Paul Didn't Know Jesus

[Phantasman]

The only common sense coming out of that is Paul allowing heterosexuals to marry but expects people who were created with a different orientation to be celibate. Being celibate is not at all healthy for anyone, that's why priests end up having so many issues trying to be something else that god did not create. You know it's going to come down to believing Christ over Paul. If it's just the act that is a sin, I known heterosexuals that do the same act.

If Paul had it his way guys wouldn't even touch women which is just preposterous, I am liable to throw everything of Paul's out. 1 Corinthians 7:1.

Lust leads to sin. Paul was only declaring that if one cannot control their "sexual" lust of flesh, it is better to marry than be a whore monger. Lust of flesh goes beyond just sex. Wealth, murder, lying, cheating are all fleshly desires of lust. The word priest means nothing. They have the same body, soul and spirit as any man/woman. Only man holds them as a special agent (ignorant men at that). Matthew 7:22-24.

Jesus nor Paul ever set up an earthly priesthood.

 

[Phantasman]

Matthew 16:26 has nothing to do with what the widow did in giving. Nice try.

So be it.

 

[idav]

Lust leads to sin. Paul was only declaring that if one cannot control their "sexual" lust of flesh, it is better to marry than be a whore monger. Lust of flesh goes beyond just sex. Wealth, murder, lying, cheating are all fleshly desires of lust. The word priest means nothing. They have the same body, soul and spirit as any man/woman. Only man holds them as a special agent (ignorant men at that). Matthew 7:22-24.

Jesus nor Paul ever set up an earthly priesthood.

I can understand that but the verse says, man touching a woman, "not good", then every sexual act under the sun would be "not good". I would allow the same right to marriage to anyone not just hetero's who are just as likely to be promiscuous and such.

 

[Faithofchristian]

Jesus says even the the thought of sex is adultery so he would just about condemn all forms of sexual encounters. Marriage is allowe but Genesis is not enough to extrapolate since God also creates other genders.

See Luke 27:30-36 for a verse showing a man lieing in bed with another man and being saved.

""I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left.""

First of all there is no Luke Chapter 27.

You sure do like to take things out of there contexts. Had you any idea what Jesus is talking or ment by two men as being in one bed. It shows your lack of knowledge.

If what your trying to say, that those two men as being in one bed has anything to do with homosexualit, then why wasn't both of them taken, instead of just one, and the other left. If what you believe they were both homosexuals, What did the other do that was so wrong that he wasn't taken. Go Figure

You probably believe that in Matthew 24:19 "And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days"

No doubt that you would actually believe this being a pregnant woman.

 

[Faithofchristian]

I can understand that but the verse says, man touching a woman, "not good", then every sexual act under the sun would be "not good". I would allow the same right to marriage to anyone not just hetero's who are just as likely to be promiscuous and such.

Where do you get man touching a woman. As being not good, Where do you get this at.

 

[idav]

First of all there is no Luke Chapter 27.

You sure do like to take things out of there contexts. Had you any idea what Jesus is talking or ment by two men as being in one bed. It shows your lack of knowledge.

If what your trying to say, that those two men as being in one bed has anything to do with homosexualit, then why wasn't both of them taken, instead of just one, and the other left. If what you believe they were both homosexuals, What did the other do that was so wrong that he wasn't taken. Go Figure

You probably believe that in Matthew 24:19 "And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days"

No doubt that you would actually believe this being a woman pregnant.

Go ahead and let me know how to take Luke 17:30-36

 

[idav]

Where do you get man touching a woman. As being not good, Where do you get this at.

I linked the verse. 1 Corinthians 7:1

No doubt you'll say I am misinterpreting again.

 

[Faithofchristian]

Go ahead and let me know how to take Luke 17:30-36

Sure not the way your taking it, That's for sure.
You explain as to why one man was taken and the other left, if both of them are homosexualls as you believe they are.

If both of them are Committing the same act, what did the other do that was so wrong, that he was left, but the other was taken. But both of them were doing the same thing. But yet one was taken and the other left.

 

[Faithofchristian]

I linked the verse. 1 Corinthians 7:1

No doubt you'll say I am misinterpreting again.

Maybe if you would haved read on in Verse's 2--4, You would seen what is being talk about. When a man is married, it's not good that he touch, in other words, having sex with another woman.
But you take one Verse and try to build a whole mountain out of it.
Thats your whole Problem, You need to pick up what the subject is about, The subject is about a man and woman being married. And that it's not good for a married man to have sex with another woman or a woman that is married to have sex with another man.

And you really believe that a man and woman can not touch each other, Are you freaking kidding me. That is way to funny, ROFL

 

[idav]

Sure not the way your taking it, That's for sure.
You explain as to why one man was taken and the other left, if both of them are homosexualls as you believe they are.

If both of them are Committing the same act, what did the other do that was so wrong, that he was left, but the other was taken. But both of them were doing the same thing. But yet one was taken and the other left.

The thing they were doing the same was a man lieing with another man ina bed, one is taken is reference to someone being saved when the messiah returns. There is also a reference to two women grinding the mill together, which was something typically done for a husband, and one taken. It must be significant that one is left or why even mention it.

 

[idav]

Maybe if you would haved read on in Verse's 2--4, You would seen what is being talk about. When a man is married, it's not good that he touch, in other words, having sex with another woman.
But you take one Verse and try to build a whole mountain out of it.
Thats your whole Problem, You need to pick up what the subject is about, The subject is about a man and woman being married. And that it's not good for a married man to have sex with another woman or a woman that is married to have sex with another man.

And you really believe that a man and woman can not touch each other, Are you freaking kidding me. That is way to funny, ROFL

I'm just quoting straight from the Bible, kjv. I'm aware of Paul's apologetic that people are weak so they should get married even though touching is bad. Those are my words summarizing all that.

 

[Faithofchristian]

The thing they were doing the same was a man lieing with another man ina bed, one is taken is reference to someone being saved when the messiah returns. There is also a reference to two women grinding the mill together, which was something typically done for a husband, and one taken. It must be significant that one is left or why even mention it.

So you believe that the one taken, is being saved ? Now that's a first.

 

[idav]

So you believe that the one taken, is being saved ? Now that's a first.

It's a reference to Luke's apocalypse.

 

[Faithofchristian]

I'm just quoting straight from the Bible, kjv. I'm aware of Paul's apologetic that people are weak so they should get married even though touching is bad. Those are my words summarizing all that.

Look back in those days, they were more of watching what they said in their writings, than people are to day.
So when people wrote to Paul asking him, if it was bad for a man to touch a woman. What the people were referring to, is it bad for a married man to touch another woman. That is not his wife. This is what the whole thing is about.

 

[idav]

Look back in those days, they were more of watching what they said in their writings, than people are to day.
So when people wrote to Paul asking him, if it was bad for a man to touch a woman. What the people were referring to, is it bad for a married man to touch another woman. That is not his wife. This is what the whole thing is about.

Paul barely even wanted to allow marriage, thought it was a material flesh thing that would only hinder spiritual progression. That's what those verses are about. At least though he acknowledges it's only opinion and not from the spirit. He said it's his opinion people should remain single. 1 Corinthians 7:25-27

 

[Faithofchristian]

Paul barely even wanted to allow marriage, thought it was a material flesh thing that would only hinder spiritual progression. That's what those verses are about. At least though he acknowledges it's only opinion and not from the spirit. He said it's his opinion people should remain single. 1 Corinthians 7:25-27

Are you freaking kidding me, It wasn't Paul who wrote those people, But the people of the Corinthian church who wrote Paul.

In the people writing to Paul, Then Paul wrote them back to answer their question.

Saying "Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, Let every man have his own wife, And let every woman have her own husband"
1 Corinthians 7:2.

Notice the word ( fornication ) in the above Verse, In the Strong's Concordance in the Greek translation 4202,4203, Fornication means ---> To act the harlot,
Indulge in an unlawful lust of either sex,
Adultery, idolatry.

Therefore it is not for a man to have sex with another woman outside of his Marriage otherwise the man would be Committing Adultery with another woman.

Therefore it is not for a woman to have sex with another man outside of her Marriage, Otherwise the woman would be Committing Adultery with another man. she would be acting the Harlot. Committing idolatry with another man.

But if a Married man touch a Married woman In a sexual way, That's Committing Adultery.
If a Married woman touch a Married man In a sexual way, That's Committing Adultery.

If a Married man touch a single woman, In a sexual way, That's Committing Adultery.

If a Married woman touch a single man, In a sexual way, That's Committing Adultery.

It's easy to see what the people wrote Paul about in touching a Married woman or a single woman in a sexual way is that considered Adultery.
Or a Married woman touching a married man or a single man in a sexual way is that considered Adultery.

And the answer to this question is Yes it is unlawful, For a Married man to touch a married woman or a single woman in a sexual way. Or a married woman to touch a married man or a single man in a sexual way.
That's Committing Adultery.

 

[Faithofchristian]

Paul barely even wanted to allow marriage, thought it was a material flesh thing that would only hinder spiritual progression. That's what those verses are about. At least though he acknowledges it's only opinion and not from the spirit. He said it's his opinion people should remain single. 1 Corinthians 7:25-27

As to where do you get that people should remain single out of 1 Cor 7:25-27.

Paul plainly wrote, in Verse 25 --"Now concerning Virgins.
Now Paul's going to explain about those who are virgins,
Has nothing to do with being single, As your saying.

If a woman is a virgin or a man is a virgin, There's nothing wrong in that.
As Paul wrote in Verse 26.

Now in Verse 27, Paul wrote about people who are Married. That if a man is Married, for him not to seek to be set free ( divorce) from the Marriage. For he is bound to the Marriage to the woman.

In Verse 28 Paul wrote, If you marry you haved not sinned.
And a virgin who Marrys, she has not sinned.

I really don't know where your going with all of this. But so far all you done is take things out of it's context.

Maybe you should start at the beginning of a Chapter and read and pick up what the subject is about. Before you jump conclusion about things.

 

[idav]

And the answer to this question is Yes it is unlawful, For a Married man to touch a married woman or a single woman in a sexual way. Or a married woman to touch a married man or a single man in a sexual way.
That's Committing Adultery.

Yeah I get all that, what do you think I'm talking about, the rules. Of course it's only ever allowed via marriage, I've said this.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Paul wasn't in Heaven; he knew someone who had visited the third Heaven (2 Corinthians 12:2).

Plus Paul hearing voices, is like many schizophrenics who hear demons....

Proof of that is Paul's statements; if an angel comes and teaches another gospel may they be accursed (Galatians 1:8)...

If the angel is sent by God; Paul can only be a demon challenging that he is superior.

Paul also makes claims that angels of light did come to him asking him to stop, and yet he claims the light is darkness (2 Corinthians 11:14)...

Throughout a majority of texts angels appear as light, demons as darkness.

In my opinion.

The context of Paul's statement was that in accordance with avoiding boasting, He would speak about someone (himself). It likely happened when he was stoned and taken for dead. If Paul knew someone, by the way, who'd been, since people like Isaiah weren't present, it would have to be Jesus He referred to!

Paul didn't hear "voices". He heard ineffable words and was told by God to keep his peace about them.

You remain firm in discarding most but not all of the NT, yet without any true textual evidence, that is, counter-claim documents, eyewitness that Paul was a fraud, etc. You simply have a belief system.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Paul was spreading the religion without the experience, he was possibly spreading it theologically sound, while taking some things more literal than Jesus meant with his parables and metaphors from the gospels. You know like all the things other apostles wrote, gospel of john, gospel of Thomas .....

There are distinct differences between the apocrypha and Paul:

* authentication from other NT authors
* prophecies fulfilled
* conversions made
* statements that God's Word is being shared
* etc.