Paul created Calvanism!!!

[Simplelogic]

You just do not know the scriptures.

Sure

 

[Kolibri]

On the following day Paul went in with us to James and all the elders were present. ...and they said to him, (Paul) "You see brother how many myriads of Jews there are who have believed, and they are all zealous for the Law; but they have been informed about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs. What then is to be done? The assembly must certainly meet, for they will hear that you have come. Therefore do what we tell you: We have four men who have taken a vow. Take them and be purified with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads, and that all may know that those things of which they were informed concerning you are nothing, but that you yourself also walk orderly and keep the Law. Acts 21:18,20-24

Paul never said they could not circumcise their children. He was very firm about Judizers insisting that it was a requirement for salvation. Why this rumor? It was being spread by those that were being insistent- demanding what was no longer required as if it were.

" Now some men came down from Judea and began to teach the brothers: 'Unless you get circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved'" - Acts 15:1

Of course Jesus taught about bringing and leaving gifts at the alter. The Law was not fulfilled till the debt of De 21:22,23 was paid. Besides we do the same today. Before sacrificing with the fruit of our lips, we make peace with our brothers. God is displeased with our not being quick about suing for peace among our brothers.

 

[Simplelogic]

Of course Jesus taught about bringing and leaving gifts at the alter. The Law was not fulfilled till the debt of De 21:22,23 was paid. Besides we do the same today. Before sacrificing with the fruit of our lips, we make peace with our brothers. God is displeased with our not being quick about suing for peace among our brothers.

Then why was James (Yeshua's brother) still offering animal sacrifices?

Why does Ezekiel says that sacrifices will resume in the coming Temple?

 

[Simplelogic]

Paul completely rails against circumcision. He claims that those who get circumcised have "severed themselves from Christ". He also says that he wishes those getting circumcised would "castrate themselves".

 

[Apocalypse-Now]

We were talking about Numbers 31, not the other instances. Male infants were condemned to death with no fault of their own. -- You mentioned earlier that you toiled over this, but apparently have no problem with reenacting Moses' command if it came down to it. You also admitted that God does not punish the innocent along with the wicked. You're being inconsistent- and possibly dishonest.

Yes, I'm sure Paul (Mayo) created Calvinism. LOL

 

[Apocalypse-Now]

This ignores the question. Why keep the females?

LOL. Say, did you hear about the "bride" of Jesus?

But this is nothing more than a work of fiction.

Apparently, Jesus was "betrothed" to a Hindu woman in the Kashmir in the 1st century AD. But how convenient for his "betrothed" to die before such a union could take place?

Given that Rome was the dominant regional power in the 1st century, it's extremely unlikely God would want Jesus to have such a union. For indeed, the Atonement of Christ means I can now evince that God would not wish for His Son to have such a union over the most dominant race, culture and civilization of the Ancient Mediterranean -- which would've been the Romans.

So what heresy do you call this?

How can there be any worse insult to the Christian faith?

 

[Sleeppy]

I wasn't sure which text you were talking about. Thanks for questioning my honesty though.

It's no offense. I don't place creation at the same level as the Creator. It's very natural for me to question you, and for you to question me.

The question remains. I've asked it once or twice, already. This is the third time. The reason I questioned your honesty is for this reason. Why not just answer the question the second time, if the first time was not adequate? -- I'm not looking to do anything harmful to you. You can answer in any way you'd like. And you can even tell me not to criticize your opinion, and I would respect that.

 

[Simplelogic]

It's no offense. I don't place creation at the same level as the Creator. It's very natural for me to question you, and for you to question me.

The question remains. I've asked it once or twice, already. This is the third time. The reason I questioned your honesty is for this reason. Why not just answer the question the second time, if the first time was not adequate? -- I'm not looking to do anything harmful to you. You can answer in any way you'd like. And you can even tell me not to criticize your opinion, and I would respect that.

I simply thought you were talking about something else. No big deal. Please understand that I don't mind being questioned. Its when someone questions my honesty that makes me not want to continue conversation.

 

[Simplelogic]

Its abundantly clear that Calvinism came from strict adherence to Pauline doctrine.

 

[Muffled]

1 Peter is legit. 2 peter was an obvious forgerie. You would already know this if you were open to looking at the texts without bias. Many prominent scholars have admitted as much. Of course if you start with the silly premise that the 27 NT books are infallable then logic is already out the window and nothing I say will change your mind.

So we have some scholars who say it is a forgery but the people who developed the Canon say it is valid scripture. I believe the people who developed the Canon until someone can prove otherwise.

 

[Muffled]

Its abundantly clear that Calvinism came from strict adherence to Pauline doctrine.

I believe I have read the Biography of Calvin and I am confident that He studied the whole Bible. I believe much of what he wrote covers parts of the Bible not associated with Paul.

I can see where Calvin may have developed theories from Pauline writings but that does not mean he is always right about them or that Paul has concepts different from those expressed in the Gospels.

 

[Simplelogic]

So we have some scholars who say it is a forgery but the people who developed the Canon say it is valid scripture. I believe the people who developed the Canon until someone can prove otherwise.

Why? Do you know who they even were?

 

[`mud]

Geeeee...Walmart wrote the canon...who could have guessed !!
~
'mud