I didnt claim that one must necessarily be appointed by Jesus in the flesh, to be an apostle. As far as Mattias who was chosen, we have no record of what happened to him, or if he even kept the faith.

And, thus, you are on record, that this scripture should be deleted:

Revelation 21:14 KJV

And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

Do NOTE, that the original 12 apostles of the Lamb would include Mattias who took Judas place, unless Judas was granted opportunity of repentance or reformation in the spirit world, and his soul has been restored to the 'original 12'. PAUL is never included or assumed to be one of the original 12. - you do see the significance of the 12 appointed in the passage?

2. If you could show me where "Jesus in the flesh," or "God in the flesh," ever appointed you to anything, I would be much obliged. Chapter, verse, in Matthew-John, where your name is cited. Remember, you cannot cite Roman-Philemon, as that is not legitimate, as it is not of "Jesus after the flesh/God in the flesh."

Again,....I merely noted some facts about Paul's assumed apostleship. As far as my name being in the book (silly boo) I've never claimed to be an 'apostle' like Paul did (among other boasts), and let my commentary stand as it may, engaging in 'creative dialogue' per my usual forte'. All points of view are subject to change. Truth is eternal, but descriptions and interpretations thereof are more or less relative and conditional to whatever context is assumed.

I think alot of those rejecting Paul hold more to the school of James and original apostles holding to the fundamentals of Judaism, as if serving as apologists to keep the lineage of Jesus secure....mainly his teaching to the fore, focusing more on his teachings, rather than Pauls. Maybe they are making too much of it. We've had threads on Paul before, maybe continue in one of those or opening a new thread may be more appropriate, for those interested. Any are free to exchange ideas and dialogue with me as well via facebook, PM or email. I've shared research links on Paul here before, but the Gestapo here has deleted those, just because they present alternative or seemingly anti-christian sentiments or conclusions, but this is anti their own 'version' of Christianity of course. So if any are interested in engaging more controversial matters, try those other avenues.

Sophistry.

I find philosophical inquiry and exploration a worthy endeavor. Even atheistic/agnostic views. No one particular religious cult-ure or tradition has a monopoly on 'God'.

3. Did the Lord Jesus, "in the flesh," ever teach, say, "It is more blessed to give than to receive?"

That is not recorded verbatim in the gospels to my knowledge, and is only metioned by Paul in one of his letters. Paul also quotes from sources not in the canon, they being 'apocryphal'...as well as pagan authors to make his points. He was quite a Morph-eus It is therefore something Paul heard by tradition or in some written record somewhere (lost now), or that he got it by revelation, etc. With Paul its hard to say.

Asides from all these technicalities, its the religious and spiritual truths, allegorically and symbolically speaking that matter, these seemed most important to Paul essentially, within his own catalog of terms. 'Christ' to him is a life giving spirit, a cosmic avatar and redeemer of sorts, something more spiritual and gnostic in nature, while the gospels were written later after his letters to place this cosmic Christ figure into a physical form, a place in history living out a human life, going thru the ritual of birth, death, resurrection, ascension into glory. This is also a prototypal story for the transformation of all souls who attain the resurrection and put on immortality. Therefore the allegorical and esoteric teaching holds, of which the literature and exoteric body is but the vehicle to communicate or illustrate the process of 'salvation'.

Call this sophistry if you like, Paul and other mystics of various schools engage in plenty of it

 

[freelight]

Bible correcting wolves can't always howl the same tune, some diversity is to be expected.

Live the law of love, in toto,...and you cannot sin. All 'sin' is the transgression of love, the missing its 'mark' of wholeness and perfection

We grant Jesus some leeway in the gospels by tradition, but we dont know what all is genuine of his teaching in those records, we only assume such by whatever criteria, and can judge the content on their own. There are just as well wonderful words put in the mouth of Jesus in non-canonical works. The same goes with Paul, but I say Paul comes under greater scrutiny, because he comes as a reformer, innovator and founder of a new gospel, a modification and addition to any former versions.

It may be all good and well, in light of progressive revelation, so each like a good fisherman, will cast his line and take what good he finds, and toss the rest back in the water - such is the kingdom, per one of Jesus parables

 

[john w]

I merely noted a fact that Paul was NEVER appointed by Jesus while he was on earth, neither did he ever meet Jesus in the flesh as far as anyone knows. I also did not mention that this was the only way that anyone could be a true apostle, just noting this fact.

Irrelevant. You argued:

Just pointing out that many have 'issues' with him. Some are fine to resolve all this or explain things away to include Paul as actually appointed by Jesus, but he never was appointed by Jesus in the flesh

Judas was appointed "by Jesus after the flesh." And?You never met "Jesus in the flesh."

Acts 1 KJV

23 And they(The 11 apostles-my note) appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.

24 And they (The 11 apostles-my note)prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen,

25 That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.

26 And they (The 11 apostles-my note)gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

So, you are on record, by your argument, that there are just 11 apostles, as the "appointment" of Matthias, was not by "Jesus after the flesh?"


And, thus, you are on record, that this scripture should be deleted:

Revelation 21:14 KJV

And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

Paul says very little about Jesus as he is presented in the gospels, says little about his teachings recorded there, no virgin birth, parables, the sermon on the mount, the Lord's prayer, his great miracles, etc. Paul only mentions one saying of the Lord as you note below, but its nowhere shared verbatim in the gospels. Also, his teaching on the Lord's supper (Eucharist) is claimed to have been given to him by personal revelation, NOT something he got down from any tradition. The gospels are dated a few decades or more after his letters, so it seems the Eucharist event could have been imported into the gospels from Paul's letters, not the other way around. I've covered this elsewhere.

Irrelevant to your argument I was addressing:

Just pointing out that many have 'issues' with him. Some are fine to resolve all this or explain things away to include Paul as actually appointed by Jesus, but he never was appointed by Jesus in the flesh

Not so, as I didnt claim that one must necessarily be appointed by Jesus in the flesh, to be an apostle. As far as Mattias who was chosen, we have no record of what happened to him, or if he even kept the faith.

You spin, and side step...That is slick...real slick. No, you argued:

Just pointing out that many have 'issues' with him. Some are fine to resolve all this or explain things away to include Paul as actually appointed by Jesus, but he never was appointed by Jesus in the flesh

I merely noted a fact that Paul was NEVER appointed by Jesus while he was on earth, neither did he ever meet Jesus in the flesh as far as anyone knows. I also did not mention that this was the only way that anyone could be a true apostle, just noting this fact.

Neither was Mathias, and neither did you meet "Jesus in the flesh."

. If you could show me where "Jesus in the flesh," or "God in the flesh," ever appointed you to anything, I would be much obliged. Chapter, verse, in Matthew-John, where your name is cited. Remember, you cannot cite Roman-Philemon, as that is not legitimate, as it is not of "Jesus after the flesh/God in the flesh."

Do NOTE, that the original 12 apostles of the Lamb would include Mattias who took Judas place, unless Judas was granted opportunity of repentance or reformation in the spirit world, and his soul has been restored to the 'original 12'. PAUL is never included or assumed to be one of the original 12. - you do see the significance of the 12 appointed in the passage?

Irrelevant. You are on record, by your argument, that there are just 11 apostles, as the "appointment" of Matthias, was not by "Jesus after the flesh."


And, thus, you are on record, that this scripture should be deleted:

Revelation 21:14 KJV

And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

Again,....I merely noted some facts about Paul's assumed apostleship. As far as my name being in the book (silly boo) I've never claimed to be an 'apostle' like Paul did (among other boasts), and let my commentary stand as it may, engaging in 'creative dialogue' per my usual forte'. All points of view are subject to change. Truth is eternal, but descriptions and interpretations thereof are more or less relative and conditional to whatever context is assumed.

I think alot of those rejecting Paul hold more to the school of James and original apostles holding to the fundamentals of Judaism, as if serving as apologists to keep the lineage of Jesus secure....mainly his teaching to the fore, focusing more on his teachings, rather than Pauls. Maybe they are making too much of it. We've had threads on Paul before, maybe continue in one of those or opening a new thread may be more appropriate, for those interested. Any are free to exchange ideas and dialogue with me as well via facebook, PM or email. I've shared research links on Paul here before, but the Gestapo here has deleted those, just because they present alternative or seemingly anti-christian sentiments or conclusions, but this is anti their own 'version' of Christianity of course. So if any are interested in engaging more controversial matters, try those other avenues.




I find philosophical inquiry and exploration a worthy endeavor. Even atheistic/agnostic views. No one particular religious cult-ure or tradition has a monopoly on 'God'.



That is not recorded verbatim in the gospels to my knowledge, and is only metioned by Paul in one of his letters. Paul also quotes from sources not in the canon, they being 'apocryphal'...as well as pagan authors to make his points. He was quite a Morph-eus It is therefore something Paul heard by tradition or in some written record somewhere (lost now), or that he got it by revelation, etc. With Paul its hard to say.

Asides from all these technicalities, its the religious and spiritual truths, allegorically and symbolically speaking that matter, these seemed most important to Paul essentially, within his own catalog of terms. 'Christ' to him is a life giving spirit, a cosmic avatar and redeemer of sorts, something more spiritual and gnostic in nature, while the gospels were written later after his letters to place this cosmic Christ figure into a physical form, a place in history living out a human life, going thru the ritual of birth, death, resurrection, ascension into glory. This is also a prototypal story for the transformation of all souls who attain the resurrection and put on immortality. Therefore the allegorical and esoteric teaching holds, of which the literature and exoteric body is but the vehicle to communicate or illustrate the process of 'salvation'.

Call this sophistry if you like, Paul and other mystics of various schools engage in plenty of it

Irrelevant to your argument I was addressing:

Just pointing out that many have 'issues' with him. Some are fine to resolve all this or explain things away to include Paul as actually appointed by Jesus, but he never was appointed by Jesus in the flesh

You are on record:

1. Matthias was not one of the 12-there are only 11 apostles.

2. You are to shut your mouth, as you cannot show us where "Jesus in the flesh," or "God in the flesh," ever appointed you to anything, or where you met Him. Chapter, verse, in Matthew-John, where your name is cited. Remember, you cannot cite Roman-Philemon, as that is not legitimate, as it is not of "Jesus after the flesh/God in the flesh."

 

[glorydaz]

Here's how we lay down our lives, here's how we lose our life for Christs sake.

Matthew 16

Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.

And Jesus said, that those not willing to take up their cross, are not worthy of him! And if we are trying to save our life in the flesh, we will lose it, because we will be putting our flesh before the living God.

And by the way that's not a natural cross that we have to be crucified on either! It's Spiritual!

Are you willing to die for Jesus's sake? If you are, then you will give up your life in the flesh now, die the death, and turn from the world to live by the will of God

I'm sorry for you. I have entered into His REST.

When I believed the Gospel, I was crucified with Christ. Nothing to do with my being "willing to die" or "losing my life". It was totally and completely an operation of God. Which is why we call it Salvation by Grace....God's Grace through the faith of the Lord Jesus Christ. God's Grace because of HIS obedience unto death (real death - not spiritual death).

Colossians 2:11-13
11-13 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: 12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. 13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;​

Clearly you don't know that He is Risen. :nono:

 

[john w]

Did the Lord Jesus, "in the flesh," ever teach, say, "It is more blessed to give than to receive?"

That is not recorded verbatim in the gospels to my knowledge, and is only metioned by Paul in one of his letters. ......)

So, go on record, for all of TOL to witness, that you think this is not scripture, and should be deleted:


Acts 20:35 KJV I have shewed you all things, how that so labouring ye ought to support the weak, and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive.


While you're at it, if you were intellectually honest, go on record, and delete, Romans-Philemon, for, if Paul is not legit, as an apostle, prophet, in this dispensation, he is a liar, and a charlatan, and nothing for which he is given credit writing, we should read, much less believe.


Go ahead. We are all busy men/women, on TOL. "Speak plainly," and shuck your talk show speculation.

 

[freelight]

Dont skip some important points......

Dont skip some important points......

Spoiler

Irrelevant. You argued:


Judas was appointed "by Jesus after the flesh." And?You never met "Jesus in the flesh."

Acts 1 KJV

23 And they(The 11 apostles-my note) appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.

24 And they (The 11 apostles-my note)prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen,

25 That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.

26 And they (The 11 apostles-my note)gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

So, you are on record, by your argument, that there are just 11 apostles, as the "appointment" of Matthias, was not by "Jesus after the flesh?"


And, thus, you are on record, that this scripture should be deleted:

Revelation 21:14 KJV

And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.






Irrelevant to your argument I was addressing:






You spin, and side step...That is slick...real slick. No, you argued:




Neither was Mathias, and neither did you meet "Jesus in the flesh."

. If you could show me where "Jesus in the flesh," or "God in the flesh," ever appointed you to anything, I would be much obliged. Chapter, verse, in Matthew-John, where your name is cited. Remember, you cannot cite Roman-Philemon, as that is not legitimate, as it is not of "Jesus after the flesh/God in the flesh."



Irrelevant. You are on record, by your argument, that there are just 11 apostles, as the "appointment" of Matthias, was not by "Jesus after the flesh."


And, thus, you are on record, that this scripture should be deleted:

Revelation 21:14 KJV

And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.




Irrelevant to your argument I was addressing:






You are on record:

1. Matthias was not one of the 12-there are only 11 apostles.

2. You are to shut your mouth, as you cannot show us where "Jesus in the flesh," or "God in the flesh," ever appointed you to anything, or where you met Him. Chapter, verse, in Matthew-John, where your name is cited. Remember, you cannot cite Roman-Philemon, as that is not legitimate, as it is not of "Jesus after the flesh/God in the flesh."

Spoiler

I've made my points, readers can decide for themselves on this debate if interested.

I've already stated that Mattias was chosen by lots to replace Judas, but Judas may still be included as the original 12 if he has been accepted back into the faith. Otherwise, there is no more info. about this issue. Your guess is as good as any other. Revelation deems the 12 to be quite important, so the original 12 hold their PLACE. 'Paul' is not assumed to be or included in this original 12, you seemed to have overlooked that, among other points I made.

I already answered your question about Paul's freelance quote about Jesus saying "it is better to give than to receive". Paul uses quotes from many different sources, so he apparently was not only into esoteric interpretation of the OT, he was somewhat 'eclectic', so does earn some brownie points. - Do you believe everything attributed by Paul automatically, without consideration and research? - "test all things, hold to what is good/true".

I dont need a religious book to appoint or sanction my commentary or debates on this forum, as there are plenty of reknown famous persons and scholars who have critical things to say about Paul. The issues remain. One is free to conclude anything by his own research.

-------------------

"What did the historical Jesus teach in comparison with what the historical Paul taught?… Jesus taught that to escape judgment a person must keep the central teachings of the Jewish Law as he, Jesus himself, interpreted them. Paul, interestingly enough, never mentions Jesus’ interpretation of the [Mosaic] Law, and Paul was quite insistent that keeping the Law would never bring Salvation. The only way to be saved, for Paul, was to trust Jesus’ death and resurrection… Paul transformed the religion of Jesus into a religion about Jesus."

- Bart D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, 1993.

 

[freelight]

So, go on record, for all of TOL to witness, that you think this is not scripture, and should be deleted:


Acts 20:35 KJV I have shewed you all things, how that so labouring ye ought to support the weak, and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive.


While you're at it, if you were intellectually honest, go on record, and delete, Romans-Philemon, for, if Paul is not legit, as an apostle, prophet, in this dispensation, he is a liar, and a charlatan, and nothing for which he is given credit writing, we should read, much less believe.


Go ahead. We are all busy men/women, on TOL. "Speak plainly," and shuck your talk show speculation.

Only 7 letters ascribed to Paul are considered 'genuine' by most scholars, the others are considered pseudographical or 'questionable'.

I've not advocated for deleting any passages, which is a silly notion, since innovations, redactions, interpolations and such have already been done in the formative years before enough manuscripts were preserved, where it became harder to make changes, so what we have in the standard canon now, is pretty much 'set'.

Just because something is in the Bible does not make it true, neither does the Bible contain the totality or finality of truth, since no religious book could, although some books are more useful than others.

Being careful of who is claiming to be an apostle of the Christ is a good thing.

 

[john w]

I've made my points, readers can decide for themselves on this debate if interested.]

Spin, side step, deception. You argued, the only "point" that I was addressing:.

Just pointing out that many have 'issues' with him. Some are fine to resolve all this or explain things away to include Paul as actually appointed by Jesus, but he never was appointed by Jesus in the flesh.

I've already stated that Mattias was chosen by lots to replace Judas, but Judas may still be included as the original 12 if he has been accepted back into the faith. Otherwise, there is no more info. about this issue. Your guess is as good as any other. Revelation deems the 12 to be quite important, so the original 12 hold their PLACE. 'Paul' is not assumed to be or included in this original 12, you seemed to have overlooked that, among other points I made.

Irrelevant, when you say "he may have been appointed...."

You argued that Paul is not qualified to be an apostle, because he "never was appointed by Jesus in the flesh," or saw Him in the flesh.


I refuted that, as neither you, or Mathias, were "never appointed by Jesus in the flesh," or saw Him in the flesh.

If you were intellectually honest, you'd retract/drop this "never appointed by Jesus in the flesh," or saw Him in the flesh sophistry.


If you do not, yes, you've made one of your points, alright-you are a dishonest fraud, engaging in deceptive debating techniques.


Catch this, TOL audience:

Your guess is as good as any other.

=matters of faith are just "guess work," according to this poser.

I already answered your question about Paul's freelance quote about Jesus saying "it is better to give than to receive". Paul uses quotes from many different sources, so he apparently was not only into esoteric interpretation of the OT, he was somewhat 'eclectic', so does earn some brownie points.

- Do you believe everything attributed by Paul automatically, without consideration and research? - "test all things, hold to what is good/true".

I believe every word of "the scripture of truth." Now I realize, that you don't.

I dont need a religious book to appoint or sanction my commentary or debates on this forum, as there are plenty of reknown famous persons and scholars who have critical things to say about Paul. The issues remain.

Yes, this issue,i.e., you not defending your own argument, and engaging in misdirection, changing the goalposts, remains:

So, go on record, for all of TOL to witness, that you think this is not scripture, and should be deleted:


Acts 20:35 KJV I have shewed you all things, how that so labouring ye ought to support the weak, and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive.


IS THIS SCRIPTURE,OR NOT? If not, say it is not, so that we know "whose team you are on," and then delete it, and, if you are intellectually honest, go on record, and delete, Romans-Philemon, asserting that it is also not scripture, if Paul is not legit, as an apostle, prophet, in this dispensation, he is a liar, and a charlatan, and nothing for which he is given credit writing, we should read, much less believe.


Go ahead. We are all busy men/women, on TOL. "Speak plainly," and shuck your talk show speculation.

And, this I did not know-you are not a bible believer.

One is free to conclude anything by his own research.

Such brilliance. We did not know that.

 

[john w]

Only 7 letters ascribed to Paul are considered 'genuine' by most scholars, the others are considered pseudographical or 'questionable'.

So, are they scripture? If not, delete them.

I've not advocated for deleting any passages, which is a silly notion, since innovations, redactions, interpolations and such have already been done in the formative years before enough manuscripts were preserved, where it became harder to make changes, so what we have in the standard canon now, is pretty much 'set'.

Evasion. Non responsive.If Paul is not an apostle, prophet, if you are intellectually honest, go on record, and delete, Acts 20:35 KJV, Romans-Philemon, asserting that it is also not scripture, since, if Paul is not legit, as an apostle, prophet, in this dispensation, he is a liar, and a charlatan, and nothing for which he is given credit writing, we should read, much less believe, considered "scripture."

Did, or did not, the Lord Jesus say, "It is more blessed to give than to receive?"

If you say no, if you had any brains, then Paul is a liar, and we should disregard him, or, you are free basing.

Which is it?

Just because something is in the Bible does not make it true, neither does the Bible contain the totality or finality of truth, since no religious book could, although some books are more useful than others.

Made up. Every word is true.

Being careful of who is claiming to be an apostle of the Christ is a good thing.

More psychobabble, talk show speculation, from a troll.

 

[john w]

I need to apologize to freebaser. This is the first time, to my recollection, that I've "engaged" him/her, in debating, persuading, disputing. Now, I realize, that he/she is not a bible believer.As such, this discussion ends, as I only debate with, attempt to persuade, bible believers, of doctrinal issues.

Again, I apologize.

 

[freelight]

IS THIS SCRIPTURE,OR NOT? If not, say it is not, so that we know "whose team you are on," and then delete it, and, if you are intellectually honest, go on record, and delete, Romans-Philemon, asserting that it is also not scripture, if Paul is not legit, as an apostle, prophet, in this dispensation, he is a liar, and a charlatan, and nothing for which he is given credit writing, we should read, much less believe.

Again, that passage is not in the gospels, Paul seems to have his own secret source for such, much like his visions and revelations, which you can accept, reject or spin as you wish. I think parts of Acts are fictional narratives, although some historical data is included to make the narratives tenable in such a context.

Also, since only 7 of the letters ascribed to him are considered to be 'genuine' by most scholars, the others are more or less subject to more skepticism. No matter who wrote these or the others attribued to them, they still come under the usual criteria for determining their meaning or value, and this goes for any religious writing of whatever tradition. Since you dont know for sure what has been added, taken or redacted within those letters (done in their formative period before more textual scrutiny was possible with the accumalation of manuscripts) you cant really say with total confidence what is by Paul and what is not.

Its not so much a "whose team are you on?" issue as I'm not identifying myself with any particular class of Christianity, denomination or school, or as a team player needing a club-card from the resident theology club here. I've always been who I am on this forum for some years,...nothing to hide in my eclectic 'theology'. If we've come to an impasse here in the discussion so be it. Beyond what real dialogue can be had in a fruitful way here, the rest is entertainment. If that can be enjoyed civilly then all the merrier.

 

[Zeke]

Wayne Lamar Harrington's dismantling of the Acts conversion of Paul compared to Galatians shows the inerrant stance is built on error like Acts Pauline conversion-.

Now if John wants to play scriptural bouncer he should be able to quickly dismantle Wayne's argument against his KJV inerrant claims.

Others are looking forward to that endeavor being accomplished.

 

[john w]

Again, that passage is not in the gospels,..

I did not ask that. I asked, "IS THIS SCRIPTURE,OR NOT?"

But, never mind, as I need to apologize to freebaser. This is the first time, to my recollection, that I've "engaged" him/her, in debating, persuading, disputing. Now, I realize, that he/she is not a bible believer.As such, this discussion ends, as I only debate with, attempt to persuade, bible believers, of doctrinal issues.

Again, I apologize.

 

[freelight]

I need to apologize to freebaser. This is the first time, to my recollection, that I've "engaged" him/her, in debating, persuading, disputing. Now, I realize, that he/she is not a bible believer.As such, this discussion ends, as I only debate with, attempt to persuade, bible believers, of doctrinal issues.

Again, I apologize.

:thumb:

Its all good,...surprised as we both are old timers here. I'm evolving........

 

[freelight]

Wayne Lamar Harrington's dismantling of the Acts conversion of Paul compared to Galatians shows the inerrant stance is built on error like Acts Pauline conversion-.

Now if John wants to play scriptural bouncer he should be able to quickly dismantle Wayne's argument against his KJV inerrant claims.

Others are looking forward to that endeavor being accomplished.

Others have also found problems with Acts. The KJV-only issue is another can of worms.

 

[john w]

Wayne Lamar Harrington's dismantling of the Acts conversion of Paul compared to Galatians shows the inerrant stance is built on error like Acts Pauline conversion-.

Now if John wants to play scriptural bouncer he should be able to quickly dismantle Wayne's argument against his KJV inerrant claims.

Others are looking forward to that endeavor being accomplished.

Translation from Zeke: Here is the scripture, that says, we no longer have the scriptures.


Prove, Zekie, that "the originals" were "inerrant."

Wayne Lamar Harrington: Here is an error filled document(s), and I will use it/them, to correct other "non inerrant" versions/translations, to arrive at perfection.


Another couple of clowns, in a parade of clowns,trying to correct scriptures, with corrupt scriptures, to arrive at this "theoretical" inerrant scripture.


Tell all of TOL, Zekie, how you would know that you were reading from the perfect, pure, right, sure, by definition, word of God? Well?

Zekie/Wayne Lamar Harrington:I do not believe in grass, but prove to me that it is green.


I've learned to ignore Jethro Bodine types, bible correctors/mystics/agnostics, like Zekie/Wayne Lamar Harrington, and only engage bible believers.

Poor Elmer Fudd Zekie.

 

[john w]

Others have also found problems with Acts. The KJV-only issue is another can of worms.

Translation: My doctrine determines what the word of God is, should say.That is the mantra of bible correctors/agnostics/mystics, in contrast to bible believers.