The Gospels. Any 'Difficult' verses?

[Deeje]

God had a different mind set back then?

No...God had to deal with the mind set of the people because he was allowing them full exercise of their free will.

So in order to do this it was necessary to kill women and children and even infants. As if he was incapable of sparing them? Give me a break, Unless, that is, your god isn't as all-powerful as you claim.

Why are women and children so special? Most would support the actions of their men. Many women fight in the wars of various nations these days.
Does not your own nation kill women and children in their wars? How many innocent people are spared when the nations drop bombs on their enemies? Bit of a double standard there isn't it?

If you wish to find fault with God and his actions, then you are free to do so. He will not force himself on you or anyone else who has a negative perspective.

I can fully understand why God does what he does.....as one completely unacquainted with Yahweh, I see that there is no amount of explanation that will sway you.....that's fine, and entirely your choice.

So let me get this straight.

Straight to you or straight to God? He owes us nothing...not even an explanation....but the Bible tells us all we need to know about him and what his purpose is in our existence.
How we interpret the words is up to the condition of our own hearts.

The only way god has of teaching certain lessons such as "learn from the actions and even the mistakes of others" and "pride goes before a fall" is by killing numerous women and children and even infants? REALLY? Okay, but to me this is hardly a loving, intelligent, just, and all powerful god. And hardly something I'd find worthy of adoration, praise, and worship. But that's just me. .

As I explained, death to this God is not what it is to us. We have no power over death, but the Creator has absolute power. Whether the world is ready or not, God will bring in the rule of his Kingdom and those who oppose it will not be forced to live there. Sounds fair to me.

 

[Skwim]

No...God had to deal with the mind set of the people because he was allowing them full exercise of their free will.

And, I take it, people today don't have full exercise of their free will. That about it?

Why are women and children so special?

Because children and infants, and women back then weren't responsible for the predicaments that caused god's wholesale acts of slaughter. They were innocents.

How many innocent people are spared when the nations drop bombs on their enemies?

Are you saying that god had no control over who would be on the receiving end of his wrath and who would not?

If you wish to find fault with God and his actions, then you are free to do so.

And I will. But what is surprising about so many Christians, yourself included, is that you don't. You feel god is quite justified in killing innocent people.

As I explained, death to this God is not what it is to us. We have no power over death, but the Creator has absolute power. Whether the world is ready or not, God will bring in the rule of his Kingdom and those who oppose it will not be forced to live there. Sounds fair to me.

Of course it sounds fair to you, It has to in order to justify your needful theology.

.

 

[Deeje]

I don't know if I can go that far.

LOL...I think you have gone a lot further than me.

The skins made for Adam and Eve is the first blood covenant because of the promise of the Messiah representing the coat of righteousness which Jesus was going to give us.

As there is no reference made to the skin garments in any other part of the Bible, the pictorial nature alluded to by some is based purely on assumption. We do not know that God sacrificed animals to make those garments. He could well have materialized them. The angels that appeared to God's human servants were fully clothed and the clothing disappeared with them when their assignment was finished.

IMV, the sin was thinking that they had a better way--doing things without God.

Of course this is up to interpretation...

The sin was disobedience. There was only one command in the garden, not a long list of rules and laws. Only with sin did humans need that specific sort of guidance. From the beginning, all God has ever asked of his human children (and indeed all of his intelligent creation) is obedience. As parents, isn't that what we want for our own children? We don't set rules because we want to spoil their fun, but so that they will think about how their actions will affect others....not just themselves. We can imagine the outcomes of our actions and alter our course. We can learn from the mistakes of others, otherwise we are doomed to repeat them.

but after typing this, I did a cursory review and it seems to be viewed that way... example:

John Gill
"as a type of the woman's seed, whose heel was to be bruised, or who was to suffer death for the sins of men; and therefore to keep up and direct the faith of our first parents to the slain Lamb of God from the foundation of the world, and of all believers in all ages, until the Messiah should come and die, and become a sacrifice for sin, the sacrifices of slain beasts were appointed"

Scofield:
3:21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

coats of skins

Coats of skins: Type of "Christ, made unto us righteousness"-- a divinely provided garment that the first sinners might be made fit for God's presence. See Righteousness, garment Genesis 3:21 ; Revelation 19:8 .

This is all assumption I'm afraid. The two scriptures cited there are completely unrelated. Adam and his wife committed sin that was not forgivable. They were sentenced to eternal death...to return to the dust from which they were made. No afterlife of any description is mentioned for them. They did not make a mistake...they chose to willfully disobey their Sovereign ruler and stole something that did not belong to them. It was a capital offense and there was no excuse for what they did.

Christ did not come to redeem those rebels, but to to rescue their children, born in sin through no fault on their part.

Do you understand how the laws on redemption were enacted KenS? Only if you do, can you understand why Christ had to be born as a son of Adam and give his life to save the human race from the awful inheritance he left for them.

 

[Deeje]

And, I take it, people today don't have full exercise of their free will. That about it?

Nope. People today have as much free will, if not more ways to express it, than at any other time in history.

Because children and infants, and women back then weren't responsible for the predicaments that caused god's wholesale acts of slaughter. They were innocents.

To God, no sinful human is "innocent". "Sin" makes us all worthy of death if God's perfect justice was carried out....but he made the way for sinful humans to be redeemed......but only if they chose to obey his instructions for salvation. Disobedience gets us nowhere.

God will in all likelihood, resurrect all of those deceased ones to start a new life, but not in the same environment that corrupted them. The resurrection that Jesus is to perform (once he takes over as Earth's king,) includes "both the righteous and the unrighteous". (John 5:28, 29)

Like the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, what was the point of allowing the women and children to survive when they they were all indoctrinated with nothing but wickedness? God will rehabilitate them in the "new earth" where "righteousness is to dwell" (2 Peter 3:13) The atmosphere will then be conducive to people being completely free from a corrupt environment and open to the healthy teachings of God. Satan will also be inactive during that time. (Revelation 20:1-3)

Are you saying that god had no control over who would be on the receiving end of his wrath and who would not?

NO. I am saying that God has a much bigger picture than you are obviously aware of. You see nothing because of the blinkers you choose to wear. The big picture is awesome! All you see are a few dead pixels and assume that there is nothing more. You are soooo wrong.

And I will. But what is surprising about so many Christians, yourself included, is that you don't. You feel god is quite justified in killing innocent people.

Humble people do not put their own view of things before God's as if they know more than he does.
God sees all and knows all....do we? You have such a limited view, but act as if you see it all....you see very little because its all you want to see. God won't tap you on the shoulder and correct you....your own heart must do that.

Of course it sounds fair to you, It has to in order to justify your needful theology.

"Needful theology"?

I see your 'needfulness' to believe that God doesn't exist....because if he does, what will that mean for you?

You must really be sure that what the Bible says isn't true. All the best with that.

 

[Kenny]

LOL...I think you have gone a lot further than me.

LOL well... we can disagree among friends.

As there is no reference made to the skin garments in any other part of the Bible, the pictorial nature alluded to by some is based purely on assumption. We do not know that God sacrificed animals to make those garments. He could well have materialized them.

I don't think so. Abel sacrificed a lamb... he learned it from someone. And God did clothe them with skins... doesn't say He materialized it. Blood covenant is more His style as shown throughout scripture.

Job 29:14 I put on justice, and it clothed me, righteousness as my coat and turban;
Isaiah 59:17 He puts on righteousness like a coat of armor
Ps 139:9 May your priests be clothed with your righteousness;
Is 61:For he has clothed me with garments of salvation and arrayed me in a robe of his righteousness,

Seems consistent as a shadow of things to come.

The angels that appeared to God's human servants were fully clothed and the clothing disappeared with them when their assignment was finished.

Reference?

The sin was disobedience. There was only one command in the garden, not a long list of rules and laws.

No argument here. But disobedience still signifies "I don't have do it God's way because mine is better" like I said.

Only with sin did humans need that specific sort of guidance. From the beginning, all God has ever asked of his human children (and indeed all of his intelligent creation) is obedience. As parents, isn't that what we want for our own children? We don't set rules because we want to spoil their fun, but so that they will think about how their actions will affect others....not just themselves. We can imagine the outcomes of our actions and alter our course. We can learn from the mistakes of others, otherwise we are doomed to repeat them.

I'm with you!

This is all assumption I'm afraid. The two scriptures cited there are completely unrelated. Adam and his wife committed sin that was not forgivable. They were sentenced to eternal death...to return to the dust from which they were made. No afterlife of any description is mentioned for them. They did not make a mistake...they chose to willfully disobey their Sovereign ruler and stole something that did not belong to them. It was a capital offense and there was no excuse for what they did.

No, can't go there... they believed in Him who was crucified from the foundation of the world. They taught Abel about the sacrifice of the Lamb of God.

Christ did not come to redeem those rebels, but to to rescue their children, born in sin through no fault on their part.

Can't go there either... For God so love the world - not a select few.

Do you understand how the laws on redemption were enacted KenS? Only if you do, can you understand why Christ had to be born as a son of Adam and give his life to save the human race from the awful inheritance he left for them.

I believe I do understand.

 

[Skwim]

Nope. People today have as much free will, if not more ways to express it, than at any other time in history.

So in as much as the mindset of people of yore was dependent on their free will, and the same free will exists today then the mindset must be the same. So why has god stopped killing innocent people to make his points? OR, better yet, as I asked before, why couldn't he make these points without killing the innocents?

To God, no sinful human is "innocent". "Sin" makes us all worthy of death if God's perfect justice was carried out....but he made the way for sinful humans to be redeemed......but only if they chose to obey his instructions for salvation. /quote]
Then infants are just as worthy of god's wrath as are those adults who brought it on. Gotcha.

NO. I am saying that God has a much bigger picture than you are obviously aware of. You see nothing because of the blinkers you choose to wear. The big picture is awesome! All you see are a few dead pixels and assume that there is nothing more. You are soooo wrong.

In other words, god makes no distinction between those who purposely commit sins and those who do not, children and infants. God is great and good despite his indiscriminate killings.

"Needful theology"?

I see your 'needfulness' to believe that God doesn't exist

And what need would that fulfill?

You must really be sure that what the Bible says isn't true.

As sure as I am of any other myths.

.

 

[Deeje]

LOL well... we can disagree among friends.

Indeed.

I don't think so. Abel sacrificed a lamb... he learned it from someone. And God did clothe them with skins... doesn't say He materialized it. Blood covenant is more His style as shown throughout scripture.

Did you know that there is not a single reference to Adam or his wife ever making one sacrifice or any admission or remorse for their sin. They knew that what they did could not be forgiven. There was no basis upon which it could even be offered. There was no sinful nature to blame and God never promised them any other life. Their sentence was death....that's it.

Adam was not given a soul, but "became" one with the breath of life. The soul that sinned died. (Ezekiel 18:4) I believe that Adam went back to the dust, just as God said he would.

Job 29:14 I put on justice, and it clothed me, righteousness as my coat and turban;
Isaiah 59:17 He puts on righteousness like a coat of armor
Ps 139:9 May your priests be clothed with your righteousness;
Is 61:For he has clothed me with garments of salvation and arrayed me in a robe of his righteousness,

Seems consistent as a shadow of things to come.

I can see why you might want to make the correlation but it is more than what is stated in scripture. Adam and Eve's garments were not because they were righteous....they were just the opposite. The garments were a symbol of their shame and sin.

Reference?

The three angels that visited Abraham at Mamre (and the two who continued onto Sodom to rescue Lot, Genesis 18 & 19) were fully clothed humans who ate the meals prepared for them by both Abraham and Lot. They had to materialize those bodies with clothing as nakedness was not something that God's worshippers viewed as modest. (Genesis 9:20-23)
If the angels materialized with clothing, then when they returned to the spirit realm, their clothing would obviously have dematerialized along with their bodies.

No argument here. But disobedience still signifies "I don't have do it God's way because mine is better" like I said.

I agree.

No, can't go there... they believed in Him who was crucified from the foundation of the world. They taught Abel about the sacrifice of the Lamb of God.

God's servants had very little knowledge of the promised seed who was to come. They did not have knowledge of who the players were in the first prophesy in Genesis 3:15. The unfolding of that sacred mystery was to be revealed gradually over time. Even in the first century, Jesus' disciples did not fully understand what the kingdom was, where it would be set up, and how they would fit into the arrangement. As far as the Jews were concerned, the Kingdom of God was to be established on earth by his Messiah. Not until Pentecost were the details revealed to them by holy spirit.

The sacrifice of the Christ was not required until humans sinned. So if Adam and his wife, (as free agents) had just obeyed their Creator and not partaken of the fruit, Jesus' sacrifice would never have been needed. Adam and his wife would still be here enjoying everlasting life in paradise conditions on earth with all their offspring.

The "founding of the world" was the "cosmos" meaning the world of mankind descended from Adam.When sin entered into the world, then and only then was redemption necessary. God never planned for them to disobey him, but free will and the intelligence to use it wisely, is what made humankind like their Maker.

Can't go there either... For God so love the world - not a select few.

God does love the world, but he is not tied to the human race by sentiment. His justice requires that his children obey him in all things. Those who want to rebel, will be evicted from life. Did God love the world of Noah's day? Does he love the world of today, which is also "filled with violence"? (Matthew 24:37-39)
Christ's sacrifice is offered to all, but not all will qualify to receive it. (Luke 13:24; Matthew 7:13-14)

I believe I do understand.

I was just checking to make sure.....the mechanics of the ransom sacrifice of the Christ are not well understood in the churches. I know that I never knew what it was all about....I was so grateful for someone explaining it to me. Everything makes sense now.

 

[psychoslice]

Ha, they all seem to be difficult verses, that's why there are so many off shots all pretending they know how to read them, all believing they and them only know how its done.......well its a laugh anyway.

 

[Deeje]

So in as much as the mindset of people of yore was dependent on their free will, and the same free will exists today then the mindset must be the same. So why has god stopped killing innocent people to make his points? OR, better yet, as I asked before, why couldn't he make these points without killing the innocents?

Did you forget....? There are no 'innocents' in this world. We are all born in sin, defective, with an inborn tendency to go the wrong way. Without God's guidance, we could never navigate our way in a world ruled by the devil. (1 John 5:19) That is why the road to life is "cramped and narrow". The easy road leads to death. (Matthew 7:13-14)

People today can still exercise their free will. They can choose God's side of the issue of Universal Sovereignty and obey him, or they can reject him and do their own thing. The trouble is, the end result is a foregone conclusion and those in opposition to God's incoming Kingdom will not be admitted. Just like those in Noah's day, they will all be gone.....they will forfeit life...a gift they never cherished as coming from their Creator. (Matthew 24:37-39)

Psalm 37:10-11:
"Just a little while longer, and the wicked will be no more;
You will look at where they were,
And they will not be there.
11 But the meek will possess the earth,
And they will find exquisite delight in the abundance of peace."

Just as Jesus said......"the meek shall possess the earth"

What do you think it means to be "meek"?

 

[oldbadger]

I would assume that if you know you are getting baptized, you would leave your money at home? Who knows. Certainly there isn't any indication one way or another.

John's pilgrims had (mostly?) come from up North, trekking down the East bank of the Jordan, clear of Samaria. A good place to meet with them on their way to get fleeced at Jerusalem and the Temple.

But Galileans going to Genessaret didn't have much money to worry about. The Peasant classes were all poor, there was no middle class, and the upper class, mainly the priesthood were stinking rich hypocrites.

I don't think that the land-possessed (farmers) actually had title to their land.... even. The OT laws that mattered to the poor must have been abandoned, I reckon.

No wonder folks like John and Jesus initiiated missions.

 

[oldbadger]

But we factor in the Cross and it made one "hell" of a difference. When you get a New (Will and) Testament, the Old is no longer valid

New Will and Testament....
I must somehow discover which OT laws were included in this new covenant and which were discarded.... and how.... and why.

For many the New covenant is a bush to hide behind, possibly? A bush to be cherry-picked? Jesus had little top do with any of that, but that's another thread, I reckon...

 

[oldbadger]

Jesus said...."You received free, give free". So there was nothing expected in return for baptism.
Christians did not have to tithe but gave as their circumstances permitted.

I must find the sources for all that.

The apostle Paul was clear about not becoming an economic burden on his brothers.

2 Thessalonians 3:7-10:
"For you yourselves know how you should imitate us, because we did not behave in a disorderly way among you, 8 nor did we eat anyone’s food free. On the contrary, by labor and toil we were working night and day so as not to impose an expensive burden on any one of you. 9 Not that we do not have authority, but we wanted to offer ourselves as an example for you to imitate. 10 In fact, when we were with you, we used to give you this order: “If anyone does not want to work, neither let him eat.”

Ah....... Paul, the central Prophet of Christianity?
Paul didn't quote Jesus much..... ?

 

[savagewind]

Why? Is there anything at all therein that you have a genuine interest in debating, or is the aim just one more silly Bible-bashing thread?

Instead of delighting in your own demeaning character, maybe you might consider who you are talking to before you resort to your boring insults. He is not a Bible basher. I think you should know that. You might know it if you can see more than your own nose.

 

[savagewind]

The Gospels. Any 'Difficult' verses?
I'm compiling a list of gospel verses that Christianity might have preferred not to see.
And so, if any members know of any verses which might be considered as 'Difficult' please do post them up.
Thankyou.....
Oldbadger

It is difficult for me to believe Jesus ever commanded that his disciples were to make more disciples.
Who does it? I think nobody has ever done it. I believe GOD makes disciples and Man is not God.

 

[psychoslice]

The gospel and every other scriptures should not be hard to understand, its the people who don't understand the words that make it difficult. The one's who believe they need the authoritarians of those who suppose to understand the scriptures are mislead, for those very one's who believe they know are nothing more than very ones who don't understand.
You are the gospel, its not found in any book, its found within you, go within and claim it for yourself, and let go of all the crap that only confuses you, yes, let it go baby.

 

[Deeje]

I must find the sources for all that.

Matthew 10:2-10:
"2 The names of the 12 apostles are these: First, Simon, the one called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebʹe·dee and John his brother; 3 Philip and Bar·tholʹo·mew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James the son of Al·phaeʹus; Thad·daeʹus; 4 Simon the Ca·na·naeʹan; and Judas Is·carʹi·ot, who later betrayed him.
5 These 12 Jesus sent out, giving them these instructions: “Do not go off into the road of the nations, and do not enter any Sa·marʹi·tan city; 6 but instead, go continually to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. 7 As you go, preach, saying: ‘The Kingdom of the heavens has drawn near.’ 8 Cure the sick, raise up the dead, make lepers clean, expel demons. You received free, give free. 9 Do not acquire gold or silver or copper for your money belts, 10 or a food pouch for the trip, or two garments, or sandals, or a staff, for the worker deserves his food."

Ah....... Paul, the central Prophet of Christianity?
Paul didn't quote Jesus much..... ?

Paul came on the scene after the death of Christ, so he never actually met him in the flesh but rather his encounter with Jesus was in the spirit. Paul wrote many contributions to the Christian scriptures but the account about his conversion in Acts was written by Luke. (Acts 9:1-31)

Actually Paul was like the 12 in some respects even though he was not counted among them. He was a very zealous Pharisee before his conversion on the road to Damascus. He was used in ways that the other apostles were not. He was not only a learned man but he was also Roman citizen, which became an asset to him on occasion. As an apostle to the nations (Gentiles) the old Paul (Saul of Tarsus) would never have had dealings with pagan foreigners, but as a humble disciple of Christ, He was used by Jesus for a specific purpose. Jesus said he would 'show him all the things he must suffer for his name'. Paul actually did suffer physically more than the 12.
He was not at first accepted by the other apostles who had heard reports of his persecution of the brotherhood.....

Acts 11:36-41:
On arriving in Jerusalem, he made efforts to join the disciples, but they were all afraid of him, because they did not believe he was a disciple. 27 So Barʹna·bas came to his aid and led him to the apostles, and he told them in detail how on the road he had seen the Lord, and that he had spoken to him, and how in Damascus he had spoken boldly in the name of Jesus. 28 So he remained with them, moving about freely in Jerusalem, speaking boldly in the name of the Lord. 29 He was talking and disputing with the Greek-speaking Jews, but these made attempts to do away with him. 30 When the brothers found out about this, they brought him down to Caes·a·reʹa and sent him off to Tarsus.
31 Then, indeed, the congregation throughout the whole of Ju·deʹa and Galʹi·lee and Sa·marʹi·a entered into a period of peace, being built up; and as it walked in the fear of Jehovah and in the comfort of the holy spirit, it kept on multiplying."

Do you think that this period of peace, with the congregation being built up and comforted by God's spirit would have occurred if Paul had not been chosen by Jesus for a special assignment?

I do not accept that Paul was anything other than what he purported to be.....a zealous convert to Christianity. Jesus saw his zeal and turned him around to the truth. He became a real asset to the spread of the good news.

 

[Kenny]

New Will and Testament....
I must somehow discover which OT laws were included in this new covenant and which were discarded.... and how.... and why.

Extensive but not difficult.

For many the New covenant is a bush to hide behind, possibly? A bush to be cherry-picked? Jesus had little top do with any of that, but that's another thread, I reckon...

LOL - Hiding is what men do. They did that in the Old Testament too... and lawyers today still use the letter of the law to hide.

 

[oldbadger]

Matthew 10:2-10:
"2 The names of the 12 apostles are these: First, Simon, the one called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebʹe·dee and John his brother; 3 Philip and Bar·tholʹo·mew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James the son of Al·phaeʹus; Thad·daeʹus; 4 Simon the Ca·na·naeʹan; and Judas Is·carʹi·ot, who later betrayed him.

Bar-tolomai (?)..... Son of Tolomai ? I never did discover his own name. Or did I .... I need to check my records.

5 These 12 Jesus sent out, giving them these instructions: “Do not go off into the road of the nations, and do not enter any Sa·marʹi·tan city; 6 but instead, go continually to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Two 'things': The disciples received 'in kind'. Hospitality Free, Services returned freely. There was an exchange. I do think that this could show that Jesus did not like dealing in money, but I don't think that this can be extended into what was happening when John's or Jesus's disciples baptised.
The cost of Remission of Sins at Jerusalem was massive, the cost of Remission of Sins in the Jordan was as nothing by comparison. Thosands of poor peasants flocked to the Jordan, and I expect that Temple takings crashed. That's all 'on the side' of your point, really.
Although I would not expect any JW to find any difficulty with any writing in the bible, your passage above can go into my little book because Jesus is only offering services to Jews...... some Christians and loads of critics might see it that way, and so it is massively helpful as a 'proof' of origin... to them.

9 Do not acquire gold or silver or copper for your money belts, 10 or a food pouch for the trip, or two garments, or sandals, or a staff, for the worker deserves his food."

Again...... keep clear of cash. Deal in Kind. You deserve reward for your services.

Paul came on the scene after the death of Christ, so he never actually met him in the flesh but rather his encounter with Jesus was in the spirit. Paul wrote many contributions to the Christian scriptures but the account about his conversion in Acts was written by Luke. (Acts 9:1-31)

Actually Paul was like the 12 in some respects even though he was not counted among them. He was a very zealous Pharisee before his conversion on the road to Damascus. He was used in ways that the other apostles were not. He was not only a learned man but he was also Roman citizen, which became an asset to him on occasion. As an apostle to the nations (Gentiles) the old Paul (Saul of Tarsus) would never have had dealings with pagan foreigners, but as a humble disciple of Christ, He was used by Jesus for a specific purpose. Jesus said he would 'show him all the things he must suffer for his name'. Paul actually did suffer physically more than the 12.
He was not at first accepted by the other apostles who had heard reports of his persecution of the brotherhood.....

Acts 11:36-41:
On arriving in Jerusalem, he made efforts to join the disciples, but they were all afraid of him, because they did not believe he was a disciple. 27 So Barʹna·bas came to his aid and led him to the apostles, and he told them in detail how on the road he had seen the Lord, and that he had spoken to him, and how in Damascus he had spoken boldly in the name of Jesus. 28 So he remained with them, moving about freely in Jerusalem, speaking boldly in the name of the Lord. 29 He was talking and disputing with the Greek-speaking Jews, but these made attempts to do away with him. 30 When the brothers found out about this, they brought him down to Caes·a·reʹa and sent him off to Tarsus.
31 Then, indeed, the congregation throughout the whole of Ju·deʹa and Galʹi·lee and Sa·marʹi·a entered into a period of peace, being built up; and as it walked in the fear of Jehovah and in the comfort of the holy spirit, it kept on multiplying."

Do you think that this period of peace, with the congregation being built up and comforted by God's spirit would have occurred if Paul had not been chosen by Jesus for a special assignment?

I do not accept that Paul was anything other than what he purported to be.....a zealous convert to Christianity. Jesus saw his zeal and turned him around to the truth. He became a real asset to the spread of the good news.

For me, Paul is all about Christianity, and for the faithful.
I am just a student of Historic Jesus, really....

 

[oldbadger]

Extensive but not difficult.

That is a research for me, to find a list of what remained 'in' and what was thrown 'out'.

The number of times that Christuians have dived out of range by answering ,'Not in the new-covenant', and there's me, elephant gun in hand, and nothing to aim at.

 

[oldbadger]

It is difficult for me to believe Jesus ever commanded that his disciples were to make more disciples.
Who does it? I think nobody has ever done it. I believe GOD makes disciples and Man is not God.

Hi Savage.....
My dictionary defines 'disciple' as a pupil or follower.
Maybe Jesus just needed thousands of followers? I ythink that to achieve his mission in Galilee and/or Israel he needed a million followers.