Should Paul be removed from the NT?

[JJM]

del Diablo]

It's not a question of "how" one is "saved" - that's another question I have little to no interest in. It's a question of what it means to be "saved" or "what is salvation". How and why is obtaining personal salvation the centerpiece of a supposedly altruistic religion? Wouldn't it be more meaningful to be true to yourself and remain open minded rather than have "faith" out of fear of being or not being "saved?" Isn't that exactly the whole point - freedom?

Well then the answer to your first question is simple being in heaven is the definition of being saved. I think that it is possible to be opening minded and have faith. Being open minded to the fact that you could be wrong doesn't mean you can't believe what you think is right. I'm open minded to what others have to say. However if they can't give good reasons for what they are asking me to have faith in or what they are saying makes little sense then I’m not likely to accept it. I'm convinced that there is a God out there, because I can feel it. so either I’m right or I'm hallucinating, but if the second is true then it doesn't really matter what I believe so I'm going to assume the first. Now I have always been Christian but I've looked into Judaism and Islam and I’m still convinced that Christianity is the truth. Now Christ said that Satan wouldn't prevail against his church. This means that the church Christ founded must have existed since the beginning of Christianity and must not be incorrect. Only three Christian Church claim this so if all of them are false Christianity is false. Thus either I'm right about Paul or Christianity is false either way WolfgangvonUSA is wrong. However he hasn't given any good reason to think Paul false. Most of his reasons are simply lies (or at least obvious falses he hasn't picked up on) and the rest are misconceptions or stretches. As far as the purpose of freedom goes, it is to have the ability to reject God but to still accept him. That is the Purpose of freedom it has no other true purpose that I can think of. Also you aren't supposed to accept him because you are afraid. He'll accept that but you are supposed to accept him because you love him. Just like a father. A good son doesn't obey his father because he fears what his father can do to him. He obeys him because he loves, respects, and wants to please his father. However most fathers will accept that their children behave out of fear as long as they behave but that doesn't mean that's the point or purpose of the father’s goal.



Also Notice I said "is to achieve salvation and bring others to that salvation" Now truthfully the main purpose of a Christian is to do God's will. His will however is that as many people as possible go to heaven. The reason I said that one of the main Goals is to achieve your own salvation is because it is the easiest person to bring to salvation because you can control yourself where you can only convince others to control themselves. Now obviously no one wants to go to Hell but by bringing yourself to Heaven you are still doing God’s will. So in this one instance by doing good for yourself you are still doing good for your God.

del Diablo]

I'll be honest with you, even though I was a rabid evangelical for years, I never really understood Christianity until I walked away from it for a decade and studied the myths of cultures I wasn't brought up in. When I came back to Christianity and studied it, not out of an obligation to tradition but looked at the early writings and examined its history and context for myself, it actually made sense to me - but I found it means something radically different than tradition had led me to believe - in fact, almost the opposite of what tradition teaches.

Well in truth I have never stepped out of Christianity. I’m looking into Christianity a little differently. As I stated before in my opinion if I can prove wrong three sects of Christianity then I prove wrong all of Christianity. So the way I study it is simply to know more about it and to try and find fault in it. But the more I look for fault the more firmly I find myself believing. You say that you where an evangelical. Well I’ll tell you that I agree the traditions of the Evangelicals are radically different from those of Christianity. So, the fact that you concluded this does not surprise me in the least. However I’d like to hear what radical differences you found about Christianity that are contrary to your traditions. I’m interested truly not to say oh ha your wrong but to say ok well maybe that makes sense and I need to think about it or well that does fit into my tradition. So if I may I’d like to ask what these radical differences are.

 

[JJM]

QUOTE=lunamoth]When I hear someone say they are "saved" I usually assume that they mean that they that they acknowledge Jesus as their Lord, that they believe the Holy Spirit resides in their hearts, and that they will get into heaven (be close to God) when they die. [/QUOTE]
I don't mean this as an insult but this is the perfect example of what I mean by my third use of salvation. That is the incorrect one. Assumption of salvation is very dangerous and is something that at least Paul if not others warn against.

But what do these words mean? I think they are representations of a Truth that is beyond expression in words that cause us to lead a life of compassion, one where we try to keep in mind our connectedness to others. I agree that the Kingdom of God is all around us, and I don't think it is restricted to Christians, considered saved or otherwise.

Well I would agree that this is true. And kind of dips into the purpose of my first use of the word salvation. It is what causes us to want to lead the life you speak of. I also agree the kingdom of God is all around us and it is not restricted to those who are Christian. I do however think it is restricted to those who would go to heaven if they died at this moment. By that Special connectedness do you mean the Communion of Saints or how our actions ultimately affect others?

 

[lunamoth]

By that Special connectedness do you mean the Communion of Saints or how our actions ultimately affect others?

Hi JJM,

Thanks for your reply. First I'd like to say that I am one of those who have stepped out of Christianity, but now have stepped back in and am trying to find my way. Salvation is not something I have spent a lot of time thinking about. I was not insulted by you saying that my first "definition" is the one you consider incorrect. I don't think of heaven as a closed gate kind of place. In fact, I don't think that heaven is a material place at all, which I worry will make me a heretic among Christians. I was just describing the impression I get when other people say they have been saved, or accepted Christ, or have been born again. I think the most dangerous part of believing you are saved is when you start to judge who might not be saved. And if there is something to being saved, I agree that it is a continual effort and process.

As to your question above, I'm not exactly sure what the Communion of Saints is, but perhaps you refer to all baptized Christians? If so, I mean something broader than that, but stronger than just how our actions affect others. I believe that we really are all connected to each other, every living being. It sort of takes the wind out of the sails of personal salvation. We are all in this together.

 

[JJM]

I agree you can't possible judge others because to the one who more is given more is expected and to the one less is given less is expected. You have no Idea what the have received. They may not even know what they have received. However I don't think that this means you shouldn't point out to them what they are doing wrong simply not condemn them because of it.



I think it is likely you meant the communion of Saints. This is the best way know how to explain it. It’s from a Catholic perspective but the meaning is the same. It's a quote by Stanley Vishnewski:

The doctrine of the mystical Body of Christ made our faith a living reality. The church was not just a brick building that stood on the corner. The Church was not Father Paulowski of Sister Perpetua. It was we who where the Church! It was the union of all the faithful! The Church was all united among the Kingship of Christ. It was Christ who was our King. It was Christ, our brother, who acted as our mediator with God the Father.
If one of us suffered, then everyone suffered. If one of us was happy and rejoiced, then everyone was happy and shared, in a mystical manner, in the rejoicing. It was indeed consoling to know that I was not alone and that the Mystical Body of Christ both rejoiced and suffered with me. I would wake up in the middle of the night and know that at that particular moment I was sharing in the fruits of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass that was being offered up throughout the world. What consolation it was to know that as I slept Choirs of contemplative nuns and monks were chanting the Devine Office and that I as a member of the Mystical Body was sharing in their prayers.

I began to realize how important my actions and prayers were to the health and well-being of the Church. For the first time I understood what Dorothy meant, that cold morning, when she told me that by missing Mass I was hurting the work.

I became aware that my prayers, my sacrifices, would and could contribute to necessary graces to keep alive the faith of some poor prisoner locked away in a Communist or Fascist concentration camp. My prayers and good works also had power to convert his captors.



May I ask what you mean by heaven may not be a place? My church says that this may or may not be true but the Idea doesn't make sense to me. because even if it is mearly a state isn't the place you are while you are experiencing this state the place which can be given the same name as the state?

 

[Abogado del Diablo]

Now Christ said that Satan wouldn't prevail against his church. This means that the church Christ founded must have existed since the beginning of Christianity and must not be incorrect.

Doesn't that seem like circular logic to you?

Only three Christian Church claim this so if all of them are false Christianity is false.

I'm not following what you mean here. Can you clarify, please?

As far as the purpose of freedom goes, it is to have the ability to reject God but to still accept him.

Is faith a gift from God so that no man can boast?

That is the Purpose of freedom it has no other true purpose that I can think of. Also you aren't supposed to accept him because you are afraid. He'll accept that but you are supposed to accept him because you love him.

In a manner of speaking I agree completely with this. Those "he" and "him" mean something different that tradition teaches IMO.

Also Notice I said "is to achieve salvation and bring others to that salvation" Now truthfully the main purpose of a Christian is to do God's will. His will however is that as many people as possible go to heaven.

Can you provide a citation for this?

The reason I said that one of the main Goals is to achieve your own salvation is because it is the easiest person to bring to salvation because you can control yourself where you can only convince others to control themselves. Now obviously no one wants to go to Hell but by bringing yourself to Heaven you are still doing God’s will. So in this one instance by doing good for yourself you are still doing good for your God.

And that's not based on fear, how?

Well in truth I have never stepped out of Christianity. I’m looking into Christianity a little differently. As I stated before in my opinion if I can prove wrong three sects of Christianity then I prove wrong all of Christianity. So the way I study it is simply to know more about it and to try and find fault in it.

That's a self-fulfilling prophecy. You can't see the faults unless you change perspective.

But the more I look for fault the more firmly I find myself believing.

Of course.

You say that you where an evangelical. Well I’ll tell you that I agree the traditions of the Evangelicals are radically different from those of Christianity. So, the fact that you concluded this does not surprise me in the least. However I’d like to hear what radical differences you found about Christianity that are contrary to your traditions.

Everything you've said so far is what I believed as an Evangelical. So far there's no appreciable difference as far as I can see.

I’m interested truly not to say oh ha your wrong but to say ok well maybe that makes sense and I need to think about it or well that does fit into my tradition.

But you aren't interested in stepping outside of Christianity, so what I have to say won't mean a thing to you.

 

[lunamoth]

May I ask what you mean by heaven may not be a place? My church says that this may or may not be true but the Idea doesn't make sense to me. because even if it is mearly a state isn't the place you are while you are experiencing this state the place which can be given the same name as the state?

I'll put my answer in the thread on salvation--to help keep this one on track.

 

[cosmo]

JJM,

I will gladly compile all the scripture that you asked for. I will try to have it for you by tomorrow. I'm at lunch now and have no time.

Have a great day,
cosmo

 

[Marsh]

But remember, the burden of proof is not to refute Paul's claim to apostleship, but to prove it in the affirmative.

The ball is in your court. From the works of the original apostles, please prove that another apostle would arrive to rule over them all.

But remember that Jesus never foretold of any new apostles; He only foretold of the arrival of false apostles!

Actually, I believe that you are mistaken on both counts. First of all, Jesus not only fortold the arrival of new apostles but he encouraged it. The apostles were the close followers, believers, and friends of Jesus Christ, and Jesus said that anyone willing to deny themself, pick up their cross and follow Jesus could do the same.

Secondly, I don't feel any burden at all to prove that Paul was an apostle, no more than I feel any burden to prove that Jesus is the Messiah. Paul was a great Christian in that he gave up his life to spread the good news to those who hadn't heard it. Read 1 Corinthians 13; there is no way that a false apostle (who is, in fact, an antichrist) could have written such a beautiful explanation of the importance of love.

Paul was a Christian: He believed in Jesus as Messiah, confessed him as Lord, and devoted his life to preaching Jesus as Lord to those who hadn't heard. If he is false, then I would surmise that we are all false.

 

[JJM]

Doesn't that seem like circular logic to you?

I think you may misunderstand what I'm saying. From this excerpt it sounds as if I'm saying Christ says this he is God thus it is true but I'm not. I'm saying Christ says this if it isn't true then he isn't God. Christ founded a church. If Christianity is true that Church must still exist and not have false doctrine. If it can be proven that this church doesn't exist then Christianity is disproved.

I'm not following what you mean here. Can you clarify, please?

Only three Churches that I know of claim the above so if they can be proved false then Christianity is a false religion.

Is faith a gift from God so that no man can boast?

no grace is a gift from God so no man may boast

In a manner of speaking I agree completely with this. Those "he" and "him" mean something different that tradition teaches IMO.


Can you provide a citation for this?

1 timothy 2:3-4
3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth

And that's not based on fear, how?

Well it may be based slightly on fear but the point is that it isn't its purpose. God doesn't mean to scare us into submission. Humans Choose Hell. So the fact that it exists doesn't mean its purpose is to scare us. It's simply the by product of them wanting to sin.

That's a self-fulfilling prophecy. You can't see the faults unless you change perspective.

Of course.

Everything you've said so far is what I believed as an Evangelical. So far there's no appreciable difference as far as I can see.

But you aren't interested in stepping outside of Christianity, so what I have to say won't mean a thing to you.

I guess it depends what you mean by stepping out of Christianity. If it means leaving my religion to understand it better then no I refuse to do that but if it is simply looking at it from a different prospective then I will but you need to tell me what that perspective is. So I ask you again what radical differences you see?

 

[Marsh]

Victor, Schmictor!

Wolfie,

I finally got around to reading some of the famous Victor's writing on the "Pauline Conspiracy." I got part way through the article on 1 Thessalonians before I had to put it aside.

What a joke!

You asked me to refute him point by point, but what is there to refute? His writing is completely speculatory, and based on historical events rather than on the more important evidence of Paul's writing itself. It reminded me of the work of Michael Moore which, although entertaining, is more propaganda than proposition.

The one good thing that has come out of this debate (for me) is that it's gotten me into questioning the authority of scripture. After all, a wise man once wrote that we should test everything and hold onto what is good.

I think it was Paul, actually

 

[WolfgangvonUSA]

Actually, I believe that you are mistaken on both counts. First of all, Jesus not only fortold the arrival of new apostles but he encouraged it. The apostles were the close followers, believers, and friends of Jesus Christ, and Jesus said that anyone willing to deny themself, pick up their cross and follow Jesus could do the same.

Secondly, I don't feel any burden at all to prove that Paul was an apostle, no more than I feel any burden to prove that Jesus is the Messiah. Paul was a great Christian in that he gave up his life to spread the good news to those who hadn't heard it. Read 1 Corinthians 13; there is no way that a false apostle (who is, in fact, an antichrist) could have written such a beautiful explanation of the importance of love.

Paul was a Christian: He believed in Jesus as Messiah, confessed him as Lord, and devoted his life to preaching Jesus as Lord to those who hadn't heard. If he is false, then I would surmise that we are all false.

Jesus may have encouraged new disciples to become involved in His teachings, but He never said anything about new apostles, except to say that people would falsely claim to be new apostles:

Rev 2:2 I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars:

This verse was directed to the Ephesians, an area Paul had visited.

And I should also mention that an apostleship was an office, whereas a disciple is simply a follower.

On the second point, it is simply a fundamental rule of logic to prove the positive rather than to disprove it. For instance, it is impossible to disprove the existence of God, because He could choose not to be discovered. Or how could you disprove that leprechauns exist or existed. You'd have to search the entire universe at all points in time simultaneously in order not to find one, and even then, he might have the ability to elude your perception.

Or putting it another way, in the words of the late Carl Sagan: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."

 

[JJM]

Re: Victor, Schmictor!

Wolfie,

I finally got around to reading some of the famous Victor's writing on the "Pauline Conspiracy." I got part way through the article on 1 Thessalonians before I had to put it aside.

What a joke!

You asked me to refute him point by point, but what is there to refute? His writing is completely speculatory, and based on historical events rather than on the more important evidence of Paul's writing itself. It reminded me of the work of Michael Moore which, although entertaining, is more propaganda than proposition.

The one good thing that has come out of this debate (for me) is that it's gotten me into questioning the authority of scripture. After all, a wise man once wrote that we should test everything and hold onto what is good.

I think it was Paul, actually

Yeah I made it through the second chapter and I realized how much of a waste of time it was. I noticed that he cuts off contradictory verses just at the right spot to support his Idea. And other times he says that something is in Paul’s writings that simply aren’t there.

 

[Abogado del Diablo]

I think you may misunderstand what I'm saying. From this excerpt it sounds as if I'm saying Christ says this he is God thus it is true but I'm not. I'm saying Christ says this if it isn't true then he isn't God.

How do you know God can't lie, or we can't misunderstand, or (quite possible) someone wrote a story in which chirst says this when it didn't actually happen?

Christ founded a church.

There's no evidence of that.

If Christianity is true that Church must still exist and not have false doctrine.

Why? Isn't "Free Will" an aspect of christianity? Couldn't everyone choose not to be a part of "that Church" or decide they prefer "false doctrine"? Then there wouldn't be a church even if christianity were "true".

If it can be proven that this church doesn't exist then Christianity is disproved.

Huh!? Shall I build a bridge out of it?

Only three Churches that I know of claim the above so if they can be proved false then Christianity is a false religion.

I'm sorry. I still have no idea what you are talking about here.

1 timothy 2:3-4
3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth

I don't see anything about heaven or hell there. I do see "come to the knowledge of the truth" though.

Well it may be based slightly on fear but the point is that it isn't its purpose.

How do you know what it's purpose is? It sure seems like it's based on fear. Even Mary, the Mother of Jesus is reported to have said it's based on fear. Simon Peter supposedly said it was still a requirement, too.

God doesn't mean to scare us into submission. Humans Choose Hell.

No they don't. Faith is a gift from God so that no man can boast (you said so yourself). God must choose to give some humans no faith and send them to hell. What is hell, anyway? And how do you know that?

So the fact that it exists doesn't mean its purpose is to scare us. It's simply the by product of them wanting to sin.

What is "sin" according to Paul?

I guess it depends what you mean by stepping out of Christianity. If it means leaving my religion to understand it better then no I refuse to do that but if it is simply looking at it from a different prospective then I will

Not possible. Sorry.

 

[Abogado del Diablo]

no grace is a gift from God so no man may boast

Whoops, I read your post wrong. That'll teach me to write at 5 am!

Ephesians 2:8: "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God-- 9not by works, so that no one can boast. 10For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do."

Or the NKJV: "8For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God,"

Faith is a gift of God's grace. This makes sense with the literalist christian tradition. The faith we're talking about is faith in the historical reality that Jesus Christ was God made flesh who died for our sins. Obviously, ancient aboriginal americans and New Zealanders never even heard the story of Jesus. So faith is indeed a gift of being born at the right place and time, at the very least. The rest were created for the purpose of sending them to hell.

 

[Abogado del Diablo]

Also Philipp. 1:29:

"For to you it has been granted on behalf of Christ, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake"

 

[JJM]

How do you know God can't lie, or we can't misunderstand, or (quite possible) someone wrote a story in which chirst says this when it didn't actually happen?


There's no evidence of that.

Ok obviously we don't know that this isn't just made up. We do have to trust that this is a legitimate quote from Christ. All religions require some faith. Obviously we don't know but if you don't trust any scripture nor the teachings of any church then you have nothing to go on with Christianity. SO yes I'm assuming that this is legitimate. Now how do I know that God can't lie?

Heb 6:18

That by two immutable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we may have the strongest comfort, we who have fled for refuge to hold fast the hope set before us.

That is how I know God can't lie. The second reason the Old and New Testament constantly talk about how lying is a sin. God can't sin. Because God decides what sin is so if he did it, it wouldn't be a sin. SO God doesn't lie.





Matthew 16:18

And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Now it is possible that I have misunderstood this but to my understanding this says Christ founded a church and that the gates of Hell will not prevail against it. Therefore it must always have existed. This is a given and however because if the church was corrupted Hell would gain the upper hand this must mean that the church won't be corrupted. That is my evidence. now if I'm misinterpreting this how is it meant to be interpreted.

Why? Isn't "Free Will" an aspect of christianity? Couldn't everyone choose not to be a part of "that Church" or decide they prefer "false doctrine"? Then there wouldn't be a church even if christianity were "true".

Because the above quote says so and God can't lie. Of course free will is part of Christianity. However it is by the grace of the Holy Spirit that that false doctrine is not defined. Also even if everyone could leave the church Christ being God would have known whether or not that was going to happen before making such a statement.

Huh!? Shall I build a bridge out of it?


I'm sorry. I still have no idea what you are talking about here.

Only three churches claim to be the original church and infallible. Those are the two things needed to qualify for the Church Christ actually founded. They are the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox churches. Does this make sense now?

I don't see anything about heaven or hell there. I do see "come to the knowledge of the truth" though.

1 timothy 2:3-4
3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth

That means he wants all people to be saved.

How do you know what it's purpose is? It sure seems like it's based on fear. Even Mary, the Mother of Jesus is reported to have said it's based on fear. Simon Peter supposedly said it was still a requirement, too.

Please show me this. The fear of God is not a fear of what he can do to you but a sign of Respect for his power. And also saying that I do what he wills because those who sin have no fear or respect for God’s truth and laws.

No they don't. Faith is a gift from God so that no man can boast (you said so yourself). God must choose to give some humans no faith and send them to hell. What is hell, anyway? And how do you know that?

Hell is a place for those who have turned their back on God and hate him and his ways. SO yes people do chooses Hell. I will get into the faith thing when I reply to your next post.

What is "sin" according to Paul?

Ro 6:23
For the wages of sin is death. But the grace of God, life everlasting in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Hell is the eternal Death. however I don't see what sin is could you show me.

Not possible. Sorry.

Listen you said there was radical differences between what Christianity is and what you think it is supposed to be. Why won't you just tell what they are and stop being so stubborn?

 

[JJM]

Whoops, I read your post wrong. That'll teach me to write at 5 am!

Ephesians 2:8: "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God-- 9not by works, so that no one can boast. 10For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do."

Or the NKJV: "8For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God,"

Faith is a gift of God's grace. This makes sense with the literalist christian tradition. The faith we're talking about is faith in the historical reality that Jesus Christ was God made flesh who died for our sins. Obviously, ancient aboriginal americans and New Zealanders never even heard the story of Jesus. So faith is indeed a gift of being born at the right place and time, at the very least. The rest were created for the purpose of sending them to hell.

Ephesians 2:7-9
That he might shew in the ages to come the abundant riches of his grace, in his bounty towards us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you are saved through faith: and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God. Not of works, that no man may glory

This is clearly saying that it is grace that is the gift God gives. If God gave faith then it is possible that God would refuse salvation to some. However from his quote above we know that he wants all people to enter heaven. SO that must be wrong. This quote is saying that no matter how much faith we do not have nor how many good works we do we will never deserve Salvation and that Saving Grace is God's gift. However faith is something we have to have on our own that we must be open to. And grace is something God wishes to bestow on everyone who will have it.

 

[JJM]

Also Philipp. 1:29:

"For to you it has been granted on behalf of Christ, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake"

Philipp. 1:28-29

28 And in nothing be ye terrified by the adversaries: which to them is a cause of perdition, but to you of salvation, and this from God. 29 For unto you it is given for Christ, not only to believe in him, but also to suffer for him:

if you read the verse above you see that it refers to salvation so it is salvation a.k.a. saving grace that is the gift from God not faith.

 

[Abogado del Diablo]

Ephesians 2:7-9
That he might shew in the ages to come the abundant riches of his grace, in his bounty towards us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you are saved through faith: and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God. Not of works, that no man may glory

This is clearly saying that it is grace that is the gift God gives. If God gave faith then it is possible that God would refuse salvation to some. However from his quote above we know that he wants all people to enter heaven. SO that must be wrong. This quote is saying that no matter how much faith we do not have nor how many good works we do we will never deserve Salvation and that Saving Grace is God's gift. However faith is something we have to have on our own that we must be open to. And grace is something God wishes to bestow on everyone who will have it.

It is absolutely NOT saying that. Nobody would think that "Grace" would come from one's self. The clause "not of yourselves" would be nonsense if it referred to "grace." It refers to the noun that precedes it - "Faith". Which in turn is a gift of God's grace. Be careful to look objectively at this. The predisposition is to twist simple language into difficult language to make it fit with a theological preference. But it says what it says.

 

[Abogado del Diablo]

Ok obviously we don't know that this isn't just made up. We do have to trust that this is a legitimate quote from Christ. All religions require some faith. Obviously we don't know but if you don't trust any scripture nor the teachings of any church then you have nothing to go on with Christianity.

Oh, but I absolutely do. It makes more sense to me now than when I "believed" in heaven and hell and "sin" and whatnot. You just have to be able to hear it. He who has ears to hear, let him hear.

SO yes I'm assuming that this is legitimate. Now how do I know that God can't lie?

Heb 6:18

That by two immutable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we may have the strongest comfort, we who have fled for refuge to hold fast the hope set before us.

Circular logic. You can't justify the credibility of a source by quoting from the source. For example, how do we know scripture is the word of god? Because it says "all scripture is God breathed?" Yeah, but's that in the very scripture we're talking about. Get it?

The second reason the Old and New Testament constantly talk about how lying is a sin.

God can't sin.

I would think "god" can do whatever "god" wants to do.

Because God decides what sin is so if he did it, it wouldn't be a sin. SO God doesn't lie.

Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premises.

Now it is possible that I have misunderstood this but to my understanding this says Christ founded a church and that the gates of Hell will not prevail against it. Therefore it must always have existed. This is a given and however because if the church was corrupted Hell would gain the upper hand this must mean that the church won't be corrupted. That is my evidence. now if I'm misinterpreting this how is it meant to be interpreted.

I'm really sorry, but this still makes no sense to me.

Because the above quote says so and God can't lie. Of course free will is part of Christianity. However it is by the grace of the Holy Spirit that that false doctrine is not defined. Also even if everyone could leave the church Christ being God would have known whether or not that was going to happen before making such a statement.

Unless he didn't make the statement, of course. And, of course, god can lie unless he isn't omnipotent.

1 timothy 2:3-4

3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth

That means he wants all people to be saved.

But it doesn't say anything about heaven or hell, which was the original inquiry. Where do you get the idea that "saved" means going to heaven v. eternal damnation in hell?

Please show me this. The fear of God is not a fear of what he can do to you but a sign of Respect for his power.

You say "tom-ae-tow" and I say "taw-maw-tow". Same thing.

And also saying that I do what he wills because those who sin have no fear or respect for God’s truth and laws.

Do you sin?

Hell is a place for those who have turned their back on God and hate him and his ways. SO yes people do chooses Hell. I will get into the faith thing when I reply to your next post.

Turning your back on God is turning your back on the sacrifice made by Jesus. Yes?

Ro 6:23
For the wages of sin is death. But the grace of God, life everlasting in Christ Jesus our Lord.

That doesn't say what Paul thinks sin is. It's also horribly out of context. I suggest you carefully read the entire book of Romans. You may find that passage does NOT mean what you've been taught it means.

Hell is the eternal Death. however I don't see what sin is could you show me.

Do you sin?

Listen you said there was radical differences between what Christianity is

and what you think it is supposed to be. Why won't you just tell what they are and stop being so stubborn?

I am telling you. I am quite serious that if your goal is to find ways to keep your faith, you can't hear what I have to say.