Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Well given the genealogy of Jesus.........
I can just imagine Jesus Mary and Joseph on Dr. Phil.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
How Paul Contradicts Jesus on the Most Important Doctrine of Christianity
- Thread starter Rational Agnostic
- Start date
Well given the genealogy of Jesus.........
I can just imagine Jesus Mary and Joseph on Dr. Phil.
Observe that Joel states...
PruePhillip
Well-Known Member
The "argument" here is disingenuous. There are many places where Paul is quite firm
on what he means by calling upon God's name. In fact there's nearly a thousand places
where Paul specifies what the will of God is.
It helps to know that Paul was quoting Joel 2:32. (Joel 3:5 in the Tanach) which uses the divine name three times.
"And it shall come to pass that whoever shall call in the name of the Lord shall be delivered, for on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be a deliverance, as the Lord said, and among the survivors whom the Lord invites.
הוְהָיָ֗ה כֹּ֧ל אֲשֶׁר־יִקְרָ֛א בְּשֵׁ֥ם יְהֹוָ֖ה יִמָּלֵ֑ט כִּ֠י בְּהַר־צִיּ֨וֹן וּבִירֽוּשָׁלִַ֜ם תִּֽהְיֶ֣ה פְלֵיטָ֗ה כַּֽאֲשֶׁר֙ אָמַ֣ר יְהֹוָ֔ה וּבַ֨שְּׂרִידִ֔ים אֲשֶׁ֥ר יְהֹוָ֖ה קֹרֵֽא:
As is the Jewish custom, they substitute God's name with "the Lord" in English but it is clearly there in the Hebrew. So Paul is not talking about Jesus' name but God's name Yahweh. (יְהֹוָ֖ה )
We have to call on the name of Jesus' God in order to be saved.
You see what happens when you take things out of context and with a very limited knowledge of the whole Bible?
Those acknowledging Jesus as their Lord and doing things in his name as the first century Christians did, (acknowledging him as the Christ) when he comes to judge the world these will be shocked at his rejection of them....why? Because they did not discern that the Christianity they practice is not the one Jesus taught. It is a complete departure from the original.
Anyone who accepts the trinity is blaspheming the Father by putting the son in his place. That is a breach of the first Commandment. Jesus is God's representative which is what his title "Logos" means. He spoke for God.
“I do nothing of my own initiative,” Jesus told the Jews who were seeking to kill him, “but just as the Father taught me I speak these things.” (John 8:28) Jesus spoke Yahweh's words, not his own. He promoted God's worship, not his own. (Luke 4:5-8) He worshipped the Father just as he taught his disciples to do. Jesus has a God, even in heaven. (Revelation 3:12)
74x12
Well-Known Member
Seriously? Paul was quoting from Joel 2:32 and you say he contradicts Jesus? Please keep the quote in context.
Joel 2:32
And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the Lord hath said, and in the remnant whom the Lord shall call.
The prophesy is spiritually understood. It is not meant to applied like some kind of password that anyone can utter. It must be said sincerely and without guile. God knows those who are truly His and who really mean "Lord" when they say it. And it's not just about saying it one time. But living it. Calling continually on the Lord in your life ...
Jesus teaching that you can't only say He is Lord; you must also make Him so indeed is still applicable.
Firemorphic
Activist Membrane
You know what? we agree for once. The Qur'an has the same kind of sentiment. It's not a game of clubs, signs, gangs, teams, it's not even a matter of belief when it comes down to it. True "salvation" comes from attaining onto the ineffable, knowledge of the divine. Belief in and of itself is malleable and worthless to God.
If those were legitimate claims, they would not be eliminated. They would become a primary source. That's how it works. What has been eliminated however is the mythology that they were people who directly knew Jesus. The evidence shows that they were not eyewitnesses. It's common knowledge that no one actually knows who wrote the Gospels. They were just names assigned to these anonymous authors by later church Fathers.
For instance, Gospel of Matthew
It is also the consensus position that the evangelist was not the apostle Matthew. Such an idea is based on the second century statements of Papias and Irenaeus. As quoted by Eusebius in Hist. Eccl. 3.39, Papias states: "Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could." In Adv. Haer. 3.1.1, Irenaeus says: "Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and laying the foundations of the church." We know that Irenaeus had read Papias, and it is most likely that Irenaeus was guided by the statement he found there. That statement in Papias itself is considered to be unfounded because the Gospel of Matthew was written in Greek and relied largely upon Mark, not the author's first-hand experience.
[Emphasis mine]
[Emphasis mine]
Because something has been believed traditionally, does not make it historically true. There are many things people have believed historically that turned out to be in error once the light of modern tools of research exposed more details. It is very much like seeing shadows on the craters on the moon with a modern telescope allowed Galileo further evidence to discover the earth orbits around the sun, rather than the other way around which is what was traditionally believed to be true.
Actually no. I do understand the traditional view. It's just the information we have today does not allow me to see through that particular traditionalist bias now. When you have more information, that isn't a biasing. It's more information only. Based upon that better information, we can reevaluate how we have thought about these things in the past.
A direct comparison would be a belief in a heliocentric model of the solar system. That was the result of modernity. That is not the same as saying I am biased against the Ptolemaic model, for some unknown reason. Are you biased against the Ptolemaic model with the earth at its center because you see the solar system through the eyes of modernity now?
That language is not appropriate in both instances. It's not a bias, it's the lens you look through, like using a telescope versus the un-aided naked eye. It's an advantage for anyone to use, not a prejudice against a prior belief. It's just dealing with the data exposed through the aided eyes of modernity. There is no "agenda". The pursuit of knowledge and understanding is the only agenda here. The pursuit of Truth, is a noble agenda we all should be sharing.
Let's drop the "liberal" label. You can have both conservative and liberals who use the tools, or the set of eyes of modernity to look at these things. It's not political. It's modernity vs. premodernity. It's modernity vs. traditionalism. That's all.
I'm very well familiar with all of that. I was taught all of that in bible college. It's the traditionalist view. I don't look at the world through that particular lens now, as modernity has superseded that as my primary set of eyes, or telescope, I use. Therefore, the light of its knowledge helps to inform my faith and to grow it for me. How we believe about God is allowed to change. We aren't "saved by beliefs".
Based upon the evidences, I do believe otherwise.
Not all opinions are of equal weight. Some are more well-informed and credible. I believe what modern research shows, is just that; more well-informed and credible opinions about things like the authorship of the Gospels. They don't start with unexamined biases, such as taking the assumptions of early Christians who lived at a later age about who wrote the Gospels as a given fact.
Other opinions will be made upon further information, yes. The ones we should listen to are those that are well-informed and well-researched and documented. To say for instance that modern science is "just an opinion" however, shows a deep, unsupportable bias against it because it challenges one's traditional beliefs. That does not show truthfulness and integrity however.
Why is it a fact? If it were a fact, why does the evidence deny that? Are you going to say because modern scholars "hate God", or some other absurdity? Please explain. Do modernists hate God? Do they want to "disbelieve"?
Phil 2:7 But stripped Himself [of all privileges and rightful dignity], so as to assume the guise of a servant (slave), in that He became like men and was born a human being. (a normal human being)
8 And after He had appeared in human form, He abased and humbled Himself [still further] and carried His obedience to the extreme of death, even the death of the cross! AMP
5-11 Let Christ himself be your example as to what your attitude should be. For he, who had always been God by nature, did not cling to his prerogatives as God’s equal, but stripped himself of all privilege by consenting to be a slave by nature and being born as mortal man. PHILLIPS
5-8 Think of yourselves the way Christ Jesus thought of himself. He had equal status with God but didn’t think so much of himself that he had to cling to the advantages of that status no matter what. Not at all. When the time came, he set aside the privileges of deity and took on the status of a slave, became human! MESSAGE
The same place Adam got his and Eve got hers. A Creator has no problem Creating. The issue here is that if he was born naturally, he would have the same cursed ground that mankind had. As Paul said, Jesus was the Second Adam. Another Adam that was perfect to have a second bout against the Serpent who won the first bout... but on equal terms. The Second Adam because the body was created even as Adam's was.
If He abused his mother, which I find no such abuse, he would have broken the commandment of honoring his father and mother and would not have been able to resurrect or be the Lamb of God that took away the sins of the world for then he would have a blemish that would negate his capacity to be a sacrificial offering even as lambs were checked for purity.
Why limit it to the NT? But at your request:
- John 1:1 In the beginning was The Word (Jesus), the Word was with God, the Word was God.... and the Word was made flesh
- John 5:18Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.
- Philippians 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
- 2 Peter 1:1 Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:
- John 14:16 And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Comforter (Counselor, Helper, Intercessor, Advocate, Strengthener, and Standby), that He may remain with you forever— (another - Greek - one just like me)
- Luke 11:13 - " If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!"
- John 4:23-24 - " But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father seeks such as these to worship him. God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth."
- Acts 2:1-36 - The Holy Spirit of God is poured out on the disciples at the feast of Pentecost).
First, there were many things that Jesus said that they didn't understand. They even didn't understand that Jesus would be raised from the dead even when said he would be.
Second, you are referencing the parenthetical time when he became man where, in other cases, he said he was God as detailed above. But certainly as you view Jesus through the parenthetical gospels, you would come to the conclusion that he was an ordinary man which I have acknowledged.
As a man, He needed part of God, the Holy Spirit, to be able to do supernatural feats. But remember the prayer of Jesus where he said, "And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was" indicating His eternal pre-existence and the fact that he also had the glory as God.
Lastly, there is a reason he said "If you have seen me, you have seen the Father". Also, "Hebrews 1:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high" only God can purge sins.
PS... after thinking about the lengthy reply and acknowledging that I am human, I may not have expressed myself perfectly. Happy to clarify any points.
shmogie
Well-Known Member
Sigh, once again, the use of proof texts completely out of context by paragraph, chapter, and book.
There is no disharmony, Christ and Paul are saying different things for different reasons. If you had taken the time to actually read a little you would know this.
Christ is speaking of proud Christians who believe what they do earns them salvation.
Paul is talking of the truly repentant person who humbly accepts the Faith. They call with the right heart condition.
You guys never tire of cheap shots, hoping to influence the gullible.
If it isn´t your thing, leave it alone, or at least actually know what you are talking about.
There is no disharmony, Christ and Paul are saying different things for different reasons. If you had taken the time to actually read a little you would know this.
Christ is speaking of proud Christians who believe what they do earns them salvation.
Paul is talking of the truly repentant person who humbly accepts the Faith. They call with the right heart condition.
You guys never tire of cheap shots, hoping to influence the gullible.
If it isn´t your thing, leave it alone, or at least actually know what you are talking about.
ROFL... well... he was going to dump Mary! Instead of Dr. Phil..,. it was Dr Angel Gabriel
shmogie
Well-Known Member
The evidence clearly shows that they knew Christ. Those who believe they are too sophisticated, or intelligent to accept the supernatural believe their own fairy tales
Your premise is simply not true, no matter how much you believe it is.
There are extant portions of the Gospels dated 150-200 AD. There are letters extant that were written by a student of Polycarp, and Polycarp studied under the Apostle John. Polycarp affirms the Gospel of John, from Johns own mouth.
Pauls letters were circulating probably by 100 AD, they were written before the Gospels, within the lifetime of some Apostles.
Lets see your evidence, cite it. I will happily cite mine.
You don´t have evidence, you have dressed up opinion.
Lets see whatcha got.
But Paul is explicit ─ he's only a human in 'form'; at no point is his divine nature in doubt in Paul's mind.
Only Mark's Jesus could be called a 'normal human being'.
That's a wholly tendentious paraphrase ─ I won't call it a translation. Anyway, the relevant words are ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ─ 'in the form of a god'. μορφῇ could also be translated as 'shape', 'figure, 'appearance'. 'in the form of God' would be ἐν μορφῇ τῶ θεοῦ.
οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ ─ as the RSV puts it, 'did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped'. In other words, yet again the meaning is entirely different to the paraphrase you offer.
Come now! Adam's biology was, in the fable, created from dust, and Eve was created from Adam's rib; we might conjecture she had Adam's DNA minus his Y-chromosome, but biologically she's billed as a female H sap sap. If Mary conceives via the Ghost, the biology has to be addressed, and since Mary didn't have a Y-chromosome, the Ghost had to provide one, along with all the other genetic material customary in a spermatazoon to form the zygote.
And since this makes the Jesuses of Matthew and Luke the 'son of God', it has to God the Father's DNA that the Ghost provides.
Mary conceives of the Holy Ghost and gives birth to Jesus. That's entirely biological. Please address the question ─ whose Y-chromosome did the Jesuses of Matthew and Luke have?
Yes, something along those lines ─ something Mark's human might do but not Matthew's or Luke's genetic Son of God, or Paul's or John's pre-existing heavenly being. Yet there it is in the gospels. It's abusive, dismissive, contemptuous, weird, and it may (or may not) be the only persuasive evidence of an historical Jesus the NT contains.
of course not. He had resurrected by that point and, as with so many other situations that the Apostles understood what Jesus said AFTER the resurrection and not before.
I disagree completely and not to mention you ignored all other scriptures of support. On purpose? Or by accident?
Who being in the form of God
The Father; being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person. This form is to be understood, not of any shape or figure of him; for as such is not to be seen, it is not to be supposed of him; or any accidental form, for there are no accidents in God, whatever is in God, is God; he is nothing but nature and essence, he is the (to on) , the Jehovah, I am what I am; and so is his Son, which is, and was, and is to come, the fountain of all created beings nor does it intend any outward representation and resemblance of him, such as in kings; who, because of the honour and dignity they are raised unto, the authority and power they have, and because of the glory and majesty they are arrayed with, are called gods: nor does it design the state and condition Christ appeared in here on earth, having a power to work miracles, heal diseases, and dispossess devils, for the manifestation of his glory; and so might be said to be in the form of God, as Moses for doing less miracles is said to be a God unto Pharaoh; since this account does not regard Christ; as he was on earth in human nature, but what he was antecedent to the assumption of it; or otherwise his humility and condescension in becoming man, and so mean, will not appear: but this phrase, "the form of God", is to be understood of the nature and essence of God, and describes Christ as he was from all eternity; just as the form of a servant signifies that he was really a servant, and the fashion of a man in which he was found means that he was truly and really man; so his being in the form of God intends that he was really and truly God; that he partook of the same nature with the Father, and was possessed of the same glory: from whence it appears, that he was in being before his incarnation; that he existed as a distinct person from God his Father, in whose form he was, and that as a divine person, or as truly God, being in the glorious form, nature, and essence of God; and that there is but one form of God, or divine nature and essence, common to the Father and the Son, and also to the Spirit; so that they are not three Gods, but one God: what the form of God is, the Heathens themselves F7 say cannot be comprehended nor seen, and so not to be inquired after; and they use the same word the apostle does here F8: and now Christ being in this glorious form, or having the same divine nature with the Father, with all the infinite and unspeakable glories of it,
thought it no robbery to be equal with God;
the Father; for if he was in the same form, nature, and essence, he must be equal to him, as he is; for he has the same perfections, as eternity, omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, immutability, and self-existence: hence he has the same glorious names, as God, the mighty God, the true God, the living God, God over all, Jehovah, the Lord of glory the same works of creation and providence are ascribed to him, and the same worship, homage, and honour given him: to be "in the form of God", and to be "equal with God", signify the same thing, the one is explanative of the other: and this divine form and equality, or true and proper deity, he did not obtain by force and rapine, by robbery and usurpation, as Satan attempted to do, and as Adam by his instigation also affected; and so the mind of a wicked man, as Philo the Jew says F9, being a lover of itself and impious, (oiomenov isov) (einai yew) , "thinks itself to be equal with God", a like phrase with this here used; but Christ enjoyed this equality by nature; he thought, he accounted, he knew he had it this way; and he held it hereby, and of right, and not by any unlawful means; and he reckoned that by declaring and showing forth his proper deity, and perfect equality with the Father, he robbed him of no perfection; the same being in him as in the Father, and the same in the Father as in him; that he did him no injury, nor deprived him of any glory, or assumed that to himself which did not belong to him: as for the sense which some put upon the words, that he did not "affect", or "greedily catch" at deity; as the phrase will not admit of it, so it is not true in fact; he did affect deity, and asserted it strongly, and took every proper opportunity of declaring it, and in express terms affirmed he was the Son of God; and in terms easy to be understood declared his proper deity, and his unity and equality with the Father; required the same faith in himself as in the Father, and signified that he that saw the one, saw the other, ( Mark 14:61 Mark 14:62 ) ( John 5:17 John 5:18 ) ( John 10:30 John 10:33 ) ( John 14:1 John 14:10 ) . Others give this as the sense of them, that he did not in an ostentatious way show forth the glory of his divine nature, but rather hid it; it is true, indeed, that Christ did not seek, but carefully shunned vain glory and popular applause; and therefore often after having wrought a miracle, would charge the persons on whom it was wrought, or the company, or his disciples, not to speak of it; this he did at certain times, and for certain reasons; yet at other times we find, that he wrought miracles to manifest forth his glory, and frequently appeals to them as proofs of his deity and Messiahship: and besides, the apostle is speaking not of what he was, or did in his incarnate state, but of what he was and thought himself to be, before he became man; wherefore the above sense is to be preferred as the genuine one.
FOOTNOTES:
F7 Socraticus, Xenophon, & Aristo Chius, apud Minuc. Felic. Octav. p. 20. & Hostanes apud Caecil. Cyprian. de Idol. van. p. 46.
F8 Laertii proem. ad Vit. Philosoph. p. 7.
F9 Leg. Alleg. l. 1. p. 48, 49.
John Gill
1) Have you proven it to be a fable? Not to me.
2) Adam was created... did God need to have a human DNA or did He create human DNA
3) Did God create biology? How did He create it?
So, when Lazarus was resurrected it is biological? Is a spirit biological?
Those comments are quite weird as I read them.
OK... we have established that you believe it is a fable with no proof. Doesn't make you wrong and me right, but it also doesn't make you right and me wrong,
You are looking everything via physical which made me look your profile up as "non-theistic" which leads me to wonder if you believe there is a spiritual side of thing. (probably not?)
You omit every other statement where Jesus was God... at this point leading me to believe that you simply ignored it but do agree that he was an ordinary man (which some in the Gospels believed that too)
If above is true, I can understand why there is not connection in our discussion which is fine. You have every right to believe what you believe and I support that right.
Enjoyed the discussion Blu
Peace.
That is just plain false...
Luke 1:1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, 2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
1 John 1 King James Version (KJV) 1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;
Emphasis mine
External Evidence Of Luke: Externally, the early church is unanimous that Dr. Luke wrote the Third Gospel and the book of Acts. Irenaeus (c. 130-202) writes, “Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him.”[4] Often, Irenaeus will add “Luke also, the follower and disciple of the apostles”[5] before quoting Luke’s Gospel. Justin Martyr (c. 100-165), before quoting from the Gospel of Luke and the other Gospels, notes that “the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them.”[6] Since the Gospel of Luke was written by a Gentile, Marcion, the ancient heretic, only allowed an abbreviated form of Luke’s Gospel in his canon. Irenaus notes that “Marcion, mutilating that according to Luke, is proved to be a blasphemer of the only existing God, from those [passages] which he still retains.”[7] From the evidence by the early church, Dr. Luke is the only valid candidate for authorship of the Third Gospel.
1 John - Irenaeus’ Adversus haereses (“Against Heresies,” ca. a.d. 180), which includes in three passages direct citations of 1 and 2 John. Adv. haer. 1.16.3 is a quotation of 2 John 11 in which Irenaeus adds that the Epistle was written by the Lord’s disciple John, who was also the author of the Fourth Gospel. Adv. haer. 3.16.5 is a quotation of 1 John 2:18-19 and 21-22, and 3.16.8 is quoted from 2 John 7-8 which also appears in 1 John 4:1-2 and 5:1. All of these are part of Irenaeus’ arguments against the Gnostics.
Other than it is your personal opinion, you have no grounds to say otherwise.
Sand Dancer
Currently catless
Yahweh and Jesus have contradictory attributes and words, there are contradictory views on most subjects. That's what happens when different groups through different centuries vie for their views to be heard. Think of the wonderful books that didn't make the cut because the men deciding canon had an agenda.
I'd suggest it's very hard to be an editor if you don't have an agenda. On the other hand, Christianity would have its story a lot straighter if the editors had settled on just the one gospel ─ though maybe the offer of a tailor-made Jesus is part of its appeal.
David J
Member
David J
Member
Paul/Saul was a murderer and unrighteous jailor.
He magically transformed himself on the road to Damascus.
Now he sits up in heaven with a pacifier in his human mouth.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
His inclusion in the Bible was a clear contradiction anyways with Matthew.
David J
Member
I'm jealous of his blind intervention. We all need it.