• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Paul's Dung.

rrobs

Well-Known Member
At least get the title right, before tossing the baby out with the bathwater.
Nitpicking are we?

The official title as given in the opening verse: "The Revelation of Jesus Christ." Well, that verse was actually penned more like ܐܢܐ ܐܠܦ ܘܬܘ ܐܡܪ ܡܪܝܐ ܐܠܗܐ ܗܘ ܕܐܝܬܘܗܝ ܘܐܝܬܘܗܝ ܗܘܐ ܘܐܬܐ ܗܘ ܕܐܚܝܕ ܟܠ, but "The Revelation of Jesus Christ" should suffice for our purposes.

As far as tossing out this book or that, I'm being totally facetious. Although I think some here don't like certain parts of the Bible, I'm definitely not among them. I believe the scriptures from Genesis to Revelations. I believe they were all inspired by God and contain all things that pertain unto life and godliness (2 Pet 1:3).
 

rrobs

Well-Known Member
9:7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man. 8 And Saul arose from the earth; and when his eyes were opened, he saw no man: but they led him by the hand, and brought [him] into Damascus.
22:9 And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me. 11 And when I could not see for the glory of that light, being led by the hand of them that were with me, I came into Damascus.
26:13 At midday, O king, I saw in the way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining round about me and them which journeyed with me. 14 And when we were all fallen to the earth,

Who told the author of Acts what happened to Paul, other than Paul?
Wouldn't the men with Paul testify re: the light and the voice?
Could the blind men lead the blind Paul to Damascus?
I understand you to not believe:

2Tim 3:16,
All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:​

or

2Pet 1:20,
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
Therefore, there is no answer to your questions.
 

OtherSheep

<--@ Titangel
They want to keep working on the flesh by following the Old Testament law and trying to be like Jesus. Many Christians reject the true righteousness of God that comes only by grace.

Anything that goes against what Jesus says is the work of a false prophet.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
I'm a little confused by what you are saying. At first I thought you were saying that the things written in Romans through Thessalonians were not true because Paul wrote them and therefore had no place in the scriptures. Now I'm thinking maybe your are saying that the books themselves are OK, but that Paul didn't write them.

As the the former, I simply say they are true and they do have a place in the scriptures. The latter I would answer by saying that all the church epistles start out by explicitly saying they were from Paul. So if, as I tend to think you are saying, they were not written by Paul, then whoever did write them was a liar. They apparently were afraid to state their true identity. If that is true, what other lies did they write?

If we are to use the Bible as our sole reference of truth, it is important that we get this straight.
Yes, I meant that they are valid, but Paul did not write them.
No, it doesn’t mean that the writer was a liar. It means that the writer was writing pseudonymously, which was a very common (and valid) practice in those days. It’s like when we bless people “in Jesus’ name.” It doesn’t mean that we’re lying and passing ourselves off as Jesus; it means that, as disciples, we’re authorized to act in his name. It allows us to make use of his spiritual power. In the same way, a pseudonym allows an author to write using Paul’s authority, because the writer is a student, or follower of Paul, or was, perhaps, instructed by Paul, himself, to do so.

And, for the record, I don’t buy into sola scriptura, so the Bible isn’t our sole reference for truth. That was never the intent of the canon.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
OK. I understand you to not take the scriptures as truth. I do. What more can we say to each other?

We could talk about sports if you want, or any other subject you may want to discuss, but let's just drop any further Bible talk.
I do take the scriptures as true. I don’t necessarily take everything in them as fact. I don’t believe that to be a fair or honest treatment of the sacred texts, and I shall continue to speak against that practice, where applicable.
 

rrobs

Well-Known Member
Anything that goes against what Jesus says is the work of a false prophet.
So nothing at all was changed by his death and resurrection? Things remained exactly as they were before he came to redeem us? What was true in the OT must remain true in the NT?

Have you offered your sin offering of a bullock on the altar this morning? How about your Peace Offering? Did you appear before the Lord in the Temple all three required times last year? All of that is in the OT. If that's your path to salvation, I'd think about getting another one because God said nobody was made righteous by the law of Moses. It had it's place in God's plan, but it was never meant to confer righteousness on us. Just read the first eight chapters of Romans. It's all there.

Surely you can see that things changed after Adam sinned. What was true in the garden went by the wayside after the sin. Well, they changed again after Jesus died and rose from the dead. And they will change yet again when he appears for the second time. Very simple concept.

Plenty changed with the death and resurrection of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ. That is the very subject of Paul's epistles. Of course he would say different things than what Jesus said. Jesus came for Israel before he died. Paul wrote to both Jew and Gentile after Jesus died and rose from the dead. I still don't see why that is so hard to see. The Bible is not that complicated. But, man has made it all but unintelligible by mixing up different times and different people.

I would suggest you research the various time periods in the Bible, each standing on it's own merits, with their own unique rules. You should also research the difference between Jew, Gentile, and the Church of God. Just get a concordance and you'll figure it out.
 

OtherSheep

<--@ Titangel
I believe the scriptures from Genesis to Revelations.

Revelation 2:14-15 "But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication. So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate."
 

rrobs

Well-Known Member
Yes, I meant that they are valid, but Paul did not write them.
No, it doesn’t mean that the writer was a liar. It means that the writer was writing pseudonymously, which was a very common (and valid) practice in those days. It’s like when we bless people “in Jesus’ name.” It doesn’t mean that we’re lying and passing ourselves off as Jesus; it means that, as disciples, we’re authorized to act in his name. It allows us to make use of his spiritual power. In the same way, a pseudonym allows an author to write using Paul’s authority, because the writer is a student, or follower of Paul, or was, perhaps, instructed by Paul, himself, to do so.

And, for the record, I don’t buy into sola scriptura, so the Bible isn’t our sole reference for truth. That was never the intent of the canon.
Well, the verses don't say the were written in the name of Paul. It says plainly they were written by Paul. Man speaks of pseudo-names, but the word or the concept itself, is not to be found in the scriptures.
 

OtherSheep

<--@ Titangel
Plenty changed with the death and resurrection of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ. That is the very subject of Paul's epistles. Of course he would say different things than what Jesus said.

1 Corinthians 8:7 Howbeit [there is] not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat [it] as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled.

2:14 But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Well, the verses don't say the were written in the name of Paul. It says plainly they were written by Paul. Man speaks of pseudo-names, but the word or the concept itself, is not to be found in the scriptures.
Why would it be? It’s not a theological concept; it’s a literary concept. It says “Paul” because that’s how pseudonyms work. It wouldn’t carry the same weight if it said, “written in the name of...”. Again, pseudonymic wtiting was a common practice then.
 

OtherSheep

<--@ Titangel
I understand you to not believe:
2Tim 3:16,
All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:​
or
2Pet 1:20,
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.​
Therefore, there is no answer to your questions.

I understand you to believe a man who says that eating food sacrificed to demons
is fine... as long as someone who believes God doesn't see you doing it.
 

rrobs

Well-Known Member
I understand you to believe a man who says that eating food sacrificed to demons
is fine... as long as someone who believes God doesn't see you doing it.
How about replying to the post. I quoted two scriptures that you simply ignored and then you bring in something that has nothing to do with the question at hand.

I hope you don't mind me saying that it is hard to pin you down. I say something, expecting a comment on what I said, and you go off into left field. I think I'm done with you. You can always find me if you want to know something about the Bible, but I don't want an argument (or whatever it is you are doing). Sorry guy, nothing personal, but I'm baffled. Take care...
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I believe the scriptures from Genesis to Revelations. I believe they were all inspired by God and contain all things that pertain unto life and godliness (2 Pet 1:3).
I'm not sure I understand you. Do you think that there was a moment in time when the first human was formed deliberately by a non-human being and brought to life, or do you think evolution is correct? Is it your view that snakes can talk, or does the lack of suitable lungs, vocal chords, tongue and lips persuade you that the Garden story is just that, a story? Do you think Pharaoh's magicians back in those days were capable of turning the Nile to real blood and back when they wished, while Moses and Aaron needed God's help to do the trick?

In other words, where, in your view, do common sense and modern learning come into it?
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
There is basically one requirement to learn about God, and it's not a degree from Yale.

Matt 5:6,

Blessed [are] they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.​

The folks with the degrees tend to have too much academia floating around in their heads which makes them unable to see the simplicity of God's word.

1Cor 1:23-28,

23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, [are called]:
27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, [yea], and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:​
Well, my God values academia and knowledge a lot. A real God would.
 

rrobs

Well-Known Member
I'm not sure I understand you. Do you think that there was a moment in time when the first human was formed deliberately by a non-human being and brought to life, or do you think evolution is correct? Is it your view that snakes can talk, or does the lack of suitable lungs, vocal chords, tongue and lips persuade you that the Garden story is just that, a story? Do you think Pharaoh's magicians back in those days were capable of turning the Nile to real blood and back when they wished, while Moses and Aaron needed God's help to do the trick?

In other words, where, in your view, do common sense and modern learning come into it?
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say I don't think you have any interest whatsoever in the real answer to those questions, that your mind is already made up, that you just want to make yourself look smart at the expense of my alleged naivety. Is that about right? If so, I see no reason to answer your questions.

Aw, what the heck, I'll go ahead and address one of your concerns:

Have you ever heard of the idiom, "Hey, that guy is a real snake in the grass." It's a figure of speech that tells the reader/listener that the person in question is sly, sneaky, spooky, etc. We all understood that the guy is a person and not really a snake. Yes, God is familiar with and uses precise figures of speech in the Bible. Figures of speech are used to emphasize, to grab one's attention, to make one stop and ponder what was said.

If you can see and accept that answer, and you are humble to know more about God, I'll help you get started in your own Biblical research. Take care...
 

rrobs

Well-Known Member
Well, my God values academia and knowledge a lot. A real God would.
Well, I'm not sure who your god is, but the God who inspired the Bible (the real God) wrote;

1Cor 3:19,

For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.
Job 5:13,

He taketh the wise in their own craftiness: and the counsel of the froward is carried headlong.​
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Well, I'm not sure who your god is, but the God who inspired the Bible (the real God) wrote;

1Cor 3:19,

For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.
Job 5:13,

He taketh the wise in their own craftiness: and the counsel of the froward is carried headlong.​
My God would be Brahman, which in personal form is popular either as Siva, Vishnu or Devi. What human beings suffer from is not sin, but lack of knowledge and delusive attachments. Thus properly honed knowledge destroys falsehoods and illusions thereby leading to gnosis and end of suffering.

So, on the contrary, knowledge is the primary path to God, including knowledge about this world... the one true and infallible revelation of God\Brahman that is unadulterated by human hand. This knowledge is truth, is reality, is Brahman.

You have been misled by this book you follow.
 

rrobs

Well-Known Member
My God would be Brahman, which in personal form is popular either as Siva, Vishnu or Devi. What human beings suffer from is not sin, but lack of knowledge and delusive attachments. Thus properly honed knowledge destroys falsehoods and illusions thereby leading to gnosis and end of suffering.

So, on the contrary, knowledge is the primary path to God, including knowledge about this world... the one true and infallible revelation of God\Brahman that is unadulterated by human hand. This knowledge is truth, is reality, is Brahman.

You have been misled by this book you follow.
If you have ended your suffering by way of Brahman, I'm glad for you. I'd never want to take that away from you. It's always nice to see someone enjoying life. Who could argue against enjoying life?

Take care...
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
If you have ended your suffering by way of Brahman, I'm glad for you. I'd never want to take that away from you. It's always nice to see someone enjoying life. Who could argue against enjoying life?

Take care...
Also I did not notice that this is the Biblical Debates section. Apologize for the gaffe. I should not have brought my own religion into this.

The only thing I will say is that my knowledge has helped my practice immensely rather than hinder it. I don't know how the Christian experience in general regarding this is.
 
Top