By the way -- if you claim to be a Christian...

[YoursTrue]

"how shall they believe in him whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?.....​

​

But I say, Did they not hear? Yea, verily, Their sound went out into all the earth,​

And their words unto the ends of the world.​

As you can see here, Paul was clearly teaching that they understood without the need for preachers or Bibles. What if they are illiterate and can't read? Too bad for them? Off to hell with you because you can't read the Bible! You can't believe that, do you?

First of all, what's hell? And let's remember that even Jesus went to the synagogue and read out loud from the scrolls. He understood it and explained it. So did Paul. Also remember that people were killed for daring to read the Bible.

 

[YoursTrue]

"how shall they believe in him whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?.....​

​

But I say, Did they not hear? Yea, verily, Their sound went out into all the earth,​

And their words unto the ends of the world.​

As you can see here, Paul was clearly teaching that they understood without the need for preachers or Bibles. What if they are illiterate and can't read? Too bad for them? Off to hell with you because you can't read the Bible! You can't believe that, do you?

Paul was the preacher, wasn't he? And what was he trying to explain? It helps to be able to read but it is not always possible. Babies, for instance, cannot read, neither can illiterate older ones. Or those who are blind. So it is not a requirement but then. .who can explain it properly? There are many divisions among religions.

 

[2ndpillar]

Anyway, the question comes in as to what is lawlessness.

Lawlessness is the consequence of the seed (message) planted by the "enemy"/"devil" (Mt 13:24-25), which would be the false gospel of grace, the same message given by the "serpent" in Genesis 3:4, whereas you "surely shall not die if you" don't keep the Commandments, Law, given to you by God, and simply nail God's Law (Commandments) to a cross.

 

[Windwalker]

Paul was the preacher, wasn't he? And what was he trying to explain? It helps to be able to read but it is not always possible. Babies, for instance, cannot read, neither can illiterate older ones. Or those who are blind. So it is not a requirement but then. .who can explain it properly? There are many divisions among religions.

So then, the only requirement to being a Christian is to follow Jesus. Not to read or know the Bible. Correct?

 

[2ndpillar]

First of all, what's hell? And let's remember that even Jesus went to the synagogue and read out loud from the scrolls. He understood it and explained it. So did Paul. Also remember that people were killed for daring to read the Bible.

Paul's followers, who follow Paul's message, have nailed the law to the cross, and observed it as being "obsolete" and "passing away". Apparently, Paul of Zech 11:7-10 did not know that he was the "enemy" of Matthew 13:25, but apparently his fellow "shepherd", the "devil" filled Judas Iscariot (Zech 11:12-13) was identified per Matthew 27:9-10. I missed the history lesson where people were killed for daring to read the bible. People were under the decree of the Roman emperor Constantine, that if they read anything written by Arius, that they would be subject to execution, and in my day, the 1950s, the Catholic church discouraged the plebians from reading the bible on their own, but there was no sentence of death. After Luther and the printing press, I don't see how that could be brought about, excluding being killed for their supposedly wrongful beliefs, such as was done by the Roman Catholic church with respect to the Inquisition. Paul would take a word or two out of context and try and make a narrative, much like is done with the White House and its misfits of today, and then try and present his version of truth as that of God, whereas today's White House and their coconspirators consider themselves gods in the image written by Marx.

 

[2ndpillar]

So then, the only requirement to being a Christian is to follow Jesus. Not to read or know the Bible. Correct?

YoursTrue said:
Paul was the preacher, wasn't he? And what was he trying to explain? It helps to be able to read but it is not always possible. Babies, for instance, cannot read, neither can illiterate older ones. Or those who are blind. So it is not a requirement but then. .who can explain it properly? There are many divisions among religions.

Paul is an "apostle" in his own eyes, but apparently the Ephesians didn't agree (Rev 2:2). As for the blind and illiterate, I think that hearing the Word would be adequate, and "understanding" would come by the "anointing" (1 John 2:27). As for little children, they are not under judgment, and in general do not have hardened hearts. Your 367 A.D. NT canon, a combination of the "message" of the "enemy" and the "message" of the son of man (Mt 13:24-25) is a product of the daughters of Babylon and is rife with abominations (Rev 17:5).

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sure it does you just do not believe it. Romans 14:23 says ... whatsoever is not of faith in sin. Romans 10:17 says faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God while 2 Timothy 3:15-16 says that the scriptures are the inspired Word of God. Therefore unbelief in Gods Word is sin according to the scriptures.

You are not taking any of those in context and you are twisting them. For example the verse from 2 Timothy refutes your claim if you understand it. But then you are probably a Bible literalist and they can rarely understand the Bible. If you try to read the Bible literally you only refute it, if you are honest.

 

[YoursTrue]

So then, the only requirement to being a Christian is to follow Jesus. Not to read or know the Bible. Correct?

Remember what Jesus said, It means everlasting life to KNOW Him and His Father -- (John 17:3) So to know someone is to know them, right? So if a person can't read, let me know how you think they will learn about Jesus and his Father.

 

[YoursTrue]

YoursTrue said:
Paul was the preacher, wasn't he? And what was he trying to explain? It helps to be able to read but it is not always possible. Babies, for instance, cannot read, neither can illiterate older ones. Or those who are blind. So it is not a requirement but then. .who can explain it properly? There are many divisions among religions.

Paul is an "apostle" in his own eyes, but apparently the Ephesians didn't agree (Rev 2:2). As for the blind and illiterate, I think that hearing the Word would be adequate, and "understanding" would come by the "anointing" (1 John 2:27). As for little children, they are not under judgment, and in general do not have hardened hearts. Your 367 A.D. NT canon, a combination of the "message" of the "enemy" and the "message" of the son of man (Mt 13:24-25) is a product of the daughters of Babylon and is rife with abominations (Rev 17:5).

There were certainly disputes and disagreements and quite wonderfully for us, these have been written down so we can learn and appreciate these things. Nevertheless, the word went out about Jesus to the nations. (Beyond the Jews.)

 

[Brickjectivity]

Not at all. Your post was long and not easy to follow. You think the prophets were poetry. We can talk about that...since you said it, were they making things up? Like poetic things, you think? Also, which prophets are you speaking about that wrote poetry?

You asked for our opinions. I took the time to give mine, and you didn't have to say anything but what you said was 'Whatever'. I suppose if I were to think like you then that is a sample of the amazing spiritual qualities I would obtain. We can avoid further conversation about my post.

 

[YoursTrue]

Paul is an "apostle" in his own eyes, but apparently the Ephesians didn't agree (Rev 2:2). As for the blind and illiterate, I think that hearing the Word would be adequate, and "understanding" would come by the "anointing" (1 John 2:27). As for little children, they are not under judgment, and in general do not have hardened hearts. Your 367 A.D. NT canon, a combination of the "message" of the "enemy" and the "message" of the son of man (Mt 13:24-25) is a product of the daughters of Babylon and is rife with abominations (Rev 17:5).

Those scriptures do not say that Paul is not an apostle. I do not see that the scriptures denote he was not an apostle, or one sent forth. The word apostle means “one sent forth." It is used of Jesus and certain ones who were sent to serve others. Mostly it is used in reference to the 12 disciples that Jesus personally selected to be with him. The apostle Paul came to be a follower and preacher of Christ after he died and was resurrected. Yet he was one sent forth and approved by Christ.

 

[YoursTrue]

You asked for our opinions. I took the time to give mine, and you didn't have to say anything but what you said was 'Whatever'. I suppose if I were to think like you then that is a sample of the amazing spiritual qualities I would obtain. We can avoid further conversation about my post.

I apologize. I misunderstood. Sorry about that.

 

[2ndpillar]

Those scriptures do not say that Paul is not an apostle. I do not see that the scriptures denote he was not an apostle, or one sent forth. The word apostle means “one sent forth." It is used of Jesus and certain ones who were sent to serve others. Mostly it is used in reference to the 12 disciples that Jesus personally selected to be with him. The apostle Paul came to be a follower and preacher of Christ after he died and was resurrected. Yet he was one sent forth and approved by Christ.

Almost everyone of Paul's epistles start with him saying he is an apostle. Ephesians 1:1: "Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus". As for Revelation 2:2, it states that not all in Ephesian were fooled by those that came to their town and called themselves "apostles", which would point to Paul. As for Zechariah 11:10, it is in respect to the "shepherd" Paul, who was chosen in the same "month"/generation as Judas Iscariot as noted in both Zech 11:12-13 & Matthew 27:9-10, along with the "worthless shepherd", Peter, in Zech 11:16-17, who would not feed, care or tend the sheep, and who would abandon them, as in go to Rome and play the fiddle with Nero. Matthew 7:15-23 describes Paul flawlessly as a "false prophet". According to Paul, he was sent by Christ after a meeting in the wilderness. According to Yeshua, if someone says they met me in a wilderness, do not believe them (Mt 24:26). Yeshua also said any self witness account is not true (John 5:31). Not even the "worthless shepherd" Peter, called Paul an apostle. And they were brother "shepherds" chosen by the "LORD" to "pasture" the "flock (Gentile church) doomed for slaughter) (Zech 11:7), which will happen "in that day" (Isaiah 22:25) (Rev 18:21) (Mt 7:27). I think you are betting on a bad hand. Know when to fold.


New American Standard Bible John 5:31
“If I alone testify about Myself, My testimony is not true.

 

[3rdAngel]

Sure it does you just do not believe it. Romans 14:23 says ... whatsoever is not of faith in sin. Romans 10:17 says faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God while 2 Timothy 3:15-16 says that the scriptures are the inspired Word of God. Therefore unbelief in Gods Word is sin according to the scriptures.

Again here...

Sure it does (see my last post to you). Unbelief is sin. Those who practice known unrepentant sin do not enter into Gods kingdom according to the scriptures (see John 3:36; Hebrews 10:26-31).

Your response here...

You are not taking any of those in context and you are twisting them. For example the verse from 2 Timothy refutes your claim if you understand it. But then you are probably a Bible literalist and they can rarely understand the Bible. If you try to read the Bible literally you only refute it, if you are honest

Well that is not true. You were posted scripture word for word but you do not believe it. Prove to me how context changes the meaning of what is written in the scriptures shared with you that say; "Whatsoever is not of faith is sin" (Romans 14:23) and that saving faith comes by the Word of God (Romans 10:17) and that the scriptures are not the inspired Word of God (2 Timothy 3:15-16) that we are saved by? You are just refuting yourself because you are trying to justify unbelief which is sin according to the scriptures. So please forgive me but I do not believe you.

Take Care.

 

[2ndpillar]

There were certainly disputes and disagreements and quite wonderfully for us, these have been written down so we can learn and appreciate these things. Nevertheless, the word went out about Jesus to the nations. (Beyond the Jews.)

It went out as a result of the fulfilling of the Law and the prophets (Mt 5:17) per Hosea 3, whereas the Gentile church, the "adulteress" was bought for the equivalence of 30 shekels of silver, for "many days", until "Israel returns". As for you quoting the last part of the gospel of Matthew, that section was not in line with the oldest version. As for the "nations"/Gentiles who survive the "day of the LORD" the "day of distress" (Jer 16:19), they will confess "our fathers have inherited nothing but falsehood". Which is to say, you are up a creek without a paddle.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Again here...

Your response here...

Well that is not true. You were posted scripture word for word but you do not believe it. Prove to me how context changes the meaning of what is written in the scriptures shared with you that say; "Whatsoever is not of faith is sin" (Romans 14:23) and that saving faith comes by the Word of God (Romans 10:17) and that the scriptures are not the inspired Word of God (2 Timothy 3:15-16) that we are saved by? You are just refuting yourself because you are trying to justify unbelief which is sin according to the scriptures. So please forgive me but I do not believe you.

Take Care.

None of it supports your claim that the Bible needs to be read litrally.

Do you really believe that your God is a liar? I did not believe that when I was a Christian. Let's go over the 2 Timothy 3 15 -16 to start:

16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Nowhere in the passage does it imply that the Bible should be read literally. In fact it implies the opposite. Verses used for lessons often morality tales. They may be the story that God wants taught, but for the purpose of teaching a lesson. Not because it actually happened.

It is actually a rather vague verse too. Nowhere is the "word of God" defined in any of your posts. How do you know that the Bible is the "word of God"? The Bible as we know it was not formed until the fourth century. That was when it was decided which books tot keep and which ones to toss. If you are anti-Catholic that was well into the history of the Catholic Church that they decided what the Bible was. Are the Gospels "God word"? Why? Paul's work was written before them. Did he own a time machine?

 

[Windwalker]

Remember what Jesus said, It means everlasting life to KNOW Him and His Father -- (John 17:3) So to know someone is to know them, right? So if a person can't read, let me know how you think they will learn about Jesus and his Father.

You don't know God any other way than reading about him? Isn't that more simply just knowing about God, rather than knowing God? There is a difference between these. Reading about God is not the same thing as knowing God. I think what is important is actually knowing God, not just reading words about him.

 

[3rdAngel]

So I am gathering that is a no then. You are not able to support your accusation that context changes the meaning of the scriptures shared with you earlier. I did not think you could. That is why I challenged you to prove your claims. All you posted then are empty words you are unable to prove again. Thank you for proving my point.

None of it supports your claim that the Bible needs to be read litrally.

I posted scripture that supports what I was saying. It is scripture not my words that disagree with your words and claims that you are unable to prove that are not scripture. As posted earlier the scriptures (not me) say verbatim that "Whatsoever is not of faith is sin" (Romans 14:23) and that faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God (Romans 10:17) and that the scriptures are Gods inspired Word (2 Timothy 3:15-16). That is what scripture (not me) says verbatim disagreeing with you.

Do you really believe that your God is a liar?

No I posted scripture which is Gods Word not my words disagreeing with your words that are not Gods Word or scripture that is in disagreement with you. I believe the scriptures which is why I do not believe you. As it is written let Gods Word be true and and every man a liar (Romans 3:4)

I did not believe that when I was a Christian. Let's go over the 2 Timothy 3 15 -16 to start:

I believe it was because you did not believe the scriptures when you were a Christian that you are no longer a Christian now.

16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. Nowhere in the passage does it imply that the Bible should be read literally. In fact it implies the opposite. Verses used for lessons often morality tales. They may be the story that God wants taught, but for the purpose of teaching a lesson. Not because it actually happened.

Sorry dear friend I did not post that scripture to say that the whole bible needs to be read literally. 2 Timothy 3:16 was provided to show that scripture is inspired by God (Gods Word). 2 Timothy 3:15-17 15, And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16, All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17, That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

It is actually a rather vague verse too. Nowhere is the "word of God" defined in any of your posts.

Wrong. 2 Timothy 3:16 states word for word disagreeing with your words, word for word "All scripture is given by inspiration of God"

How do you know that the Bible is the "word of God"?

Because I know God and His Word. How do you know the bible is not the Word of God?

The Bible as we know it was not formed until the fourth century. That was when it was decided which books tot keep and which ones to toss. If you are anti-Catholic that was well into the history of the Catholic Church that they decided what the Bible was. Are the Gospels "God word"? Why? Paul's work was written before them. Did he own a time machine?

Wrong. The books and and manuscripts that make up the bible as we know it today have always been with Gods people Israel and then the Christian Church. It just not compiled.

Take Care.

 

[RestlessSoul]

What's your favorite moral precept original to Jesus, his most important contribution to moral theory in your estimation? Love one another is all well and good, but not original with Jesus. How about considering marrying a divorcee or finding somebody sexually attractive adultery? How about, "For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it." Be a eunuch might be original, but is it really a valuable contribution to moral theory?

If they followed those rules, people would be more manageable anyway, which I believe was the point. I see slave ethics there. Why do you suppose that Constantine made Christianity his state religion. I'm guessing Matthew 5. Those are words you tell somebody whom you intend to exploit but whom want to passively absorb it rather than rise up. Be meek, Be longsuffering. Love enemies. Turn the other cheek. Accept your present situation, for there will be a great reward after death if you do, a mansion of many rooms waiting for you where you will be an equal - unless you resist your enemies. That used to be called pie in the sky for obvious reasons.

"How can you have order in a state without religion? For, when one man is dying of hunger near another who is ill of surfeit, he cannot resign himself to this difference unless there is an authority which declares 'God wills it thus.' Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet." - Napoleon Bonaparte

I expect that you see both of those opinions negatively, but if you think they're wrong, please explain where and how, that is, falsify them if you can.

Opinions are not falsifiable, theories which make predictions are. I doubt anything I say could make you alter your opinion on religion; you seem so heavily entrenched.

Whilst it’s true that nominally Christian institutions throughout history have merited your negative characterisation, none of that has anything to do with Christ’s message of humility, love, mercy and compassion.

Today is Easter Sunday, so I’ll just wish you a happy Easter, and leave it at that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So I am gathering that is a no then. You are not able to support your accusation that context changes the meaning of the scriptures shared with you earlier. I did not think you could. That is why I challenged you to prove your claims. All you posted then are empty words you are unable to prove again. Thank you for proving my point.

I posted scripture that supports what I was saying. It is scripture not my words that disagree with your words and claims that you are unable to prove that are not scripture. As posted earlier the scriptures (not me) say verbatim that "Whatsoever is not of faith is sin" (Romans 14:23) and that faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God (Romans 10:17) and that the scriptures are Gods inspired Word (2 Timothy 3:15-16). That is what scripture (not me) says verbatim disagreeing with you.

But as I showed at least with Timothy you did not understand those verses. They do not support you. You are only assuming that they do.

No I posted scripture which is Gods Word not my words disagreeing with your words that are not Gods Word or scripture that is in disagreement with you. I believe the scriptures which is why I do not believe you. As it is written let Gods Word be true and and every man a liar (Romans 3:4)

No, you posted quotes from the Bible that you never demonstrated to be the word of God and then you misinterpreted it. And it is sad that you cannot believe an honest person yet you believe Liars for Jesus. That is probably due to the cult that you were born they gave you a weak faith. You are afraid to find out if your beliefs are valid or not.

I believe it was because you did not believe the scriptures when you were a Christian that you are no longer a Christian now.

That is untrue. Unlike you when I was a Christian I did not believe that God was a liar. So I knew that some of the works of the Bible could not be interpreted literally. I became an atheist because of all of the other failures of the Bible.

Sorry dear friend I did not post that scripture to say that the whole bible needs to be read literally. 2 Timothy 3:16 was provided to show that scripture is inspired by God (Gods Word). 2 Timothy 3:15-17 15, And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16, All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17, That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

Okay good. so you do not need to believe the myths of Genesis. You only have to realize that one can use them to teach morals.

Wrong. 2 Timothy 3:16 states word for word disagreeing with your words, word for word "All scripture is given by inspiration of God"

You cannot say "Wrong" and then not address any of the points that I brought up. That is the same as you admitting that you were wrong.

Because I know God and His Word. How do you know the bible is not the Word of God?

No, you only have mere belief. We have gone around before and you could never deal with the endless failures of the Bible. That tells us that you only believe,

Wrong. The books and and manuscripts that make up the bible as we know it today have always been with Gods people Israel and then the Christian Church. It just not compiled.

Take Care.

Nope. You really need to study the history of the Bible more. it was not a magical book that suddenly appeared in the form that we have today. There was quite a bit of debate about some of the books of the Bible. Gospels were rejected. Revelation barely made it as a book of the Bible You keep demonstrating that you are in one of the more culty sects of Christianity. They will not allow their people to learn about the Bible.