Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
“Now to the married I command, yet not I but the Lord: A wife is not to depart from her husband. But even if she does depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. And a husband is not to divorce his wife. 1 Corinthians 7:10-12
Paul obviously hadn't heard Jesus talk about divorce. Obviously again, he doesn't mention the exception Jesus gave, infidelity.
Contrast this with Paul in 2Timothy
Quote:
“All Scripture is given by the inspiration of God…” (2 Timothy 3:16)
So the obvious apologist rationalization is
"Well, God inspired Paul's personal opinion on the matter so Paul's words in 1Corinthians are indirectly inspired by God.
Hey! I make a good apologist, even though I don't believe a single word of what I'm saying.
For he reasons stated above, we are taking this opportunity to [strongly] suggest that Arach and Harry from this time forth stop responding to each other. So I am no longer responding to you, and would appreciate you not misrepresenting why you was reported, sorry, not responding to me.
And your science theory is not outlawed, you are still free to post it in the science section, as I have pointed out to you for the last three years.
This hopefully is my last word to you on the matter.
Now can we please get back on the topic, which is not about you.
lmao ... run harry run, paul didn't deceive anybody harry unless he used your tactics to try and spread his faith like you do in your sect of atheism.
harry, you had to run away from evidence that clearly showed your position of deny every trait of what they call god. It was so simple to debunk and spank you that you ran to the authorities.
lmao, you can't be open and honest, your sect of atheism rely's on deceit and obscure-ism. The fact you can't defend yourself against what I said without "I vill report you" proves that your sect of atheism needs to obscure the facts.
Paul obviously hadn't heard Jesus talk about divorce. Obviously again, he doesn't mention the exception Jesus gave, infidelity.
Contrast this with Paul in 2Timothy
So the obvious apologist rationalization is
"Well, God inspired Paul's personal opinion on the matter so Paul's words in 1Corinthians are indirectly inspired by God.
Hey! I make a good apologist, even though I don't believe a single word of what I'm saying.
That's not what he was talking about, I don't think. There are places where Paul quotes from the Old Testament. I would just like an example of one where he was wrong.
If someone posts a group of verses as example, we can look at the first one. I just want one so I can prove all of you wrong.
EDIT: Never mind. I'll look at Romans 9:30 so I can find out where you guys are missing what is in plain sight, and then I'll get back to you.
Jesus is the stumbling stone. He represents the true God. Faith is shown by people who love the laws of God and desire to obey God out of their love for him.
The example in Paul's time were the Jews who had drifted away from true faith and were practicing a false religion. In contrast to the gentiles who were finding Christ by their love for God whom some of the people in Israel had drifted away from. He was simplifying things in order to make an illustration.
In my opinion, faith should not be that difficult. EVERYONE wants everyone else to obey the laws. What better way to display faith and love each other than to have an actual DESIRE to obey the laws, and to have a true love for them?
Jesus is the stumbling stone. He represents the true God. Faith is shown by people who love the laws of God and desire to obey God out of their love for him.
The example in Paul's time were the Jews who had drifted away from true faith and were practicing a false religion. In contrast to the gentiles who were finding Christ by their love for God whom some of the people in Israel had drifted away from. He was simplifying things in order to make an illustration.
In my opinion, faith should not be that difficult. EVERYONE wants everyone else to obey the laws. What better way to display faith and love each other than to have an actual DESIRE to obey the laws, and to have a true love for them?
faith isnt difficult. "jesus only" is the problem. "no jesus no saving" is the problem. Its easy to follow the law and hurt others is problem too.
But the way you present it Jesus is metaphorical. I am ok with that, it shows jesus is not needed to be saved. any focus on love and compassion will do.
Atheists only have one position, they do not believe in gods. The only extreme is how confident they are that gods do not exist.
Your anti-atheism is scary. You have to invent excuses to call us disgusting*; and when US atheists fight for freedom of religion, you attack them just because they are atheists.
Can we now finish with the personal attacks and get back to the subject.
* your memory problem will mean you have conveniently forgot, but I have not.
thats like saying Christians have only one position ... jesus saves.
his anti-atheism is as scary as your anti-religion.
faith isnt difficult. "jesus only" is the problem. "no jesus no saving" is the problem. Its easy to follow the law and hurt others is problem too.
But the way you present it Jesus is metaphorical. I am ok with that, it shows jesus is not needed to be saved. any focus on love and compassion will do.
Jesus is not metaphorical.
I believe you could be saved from any Old Testament scripture. But then you would recognize Jesus after that because he shows what God really is.
That's not what he was talking about, I don't think. There are places where Paul quotes from the Old Testament. I would just like an example of one where he was wrong.
If someone posts a group of verses as example, we can look at the first one. I just want one so I can prove all of you wrong.
EDIT: Never mind. I'll look at Romans 9:30 so I can find out where you guys are missing what is in plain sight, and then I'll get back to you.
Here are some examples. Just from the first pages of Romans, where he fiddles scriptures, occasionally reposting these in Corinthians, but much less.
2.25. blaming the Jews for blasphemy of God amongst gentiles. This is Isaiah 52. 5 (or at least nobody can find anything better). It is nothing like what Paul is arguing.
3.4 God is faithful and justified even if man isn't. But Psalms 51.4 is about justifying David, not God.
3 13. This argues that gentiles and Jews alike are 'under sin'. but the notorious 'fool has said' Psalm 14 is slamming those who deny God, not the Jews, who believe.
You mention the 'stone in Zion' passage Romans 9.33, apparently a stumbling stone for wicked priests who dishonour god with unacceptable sacrifices (through acting sinfully is Paul's argument) though he extends that to all Jews. But Isaiah 28.16 refers to a sound, tested and sure foundation, a cornerstone. This isn't, Ozzy, about the theology he is arguing but about how he quotemines scripture out of its' original context and implies that it it is prophecy of his own theories.
if we must critique his theology (and we ought) his argument is that the Law (of Moses - the Jewish laws, rites and customs) do not save or make righteous, because (he argues) Abraham was 'Righteous' before the Law because he believed in God. He then argues that you can lose righteousness through sinning and the law, (Torah) not only cannot save, but adds more sinning by more laws to break (the burden that Luke - borrowing from Paul for this Pauline biography - refers to in Acts 15.10). So arguably, God belief, without sinning too badly to put right with a couple of sparrows and a shekel in the treasury, is enough to save. So why do we need Jesus? Paul doesn't explain this but substitutes faith in Jesus as risen messiah for the Abrahamic faith in God. It is a simple piece of deception. You don't (according to his argument) need Faith in Jesus; faith in God will do.
He goes on to imply that Jesus wiped out Sin with Obedience (not his blood as such) but that led Paul into a problem later on. His sinless converts then started sinning and Paul had to warn them that they could lose 'grace/salvation' (Works count as well as faith, folks) but didn't even consider that his Jesus - saves theory had collapsed. Indeed, Paul was the first Christian to stick his fingers in his ears, and the Christian fingers are still jammed in the metaphorical ears today.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 07-11-2019 at 02:58 AM..
I believe you could be saved from any Old Testament scripture. But then you would recognize Jesus after that because he shows what God really is.
yes, you can be "saved" by following any set of rational self ideas and you can be "saved" by learning what ideas seem to be healthy for our society and ideas that are not. That is different than saying Christianity is the one true religion.
I also don't think Paul tried to deceive anybody any more than any body else. He may have actually believe his claims. Like how some atheist believe that it is, not only valid, but its a path to salvation by not talking about observations about the system around us and data that points to you theist having some parts of your god claim correct and other claims not so much.
do you believe "Jesus" is the only way to salvation or do you believe that its more about the "memes", like love thy neighbor" is what it is about?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
sorry, not responding to me.
