If Paul's books are wrong than so are

[Wookiemonster]

Remember your line "get to know someone before you make assumptions" You know the one Poison gave you a high five for?

Anyway, I do not believe or support church or any organized religion. As I said God can not be divided.

Do you accept the trinity?

 

[TheKnight]

Anyway, I do not believe or support church or any organized religion. As I said God can not be divided.

Ahh, well, good for you. God is not divided. But we are not God, we are people, and people (though it is not desirable) can and are divided.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Yeah... because when you study on your own, you learn things like about how Paul's teachings are unholy and irrelevant in light of the Tanach, like Knight did...

And from what I understand, the Church don't take kindly to such things.

Apparently, you don't either.

I bet you're not too fond of being compared to the Church, are you? Seeing as how your tendency to see the Jewish rejection of Christianity as hostility and intolerance is a lot like a Church kicking you out for having too many "radical" questions.

First I have never belonged to any church in my life, so never been kicked out.
The whole tolerance comment on my part came from your attack on me earlier.
I have continually said if someone wants to show me why they feel Paul doesn't fit, I will listen. So far Knight is the only one who has offered substance.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Do you accept the trinity?

Not sure right now, I think it is very much a mystery. Sorry I don't have a better answer for you righ tnow.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Ahh, well, good for you. God is not divided. But we are not God, we are people, and people (though it is not desirable) can and are divided.

This has what to do with the thread?

 

[Wookiemonster]

Not sure right now, I think it is very much a mystery. Sorry I don't have a better answer for you righ tnow.

You stated above that G-d cannot be divided. How then can you not answer with a yes or no, your belief on the trinity.

 

[TheKnight]

This has what to do with the thread?

Idk, you brought it up.

 

[Poisonshady313]

First I have never belonged to any church in my life, so never been kicked out.

Good for you. This is relevant how?

The whole tolerance comment on my part came from your attack on me earlier.

Did I attack you? Or did I offer the possibly unconsidered suggestion that Paul's writings were less than wonderful?

I have continually said if someone wants to show me why they feel Paul doesn't fit, I will listen. So far Knight is the only one who has offered substance.

Probably because everyone else is first dealing with the absurdity that finding fault with paul requires a rejection of the Tanach.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

You stated above that G-d cannot be divided. How then can you not answer with a yes or no, your belief on the trinity.

Thank you for the chance to clarify myself in the whirlwind of responses I have been giving.

It is true God can not be divided. It is also true there is only ONE truth.
So when it comes to the trinity, it could only exist if Jesus, the Holy Ghost and God are all the same. Just other forms of the same thing. Like the burning bush.

That is different than having 30,000 denominations teaching contradicting ideas.

 

[Riverwolf]

No but salvation and judgment are found throughout, right?

Not that I've seen.

It's definitely there, but not all over the place.

Exactly, what is the problem? More information about salvation could be a good thing, no?

Not if it's false information.

 

[Wookiemonster]

Thank you for the chance to clarify myself in the whirlwind of responses I have been giving.

It is true God can not be divided. It is also true there is only ONE truth.
So when it comes to the trinity, it could only exist if Jesus, the Holy Ghost and God are all the same. Just other forms of the same thing. Like the burning bush.

That is different than having 30,000 denominations teaching contradicting ideas.

So in the same breath your saying G-d can't be divided but he can...

 

[Riverwolf]

What accept non-tolerance is part of Judaism?

1. Jews disagree with the New Testament, and for valid reasons. That's not necessarily intolerance.
2. If it WERE intolerance, then you'd have to accept that it is the case, as one of the most important steps in a spiritual life is accepting what is over what should be.

 

[Riverwolf]

Oh I think killing Jesus showed that ey?

The Romans did that.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Probably because everyone else is first dealing with the absurdity that finding fault with paul requires a rejection of the Tanach.

I suppose the idea of the thread either directly or indirectly is to reverse the views I have seen on this forum about Paul's teachings.
Everyone assume's Paul to be wrong because it does require a change in what we thought the OT meant for many people. That alone is ample for many to abandon his teachings.
Never meant to belittle your study background as I don't know you.

 

[TheKnight]

More information about salvation could be a good thing, no?

The nature of the message of the Tanakh is not one of salvation, but of ethical living. This is perhaps the greatest different between the Tanakh and the NT. The Tanakh seeks to promote ethical living and refinement of the human being into that which God wants. The NT is more focused with being saved from sin, and external threats like the Devil, and places like hell. This is probably the main reason people don't see the two as existing together coherently.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Not if it's false information.

So I hear. Still waiting on the information. What I fear though is people will just copy and paste googled stuff about it to me, when I have been sitting here typing from my own perspective. The last thing I want to do is have to respond to googled arguments, no what I mean?

 

[Just_me_Mike]

So in the same breath your saying G-d can't be divided but he can...

Oh please, come on.

Tell me can he be divided?

 

[TheKnight]

So I hear. Still waiting on the information. What I fear though is people will just copy and paste googled stuff about it to me, when I have been sitting here typing from my own perspective. The last thing I want to do is have to respond to googled arguments, no what I mean?

I gave an argument that isn't from google and you didn't respond...

 

[Just_me_Mike]

The nature of the message of the Tanakh is not one of salvation, but of ethical living. This is perhaps the greatest different between the Tanakh and the NT. The Tanakh seeks to promote ethical living and refinement of the human being into that which God wants. The NT is more focused with being saved from sin, and external threats like the Devil, and places like hell. This is probably the main reason people don't see the two as existing together coherently.

So, if in deed God did bring further revelation about what we thought salvation was, is that a problem for you? Hypothetically speaking?

 

[Just_me_Mike]

I gave an argument that isn't from google and you didn't respond...

I am going to, and thanks for the response. I did say earlier you were the only one so far to do so.