The Trinity

[Shermana]

Belief isn't what gets one to heaven. Grace is what gets one to heaven.

Your righteousness is what gets you into heaven.

"Verily your righteousness must exceed the scribes and Pharisees if you want to enter the Kingdom".

 

[sojourner]

Your righteousness is what gets you into heaven.

"Verily your righteousness must exceed the scribes and Pharisees if you want to enter the Kingdom".

And that righteousness comes -- not according to how well we kept the law, but from the grace of the faith of Christ, as Romans says.

 

[Oryonder]

And that righteousness comes -- not according to how well we kept the law, but from the grace of the faith of Christ, as Romans says.

According to Peter and James it is by keeping the law. According to Paul it is by grace.

Different ideas about salvation was why Paul did not see eye to eye with Peter and James.

Jesus said it was by keeping the law as did Peter and James.

Peter and James actually knew Jesus, and Paul did not. I tend to default to Peter and James for this reason and also because this is what Jesus said.

 

[Shermana]

And that righteousness comes -- not according to how well we kept the law, but from the grace of the faith of Christ, as Romans says.

Well, Paul apparently has a different definition of how righteousness works than say Luke 1:6 where it says people are righteous because of their diligence. If you're prepared to accept Paul contradicting the rest of scripture, have at it.

So then, what happens to the grace of all those who unrepentantly fornicate and are jealous and angry and won't enter the Kingdom says what Paul says? Clearly grace is conditional, to say otherwise is to flat out ignore what Paul actually says about it.

And there's many ways to interpret what Paul says in Romans to begin with. 2:13 clearly says those who do the Law will be called righteous.

 

[Shermana]

According to Peter and James it is by keeping the law. According to Paul it is by grace.

Different ideas about salvation was why Paul did not see eye to eye with Peter and James.

Jesus said it was by keeping the law as did Peter and James.

Peter and James actually knew Jesus, and Paul did not. I tend to default to Peter and James for this reason and also because this is what Jesus said.

It is interesting how most "Christians" have no problem with Paul contradicting and clashing with the rest of scripture and will gladly take his word as if he trumps what Jesus and the OT says.

 

[obi one]

It is interesting how most "Christians" have no problem with Paul contradicting and clashing with the rest of scripture and will gladly take his word as if he trumps what Jesus and the OT says.

One of the guide post of the "Way" is found in Isaiah 8:20,"To the law and the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because they have no dawn"

 

[Oryonder]

It is interesting how most "Christians" have no problem with Paul contradicting and clashing with the rest of scripture and will gladly take his word as if he trumps what Jesus and the OT says.

Most Christians do not actually know that Paul is contradicted by Peter and James or that Peter and James did not really have much good to say about Paul.

I doubt that any of the deciples believed in the Pauline doctrine.

It is important to keep in mind that when the books of the Bible were chosen there was an agenda. Part of this agenda was the newly adopted Trinity Doctrine that could not be contradicted.

Constantine had ordered the Trinity into dogma and had made it clear that he would not tolerate any dissent on the issue . He certainly was not about to tolerate dissent in the new Holy Book he had commissioned to represent his chosen state religion.

This new state religion would justify Constantine's claim of "Pontifex Maximus" Bishop of Bishops and give him the the half man/half God status he desired .. or at least the ability to speak on God's behalf such that no one could say otherwise.

Pauls writing fit into Constantine's agenda and what did not fit .. the Bible editors made fit by changing the wording slightly, adding a word or two, or by ommission of offending passages.

 

[sojourner]

According to Peter and James it is by keeping the law. According to Paul it is by grace.

Different ideas about salvation was why Paul did not see eye to eye with Peter and James.

Jesus said it was by keeping the law as did Peter and James.

Peter and James actually knew Jesus, and Paul did not. I tend to default to Peter and James for this reason and also because this is what Jesus said.

If you can cite what, exactly, you're referencing, then we can debate better.

 

[sojourner]

It is important to keep in mind that when the books of the Bible were chosen there was an agenda. Part of this agenda was the newly adopted Trinity Doctrine that could not be contradicted.

Constantine had ordered the Trinity into dogma and had made it clear that he would not tolerate any dissent on the issue .

I suppose that's why we have Peter and James dissenting with Paul. Because Constantine would not tolerate any dissent.

 

[Shermana]

Most Christians do not actually know that Paul is contradicted by Peter and James or that Peter and James did not really have much good to say about Paul.

I doubt that any of the deciples believed in the Pauline doctrine.

It is important to keep in mind that when the books of the Bible were chosen there was an agenda. Part of this agenda was the newly adopted Trinity Doctrine that could not be contradicted.

Constantine had ordered the Trinity into dogma and had made it clear that he would not tolerate any dissent on the issue . He certainly was not about to tolerate dissent in the new Holy Book he had commissioned to represent his chosen state religion.

This new state religion would justify Constantine's claim of "Pontifex Maximus" Bishop of Bishops and give him the the half man/half God status he desired .. or at least the ability to speak on God's behalf such that no one could say otherwise.

Pauls writing fit into Constantine's agenda and what did not fit .. the Bible editors made fit by changing the wording slightly, adding a word or two, or by ommission of offending passages.

It is always a relief to see there are others who know that Paul is fit for the chopping block, an ambiguity which should only add to what Jesus said, not change, not rendering void anything he said. By the fruit we know the quality of the tree. It is the individual's interpretation of how to judge the tree. Mine is that the Ebionites were right, Paul was a fraudster, the Pauline church's foundation was on the anti-Judaizing movement.

As for the Trinity, keep in mind that Constantine seems to have converted to Arianism shortly before his death, demanding Athanasius to readmit Arius and his teachings into the church, the Royal Family became Arian for a few generations afterward. The Trinitarians were struggling even more to become independent or in control of the Empire. They connived at the Council of Constantinople to undo the changes made since Constantine's Synod of Tyre to reestablish their views as dominant. The Royal government preferred the minority movement against the Popular decree to banish them. Why?

Also, it seems that the Sinaiticus may have been a Royally issued book, so "his bible" is up to dispute, as it seems there were various laboriously-copied canons which made the rounds even at that time.

 

[Oryonder]

If you can cite what, exactly, you're referencing, then we can debate better.

The best place to start is the sermon on the mount which Jesus states clearly what it takes to get into heaven.

Im sure you are familiar with this so I will present the words of James which backs up the words of Jesus and refutes the words of Paul.

In James 2

So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty​

For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment​

What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?​

But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works​

is dead?

The second chapter of James deals exclusively with the idea of faith and works. It was probably written by James in repsonse to Pauls preaching.​

In Galations 2 we have Paul rebuke Peter. "When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong"​

Paul then rambles on for 4 chapters on how one is not saved by doing what the law says but by faith.​

Paul never does tell us how Peter responds because he is too busy ranting on what he thinks. Paul in fact says very little at all about the teachings of the other diciples which is unfortunate because we know so little about them.​

 

[outhouse]

The best place to start is the sermon on the mount which Jesus states clearly what it takes to get into heaven.

the sermon is fiction

the words have the possibility of being jesus parables.

In James 2

written way to late to be used for historicity as such.

Paul never does tell us how Peter responds because he is too busy ranting on what he thinks. Paul in fact says very little at all about the teachings of the other diciples which is unfortunate because we know so little about them.​

Correct


Paul knew very little about hem.


What I find funny here, is that paul hunts down the leaders of this very very small jewish sect shortly after its formation. He is hunting the apostles for up to 3 years who are spreading a jewish message.

Then all of a sudden paul emerges preaching to mainly romans and telling people to pay taxes and obey the governement, while the real movement is gone completely never to be heard again..

In 3 years how many apostles did paul have killed? all of them?

 

[Oryonder]

the sermon is fiction

the words have the possibility of being jesus parables.



written way to late to be used for historicity as such.






Correct


Paul knew very little about hem.


What I find funny here, is that paul hunts down the leaders of this very very small jewish sect shortly after its formation. He is hunting the apostles for up to 3 years who are spreading a jewish message.

Then all of a sudden paul emerges preaching to mainly romans and telling people to pay taxes and obey the governement, while the real movement is gone completely never to be heard again..

In 3 years how many apostles did paul have killed? all of them?

The truth or falsity of the story of the sermon on the mount is irrelevant to the point.

The point is if one believes the Bible is true then one much recognize that the message of Paul is in sharp contrast and contradiction to the message of Jesus.

 

[outhouse]

The truth or falsity of the story of the sermon on the mount is irrelevant to the point.

The point is if one believes the Bible is true then one much recognize that the message of Paul is in sharp contrast and contradiction to the message of Jesus.

true

you have a jewish version, and then a roman version based on mythology and theology with very little in common with jeus original mesage, or, what little we actually know about jesus message

 

[Shermana]

the point is if one believes the bible is true then one much recognize that the message of paul is in sharp contrast and contradiction to the message of jesus.

^^^^ ftw

 

[F0uad]

^^^^ ftw

took the words of my mouth.

 

[Oryonder]

^^^^ ftw

Free The Whales ?!

 

[sojourner]

The truth or falsity of the story of the sermon on the mount is irrelevant to the point.

The point is if one believes the Bible is true then one much recognize that the message of Paul is in sharp contrast and contradiction to the message of Jesus.

I don't think you're reading either with strong enough exegesis, if you're making that claim.

 

[Oryonder]

I don't think you're reading either with strong enough exegesis, if you're making that claim.

Statement of fact .. not a claim

 

[Vadergirl123]

The truth or falsity of the story of the sermon on the mount is irrelevant to the point.

The point is if one believes the Bible is true then one much recognize that the message of Paul is in sharp contrast and contradiction to the message of Jesus.

What?!?!!!?! How is Paul's message in contrast with Christ?