Paul vs. Jesus...the grudge match...

Thomas, I so love it when you tell me what I think. What would I do without you?

I am not saying Jesus was the same as you or I. Far from it. He realized his divinity, his oneness with all. He grokked it. We can't hardly imagine it.

What's left? The glory that is, salvation knowing you don't have to do any song and dance, personal responsibility reigns, you are in control of your life, your elder brother has shown you the way, without any intermediaries you can choose to strive toward that self same path, or hell, you can choose to be a good person and experience this plane of existence to its fullest!

What's left? The smell of fresh mown hay, the sound of a baby's first cry, the warmth of your partner laying next to you in bed, the earth floating in space in such a manner that as it rotates we can watch glorious sunsets and sunrises.....what more miracles do you want?

We are in an amazing technological time, kids getting married today....their kids may never learn how to drive....never take a driving test...they'll be riding in automatic cars....power will be generated from space and beamed to third world nations allowing them to catch up...books and knowledge will be available to all...

We are living in the most peaceful time this earth has ever recorded in history, personal freedoms, awareness and consciousness of our fellow travelors on this planet is expanding how our actions affect the rest of us is becoming so apparent that quite soon oneness will be obvious to all as well.

I'm sorry that you feel that this pulls the rug out from under your house of cards...ya gotta break some eggs to make that omelette...and it is worth it.
 
wil said:
I'm sorry that you feel that this pulls the rug out from under your house of cards...
Click to expand...
Sorry Wil, but I fail to see what your sentimental musings have to do with Jesus and Paul? Or me, for that matter ... did you zone out there for a minute? :cool:
 
Thomas wrote:
It's Paul's writings that open up the mystical and spiritual dimension of the teaching. It's from Paul that the language and lexicon derives.
It's Paul who insists that if we discard the very stuff you insist should be discarded, then we're left with nothing at all, but hope in vain ...
Without Paul I would have said your best bet was to buy "The Imitation of Christ" by Thomas a Kempis, but I know that certainly won't be to your taste.
And yet, without Paul, I cannot fathom what hope you find in the idea of Jesus at all.

Dear Thomas,
Why don't you just come out and say you love the message of Paul, and don't think so much of the testimony of Yeshua.
Yeshua taught that the gate is wide and the way is broad to destruction, and many find it. (Mt 7:13) Whereas with Paul, you feel that all one needs to do is "call on the name of the Lord", to be saved. (Romans 10:13) Not that Paul explains what that "name" is, or when, or from who you are being saved, and his explanation of his copied verse, does not match up with the circumstances of the source material.
Yeshua taught that all will be judged according to their deeds (Rev 22:11-15), whereas Paul taught that indeed he wasn't responsible for the evil he practiced, but the evil that dwells within him did it. I think it was the same story Bill Clinton came up with after talking with his confessor, also a follower of Paul. (Romans 7:16-19)
I think this is the case of those of the light are attracted to the light, and those of the dark, are attracted to the dark. In your case, you are attracted to the self professed apostle Paul. (John 5:31)(Is 3:12) (1 John 5:2)(1 John 3:4)(Mt 7:24)(Ecc 12:13) Keep in mind that the "false prophet" had gained eternal life, and therefore will be "tormented day and night forever and ever" (Rev 20:10) For those choosing the wrong path, fortunately, they will experience the second death, and be spared such a long term punishment. (Rev 20:12-15) There are two gospels, the gospel of Paul, which is his gospel of "Grace", and the gospel of Yeshua, which is of the kingdom of God. They are not the same gospel. One is a wide path, and many find it, and the other is narrow, and few that find it. (Mt 7:14)
 
2ndpillar said:
Thomas wrote:
It's Paul's writings that open up the mystical and spiritual dimension of the teaching. It's from Paul that the language and lexicon derives.
It's Paul who insists that if we discard the very stuff you insist should be discarded, then we're left with nothing at all, but hope in vain ...
Without Paul I would have said your best bet was to buy "The Imitation of Christ" by Thomas a Kempis, but I know that certainly won't be to your taste.
And yet, without Paul, I cannot fathom what hope you find in the idea of Jesus at all.

Dear Thomas,
Why don't you just come out and say you love the message of Paul, and don't think so much of the testimony of Yeshua.
Yeshua taught that the gate is wide and the way is broad to destruction, and many find it. (Mt 7:13) Whereas with Paul, you feel that all one needs to do is "call on the name of the Lord", to be saved. (Romans 10:13) Not that Paul explains what that "name" is, or when, or from who you are being saved, and his explanation of his copied verse, does not match up with the circumstances of the source material.
Yeshua taught that all will be judged according to their deeds (Rev 22:11-15), whereas Paul taught that indeed he wasn't responsible for the evil he practiced, but the evil that dwells within him did it. I think it was the same story Bill Clinton came up with after talking with his confessor, also a follower of Paul. (Romans 7:16-19)
I think this is the case of those of the light are attracted to the light, and those of the dark, are attracted to the dark. In your case, you are attracted to the self professed apostle Paul. (John 5:31)(Is 3:12) (1 John 5:2)(1 John 3:4)(Mt 7:24)(Ecc 12:13) Keep in mind that the "false prophet" had gained eternal life, and therefore will be "tormented day and night forever and ever" (Rev 20:10) For those choosing the wrong path, fortunately, they will experience the second death, and be spared such a long term punishment. (Rev 20:12-15) There are two gospels, the gospel of Paul, which is his gospel of "Grace", and the gospel of Yeshua, which is of the kingdom of God. They are not the same gospel. One is a wide path, and many find it, and the other is narrow, and few that find it. (Mt 7:14)
Click to expand...
Its interpretation that is the problem not what is written. How do you reason what is said. If you reason it properly it wont contradict itself. You have to put on a divine mind to do this.
 
2ndpillar said:
Why don't you just come out and say you love the message of Paul, and don't think so much of the testimony of Yeshua.
Click to expand...
Well to understand my comments you'd have to be aware of my ongoing dialogue with Wil.

But to put you at ease, the message of Paul is his testimony of Our Lord, the letters are his Gospel. Without Our Lord, there is no Paul. He speaks that which was made known to him that we might know.

2ndpillar said:
Yeshua taught that the gate is wide and the way is broad to destruction, and many find it. (Mt 7:13) Whereas with Paul, you feel that all one needs to do is "call on the name of the Lord", to be saved.
Click to expand...
Paul's teachings in no way contradict the teachings of Our Lord. You may see discrepancies and contradictions. I would suggest you are wrong.

There is only one Lord, one Path, one Way, one Body.

The New Testament is itself a Sacrament, a Mystery, a seamless weave of texts. It is common practice here to seek to find difference and contradiction in the texts, but really this is the desire to make the text fit one's own understanding – rather than "be transformed by the renewal of your mind" (Romans 12:2) there is the desire to cast Christ according to the self, A Christ "conformed to this world".

The desire to make Christ the exemplar of our own ideas is always there: "They have parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture they have cast lots" (Psalm 22:18).

To me Paul always speaks in the Spirit of God "not in the learned words of human wisdom; but in the doctrine of the Spirit, comparing spiritual things with spiritual" (1 Corinthians 2:13).
 
Thomas wrote:
To me Paul always speaks in the Spirit of God "not in the learned words of human wisdom; but in the doctrine of the Spirit, comparing spiritual things with spiritual" (1 Corinthians 2:13).

Dear Thomas,
You quote an epistle of Paul, in which Paul presents himself as an apostle, and in which Paul elevates himself to have the "mind of Christ". The problem with this starts with the testimony of Yeshua in John 5:31, "If I alone bear witness of myself, my testimony is not true", which is simply a reference to Dt 19:15, and Mt 18:16. Combine this with Is 8:20, "To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because they have no dawn". Paul, whose name translates into "least", teaches to negate the law which Yeshua foretold that anyone who tries to annul any of the law, they would be called "least" by those in the kingdom of God.
The "Christian" church is built on the foundation of the writings of Paul, and yet the fruit is rotten, and this is how Yeshua taught one is to judge false prophets who are "ravenous wolfs" in sheep's clothing. (Mt 7:15-19) Paul is of the tribe of Benjamin, which is prophecised to be a "ravenous wolf" Gen 49:27. Yeshua said that although they worked miracles and cast out demons, "Depart from me, you who practice lawlessness"
These are just a part of the signs set to unmask the "false prophets", yet because of tradition, based from the actions of the Roman State, stemming from Constantine's establishing the Roman church in 325 A.D. at Nicea, you somehow discount the burning and murder taken to implement these man made traditions. The fruit remains rotten to this day.
I don't know, but I think you are on thin ice.
 
2ndpillar said:
The problem with this starts with the testimony of Yeshua in John 5:31, "If I alone bear witness of myself, my testimony is not true"...
Click to expand...
Is that a problem for you?
"The spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, nor knoweth him: but you shall know him; because he shall abide with you, and shall be in you" (John 14:17).

"But when the Paraclete cometh, whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceedeth from the Father, he shall give testimony of me" (John 15:26).

I would suggest that once you start picking and choosing what bits of Scripture you like, and what bits aren't to you're taste, you've lost touch with the living text.

As for your view of the role Constantine played in the Church, it's too simplistic and plays too much to the anti-orthodox agenda.
 
Thomas said:
Is that a problem for you?
"The spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, nor knoweth him: but you shall know him; because he shall abide with you, and shall be in you" (John 14:17).

"But when the Paraclete cometh, whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceedeth from the Father, he shall give testimony of me" (John 15:26).

I would suggest that once you start picking and choosing what bits of Scripture you like, and what bits aren't to you're taste, you've lost touch with the living text.

As for your view of the role Constantine played in the Church, it's too simplistic and plays too much to the anti-orthodox agenda.
Click to expand...
You know everyone always makes it soooo complicated. God is love . Its as simple as that. All the things that come from love is what god is and does. Compassion, kindness ect. The gospel and the truth is all based on these facts. There is no other true gospel.
 
Donna wrote: You know everyone always makes it soooo complicated. God is love . Its as simple as that. All the things that come from love is what god is and does. Compassion, kindness ect. The gospel and the truth is all based on these facts. There is no other true gospel.

Dear Donna,
The problem with your personal view, is that it isn't substantiated. You have to define "love" in a Scriptural manner, such as Mt 22:37-40 "YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.' this is the great and foremost commandment. And the second is like it, 'YOU SHALL LOVE OUR NEIGHBOR AS OURSELF'. Which is to say you should do unto your neighbor as you would have him do to you.
1 John 5:3, "For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments;"

As for you "compassion, kindness ect.", you need to define "etc". For the Scriptures describes what God wants, and it is kindness and justice. Your false gospel of "Grace" neatly excludes "justice". You seem slow in acknowledging the God requires "justice" and faithfulness as well as kindness. (Mt 23:23)
 
2ndpillar said:
Donna wrote: You know everyone always makes it soooo complicated. God is love . Its as simple as that. All the things that come from love is what god is and does. Compassion, kindness ect. The gospel and the truth is all based on these facts. There is no other true gospel.

Dear Donna,
The problem with your personal view, is that it isn't substantiated. You have to define "love" in a Scriptural manner, such as Mt 22:37-40 "YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.' this is the great and foremost commandment. And the second is like it, 'YOU SHALL LOVE OUR NEIGHBOR AS OURSELF'. Which is to say you should do unto your neighbor as you would have him do to you.
1 John 5:3, "For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments;"

As for you "compassion, kindness ect.", you need to define "etc". For the Scriptures describes what God wants, and it is kindness and justice. Your false gospel of "Grace" neatly excludes "justice". You seem slow in acknowledging the God requires "justice" and faithfulness as well as kindness. (Mt 23:23)
Click to expand...
I don't think anyone needs to define love. We all have that emotion and know what it feels like. There may be different kind of love like the love of a child is one kind while the love for a husband or wife is another kind of love. God is love literally. His mind his soul and his body. anything that contradicts what god is will not be true. It would be of the devil.
 
Got to agree with Kevin007 (hello) —

I thought Paul got over his 'grudge match' on the road to Damascus?

(And you can't play Our Lord at that game, He doesn't hold 'grudges'.)
 
2ndpillar...you still haven't demonstrated in any respect how Christianity is improved with the removal of Paul.

What you have shown is wanton destruction of others' moral teachings, as well as relying on teachings of MEN and some rather fast and loose interpretation of anti-Christ and finger pointing. Who...pray tell...is the Destroyer?

Paul was just a man. He lived in extraordinary times and did his best to promote *in practical terms* a newfound philosophy of "Love G-d" *in combination with* "Love thy neighbor as thyself." Where I see some men misinterpret and get carried, is that Paul tells us plainly in the beginnings of so many of his letters, things like that he is writing as a man what he believes to be right under the circumstances, but that in all regards his words are not those of G-d...they are guidelines. MEN *since* insist on turning *their interpretations* of Paul's words into some Divine Psychobabble...that's not Paul, nor is it Paul's fault! Paul has the unenviable position of being damned if he does and damned if he doesn't, so he just tells it like it is...if you strip away all the mystical nonsense men attach afterwards.

Is Paul Jesus? No. Is Jesus Paul? No. The two men teach in very different ways. But their teachings do align for the most part. I suspect you probably deify Jesus...else why the vilification of Paul? No other reason makes sense. Trouble is...Jesus was just a man too. And if you *really* want to go into Constantine, I'm right there! I'll be more than happy to show you another dissertation...mine!

I suggest the shortcomings you find are as much faulty interpretations of other men...no doubt including various Popes and other church fathers every bit as much as Martin Luthur, John Wesley, John Knox and many, many others. Even the guys that hit home runs strike out once in awhile.

I know where you are coming from. I've been there, I stood on the brink. I realized it is not the path of Love. G-d is Love. Anything that is not of Love is not of G-d. Consider that deeply if you are still able, and I pray you are.
 
Here's a link to the lengthy thread dealing with the FACTS surrounding Constantine and Nicea:

http://www.interfaith.org/forum/rome-in-transition-8875.html

It still makes zero sense, that an Anti-Christ would promote the Christian faith. Rather, it seems counter-intuitive but still plausible that a Pagan should promote Christianity *in the face of* long standing traditional Paganism as political favors owed for services rendered to those who fought his battles for him, helping him defeat 3 different contenders for the Roman throne.

As for murdering his wife and son...his "wife" falsely accused his son of raping her, so he dealt with his son harshly. When he learned of the lie, he had that wife executed. The damage had already been done.

His mother was a Christian, his father was an Emperor over Britain that was lenient towards (British!) Christians at a time when the rest of the Empire was persecuting Christians fiercely. Constantine, as a Pagan, could have chosen to administer his leadership either way, yet chose to defend Christians and restore their lands and resources when he had no reason (other than political "thank yous" to his army) for doing so. His mother went on pilgrimage and "found" various sites sacred to Christianity and Constantine made them Holy Sites (which is why so much of the Holy Land remains Christian today).

You are wielding a double edged sword, and you don't know what you hold in your hands. You are slashing the good as well as the bad. Be careful.
 
juantoo3 said:
Here's a link to the lengthy thread dealing with the FACTS surrounding Constantine and Nicea:

http://www.interfaith.org/forum/rome-in-transition-8875.html

It still makes zero sense, that an Anti-Christ would promote the Christian faith. Rather, it seems counter-intuitive but still plausible that a Pagan should promote Christianity *in the face of* long standing traditional Paganism as political favors owed for services rendered to those who fought his battles for him, helping him defeat 3 different contenders for the Roman throne.

As for murdering his wife and son...his "wife" falsely accused his son of raping her, so he dealt with his son harshly. When he learned of the lie, he had that wife executed. The damage had already been done.

His mother was a Christian, his father was an Emperor over Britain that was lenient towards (British!) Christians at a time when the rest of the Empire was persecuting Christians fiercely. Constantine, as a Pagan, could have chosen to administer his leadership either way, yet chose to defend Christians and restore their lands and resources when he had no reason (other than political "thank yous" to his army) for doing so. His mother went on pilgrimage and "found" various sites sacred to Christianity and Constantine made them Holy Sites (which is why so much of the Holy Land remains Christian today).

You are wielding a double edged sword, and you don't know what you hold in your hands. You are slashing the good as well as the bad. Be careful.
Click to expand...

Dear Juan,
I guess it is too early in the day, but I don't get your point. I am only pulling up the tares, the fact that some wheat is disturbed should not bother the wheat heads which are mature.(Mt 13:39) A sign of the "end of the age" is that the tares (sons of the evil one) will be pulled.

As for Constantine being the Anti-Christ, I haven't named anyone as an anti-Christ. Per Dt 19:15, Mt 18:16, and even your beloved Paul in 2 Cor 13:1, the existence of an anti-Christ is unsubstantiated. It only seems reasonable that the "ravenous wolf" would pretend to be a lamb, and acknowledge "Jesus Christ. (1 john 2:22) That would hold for the beast with two horns like a lamb. Especially when "the two horns like a lamb" are Peter and Paul.

Constantine would be the beast with two horns like a lamb (Rev 13:11) who was to deceive those "who dwell on the earth". Constantine would also be defined as the 7th head of the beast of Rev 17:10, "the other has not yet come". We are now in the time of the beast which was and is not, is himself also an eighth," and he has 10 horns, and like Constantine, has an affiliation with Rome. In Daniel 2, Rome would now be a weakened combination of iron and clay. Constantine would be the king of Daniel 7:24-25 who "will intend to make alterations in Times and Laws". Constantine changed the day of rest to the Sunday, the "day of the sun" in 321 A.D. His decree of 331 A.D. sentenced anyone to death for having writings for Arius, which questioned the deity of Yeshua, and holding on to the Commandments of God, of there being one God, versus the traditions of men.

The "Christian" faith has little to with the testimony of Yeshua, and effectively, nails his testimony to the cross.

As for a two edge sword, I don't get your drift. The "Word", combined with the Spirit of God, is the sword of God. The words, without the Spirit of Truth, has no edges. What is the "Truth" you are trying to convey? I already knew that Constantine killed his wife and son, and probably for the reason that he felt his son and wife were a risk for usurping his position of power, and had little to do with any personal transgressions of the son or mother.

As for choosing "Christianity", it had nothing to do with his convictions, he honored Sol Invictus, the sun god for his military victory, and fought under the sun god's sign of the cross from thence forward. His coins were dedicated to "Sol Invictus". His memorial, in the square of Constantine, was a statue to Apollo, the sun god, who was the "dragon" of Rev 13:4, who gave his "authority" to the beast, of which Rome is represented by the last 4 heads. The "Christian" church is simply a daughter of the woman who sat on the beast.(Rev 17:3) She drew on their power, and gave them standing among the people.

Constantine was a momma's boy, and his choice of unifying the empire under "Christianity" was more a homage to his mother than a point of conviction. He had no convictions, other that to unify the power of Rome, and to cover his bets, to be baptized into the church on his death bed. The problem being that is that one must seek God while He may be found, and waiting to the last minute is a little late. (Is 55:6)

Feel free to make yourself plain. The one who listens is God himself, and make sure you don't bring judgment on yourself, for the "Word" is actually a two edged sword. As for making judgments on self professed apostles, Yeshua has already made himself clear. (Rev 2:2 , John 5:31)
 
I will be plain.

What you write is so full of leaps of faith and rushes to judgment as to be incoherent at times. You see what you want to see and disregard anything that doesn't agree with your pre-determined outcome. That is not scholarship.

As long as you already know everything, there is nothing left for you to learn.

One bold truth I have learned over the years is that the more I learn, the less I know. Until you learn that lesson, you cannot progress. Until you learn that lesson, you will remain in judgment (and jury, and executioner) of everyone else. You will remain a Destroyer, and not a Builder.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Don't be a bulldozer in a flower garden.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top