Simplelogic
Well-Known Member
I would disagree
-
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!
The Apostle Paul was the anti-christ according to the first Christians
- Thread starter Apple Sugar
- Start date
I would disagree
Simplelogic
Well-Known Member
Can you find me the Torah reference which condemns any of these things. These are mostly Oral law commands which were added to the Torah over centuries by Rabbis. Yeshua did not regard oral law as God's law.
Simplelogic
Well-Known Member
Please sojourner… continue.
Simplelogic
Well-Known Member
You only build my case with your questions.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Based on what? Last time I checked I was researching these ideas and arguing them with Scripture. Scripture is not entirely 'interprative', and neither are fundamental beliefs of Xians-->""Christianity"".
Simplelogic
Well-Known Member
Most Churches adhere to one or all of the following doctrines:
-Torah is abolished in Jesus
-Replacement theoloy (Christians replace Jews as "spiritual" Israel)
-Dispensational Theology
-Paid clergy and Pastors (which Jesus condemned)
These are present in every denomination (of which there are over 6,000) of Christianity. None of this was taught by Jesus. Only Paul is responsible for these doctrines.
-Torah is abolished in Jesus
-Replacement theoloy (Christians replace Jews as "spiritual" Israel)
-Dispensational Theology
-Paid clergy and Pastors (which Jesus condemned)
These are present in every denomination (of which there are over 6,000) of Christianity. None of this was taught by Jesus. Only Paul is responsible for these doctrines.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
OK, you're going to have to specify exactly what you mean by "Torah."
It seems like you're moving the goalposts.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Nope.
-Torah is fulfilled in Jesus
-Not all denominations buy into Replacement Theology
- Not all denominations buy into dispensationism
-Luke 10:7 -- "...the laborer deserves to be paid..."
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
That's not why Saul is the antichrist. It doesn't change the incorrect viewpoints and theories you present however. Jesus broke the Shabbat, told people to break various Torah laws, and didn't deny to His followers that He was the Son of G-d,/and man/, and speaking on authority of G-d. It's all in the Bible, dude.
Last edited:
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
In that case, the posts are nothing more than POE.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
The entire premise of the OP argument is 'everything in the NT is false except what some non-Xians say is real. It's ridiculous.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Of course it is. Some people will argue anything.
PAUL DID NOT START CHRISTIANITY AND WAS A TRUE TORAH FOLLOWER. 99% OF THE PEOPLE WHO READ PAUL DO NOT GET PAUL. HE STOPPED DOING ORAL LAW AND WENT BACK TO STRAIGHT TORAH WRITTEN LAW. WHAT HE TAUGHT GENTILES WAS TORAH LAW. AND IF YOU STUDY TORAH THE ISRAELITES WERE SUPPOSED TO TEACH GENTILES ALSO AND THEY FAILED.
AS PAUL SAYS...
Act 24:14 But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:
DOES THIS NOT SOUND LIKE TORAH? AND AS PAUL SAYS...
Rom 2:13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
THE DOERS OF THE LAW SHALL BE JUSTIFIED! WHAT IS THIS YOU DO NOT GET. PAUL IS NOT IN CONFLICT WITH JESUS AT ALL. BUT HE AND JESUS ARE IN CONFLICT WITH THE JEWS SINCE THE JEWS ARE UNDER ORAL LAW NOT WRITTEN LAW. UNTIL YOU FOLKS UNDERSTAND THIS YOU WILL NEVER GET PAUL - EVER. THE JEWS ARE UNDER ORAL LAW NOT WRITTEN LAW.
WHEN PAUL SAYS THIS...
Gal 3:11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
HE IS NOT TALKING ABOUT WRITTEN LAW. THIS IS ORAL LAW AND WE SEE HIM IN ROMANS 2:11 CONTRADICTING THIS? NO, ONE IS ORAL LAW AND ONE IS WRITTEN LAW OR AS THE BIBLE SAYS "AS IT IS WRITTEN".
THIS IS ALSO ORAL LAW...
Rom 7:4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.
Rom 7:5 For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.
THE TERM THE LAW IS NOT WRITTEN LAW AND THAT IS WHAT CONFUSES YOU FOLKS. UNTIL YOU UNDERSTAND WHY JESUS REBUKED THE PHARISEES, WHAT ORAL AND WRITTEN LAW ARE, AND THESE TYPES OF ISSUES THE BIBLE WILL NEVER BE CLEAR TO YOU.
Peace. (Yes I needed to shout over the false BS)
AS PAUL SAYS...
Act 24:14 But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:
DOES THIS NOT SOUND LIKE TORAH? AND AS PAUL SAYS...
Rom 2:13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
THE DOERS OF THE LAW SHALL BE JUSTIFIED! WHAT IS THIS YOU DO NOT GET. PAUL IS NOT IN CONFLICT WITH JESUS AT ALL. BUT HE AND JESUS ARE IN CONFLICT WITH THE JEWS SINCE THE JEWS ARE UNDER ORAL LAW NOT WRITTEN LAW. UNTIL YOU FOLKS UNDERSTAND THIS YOU WILL NEVER GET PAUL - EVER. THE JEWS ARE UNDER ORAL LAW NOT WRITTEN LAW.
WHEN PAUL SAYS THIS...
Gal 3:11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
HE IS NOT TALKING ABOUT WRITTEN LAW. THIS IS ORAL LAW AND WE SEE HIM IN ROMANS 2:11 CONTRADICTING THIS? NO, ONE IS ORAL LAW AND ONE IS WRITTEN LAW OR AS THE BIBLE SAYS "AS IT IS WRITTEN".
THIS IS ALSO ORAL LAW...
Rom 7:4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.
Rom 7:5 For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.
THE TERM THE LAW IS NOT WRITTEN LAW AND THAT IS WHAT CONFUSES YOU FOLKS. UNTIL YOU UNDERSTAND WHY JESUS REBUKED THE PHARISEES, WHAT ORAL AND WRITTEN LAW ARE, AND THESE TYPES OF ISSUES THE BIBLE WILL NEVER BE CLEAR TO YOU.
Peace. (Yes I needed to shout over the false BS)
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
It's ok to move goalposts as long as it serves your purposes.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
I am not sure, as uneducated as I am, but...the anti-Christ, or the notion thereof, is not a singularity.
?
Also, when 2 John speaks of this notion, he says that "many have entered into the world", or better " gone out into the world"...Is this an inference, implying that these "deceivers" or "anti-Christs" where possibly a part of the church? At any rate, these "anti-Christs" deny that "Christ" is going to come in the flesh? Or "has come" in the flesh? How is the verb "to go/come" dictated here by this context?
?
Also, when 2 John speaks of this notion, he says that "many have entered into the world", or better " gone out into the world"...Is this an inference, implying that these "deceivers" or "anti-Christs" where possibly a part of the church? At any rate, these "anti-Christs" deny that "Christ" is going to come in the flesh? Or "has come" in the flesh? How is the verb "to go/come" dictated here by this context?
Whether this is enough to suggest:
"For many shall come in my name,saying,I am Christ; and shall deceive many."
Many will come with his name, "Jesus", and "saying" to lay word for word in a discourse, that he "Jesus" is "Christ"...And deceive many.
? No?
So when considering these "deceivers" who have "gone out into the world"...saying that "Christ" isn't coming in the flesh...Means the same as to say that Christ has already come in the flesh as the person of "Jesus"?
So is the affirmative of Christ having already come in the flesh, meaning the same as the denial of Christ is going to come in the flesh?
Renji
Well-Known Member
Alright, I am no longer a christian, but I find this idea very ridiculous.
LightTraveler
Member
I was being respectful.
I thought you knew what you were posting, and my remark was directly focused on that material. If it doesn't make sense to you, that's not my problem.
It's also nothing to me if you'd rather be offended by my criticism of the material rather than interacting with it.
Some of a higher standard find it difficult to interact with those who choose a less mature way of communicating.