Are you a liar?

[Redemptionsong]

Apparently the son of man sits at the right hand of God until his enemies at his feet. (Psalms 110:1)

Matthew 26:64 "You have said it yourself," Jesus answered. "But I say to all of you, from now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven."

According to Paul, Satan is the one who comes as an angel of light, by which men are blinded, as was supposedly done with Paul in the wilderness. God works by way of the anointing of the Spirit of God, not by demons or angels of light. If you want to see angels, you will have to wait for the coming of the son of man (Matthew 24).

Paul declares himself as an apostle. According to Yeshua, someone who pats their own back is a liar.(John 5:31). One who commits fraud is cursed according to Yeshua, and Paul committed fraud by being a Gentile to the Gentile, and a Pharisee of Pharisees to the Pharisees. Paul's thorn in the sign, would be a curse bestowed by his god Satan.

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

Paul was the messenger of the "devil", and his message was the tare seed, which applies to those who commit lawlessness (Matthew 13:39-42), who will be gathered and tossed into the furnace of fire (great tribulation).

Yeshua's message was the kingdom, which is built around justice and righteousness. Paul's false gospel of grace, is a message of lawlessness, which ends with "destruction" (Matthew 7:13-15). The coming Har-Magedon (Revelation 16:16), and the valley of judgment (Joel 3:2) are about judgment upon the nations/Gentiles, and the restoration of Judah (Joel 3:1), and thereafter Ephraim (Ezekiel 37).

Paul only declares himself an apostle because Jesus Christ called him to be an apostle.

Paul was blinded on the road to Damascus. He did not regain his sight until a believer, Ananias, was told to go to minister to Paul. Who do you think told Ananias to visit Paul? [Acts 9:10]

Maybe you don't accept the testimony of Luke. In that case, you must reject both the book of Acts and the Gospel of Luke. And, if you reject Luke, you reject information about the genealogy of Jesus that demonstrates his legitimacy as Messiah.

Really, your interpretation of scripture, and rejection of large portions of the canon, amounts to little more than a deception and heresy!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Paul only declares himself an apostle because Jesus Christ called him to be an apostle.

Paul was blinded on the road to Damascus. He did not regain his sight until a believer, Ananias, was told to go to minister to Paul. Who do you think told Ananias to visit Paul? [Acts 9:10]

Maybe you don't accept the testimony of Luke. In that case, you must reject both the book of Acts and the Gospel of Luke. And, if you reject Luke, you reject information about the genealogy of Jesus that demonstrates his legitimacy as Messiah.

Really, your interpretation of scripture, and rejection of large portions of the canon, amounts to little more than a deception and heresy!

That is Paul's story. Told in Rome. I do have some serious doubts about it.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Well, if Jesus says you're either for him or against him, l don't see that there's room for a 'middle path'. Do you?

I am just asking a question. You do realize not all Christians agree on everything.

 

[F1fan]

I know it's hard for you to accept, but l came to faith through reading the scriptures! I was not indoctrinated, or fed the teaching of a particular denomination. As a student, l read the NT and was struck by the truth of Jesus' words. So began my journey into faith.

So growing up you never heard of Christianity, or Jesus? You just happened to pick up a Bible by accident one day? You just happen to interpret it in a way that established conservative Christians do as a fluke?

You're right, I don't accept it.

People want to believe they are in control of their lives, that they are making free choices and have autonomy. Studies show we do not, at least to the degree we think we do. That is especially true for cultural beliefs and attitudes we adopt.

Since that time l have had ample opportunity to read about, and listen to, the claims made by other faiths; but none have touched my heart as Jesus Christ has done. I put this down to the power of the Word, which is described as 'sharper than a two-edged sword'.

Yeah, the people who created and honed Christianity knew how to make it appeal to people. None of what you believe appeals to reason. That you evade my questions and let my comments and criticisms stand suggests you can't offer a rebuttal to what I say.

 

[F1fan]

Well, if Jesus says you're either for him or against him, l don't see that there's room for a 'middle path'. Do you?

Does Jesus say that? If so, who to? Let's note that Jesus is not around (and even Christians acknowledge this as they are eagerly waiting his return). So who is representing Jesus, and are they getting things right or not? You could be dead wrong about how you interpret the Bible and what Jesus said. How would anyone know? We should be careful not to take the word of believers. Looking at the Bible stories myself, I can't assume they represent reality or truth. So Christian belief is not applicable to me.

 

[Redemptionsong]

That is Paul's story. Told in Rome. I do have some serious doubts about it.

But it's not just Paul's story! Luke wrote Acts, and he gathers information from many sources.

Was Paul alone on his trip to Damascus? No. Were there witnesses to his being blinded? Yes. Was Paul led to a house in Damascus by fellow Jews? Yes. Did Ananias not also provide testimony? Yes, otherwise we would not know about the Lord's commandment in a dream.

 

[Redemptionsong]

I am just asking a question. You do realize not all Christians agree on everything.

I was also asking a question. It may have come across a bit snappy.

 

[Aupmanyav]

The evangelist John asks a very challenging question in his first epistle (1 John 2:22). He asks, 'Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ?

Is that a lie or a truth?
I consciously try never to utter a lie.

 

[Redemptionsong]

So growing up you never heard of Christianity, or Jesus? You just happened to pick up a Bible by accident one day? You just happen to interpret it in a way that established conservative Christians do as a fluke?

You're right, I don't accept it.

People want to believe they are in control of their lives, that they are making free choices and have autonomy. Studies show we do not, at least to the degree we think we do. That is especially true for cultural beliefs and attitudes we adopt.


Yeah, the people who created and honed Christianity knew how to make it appeal to people. None of what you believe appeals to reason. That you evade my questions and let my comments and criticisms stand suggests you can't offer a rebuttal to what I say.

You've set yourself up against God, and against truth, which is a far more serious matter than having a dispute with me!

I've made it abundantly clear that l believe the Bible is the written word of God, and I believe Jesus Christ is the living Word of God.

The belief that Jesus is the Christ has been around for nearly two thousand years, and the arguments in support of this claim are extensive and numerous.

If you listen to the testimonies of Christians, you'll soon discover that most come to faith because they are touched by the love of Jesus Christ. Very few come to faith based on intellectual arguments. The 'apologetics' of the head (intellect) tend to follow after the heart's conversion.

Nevertheless, if you want intellectual argument for justification, then the best place to begin is with the prophecies of the OT.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Does Jesus say that? If so, who to? Let's note that Jesus is not around (and even Christians acknowledge this as they are eagerly waiting his return). So who is representing Jesus, and are they getting things right or not? You could be dead wrong about how you interpret the Bible and what Jesus said. How would anyone know? We should be careful not to take the word of believers. Looking at the Bible stories myself, I can't assume they represent reality or truth. So Christian belief is not applicable to me.

Matthew 12:30. 'He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad'.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But it's not just Paul's story! Luke wrote Acts, and he gathers information from many sources.

Was Paul alone on his trip to Damascus? No. Were there witnesses to his being blinded? Yes. Was Paul led to a house in Damascus by fellow Jews? Yes. Did Ananias not also provide testimony? Yes, otherwise we would not know about the Lord's commandment in a dream.

Did he though? How would you know that? The author of both Luke and Acts is unknown, but he was a follower of Paul. That means Paul may have been his only source for that story. There is a rather huge hole in it.

Why was Paul going to Damascus?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Matthew 12:30. 'He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad'.

And how do you know that Jesus said that? You did not really answer his question.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Is that a lie or a truth?
I consciously try never to utter a lie.

If there is one God, and God is truth, then God's prophets must speak words of truth. I believe that John, as the apostle and prophet, speaks words of truth.

The test of all prophecy must be through confirmation and consistency. If John's message is consistent with the numerous other Biblical prophets, and with prophecies that have already found fulfilment, then the case for John's prophetic abilities is strong.

If John is a prophet, and his words are denied, or opposed, can these denials be true? Surely, whether consciously acknowledged or not, such denials are opposed to the truth.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If there is one God, and God is truth, then God's prophets must speak words of truth. I believe that John, as the apostle and prophet, speaks words of truth.

The test of all prophecy must be through confirmation and consistency. If John's message is consistent with the numerous other Biblical prophets, and with prophecies that have already found fulfilment, then the case for John's prophetic abilities is strong.

If John is a prophet, and his words are denied, or opposed, can these denials be true? Surely, whether consciously acknowledged or not, they must be opposed to the truth.

A lot of "if" s there. More than one appear to fail.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Did he though? How would you know that? The author of both Luke and Acts is unknown, but he was a follower of Paul. That means Paul may have been his only source for that story. There is a rather huge hole in it.

Why was Paul going to Damascus?

The author of Luke and Acts is Luke. If you wish to undermine the apostolic traditions, which date back to Christ, you must demonstrate the inconsistency and incoherence in the text of the NT. If not, you are simply voicing a sceptical opinion without any support for your scepticism.

These are the words of Luke at the beginning of Acts:
'The former treatise have l made [The Gospel], O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and to teach,
Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen:'

Now, compare this to the introduction to Luke's Gospel:
'Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.'

This doesn't sound like a careless undertaking, does it?

Paul was on his way to Damascus to find and persecute 'Christian' Jews [Acts 9:1,2] whom he believed were acting in opposition to the religious authority of the Jewish Council.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The author of Luke and Acts is Luke. If you wish to undermine the apostolic traditions, which date back to Christ, you must demonstrate the inconsistency and incoherence in the text of the NT. If not, you are simply voicing a sceptical opinion without any support for your scepticism.

No, you don't know that. All of the Gospels are anonymous. The names were placed on the Gospels long after they were written.. He may have been but there is quite a bit of doubt about that.

These are the words of Luke at the beginning of Acts:
'The former treatise have l made [The Gospel], O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and to teach,
Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen:'

Now, compare this to the introduction to Luke's Gospel:
'Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unti thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.'

This doesn't sound like a careless undertaking, does it?

Did you not see that there is a huge difference between the two? The author does not claim to have witnesses in Acts. And there are errors in Luke, so don't pretend that his work was "careful".

Paul was on his way to Damascus to find and persecute 'Christian' Jews [Acts 9:1,2] whom he believed were acting in opposition to the religious authority of the Jewish Council.

And how was he going to do that?

 

[Redemptionsong]

A lot of "if" s there. More than one appear to fail.

No, you don't know that. All of the Gospels are anonymous. The names were placed on the Gospels long after they were written.. He may have been but there is quite a bit of doubt about that.



Did you not see that there is a huge difference between the two? The author does not claim to have witnesses in Acts. And there are errors in Luke, so don't pretend that his work was "careful".



And how was he going to do that?

Who do you think assigned the name 'Luke' to the Gospel?

If errors exist in Luke's Gospel then there will be reason to doubt the inspiration of scripture. If not, it cannot be faulted, and stands as prophecy.

Let's see the supposed errors.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Who do you think assigned the name 'Luke' to the Gospel?

If the errors exist in Luke's Gospel then there will be reason to doubt the inspiration of scripture. If not, it cannot be faulted, and stands as prophecy.

Let's see the supposed errors.

Okay, it appears that you have not studied this topic at all. All of the Gospels are anonymous. None of them have a "written by" on them.. The names are early church tradition. Luke has a ten year pregnancy for Mary. He starts out with "in the days of Herod" roughly 4 BCE at the latest. and the next thing we know it is ten years later and Mary is giving birth.

 

[F1fan]

Matthew 12:30. 'He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad'.

Not applicable to me.

Have you ever studied how the Gospels were constructed? You are aware there was no Matthew, Luke, Mark, and John, yes? You are aware these stories have been added to and edited over the millennia, yes?

 

[Aupmanyav]

If there is one God, ..

You accept that it is an 'if', a big 'if', if I may say so.
But as John completely believed that and in Jesus being the redeemer, then at least from his side, it is not a lie.