Originally posted by ThinkOfOneShort of memorising all your posts , it's impossible to guarantee not missing one. I certainly don't recalll an adequate response , but then what consitutes an "answer" in ToO's world is anyone's guess. It was probably dressed up in some pseudo intellectual gobbl de gook that sounded good but actually had no content or straight talking.
I addressed this issue a week or two ago. At best, your memory is extremely poor and at worst your playing your usual games. Why don't you look up my response? Or better yet, explain how Paul doesn't fit the description. The fact is that he does. You don't have an answer for it, so you have to resort to perhaps your most unsound argument yet (and that's saying something).
Even so , I don't see how one can reconcile the idea of Paul being a false prophet with the idea that God is an active Father capable of guiding us into all truth. The two ideas incompatible and one of them must be wrong. Since Jesus said that his Father was active and would guide us into all truth then....
............the most likely explanation is that what you see as bad fruit is not actually so and that you are trashing St Paul because it fits your own belief system.
My guess is that the idea of God actually being a living active agent is too threatening and too close to "Christianity" for you. Pity that this idea is supported by the words of Jesus , but don't let that particular fly in the ointment worry you , a good dose of rationalising and you won't even notice it.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneThe two ideas don't fit together because you have always expounded a complete 100% overcoming of sin to gain righteousness. A tarnish would mean less than perfection (eg 99% ) . I don't see how a man tarnished with sin and requiring of cleansing from Jesus can be said to have overcome , do you?
I'm thinking that if you knew of anything, you'd tell me. But since you haven't....
Originally posted by knightmeister" Some seem to believe that all acts of sin "tarnish" the soul. It seems likely that it is this "tarnish" that John has in mind in 1 John 1:10. I have no particular problem with this concept, though I don't necessarily subscribe to it either. It's an interesting idea. I also have no reason to believe that this "tarnish" would prohibit one from "walking in the light"/"practicing righteousness".
The two ideas don't fit together because you have always expounded a complete 100% overcoming of sin to gain righteousness. A tarnish would mean less than perfection (eg 99% ) . I don't see how a man tarnished with sin and requiring of cleansing from Jesus can be said to have overcome , do you?
-----------------------------------ToO---------------------------
"My position is that one cannot continue to sin and have 'eternal life' / 'heaven' / 'salvation'."
------------------------------ToOne-------------------------
I realize that you have trouble understanding the written word, but if you focus on the text in bold, perhaps you'll manage.
Hopefully you don't see the "tarnish" as sin itself. Do you? By "tarnish", I'm speaking of a blemish left by acts of sin, but not sin itself.
Originally posted by knightmeisterJesus said that you will know the truth if you continue in His word, i.e., follow His commandments. Unfortunately from what I've seen, Paulians such as yourself, don't follow the commandments of Jesus since they believe that Paul tells them that it's not required for "eternal life"/"heaven"/"salvation".
Short of memorising all your posts , it's impossible to guarantee not missing one. I certainly don't recalll an adequate response , but then what consitutes an "answer" in ToO's world is anyone's guess. It was probably dressed up in some pseudo intellectual gobbl de gook that sounded good but actually had no content or straight talking.
Even so , n the ointment worry you , a good dose of rationalising and you won't even notice it.
What's really interesting is that Jesus even warns of false prophets such as Paul. Have to be impressed by that. In case you're having trouble with the passage, "good fruit" are acts of righteousness and "bad fruit" are acts of sin. Read Romans 7 to know what kind of fruit was borne by Paul.
BTW, this was my response to this argument from a couple of weeks ago:
"You continue to talk out both sides of your mouth.
Do you accept this type of argument from atheists who offer "proof" that there is no God by saying stuff like: "If there was a God, would he allow priests to molest innocent children?". "Why would God allow such a travesty?". etc."
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneOk , fair enough. So what exactly is a "blemish" then?
[i]" Some seem to believe that all acts of sin "tarnish" the soul. It seems likely that it is this "tarnish" that John has in mind in 1 John 1:10. [b]I have no particular problem with this concept, though I don't necessarily subscribe to it either. It's an interesting idea. I also have no reason to believe that this "tarnish" would prohibit one fro , I'm speaking of a blemish left by acts of sin, but not sin itself.
You implied that said blemish would require cleansing by Jesus. Yes? And yet there's nothing about blemishes in Jesus's words. He only talks of remission from sin itself as far as I can see.
To me , having a blemish implies that we are not yet perfected or holy as God is holy. Anything that requires cleansing must by definition not be clean in the first place , otherwise one is just cleaning something pointlessly. The idea of being clean/unclean is closely linked with the idea of holiness/sin in Jewish theology.
Also , the idea of a tarnish or blemish is an interesting idea because in most blemishes I know of (eg - a blemish on car bodywork) a trace of the original substance is left on.
It's also clear that Jesus implies that he is able to cleanse us from sin itself ("here is my blood shed for the remission of sin" ) . However, it's not clear whether you recognise that Jesus can cleanse from sin or not. It sounds to me that for you the blood of Christ is not sufficient or able to cleanse from sin itself , but he can handle the odd blemish(??) If so , this is out of step with his teachings.
Originally posted by knightmeisterLet's try this again.
Ok , fair enough. So what exactly is a "blemish" then?
You implied that said blemish would require cleansing by Jesus. Yes? And yet there's nothing about blemishes in Jesus's words. He only talks of remission from sin itself as far as I can see.
To me , having a blemish implies that we are not yet perfected or holy as God is holy. Anything that , but he can handle the odd blemish(??) If so , this is out of step with his teachings.
"Some seem to believe that all acts of sin "tarnish" the soul. It seems likely that it is this "tarnish" that John has in mind in 1 John 1:10. I have no particular problem with this concept, though I don't necessarily subscribe to it either. It's an interesting idea. I also have no reason to believe that this "tarnish" would prohibit one from "walking in the light"/"practicing righteousness".
-----------------------------------ToO---------------------------
"My position is that one cannot continue to sin and have 'eternal life' / 'heaven' / 'salvation'."
------------------------------ToOne-------------------------
Once again, pay attention to the parts in BOLD. You still don't seem to understand my postion.
It's truly remakable how you manage to get lost in these tangents that you go off on.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneBTW, this was my response to this argument from a couple of weeks ago:
Jesus said that you will know the truth if you continue in His word, i.e., follow His commandments. Unfortunately from what I've seen, Paulians such as yourself, don't follow the commandments of Jesus since they believe that Paul tells them that it's not required for "eternal life"/"heaven"/"salvation".
What's really interesting is that Jesus even war ...[text shortened]... st innocent children?". "Why would God allow such a travesty?". etc."[/i]
"You continue to talk out both sides of your mouth.
Do you accept this type of argument from atheists who offer "proof" that there is no God by saying stuff like: "If there was a God, would he allow priests to molest innocent children?". "Why would God allow such a travesty?". etc." -------------------------------------------------------------------ToO---------------------------------------
I'll respond to this one first. The point about priests and little children is that it is indeed a problem. Anyone who believes in an active God will recognise (if they are honest) that this question has no easy answer. It presents a dilemma and should be something that all Christians wrestle with.
The same applies to your idea of St Paul being a false prophet , it doesn't fit with the idea of an active God of Truth seeking to preserve truth.
Now , since we both believe in the teachings of Jesus (whilst disagreeing on interpretations) we would both have to agree that the Father that Jesus portrays is both active , able and interested in establishing a church. The very miracles of Jesus and many of his teachings point to this.
Therefore , Paul being a "false prophet" presents a problem and a contradiction in my mind and it should be a dilemma for you. Just as asking why the Father of Jesus allows little children to be molested should also be a problem and dilemma for you and me both.
So you have two choices here either
a) recognise that Paul being a false prophet is a bit of a problem really because in that model God has allowed the truth to be grossly distorted for future generations AND recognise that childrem being molested is also a problem...
OR
b) deny that Jesus taught that his Father was active , able and benevolent and interested in men knowing the Truth , thus going against all your previous posts about respecting the teachings of Jesus.
Pick a) or b) and you still have a bit of a problem , as do I , but I don't have the Paul problem do I , whereas we both have the children problem (unless you cut right across what Jesus taught)
Whatever , all you have done is given yourself one more fly in the ointment to deal with. Whether God allowing children to suffer proves he doesn't exist has no bearing on the issue of St Paul. It's still a problem for you , and it won't go away by trying to deflect on to another issue.
If God is a God of Truth as you say (and I think he is) then at the very least it's surprising that he allowed the "false prophet" Paul to flourish and place such a huge cloud over the teachings of his Son.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneIf you explained your position properly then it might be easier. I asked you what you thought a "tarnish" might be and you didn't answer.
Let's try this again.
[i]"[b]Some seem to believe that all acts of sin "tarnish" the soul. It seems likely that it is this "tarnish" that John has in mind in 1 John 1:10. I have no particular problem with this concept, though I don't necessarily subscribe to it either. It's an interesting idea. I also have no reason to believe that this " ...[text shortened]... makable how you manage to get lost in these tangents that you go off on.
Either you know or you don't know.
If you know then you are not saying , if you don't then what are you waffling on about.
You continue to make vague , woolly statements and then sit back and play the "why can't you read my mind" game. It's as if you expect something that is self evident to you should be self evident to all. But it's not. Possibly because it doesn't make sense.
ThinkofOne,
========================================
Did you completely miss my point for quoting Matthew 7:15-20? Here's the point again.
Paul fits the description of a "false prophet" as described by Jesus. Why do you chose to follow the teachings of Paul, rather than the teachings of Jesus. Especially in the light of this warning from Jesus.
============================
I seriously believe that the ravenous wolf in sheep's clothing much more likely to be you rather than the Apostle Paul. Christ taught that after His resurrection He would be the one to come into His disciples with His Father and make an abode with them:
"Jesus answered and said to him, If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word, and My father will loive him, and We will come to him and make an abode with him." (John 14:23)
Paul not only experienced this to the uttermost but also bore the righteous fruit of it. And he faithfully taught it in every letter.
"Test yourselves whether you are in the faith; prove yourselves. Or do you not realize about yourselves that Jesus Christ is in you, unless you are disapproved? (2 Cor. 13:5)
Paul draws constant attention to the indwelling Christ, the Christ Who has come to make an abode with His lovers, the Christ Who has been imparted into the believers.
No one labored more than Paul to establish on earth churches. And the leading disciple of the 12 Peter recommended Paul and even refered to his writings as Scripture:
"And count the long suffering of our Lord to be salvation, even as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, wrote to you,
As also in all his letters, speaking in them concerning these things, in which some things are hard to understand, which the unlearned and unstable twist, as also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction." (2 Pet 3:15,16)
Peter, the senior apostle, is humbled to highly recommend the younger apostle Paul. This is impressive given that fact that Paul had rebuked Peter publically for not being faithful to the gospel (Galatians 2:11-14)
Thirteen or so of the twenty seven books of the New Testament were authored by Paul. Peter said some things in those letters were hard to understand which unstable people twist as they twist other Scriptures.
I think the ravenous wolf in sheep's clothing may be you. Do you believe in the resurrection of Christ? Have you received Him so that He is indwelling you as He promised ? Or do you hold to a dead Jesus whose teachings you are trying to carry out in your fallen nature ?
Why does Peter recommend Paul but you do not ?
=========================================
One only need read Romans 7 to understand that Paul did not bear
"good fruit" and hence is a "false prophet".
===================================
You are writing total and absolute nonsense.
In Romans 7 Paul diagnoses man's problem as in no other place in the Bible. It was his experience. But in the following chapter 8 he gives more full description of his present experience.
"There is now then no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has freed me from the law of sin and of death." (Romans 8:1)
The self condemnation of chapter 7 with its feeling of "wretched man that I am. Who will deliver me from the body of this death?" is fully answered by Paul's experience and teaching in chapter 8.
In chapter 8 Paul completely points us to the indwelling Triune God as life and salvation.
"But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Yet if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not of Him. But if Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, the spirit is life because of righteousness. And if the Spirit of the One who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Chrsit Jesis from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who indwells you." (Rom. 8:9-11)
The indwelling Christ, The Christ Who is the Spirit. The Christ Who can come to live in us and give us life. These are the constant points to which Paul brings our attention. He was faithful to Christ's teaching as an apostle.
Originally posted by jaywillPaul not only experienced this to the uttermost but also bore the righteous fruit of it. And he faithfully taught it in every letter.
ThinkofOne,
[b]========================================
Did you completely miss my point for quoting Matthew 7:15-20? Here's the point again.
Paul fits the description of a "false prophet" as described by Jesus. Why do you chose to follow the teachings of Paul, rather than the teachings of Jesus. Especially in the light of this warning from ...[text shortened]... brings our attention. He was faithful to Christ's teaching as an apostle.
------------------------------Jaywill-------------------
Good point. Paul was a righteous man who bore many fruits. He opened up Christianity to non-Jews and battled against the petty arguments about circumcision. He did much to place love and compassion at the centre of Christianity and helped set up and support many churches.
I wonder if ToO can name the "bad fruits" that St Paul was supposed to have brought forth in anything like the same way?
Today, the modernist's attack against Paul is usually a veiled attack against Christ.
1.) Critics deny the resurrection of Christ
2.) They deny the indwelling of Christ.
3.) They regard the teachings of Christ as additions to the law of Moses - the Christian commandments to be kept. The resurrection of Christ is irrelevant and not necessary. You just go out and do what Jesus said. Mostly they draw these Christian commandments from the book of Matthew.
4.) Because Paul preached the resurrection of Christ and the indwelling of Christ they accuse Paul of perverting the gospel.
5.) They then attack "justification by faith" as Paul's invention.
6.) Passages on reward or discipline of Christians they take to indicate eternal redemption or eternal perdition thus arriving at a theology of eternal justication by works.
Supplmental tactics may accompany these such as:
1.) Emphasize that only the three synoptic gospels are true to what Jesus taught.
John is to be ignored for he speaks of Jesus being God Himself, (although the deity of Christ is to by found in the synoptics also)
2.) John's writings and Paul's writings are taught to have "messed up" in some way the gospel Jesus taught.
3.) In the synpotics they may try only hold direct quotations of Jesus as valid. Surrounding commentary or comments from the evangelists are regarded as mistakes or reflections of their misunderstanding of what Jesus taught., a teaching which they (the modernists) of course understand better than the 12 apostles.
These are the kinds of phrases to look out for from these kinds of opposers of the New Testament:
1.) Oh, we believe everything Jesus taught. (Code words for, only the Red Letters that indicate Jesus speaking is what we will accept.
This of course would mean John's Prologue in his Gospel is an error. The Word was [NOT] God to these modernists.
2.) Paul invented Christianity.
3.) Today's Christianity is solely due to the perversons of Paul who messed up the original teaching of Jesus.
3.) The New Testament is so tampered with that we really don't know what Jesus taught. However, the sayings that we find more palatable He probably did teach. The sayings we do not like are the errors added latter.
Originally posted by jaywillWill you stop openly lying, please? St John's Gospel reports no such thing, and neither do the
John is to be ignored for he speaks of Jesus being God Himself, (although the deity of Christ is to by found in the synoptics also)
Synoptic Gospels. We've gone over this in other threads and all your assertions to this claim
evaporate under scrutiny.
I don't mind that you believe in the 'deity of Christ' -- I'm not even trying to compel you to
disbelieve it -- but to continuously misrepresent the contents of the Christian Scriptures is just
disingenuous and belies your supposed good intentions with your general argument about 'false
Christians.' Jesus as Divine is a Creedal assertion. If it was patent, then there would have been
no need for the Creeds to evolve as they did with their continually expanding explanations on
the nature of the deity (and the Trinity, &c &c).
Nemesio
Many of the posts here seem to be a bit unfair. Some want to throw out Paul, because his teachings were not in sync with those of Jesus. Someone else wants to chuck out John because he declares Christ to be divine. I suppose one has the right to accept some parts of the bible as sacrosanct and consider others to be non-canonical (or even wrong), but it makes a debate on the subject difficult. It seems to me that Jesus Himself settled the divinity question when He said "I and the Father are one", and "if you have seen me, you then have seen the Father." He didn't need John's affirmation, lovely though it is (In the beginning was the Word..."😉. And Paul, with all his egotism and other faults, is still considered "apostle to the Gentiles" and devoted his entire life and being to bring non-Jews the Word. I think he too, should be cut some slack.
If someone would just tell me the rules-- which books of the Bible (if any) are we going to accept as the inerrant word of God, and which ones we aren't -- then, I could be better prepared.