Aimiel
Well-known member
Back sliders just like yourself.We are what we do. What do you think would be a proper title for Christians who have joined Paganism?
Back sliders just like yourself.We are what we do. What do you think would be a proper title for Christians who have joined Paganism?
Nope. We are judged by our response to Jesus Christ. In Him, we are seen as holy.
Back sliders just like yourself.
Any scriptural references for that?
I'm sure you will be able to find some. Let us know how it goes. :up:
His own gospel? How so?
Paul preached the gospel of God.
That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable being sanctified by the Holy Spirit. (Romans 15:16 KJV)
The gospel of God is the gospel God preached to Abraham.
And the scripture foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, "In thee shall all nations be blessed." (Galatians 3:8 KJV)
Paul preached God's gospel that through Abraham all nations would be blessed.
Blessed how?
That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. (Galatians 3:14 KJV)
Paul preached God's gospel.
Paul used the illustration and example of Abraham in his allegorical teaching of course, assuming a universal blessing promised long ago to Abraham that would fulfill itself with 'joining' Jews and gentiles as one "In Christ",...but this is Paul's gospel-spin, since he claimed he got his gospel by 'revelation' (something personally received from spiritual sources, visions, inner insights, gnosis, etc.). He at least twice called the gospel 'his' gospel,...specifically denoting that, and differentiating it from any other gospel (this would include and pointedly so, the 'gospel' that Jesus and his original apostles taught). - important to note and research that point.
Portal Page on Paul here.
Also, can you find anywhere where Paul claimed he got his gospel teaching or tradition from the pillars and actual apostles of Jesus who knew Jesus physically? Give it a go. Paul exclusively continues to speak of his own 'revelations' exclusively from Jesus (who at this point is some spiritual 'Christ', an etheric entity of some sort, also appearing during his 'conversion experience' as a 'voice' and a 'light'). Paul lifts himself up arrogantly saying he has nothing to do with the apostles in Jerusalem on one occasion, going so far as to call a curse down on any other gospel other than his being preached. In Galatia he butted heads with Peter and other disciples of Jesus from Jerusalem, due to these 'differences' in gospel teaching and other 'tensions'.
So the claim that 'Paul preached the gospel of God',...I wouldn't buy that wholly, since it depends on what you mean by that,....he (or whoever this person was,..his historical identity is debatable by some) clearly owned that his gospel was personally revealed to him. Can you find anywhere else in the NT any of the original apostles teaching exactly what Paul taught? This entire issue over who to follow, Jesus or Paul (as if a choice could be made) is debated among some scholars and laymen, while others reconcile the 2 different gospel-messages in their own way.
Anyways, we have threads on 'Paul', and I could link some more critical scholarly studies and honest skepticism about his ministry as it relates to Christendom in general, and many points in particular...unfortunately some have exalted him to almost a 'deified' status, and to share anything 'controversial' or even slightly antagonistic of him, could be seen as 'intentional blasphemy'. I see it as intellectual honesty, earnestness in research. If you're serious about learning facts and knowing the truth of anything, you have to be willing to allow what you think you know, or what you believe to be shattered, if a new discovery or truth emerges, proving your previous beliefs or assumptions to be in 'error'. In this vein, I progress along......
pj
Righteousness is found in our faith by keeping the moral concepts of God.
More pointedly, 'righteousness' is DOING what is right. While Abraham had 'faith', that faith was not proved as 'living' or 'dynamic' until he put it into ACTION.
pj
I fixed it for you. :thumb:I'm to old to be corrected or change my ways.
I fixed it for you. :thumb:
So, you agree that you're too old to be corrected or change your ways?People: This is the kind of conversation you have with people who have nothing constructive to say.
Also, can you find anywhere where Paul claimed he got his gospel teaching or tradition from the pillars and actual apostles of Jesus who knew Jesus physically?
The Day of the Lord
Isaiah 2:6.
You, Lord, have abandoned your people,
the descendants of Jacob.
They are full of superstitions from the East;
they practice divination like the Philistines
and embrace pagan customs.
Ezekiel 22:26
Her priests do violence to my law and profane my holy things; they do not distinguish between the holy and the common; they teach that there is no difference between the unclean and the clean; and they shut their eyes to the keeping of my Sabbaths, so that I am profaned among them.
Paul used the illustration and example of Abraham in his allegorical teaching of course, assuming a universal blessing promised long ago to Abraham that would fulfill itself with 'joining' Jews and gentiles as one "In Christ",...but this is Paul's gospel-spin, since he claimed he got his gospel by 'revelation' (something personally received from spiritual sources, visions, inner insights, gnosis, etc.). He at least twice called the gospel 'his' gospel,...specifically denoting that, and differentiating it from any other gospel (this would include and pointedly so, the 'gospel' that Jesus and his original apostles taught). - important to note and research that point.
Portal Page on Paul here.
Also, can you find anywhere where Paul claimed he got his gospel teaching or tradition from the pillars and actual apostles of Jesus who knew Jesus physically? Give it a go. Paul exclusively continues to speak of his own 'revelations' exclusively from Jesus (who at this point is some spiritual 'Christ', an etheric entity of some sort, also appearing during his 'conversion experience' as a 'voice' and a 'light'). Paul lifts himself up arrogantly saying he has nothing to do with the apostles in Jerusalem on one occasion, going so far as to call a curse down on any other gospel other than his being preached. In Galatia he butted heads with Peter and other disciples of Jesus from Jerusalem, due to these 'differences' in gospel teaching and other 'tensions'.
So the claim that 'Paul preached the gospel of God',...I wouldn't buy that wholly, since it depends on what you mean by that,....he (or whoever this person was,..his historical identity is debatable by some) clearly owned that his gospel was personally revealed to him. Can you find anywhere else in the NT any of the original apostles teaching exactly what Paul taught? This entire issue over who to follow, Jesus or Paul (as if a choice could be made) is debated among some scholars and laymen, while others reconcile the 2 different gospel-messages in their own way.
Anyways, we have threads on 'Paul', and I could link some more critical scholarly studies and honest skepticism about his ministry as it relates to Christendom in general, and many points in particular...unfortunately some have exalted him to almost a 'deified' status, and to share anything 'controversial' or even slightly antagonistic of him, could be seen as 'intentional blasphemy'. I see it as intellectual honesty, earnestness in research. If you're serious about learning facts and knowing the truth of anything, you have to be willing to allow what you think you know, or what you believe to be shattered, if a new discovery or truth emerges, proving your previous beliefs or assumptions to be in 'error'. In this vein, I progress along......
pj
A man cannot be a Christian and a Judaizer simultaneously.
Ask the Israeli Government.