The message of the cross is foolishness!

[doppelganger]

Who said Paul? :angel2:

Or Saul.

 

[wizanda]

"Paul" Or Saul.

Did you know that was meaning x 2? As in it is a Proverb also?

1Sa 10:12
(12) And one of the same place answered and said, But who is their father? Therefore it became a proverb, Is Saul also among the prophets?

 

[slabbey06]

Have you read Acts? Paul did indeed have a personal encounter with Christ. Not in "bodily form," but it was a very personal encounter nonetheless. And if you read the second letter of Peter, he mentions Paul, and apparently has very high regard for him, calling him a "beloved brother." It seemed no matter of consequence to Peter, who knew Christ in His earthly life, that Paul had not met Christ in bodily form. Peter recognized that Paul knew Christ just as well, if not more so, than he did. And he urged the churches he wrote to to hold on to Paul's teachings. If one of Jesus' own disciples endorsed Paul, then who are we to second-guess him, living centuries afterwards?

All of this is way off-topic, however.

Can I add to the way off topic?
Don't forget Gal. 1-2. There Paul specifically said... "I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ." (1:11-12). He goes on to say that he spent 15 days getting to know Peter, and later in life rebuked Peter.

 

[Hope]

Can I add to the way off topic?
Don't forget Gal. 1-2. There Paul specifically said... "I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ." (1:11-12). He goes on to say that he spent 15 days getting to know Peter, and later in life rebuked Peter.

Thank you. I forgot about that passage! I guess the point is made.

 

[lew0049]

Keep dreaming. God didn't write that. Paul wrote it in Greek. Someone translated it into English and you have interpreted it to suit your personal agenda. Sorry, I'm still not offended by your imagined Gospel.

You are very correct - the gospel has been translated in MANY different languages.
The fact you believe that the gospels do not contain the fundamental message because of "translations" and small errors is inaccurate though.
Just as you say we are, you are using this line of reasoning to suit your personal agenda as well.

 

[wizanda]

Gal 2:11
(11) But when Peter (stone) was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.


Luk 11:24-26
(24) When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest; and finding none, he saith, I will return unto my house whence I came out.
(25) And when he cometh, he findeth it swept and garnished.
(26) Then goeth he, and taketh to him seven other spirits more wicked than himself; and they enter in, and dwell there: and the last state of that man is worse than the first.

Gal 1:17-18
(17) Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia (Dry places), and returned again unto Damascus.
(18) Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter (stone), and abode with him fifteen days.

 

[doppelganger]

Just as you say we are, you are using this line of reasoning to suit your personal agenda as well.

Of course I am. So are you everytime you cite the Bible to someone. The difference, of course, is that I try to always be honest with myself in acknowledging that my perspective is just that - my perspective - and not some objective truth that everyone must embrace or profess. It helps me to realize that if I disagree with someone, it's most likely a result of not understanding them, not because they are wrong. But that too is my perspective.

 

[Sonic247]

Nono, didn't you know? God has a list of people who he decided are the "elect", and only sent his son to die for them. God doesn't give a crap about anybody else.

1Titus2:5-6 For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

John3:16- For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Revelation 22:17- And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.


2nd Peter 3:9- The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

 

[MaddLlama]

1Titus2:5-6 For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

John3:16- For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Revelation 22:17- And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.


2nd Peter 3:9- The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Oh, I know all of that. My comment was dripping with sarcasm, because that was the perspective that SR was offering, and I already knew it was dead wrong.

 

[wizanda]

1Titus2:5-6 For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.


Mat 7:7
(7) Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:

John3:16- For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.


Mic 6:7
(7) Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams, or with ten thousands of rivers of oil? shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?

Mar 10:18
(18) And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.


Revelation 22:17- And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.


Rev 21:27
(27) And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life.


2nd Stone (peter) 3:9- The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance

Isa 8:13-16
(13) Sanctify the LORD of hosts himself; and let him be your fear, and let him be your dread.
(14) And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence to both the houses of Israel, for a gin and for a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem.
(15) And many among them shall stumble, and fall, and be broken, and be snared, and be taken.
(16) Bind up the testimony, seal the law among my disciples.

 

[slabbey06]

Of course I am. So are you everytime you cite the Bible to someone. The difference, of course, is that I try to always be honest with myself in acknowledging that my perspective is just that - my perspective - and not some objective truth that everyone must embrace or profess. It helps me to realize that if I disagree with someone, it's most likely a result of not understanding them, not because they are wrong. But that too is my perspective.

I appreciate that you try to be honest with yourself and acknowledge that your perspective is your own, and that you try to recognize the same in others. However, aren't you imposing your perspective on me or others who believe wholeheartedly that there is objective truth? Your second sentence implies that those who believe in objective truth are not being honest with themselves. Is that a correct assumption? I don't believe that everyone must embrace or profess something in order for it to be true. And isn't the belief that there is no objective truth, only my perspective and your perspective, and absolute truth? To deny that there is absolute truth is an absolute in and of itself.

 

[doppelganger]

To deny that there is absolute truth is an absolute in and of itself.

That's precisely why I wrote the last sentence in the post you quoted. Take another look.

Aside from that, go back and read the OP and any number of posts on this forum by its author and ask yourself "who is trying to impose a perspective on someone else in this discussion?"

 

[Sunstone]

I appreciate that you try to be honest with yourself and acknowledge that your perspective is your own, and that you try to recognize the same in others. However, aren't you imposing your perspective on me or others who believe wholeheartedly that there is objective truth? Your second sentence implies that those who believe in objective truth are not being honest with themselves. Is that a correct assumption? I don't believe that everyone must embrace or profess something in order for it to be true. And isn't the belief that there is no objective truth, only my perspective and your perspective, and absolute truth? To deny that there is absolute truth is an absolute in and of itself.

Asserting a claim about truth is no different in principle from asserting a claim about gravity. In what sense is laying out the evidence for gravity a matter of imposing your views on another person? In what sense is laying out the reasoning for a claim about truth a matter of imposing your views on another person?

 

[doppelganger]

I would add that the mere fact that we have differing perspectives on this very issue, different perspectives that we each think is true, proves that I'm right.

If one person thinks relativism is true and another person thinks relativism isn't true. Then relativism is true.:run:

 

[kmkemp]

No, not really. Just because you fail to see an absolute truth doesn't deny the existence its existence.

 

[doppelganger]

No, not really. Just because you fail to see an absolute truth doesn't deny the existence its existence.

That's because "existence" is subjective. I can't make you deny anything you want to believe in. By that same token, you can't make me deny anything I want to believe in. The "absolute truth" is whatever I decide it is. Whatever I decide . . . no matter what I decide . . . so long as I am subjectively certain of its absoluteness or objectivity.

And there's precious little or your own perceived Absolute Truth can do about it. :flirt:

Q.E.D.

 

[McBell]

No, not really. Just because you fail to see an absolute truth doesn't deny the existence its existence.

I believe that there are absolute truths.
Though, I do not believe that theology has any.

 

[kmkemp]

That's because "existence" is subjective. I can't make you deny anything you want to believe in. By that same token, you can't make me deny anything I want to believe in. The "absolute truth" is whatever I decide it is. Whatever I decide . . . no matter what I decide . . . so long as I am subjectively certain of its absoluteness or objectivity.

And there's precious little or your own perceived Absolute Truth can do about it. :flirt:

Q.E.D.

I'm sorry, but you are getting way too philosophical. In what way is existence ever subjective? Something either exists or it doesn't. It makes no difference whether I think it exists or not. It is not dependent upon me. You are claiming that existence isn't an absolute truth, I guess, but, once again, you are assuming (I think) that our ability to discern an absolute truth actually affects its existence. How is that possible?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Before I can determine whether your point has any validity at all, I need to know what kind of underwear you have on?

ewwwwww, You're freaky....


:flirt:

 

[doppelganger]

In what way is existence ever subjective?

Good question. Start a thread about what it means for something to "exist" and we can reason together and see if we can solve that little conundrum. :rainbow1: