2 edits
Originally posted by ahosyneyI believe if you rely on repentance alone you will fail, since you need
Please tell me what do you think about Ezkiel 18. You keep ignoring this.
You said that Paul was refereing to the OLD Tastement when he was talking about blood sacrifice. So you must know where he was refering too.
In Ezkiel 18 GOD said that repentence is enough for sin forgivness.
Jesus said that repentence is enough for sin forgivness.
Paul said t ...[text shortened]...
You keep repeting your words again and again, but never answer me. What does Ezkiel 18 means?
to be walking a perfect life. If you can manage that, that would be
something, but God has already said that all have sinned and have
fallen short of God's glory (Psalm 14.3). If you have sin in your life
any where you are a sinner, you may repent of those you know about,
if you get them all that would be something, but those you are
unaware of, what about them?
Leviticus 4:13
" 'If the whole Israelite community sins unintentionally and does what is forbidden in any of the LORD's commands, even though the community is unaware of the matter, they are guilty.
You also need to be aware of Jesus words when he was speaking
about sin too:
Matthew 5:27-29 (New International Version)
"You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.”
Matthew 5:21-22 (New International Version)
"You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.”
If you call Jesus’ words from God, than lusting in your heart or just
thinking badly of another can be enough to be cast into hell. Jesus
raised the bar of when it came to our righteousness, leaving no doubt
that we could not reach God’s righteous standard on our own, we need
God’s grace and mercy or we will die in our sins period.
If you want to say that your life is good enough before God and man
that God should allow you to enter into God's kingdom, simply on your
righteousness in obeying the law, I believe you will find yourself
falling short.
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywill[/b]I will answer you with two verses from Quran that describes your position:
ahosney wrote:
[b]++++++++++++++++++++++++
1- The writter of the Hebrews is not known. How can I accept a book that I don't know who wrote it, and reject another book that I have enough evidences to know it is from GOD.
2- If you say it is Paul who wrote it , then again Paul is saying something that Jesus didn't teach and doesn't exist before him.
+ speaks of Christ's heavenly ministry from heaven after His resurrection and ascension.
1-
(Nobel-Translation)(2 - Al-Baqarah)(79. Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands and then say, "This is from Allâh," to purchase with it a little price! Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for that they earn thereby.)
2-
(Nobel-Translation)(3 Aal-Imran)(78. And verily, among them is a party who distort the Book with their tongues -as they read-, so that you may think it is from the Book, but it is not from the Book, and they say: "This is from Allâh," but it is not from Allâh; and they speak a lie against Allâh while they know it.)
2 edits
Originally posted by ahosyneyThe Apostle Paul is a great model of the normal Christian life. What we can learn from his experience as a disciple is absolutely PRICELESS!
I will answer you with two verses from Quran that describes your position:
1-
(Nobel-Translation)(2 - Al-Baqarah)(79. Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands and then say, "This is from Allâh," to purchase with it a little price! Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for that they earn thereby.)
2-
(Nob âh," but it is not from Allâh; and they speak a lie against Allâh while they know it.)
[/b]
Page after page of his writings unveil such rich insight into the nature of the life in Christ that we'd be severely handicapped without it.
I have learned so much about living the Christian life from Paul that I can't imagine not consulting his wisdom.
I have no comment about your verses from the Quran because that is not my book of faith.
But, not to sound disrespectful, you have to be CRAZY to think that we Christians can afford to ignore Paul's insight and wisdom into the nature of the Christian life.
Originally posted by jaywillI think the reason non-Christians of all stripes choose not to consider Paul's epistles to be legitimate is because his central teaching is 'grace', God's amazing grace which runs so contrary to the law that it appears to be in conflict with Christ's call to repentance and holiness. But it is no wonder that God chose Saul to be the one to reveal the riches of his grace, as Saul himself was the worst of sinners before the Lord had mercy on him. The whole thrust of Paul's life was a simple building upon his dramatic conversion experience, and reflects the astonishing nature of God's ability to reconcile the worst of sinners to himself. Thus, Paul is central to Christian thought and doctrine for a very good reason indeed...
The Apostle Paul is a great model of the normal Christian life. What we can learn from his experience as a disciple is absolutely PRICELESS!
Page after page of his writings unveil such rich insight into the nature of the life in Christ that we'd be severely handicapped without it.
I have learned so much about living the Christian life from Pa ...[text shortened]... istians can afford to ignore Paul's insight and wisdom into the nature of the Christian life.
1 edit
Originally posted by epiphinehasI think the reason non-Christians of all stripes choose not to consider Paul's epistles to be legitimate is because his central teaching is 'grace', God's amazing grace which runs so contrary to the law that it appears to be in conflict with Christ's call to repentance and holiness.
I think the reason non-Christians of all stripes choose not to consider Paul's epistles to be legitimate is because his central teaching is 'grace', God's amazing grace which runs so contrary to the law that it appears to be in conflict with Christ's call to repentance and holiness. But it is no wonder that God chose Saul to be the one to reveal Thus, Paul is central to Christian thought and doctrine for a very good reason indeed...
I could hardly agree more.
The Jesus Christ Who may have lived long ago is somewhat tolerable to the world. The Jesus Christ Who presently lives and can today have Lordship in our lives is a mortal threat to the natural man.
It is only fitting that this aspect of the Gospel should be testified to strongly. And for the most part the Apostle Paul was to one to testify to it.
But it is no wonder that God chose Saul to be the one to reveal the riches of his grace, as Saul himself was the worst of sinners before the Lord had mercy on him. The whole thrust of Paul's life was a simple building upon his dramatic conversion experience, and reflects the astonishing nature of God's ability to reconcile the worst of sinners to himself. Thus, Paul is central to Christian thought and doctrine for a very good reason indeed...
Central and Foundational.
Christ is not gone. He is not dead. He rose and can be known today. I mean today.
Paul's last written words to his pupil Timothy - "The Lord be with your spirit. Grace be with you." (2 Tim. 4:22)
To paraphrase - "Timothy, whatever you do remember this - Jesus the Lord is with your innermost being - your spirit. And because Jesus is with your spirit New Testament Grace is with you. The enjoyment of God as your life and life supply is with you."
The subjective experience and enjoyment of the living Lord Jesus can be with the one who believes in Christ.
Originally posted by epiphinehasYou've got to be kidding. Paul took it upon himself to create a religion that would have the appearance of being "Chrisitian" but specifically designed to be acceptable to Romans. There had to be miracles, Romans don't like religions that have no miracles and Jesus himself did little in that regard. Paul on the other hand, made a point out of it so the Romans would be impressed. It follows the rule of all religions, to build it up in such a way as to enrich the church elders and build a large following that will ensure the continued employment of those same elders and keep them in the luxury they so wished to become accustomed to and it kept women out, keeping them at the level of cattle, owned by men. Yessiree, a great religion if you happen to be a top dog.
I think the reason non-Christians of all stripes choose not to consider Paul's epistles to be legitimate is because his central teaching is 'grace', God's amazing grace which runs so contrary to the law that it appears to be in conflict with Christ's call to repentance and holiness. But it is no wonder that God chose Saul to be the one to reveal ...[text shortened]... Thus, Paul is central to Christian thought and doctrine for a very good reason indeed...
1 edit
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You've got to be kidding. Paul took it upon himself to create a religion that would have the appearance of being "Chrisitian" but specifically designed to be acceptable to Romans.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
One God instead of multiple deities and worship of the Roman Emperors?
I don't see Paul tailoring the Gospel to be particularly "Roman" in flavor.
He wanted the whole world to believe in Jesus. That's not particularly Roman.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
There had to be miracles, Romans don't like religions that have no miracles and Jesus himself did little in that regard.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
So in the book of Acts the miracles performed by Peter were also "specifically designed to be acceptable to Romans" also?
So if miracles are particularly Roman then in the four Gospels Jesus is tailoring His message to target Romans?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Paul on the other hand, made a point out of it so the Romans would be impressed.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Paul wanted everyone, Jew and Gentile to become believers in Jesus Christ. Is that what you mean by he tailored the Gospel to be desirable to Romans?
Ceasar had him beheaded as far as we know. So was the persecution of the Romans any less than that which he received from the Jews?
The Jews wanted to stone him. And the Romans beheaded him. Do you see the Romans more favorable to his message? It got him KILLED, his preaching the gospel in chains in Rome.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=
It follows the rule of all religions, to build it up in such a way as to enrich the church elders and build a large following that will ensure the continued employment of those same elders and keep them in the luxury they so wished to become accustomed to and it kept women out, keeping them at the level of cattle, owned by men.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
A likely excuse for loving the world more than Christ and God.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Yessiree, a great religion if you happen to be a top dog.
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Handy dandy excuse to live on in your cherished sinful life.
What other handy rationalizations do you have to relish your sinful life in defiance of the Savior Who died for you?
2 edits
Concerning miraculous works of power sonhouse writes:
Paul on the other hand, made a point out of it so the Romans would be impressed.
Sonhouse apparently is not familiar with the First Corinthian Epistle.
The Jews seeks signs and the Greeks seek wisdom. But Paul decided to know nothing among the Corinthians but Christ and Him crucified. (See 1 Cor. 1:22,23)
Sonhouse, the epistle to the Romans is the epistle targeting Roman citizens.
Could you point out to us where in the Roman Epistle Paul makes a big deal about miraculous works of power?
Originally posted by sonhouseYessiree, a great religion if you happen to be a top dog.
You've got to be kidding. Paul took it upon himself to create a religion that would have the appearance of being "Chrisitian" but specifically designed to be acceptable to Romans. There had to be miracles, Romans don't like religions that have no miracles and Jesus himself did little in that regard. Paul on the other hand, made a point out of it so the Roma ...[text shortened]... the level of cattle, owned by men. Yessiree, a great religion if you happen to be a top dog.
Rather, if you happen not to be fundamentally misinformed about it.
The post that was quoted here has been removedHow can a loving God watch my life collapse like that and stand by and not help me out?[/b]
If you want to reassure your faith try learning about St.Augustine's theodicy, infact even atheist can find meaning in Iraneus Christian philosophy
1 edit
Originally posted by epiphinehasAs a non-Christian of some “stripe” 😉, I find St. Paul to be spiritually profound. In some mundane matters, he might be a bit curmudgeonly, but he wasn’t necessarily always speaking “in the spirit.” (We could argue about that, but to no point really, except to disagree.)
I think the reason non-Christians of all stripes choose not to consider Paul's epistles to be legitimate is because his central teaching is 'grace', God's amazing grace which runs so contrary to the law that it appears to be in conflict with Christ's call to repentance and holiness. But it is no wonder that God chose Saul to be the one to reveal Thus, Paul is central to Christian thought and doctrine for a very good reason indeed...
Since I don’t believe in so-called “verbal inspiration,” I think that he grappled with problems of language vis-à-vis spiritual experience. I agree with you about his whole effort being built upon his experience on the road to Damascus. For him, that was clearly “translated” into a Christic experience (by that, I do not mean translated later, but a kind of spontaneous translation that occurs in the event, much as my visual cortex translates certain energy wavelengths into a picture in my head of the moon; that is, I do not mean it in any disparaging sense; I have explained my understanding of such “translation” in the mystical experience elsewhere).
For him, that experience, so translated, became definitive. I find such Christic translation to be valid, but not exclusive. (Again, we can disagree, but it has pretty much all been said before.)
I really just wanted to say that—however one relates Paul to Jesus—I find no reason to consider Paul “illegitimate.” That would be a bit like saying that Bodhidharma (the first patriarch of Zen) was somehow illegitimate as a Buddhist because he did not speak exactly as the Buddha did.
EDIT: This was really just intended as a nod of regard to Paul, not for argument.