How Paul wrote the old testament.

[Desert Snake]

Where does it say it was a global flood? Mistranslated i think

I think rather misinterpreted. The flood may have been 'everywhere', but the arbitrary meaning of that is put on by, ironically, often people claiming to adhere to the Scripture. I personally think many animals would have sought higher ground, hence the unnecessariness of taking literally, "every" type of animal on the ark.

 

[outhouse]

the NT is the word of God

You have ZERO evidence for such?

That just shows how wrong your thinking is.

You mean you don't like those well educated?

You argue from something that you then go on and ignore just because you don't find it in a normal history book or some learned person does not ascribe to it.

Wrong. Everything I have learned is straight from class, sitting in front of a professor taking notes, watching recordings to pick up what I missed and could not absorb the first time.

You hate education?

 

[outhouse]

Something you will never accept, not in this world, but perhaps in another.

Weak threats like that will not be tolerated from those with little knowledge from which they speak.

You can't kill fish in water.

You are factually wrong. Fish in the sea will die from fresh water. Fresh water fish will die from the salt mixture. It may not kill 100% but the book says it does.

The historical flood date is not important to me

Because it would have to happen for it to be important?

Or you have no clue so you run from the answer you don't know, NOR cannot produce no matter how hard you study or quote mine? .

So there are there then MANY floods

So when the creek over yonder flooded, the Israelites wrote about it?

 

[outhouse]

Professors and historians have their place. But they are not going to understand it all. I have told you this many times over.

But who are you to say those with a thousands times your knowledge on this subject, know less?


Who do you think you are?

What education do you possess here?

What professor did you learn under?

What school did you learn under?

 

[2ndpillar]

Acts 20:6-12 records Paul in Troas in the spring of 56 C.E.

With the entire congregation as witnesses, Paul resurrected Eu'tychus.
This was during his 3rd missionary tour. By this time he would have penned Galatians, both letters to the Thessalonians, both letters to the Corinthians, and likely in the middle of writing the book of Romans.

Since Paul was able to raise the dead (only possible by means of God's holy spirit) - and there were witnesses to deny this if it were not true - it stands to reason that at this date he was honorable and acting and writing under the influence of the holy spirit.

If Paul's writings, up to this date, truly were a product of holy spirit, then could you perhaps unknowingly be attributing something bad to the holy spirit itself?

Caution is in order. Only one type of sin is unforgivable, and it requires a determined effort to blaspheme the holy spirit.

Another factor calling for respect is found in the Law. The principle certainly still applies.

"You must not curse (or "revile.") God nor curse a chieftain (or "ruler.") among your people." - Ex 22:28

Kolibri,
You might look into who Paul curses. For he curses anyone who does not agree with his message, even the angels. Paul is none other than a self professed apostle and you think he speaks for God. As for Paul being honorable, that is an opinion you have adopted and you are free to hold on to it. It will be like holding onto a millstone when thrown into a lake. Paul, like his brother Soetoro, is a fraud, and they both have many followers. For "those who dwell on the earth" will be deceived (Rev 13:14)

 

[Simplelogic]

This temple vision in it's entirety spans Ezekiel 40-47.
Have you measured it? If it is to be taken non-symbolically then it should be feasible to build a temple with these dimensions on Mount Moriah. (Entire temple area was apparently 500 cubits or 850 ft per side)

No this entire portion of scripture provides a prophetic pattern.
Comparing Eze 40:2 and Micah 4:1(or Isaiah 2:2) links it to "the final part of the days" and to a symbolic mountain.
If one did not discount the writings of Paul then Hebrews 8:2 and 9:23,24 would also add meaning.

Something you will never accept, not in this world, but perhaps in another.

It was not mountains. Not all the animals. You can't kill fish in water. It spoke of a land. It always speak of that in literal terms, only when you go into it deeper does it mean more, hence the reason it is sometimes translated that way.

The historical flood date is not important to me. Dates and times, I have found, are hard to pinpoint. It is also not important. A flood on a land happens many times over in many lands. So there are there then MANY floods.


It is spiritually discerned. You seem to not understand what kind of book you read.


It is all a parable in one sense as there is always the esoteric meaning to understand. It is very involved. It becomes so big that you just begin to accept it as to understand it all would be to understand the mind of God.

Professors and historians have their place. But they are not going to understand it all. I have told you this many times over.

You see, you cannot argue, as you do, about a Book that you do not believe in, in the first place! If you going to accept it sufficiently to argue it, then you must accept it all. Then you will have to accept that it is spiritually discerened and that you are deluded (2thess2). You would also have to accept that the theologians will not know either (Cor)

Accept this or not. But I think I know what your answer will be, even if not your motives.

Have a good new year!

All or nothing?

Much of Christianity works from the premise that the Bible as a whole is the infallible word of God. But no sooner does one begin to question some part of it than a Bible believing Christian indicates that to reject any one part of the Bible is to render the entire book irrelevant. The flow of logic supposes that if one part can be rejected, then it's open season to reject any part one doesn't like. Therefore the Bible as a whole is viewed as God's flawless revelation to man. While on the surface this logic sounds reasonable, it is not necessarily true. Besides calling for the reckless abandon of blind faith in a book, a practice that isn't any more credible than Islam's faith in the Koran, it is also interesting to note that in demanding this standard, Christianity has tied its own noose. There are atheists who would like to discredit the entire book, and there are many Jews who would like to discredit the New Testament. So if either group can demonstrate even one little error in the New Testament they both win by Christianity's own standards! Christian teachers need to come to grips with the fact that there are numerous significant errors that cannot be reconciled with the classic bend-over-backwards apologetics of the past. Visit any atheistic or Jewish anti-missionary website and brace yourself. By demonstrating error in the Bible, those opposed to God and Christianity have proven that the New Testament is no longer the infallible word of God. These now have legitimate grounds on which to continue rejecting the truth that the Bible does contain. Christianity has to a large degree handed them this logic and win on a silver platter. Speaking for myself, I no longer begin with the premise that the Bible is infallible cover to cover. Blind faith in any book is dangerous. But what I believe to be the truth is far more objective than being a simple matter of picking and choosing what suits any particular fancy. Here are the presuppositions that I work from;

The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel is the one true Most High God, and the creator of the heavens and earth.

His word is truth, and it can be found in the books of Moses, and the prophets, as well as in the words of Yeshua. What these men actually said never conflicts with the others. Yeshua's words would be the same as those found in red in a red-letter edition Bible.

The truth will always be consistent with itself with no contradictions. It is therefore assumed, that in the rare cases when contradiction is found, it is due to man's influence over the centuries. These contradictions are almost never more than one passage standing against numerous others, and the favor always goes with the majority.

 

[Simplelogic]

This temple vision in it's entirety spans Ezekiel 40-47.
Have you measured it? If it is to be taken non-symbolically then it should be feasible to build a temple with these dimensions on Mount Moriah. (Entire temple area was apparently 500 cubits or 850 ft per side)

No this entire portion of scripture provides a prophetic pattern.
Comparing Eze 40:2 and Micah 4:1(or Isaiah 2:2) links it to "the final part of the days" and to a symbolic mountain.
If one did not discount the writings of Paul then Hebrews 8:2 and 9:23,24 would also add meaning.

I don't believe there is any logical way to spiritualize Ezekiel's prophecies. The measurements are valid imho and will be the basis for the construction of the new Temple. Though it is likely that a Temple will be built in the near term by the Jewish people. This Temple will likely not be built according to Ezekeil's measurements and it will be overrun by the AC.

 

[Simplelogic]

Something you will never accept, not in this world, but perhaps in another.

It was not mountains. Not all the animals. You can't kill fish in water. It spoke of a land. It always speak of that in literal terms, only when you go into it deeper does it mean more, hence the reason it is sometimes translated that way.

The historical flood date is not important to me. Dates and times, I have found, are hard to pinpoint. It is also not important. A flood on a land happens many times over in many lands. So there are there then MANY floods.


It is spiritually discerned. You seem to not understand what kind of book you read.


It is all a parable in one sense as there is always the esoteric meaning to understand. It is very involved. It becomes so big that you just begin to accept it as to understand it all would be to understand the mind of God.

Professors and historians have their place. But they are not going to understand it all. I have told you this many times over.

You see, you cannot argue, as you do, about a Book that you do not believe in, in the first place! If you going to accept it sufficiently to argue it, then you must accept it all. Then you will have to accept that it is spiritually discerened and that you are deluded (2thess2). You would also have to accept that the theologians will not know either (Cor)

Accept this or not. But I think I know what your answer will be, even if not your motives.

Have a good new year!

"Native global flood stories are documented as history or legend in almost every region on earth. Old world missionaries reported their amazement at finding remote tribes already possessing legends with tremendous similarities to the Bible's accounts of the worldwide flood. H.S. Bellamy in Moons, Myths and Men estimates that altogether there are over 500 Flood legends worldwide. Ancient civilizations such as (China, Babylonia, Wales, Russia, India, America, Hawaii, Scandinavia, Sumatra, Peru, and Polynesia) all have their own versions of a giant flood.

These flood tales are frequently linked by common elements that parallel the Biblical account including the warning of the coming flood, the construction of a boat in advance, the storage of animals, the inclusion of family, and the release of birds to determine if the water level had subsided. The overwhelming consistency among flood legends found in distant parts of the globe indicates they were derived from the same origin (the Bible's record), but oral transcription has changed the details through time.

Perhaps the second most important historical account of a global flood can be found in a Babylonian flood story in the Epic of Gilgamesh. When the Biblical and Babylonian accounts are compared, a number of outstanding similarities are found that leave no doubt these stories are rooted in the same event or oral tradition."
Flood Legends From Around the World

 

[Kolibri]

You might look into who Paul curses. For he curses anyone who does not agree with his message, even the angels

Are there not apostate angels? Where did the demons come from? Are there not yet people that claim to see spirits?

And even if that is dismissed, because no faithful angel would do such a thing, who is to say he wasn't using a hyperbole?

 

[Robert.Evans]

"Native global flood stories are documented as history or legend in almost every region on earth. Old world missionaries reported their amazement at finding remote tribes already possessing legends with tremendous similarities to the Bible's accounts of the worldwide flood. H.S. Bellamy in Moons, Myths and Men estimates that altogether there are over 500 Flood legends worldwide. Ancient civilizations such as (China, Babylonia, Wales, Russia, India, America, Hawaii, Scandinavia, Sumatra, Peru, and Polynesia) all have their own versions of a giant flood.

which is interesting. It is real though.

These flood tales are frequently linked by common elements that parallel the Biblical account including the warning of the coming flood, the construction of a boat in advance, the storage of animals, the inclusion of family, and the release of birds to determine if the water level had subsided. The overwhelming consistency among flood legends found in distant parts of the globe indicates they were derived from the same origin (the Bible's record), but oral transcription has changed the details through time.

Perhaps the second most important historical account of a global flood can be found in a Babylonian flood story in the Epic of Gilgamesh. When the Biblical and Babylonian accounts are compared, a number of outstanding similarities are found that leave no doubt these stories are rooted in the same event or oral tradition."
Flood Legends From Around the World

They happened. There is nothign strange in thinking if there is a flood, we should get in a boat and take out animals with us. The idea might have been embellished in different lands to fit a greater idea, but that is part of the Consciousness of the universe itself.

So I would expect to see these floods. They are after all still happening now.

 

[Simplelogic]

Are there not apostate angels? Where did the demons come from? Are there not yet people that claim to see spirits?

And even if that is dismissed, because no faithful angel would do such a thing, who is to say he wasn't using a hyperbole?

No no…Paul makes it clear in Galatians that it was angels who actually gave the law of Moses. Which of course is false. He continues to reprimand those still following this law for this very reason.

 

[outhouse]

These flood tales are frequently linked by common elements that parallel the Biblical account including the warning of the coming flood

it floods everywhere on the planet every year, so we have flood mythology from all over the world.

Perhaps the second most important historical account of a global flood can be found in a Babylonian flood story in the Epic of Gilgamesh. When the Biblical and Babylonian accounts are compared, a number of outstanding similarities are found that leave no doubt these stories are rooted in the same event or oral tradition."

Israelites plagiarized this version that existed before Israelites existed. Babylonians plagiarized this from earlier Sumerian and Akkadian river flood mythologies when the Euphrates overflowed its banks

 

[outhouse]

Biblical account

You have an exact date for this flood?????????????

 

[Simplelogic]

3Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. 4For there are certain men crept in unawares (Perhaps a false apostle?), who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness (a cheep grace message perhaps?), and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

5I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.(Slam on once save always saved) 6And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. 7Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication (Paul condoned fornication), and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

8Likewise also these filthy dreamers (people seeing false visions?)defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of angelic beings (Yep, Paul did this in Gal). 9Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee. 10But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves. 11Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward (Paul's false money ministry), and perished in the gainsaying of Core. 12These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots; 13Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever. 1 Jude 3-13

This is an entire rebuke to Paul.

 

[outhouse]

This is an entire rebuke to Paul.

No.

It looks like biased hatred based on lack of education, and one trying to pervert text to meet ones personal agenda.

 

[Simplelogic]

No.

It looks like biased hatred based on lack of education, and one trying to pervert text to meet ones personal agenda.

I find it telling that the same person who denies the integrity of the Hebrew Scriptures is also a defender of Paul.

 

[Simplelogic]

No.

It looks like biased hatred based on lack of education, and one trying to pervert text to meet ones personal agenda.

Paul was the only one with the personal agenda.

 

[outhouse]

I find it telling that the same person who denies the integrity of the Hebrew Scriptures is also a defender of Paul.

Don't play me for being biased to the OT, I place the same criticism to the NT and Paul.

I used to be like you and hate Paul. That was before taking a quality class on Paul and listening to professors plural speak about him.

I recommend you do the same, because its quite obvious you don't understand the movement that would become Christianity, and you have no context of Paul.

 

[outhouse]

Paul was the only one with the personal agenda.

Yours is quite obvious, and considered proselytizing your own unsubstantiated version, which is against forum rules.


Paul is a reflection of Christianity and its people, whether you like it or not.


You want to follow Judaism, go right ahead.

 

[Kolibri]

No no…Paul makes it clear in Galatians that it was angels who actually gave the law of Moses. Which of course is false. He continues to reprimand those still following this law for this very reason.

"However, even if we or and angel out of heaven were to declare to you as good news something beyond the good news we declared to you, let him be accursed." - Ga 1:8
Paul did not exclude himself from this curse, if proved to be true. No matter who counters, even if it was at one-time faithful servant, they are no longer faithful - whether that be man or angel.

Your next point of complaint is based off of Ga 4:18,19

"For if the inheritance is based on law, it is no longer based on a promise; but God has kindly given it to Abraham though a promise. (Ge 22:17) Why, then, the Law? It was added to make transgressions manifest until the offspring (Lit., "seed") should arrive (John 1:29) to whom the promise had been made; and it was transmitted through angels (Acts 7:38;53 [Stephen's speech]) by the hand of a mediator." (Ex 20:19; De 5:5; John 1:17).

First, taking Stephen's words at face value, - which predates Paul's - what does the angels that transmitted the Law have anything to do with any hypothetical angels that would declare a false version of good news?
Second, what is wrong with understanding that an angel or angels were used in representing Jehovah at Mount Sinai and beyond? Did not Abraham talk as if directly to Jehovah thru angelic representatives before the destruction of Sodom?