Sonnet
New member
And Christians don't appear to agree on much at all - so I'm just trying to see what the truth actually is.
Don't forget to rebuke me next time I challenge a Calvinist.
unfinished business
- Thread starter heir
- Start date
And Christians don't appear to agree on much at all - so I'm just trying to see what the truth actually is.
Don't forget to rebuke me next time I challenge a Calvinist.
And Christians don't appear to agree on much at all - so I'm just trying to see what the truth actually is.
Don't forget to rebuke me next time I challenge a Calvinist.
Why would I bother, either way?
Sonnet
New member
Paul and the apostles preached 1 Cor 15:3ff.
9 For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me was not without effect. No, I worked harder than all of them—yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me. 11 Whether, then, it is I or they, this is what we preach, and this is what you believed.
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
Paul had his own gospel.........undeniably......
Paul had his own gospel.........undeniably......
Hi Sonnet,
The above does not prove Peter preached the same gospel as Paul taught, for Paul clearly emphasized and boasted about his own gospel, being very covetous of it, being that given to him by visions and his own personal revelations. Paul is clear that his gospel is uniquely his by revelation. One has to accept his testimony, on his own word.
The above language using "we" does not necessarily include the original apostles of Jesus (who were led by James, Peter and John, being the pillars of the Jerusalem Community), for he boasted more than once of his exclusive gospel and 'grace', and even put them down before (see his attitude and rivalry with the original apostles in the book of Galations! The audacity). Paul was at odds and veered further away from the original apostles teachings, as his 'gospel' became more anti-law and was more palpitable to Gentiles, since traditional orthodox Jews would not buy his gospel, to which he barely made it out alive of Jerusalem more than once. He took his 'gospel' to the Gentiles, and rightly so, where those with more liberal pagan, eclectic belief systems would accept his teachings, who had were not learned Jews who knew their sacred law and traditions. To these he added his own spin on Jewish scriptures mixed with gnostic nuances, mystery religion symbols, greek philosophical concepts and once again, his own personal visions and revelations. This is all Paul had, and you have to believe all that by his own personal testimony. He was in a sense a lone ranger, who just claimed to see a light and hear a voice, assuming it was Jesus.
Go here for starters on objective research on Paul's claims.
Jesuswordsonly is also an amazing resource, for your own investigation.
Also, Peter was the first among the apostles to be called to preach to the Gentiles and gave the first major Gentile address,...nowhere do any of the original apostles endorse Paul as the sole apostle to the gentiles, neither do any of the original apostles call Paul an apostle. The original 12 even drew lots when Judas left the circle, and Mattias was chosen. Paul is not included in the original 12 apostles of the Lamb, this divine number confirmed in the book of Revelation. 2 Peter wont help either to support Paul's writings as 'scripture' since it was not written by Peter and is pseudographical. Paul's letters are just that,...they were never intended to be worshipped as the infallible word of God.
I'm just recognizing with many others that there are problems with Paul, as far as his commitment to the original apostles of Jesus and how far he veered from them in his own gospel teaching. On that note with more research, I find it unreasonable then to prematurely or presumptuously exalt Paul unduly as some sole salvation-giver, just because the NT canon has placed so many epistles ascribed to him (some are pseudographical however) into the collection. At best IMO, Paul is a universal mystic/gnostic type, who by his own inventions formed his own gospel mythos with its own terms, symbols and meanings. Most of these are allegorically interpreted, and at least,....its all a gnostically based system that must be 'spiritually discerned'. One must have the Spirt of Christ to be 'in Christ' (note his 'code word'), so its all based on a subjective spiritual experience and process of transformation in 'Christ', 'Christ' being formed in you (the hope of glory), having an experience with-in Christ in death, burial, resurrection and ascension (all in some spiritual unity), to be born anew as a son of God (one body of Christ ascended), all these being 'figurative' to the inner psychology and spiritual regeneration of the soul.
This is just the tip of the iceberg. Its further complicated how a branch of Gentile Christians could be its own group from the Jewish followers of Jesus and given only a few rules and prohibitions, which are further modified by Paul in his teaching confusing matters more as Christianity began to grow and evolve in its various forms. The Jerusalem Council seems to have hardly resolved anything, as the Jerusalem Community faded out with the dissolving and take over of Jerusalem, so that Gentile Christainity mostly riding on Paul's gospel-tails gained the ascendency.
Paul had his own gospel.........undeniably......
Hi Sonnet,
The above does not prove Peter preached the same gospel as Paul taught, for Paul clearly emphasized and boasted about his own gospel, being very covetous of it, being that given to him by visions and his own personal revelations. Paul is clear that his gospel is uniquely his by revelation. One has to accept his testimony, on his own word.
The above language using "we" does not necessarily include the original apostles of Jesus (who were led by James, Peter and John, being the pillars of the Jerusalem Community), for he boasted more than once of his exclusive gospel and 'grace', and even put them down before (see his attitude and rivalry with the original apostles in the book of Galations! The audacity). Paul was at odds and veered further away from the original apostles teachings, as his 'gospel' became more anti-law and was more palpitable to Gentiles, since traditional orthodox Jews would not buy his gospel, to which he barely made it out alive of Jerusalem more than once. He took his 'gospel' to the Gentiles, and rightly so, where those with more liberal pagan, eclectic belief systems would accept his teachings, who had were not learned Jews who knew their sacred law and traditions. To these he added his own spin on Jewish scriptures mixed with gnostic nuances, mystery religion symbols, greek philosophical concepts and once again, his own personal visions and revelations. This is all Paul had, and you have to believe all that by his own personal testimony. He was in a sense a lone ranger, who just claimed to see a light and hear a voice, assuming it was Jesus.
Go here for starters on objective research on Paul's claims.
Jesuswordsonly is also an amazing resource, for your own investigation.
Also, Peter was the first among the apostles to be called to preach to the Gentiles and gave the first major Gentile address,...nowhere do any of the original apostles endorse Paul as the sole apostle to the gentiles, neither do any of the original apostles call Paul an apostle. The original 12 even drew lots when Judas left the circle, and Mattias was chosen. Paul is not included in the original 12 apostles of the Lamb, this divine number confirmed in the book of Revelation. 2 Peter wont help either to support Paul's writings as 'scripture' since it was not written by Peter and is pseudographical. Paul's letters are just that,...they were never intended to be worshipped as the infallible word of God.
I'm just recognizing with many others that there are problems with Paul, as far as his commitment to the original apostles of Jesus and how far he veered from them in his own gospel teaching. On that note with more research, I find it unreasonable then to prematurely or presumptuously exalt Paul unduly as some sole salvation-giver, just because the NT canon has placed so many epistles ascribed to him (some are pseudographical however) into the collection. At best IMO, Paul is a universal mystic/gnostic type, who by his own inventions formed his own gospel mythos with its own terms, symbols and meanings. Most of these are allegorically interpreted, and at least,....its all a gnostically based system that must be 'spiritually discerned'. One must have the Spirt of Christ to be 'in Christ' (note his 'code word'), so its all based on a subjective spiritual experience and process of transformation in 'Christ', 'Christ' being formed in you (the hope of glory), having an experience with-in Christ in death, burial, resurrection and ascension (all in some spiritual unity), to be born anew as a son of God (one body of Christ ascended), all these being 'figurative' to the inner psychology and spiritual regeneration of the soul.
This is just the tip of the iceberg. Its further complicated how a branch of Gentile Christians could be its own group from the Jewish followers of Jesus and given only a few rules and prohibitions, which are further modified by Paul in his teaching confusing matters more as Christianity began to grow and evolve in its various forms. The Jerusalem Council seems to have hardly resolved anything, as the Jerusalem Community faded out with the dissolving and take over of Jerusalem, so that Gentile Christainity mostly riding on Paul's gospel-tails gained the ascendency.
Last edited:
Sonnet
New member
So his letters are pseudographical, gnostic, veer from the apostle's gospel and yet, 'one has to accept his testimony, on his own word.'?
Heir loves to pontificate and ask weird questions about your salvation.
Dispensationalists lack a certain part of the brain.
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
Paul's gospel..................
Paul's gospel..................
What other testimony do you have, except Paul's own about the authenticity of his 'apostleship',..which is for the most part self-proclaimed. If any choose to believe his letters, whatever portion or whatever 'interpretation', that is their choice and a matter of 'faith' in his testimony, is it not? Now you can lump up all the so called 'apostles teachings' together into one big compendium and synthesize it all as you like, but there is no evidence in any original apostles writings that they taught and believed in the very same gospel Paul taught. Of course there are similarities in general themes, ideas, concepts, but notable differences.
As for promotion of Paul, all you have is Luke's account in Acts (however embellished) and then some of Paul's own letters (those deemed to be 'authentically' written by him).
Paul's gospel..................
What other testimony do you have, except Paul's own about the authenticity of his 'apostleship',..which is for the most part self-proclaimed. If any choose to believe his letters, whatever portion or whatever 'interpretation', that is their choice and a matter of 'faith' in his testimony, is it not? Now you can lump up all the so called 'apostles teachings' together into one big compendium and synthesize it all as you like, but there is no evidence in any original apostles writings that they taught and believed in the very same gospel Paul taught. Of course there are similarities in general themes, ideas, concepts, but notable differences.
As for promotion of Paul, all you have is Luke's account in Acts (however embellished) and then some of Paul's own letters (those deemed to be 'authentically' written by him).
Sonnet
New member
I'm certainly not arguing against scepticism but I'm curious that you remain a Christian despite your assertions. If the 66 books are tainted then it sounds like a very slippery slope.
The Muslims believe that the New Testament is tainted- they believe that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah, but that he was never actually crucified.
musterion
Well-known member
I saw that exchange. If I understood it he was only offended (rightly) by the Calvinist view of exclusionary election IF it were true...not that he believes for a second that it is true, not the saving Gospel for that matter. I was surprised AMR spent the time on it. Maybe he thought Sonnet is one of the elect to just hadn't been zapped yet.
Sonnet
New member
Since some Calvinist consider that TULIP is the Gospel - which you affirm you don't believe (TULIP, therefore the Gospel too) then you aren't a believer either...in their eyes.
Confusion abounds.
I certainly would never accept TULIP.
heir
TOL Subscriber
You said you must endure to the end to be saved. That is not saved now.
What is the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation and why do you think you need to be "kept"?
heir
TOL Subscriber
Resurrection is what they all preached including Peter, but not the gospel of Christ!
1 Corinthians 15:11 Therefore whether it were I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed.
1 Corinthians 15:12 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?
1 Corinthians 15:13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:
1 Corinthians 15:14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.
1 Corinthians 15:15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.
1 Corinthians 15:16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:
Peter and Paul neither preached the same pertaining to the resurrection of Christ either. Peter preached that God raised up Christ to sit on David's throne (Acts 2:30 KJV) while Paul preached that Christ was raised again for our justification (Romans 4:25 KJV)! Things that are different are not the same!
heir
TOL Subscriber
Scripture saith otherwise!
heir
TOL Subscriber
1 Corinthians 15:3 KJV does not say we, but I!
1 Corinthians 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
Paul was given the gospel (of Christ) by revelation of Jesus Christ, not Peter (Galatians 1:11-12 KJV). Paul had to go up by revelation many years later and communicate it unto Peter. He didn't know it before then Galatians 2:1-9 KJV)!
heir
TOL Subscriber
Salvation is all inclusive as in available to all men as it is God's will that all men be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth! It is the due time message of the apostle Paul in the dispensation of the grace of God!Salvation is exclusive
Which is why not everyone will be saved
God, being omniscient, conducted His will from the beginning
So, those who are saved
ARE SAVED THROUGH GOD'S PROVIDENCE
It is an incontrovertible FACT. So stop being a little girl and come to terms with it
1 Timothy 2:3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
1 Timothy 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
1 Timothy 2:6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.
And I could put up three verses saying exactly otherwise- and we'd be right back to where we are now
What you don't realize is that you're just defending 'universalism'. You aren't making any argument against Calvinism.
Salvation is exclusive
Which is why not everyone will be saved
God, being omniscient, conducted His will from the beginning
So, those who are saved
ARE SAVED THROUGH GOD'S PROVIDENCE
It is an incontrovertible FACT. So stop being a little girl and come to terms with it
You and your ilk are totally brainwashed by Calvinism. It's really a shame, because, you have no "real" "personal Testimony" to offer anyone. Anybody that approaches a Calvinist and asks a question about eternal life, will be told that they MUST be regenerated before receiving saving faith and that is only if they're of the "Elect." Those false doctrines limit the Testimony of the Calvinist.
If a Calvinist hides those false doctrines, then, they're being dishonest to those who are interested in Spiritual matters according to their own "belief system." In other words, they're guilty of lying by omission.