Who Do Christians Follow Paul or Jesus(pbuh)???

[Pegg]

I've been arguing this throughout this thread...(context). Once one understands the context...reading between the lines isn't necessary. While there are multiple instances or quotes we can look to to find out if Yeshua thought he was "God", whether his family or followers thought he was or he he taught he was...one only has to look at John chapter 17. It is a prayer to his god..a confirmation of the task he explicitly said his god gave him before his god sent him to earth...it also serves as a plea from Yeshua to his god. Chapter 17 serves as one of the best pieces of theological evidence against the notion that the biblical Yeshua thought or taught he was "God"

100% agreed.

 

[Pegg]

Now go from here with your responses

This is the orthodox Christian understanding of "that all may be one as you, Father in me and I in you, that also they in us may be."
That understanding is: one being, two divine persons,
all the born again in Christ, all their bodies the one body of Christ himself, all having one Spirit living in them,
Christ in God, and all the born again in God, via Christ.

.[/quote]

So if God is Christ and Christ is God because of this 'oneness'

then the disciples are also Christ and Christ is the disciples because Jesus said they can have the 'same' oneness as he has with God.

That is what the teaching of the trinity implies about the disciples....they are actually Christ.

 

[smokydot]

This is the orthodox Christian understanding of "that all may be one as you, Father in me and I in you, that also they in us may be."
That understanding is: one being, two divine persons,
all the born again in Christ, all their bodies the one body of Christ himself, all having one Spirit living in them,
Christ in God, and all the born again in God, via Christ.

So if God is Christ and Christ is God because of this 'oneness'

then the disciples are also Christ and Christ is the disciples because Jesus said they can have the 'same' oneness as he has with God.

That is what the teaching of the trinity implies about the disciples....they are actually Christ.

"As" does not necessarily mean "exactly."
It also means "in the same manner."

See post #138, where I discuss the Father and the Son in one being as the pattern (in the same manner) of oneness for all those who are born again in Christ.

They are one in the same manner as, rather than exactly as, the Father and Son are one in being.
In post #138 I explain how their oneness is in the same manner, rather than exactly as, the oneness of the Father and the Son in one being.

The forcing on Jn 17:21 of the word "as" to mean "exactly" distorts its meaning.
The text does not mean all the born again are in one another.

The NT calls that "wrestling the Scriptures to our own destruction." (2 Pe 3:16)
This wrestling is required in order to deny the Trinity.

 

[Pegg]

"As" does not necessarily mean "exactly."
It also means "in the same manner."

See post #138, where I discuss the Son in the Father and the Father in the Son as the pattern (in the same manner) of oneness for all those who are born again in Christ.

They are one in the same manner as, rather than exactly as, the Father and Son are one in being.
In post #138 I explain how their oneness is in the same manner, rather than exactly as, the oneness of the Father and the Son in one being.

Your forced use of "as" to mean "exactly" in Jn 17:21-22 distorts its meaning.
The text does not mean all the born again are in one another.
The NT calls that "wrestling the Scriptures to our own destruction." (2 Pe 3:16)

i certainly am having trouble seeing how they can be in the 'same manner' but be different

I think i'll just agree to disagree on this one for now

 

[smokydot]

And I understand it being the trinitarian view but scripturally this interpretation is deficient. The biblical Yeshua was separate before being sent by his god, while here on assignment from his god and after he returned to "heaven". This is not just my understanding..This is exactly what your scriptures say/describe of the biblical Yeshua. We know that he existed in heaven (with) his god with his own seperate will because that is what is written. We know that his god taught him and commanded him what he should say because this is what is written. We know he has a god that he prayed to because that is what is written,

We know that once he returned to "heaven" he was not god and explicitly said, while he was in heaven, he has a god because that is what is written. We know that there is a separation between "God" and Yeshua because chapters 4, 5 and 6 of Revelation reveal they are not the same. It's what is written. Everything else from trinitarians about the percentage of man or deity, that divine means deity is all speculation. These things are not written in the OT or the 4 gospels nor in Revelation.

The Father and the Son are two persons in the one God. They are not the same person.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

The Father and the Son are two persons in the one God. They are not the same person.

We can debate this ad nauseam but it means little in light of who's who in regards to Revelation 4, 5, and 6.

 

[A Thousand Suns]

I was pointing out the same arguments a thouansd suns is using to question the Bible could be applied to the Koran and Mohammed

Actually not ,as The oldest copy of Quran which was written only after 19 years after the death of prophet Muhammad(pbuh) is still present and you can compare that with any copy of Quran around the world, they are same there isn't a word added or subtracted----and the fact of matter is that Quran can never be changed as from the time ,when Muhammad(pbuh) was alive , millions of Muslims have memorized Quran , so even if all the copies of Quran are taken away we will still have Quran preserved in our hearts :yes:

 

[A Thousand Suns]

This is our starting point. If you don't accept the validity of the text there isn't any room for discussion.

I suppose one could construe the term "serious defects" as a depicton of the NT being distant from the truth but the reality is that once the revisions were made the central truths remained the same. I was brought up on the King James Version and now use the New American Standard. I have not seen a major difference between the two.

Its not me who has to accept the validity of KJM but its the Christian scholars who don't accept it validity

 

[A Thousand Suns]

I have a thread for that on religious debates (Did Jesus say He is God?) but it is extremely long. However the OP provides the scripture supporting the divinty of Jesus.

I have seen all sorts of claims like this and I know what possibly you could Quote from Bible----and I still challenge ----that anyone who shows me a single verse from entire Bible where Jesus(pbuh) himself says
1)I am God
2)Worship Me

I am ready to convert to Christianity

As a protestant I cringe whenever I hear the Catholics use the term "mother of God." Mary concevied in her womb, Jesus, who is God in the flesh. IMO that does not make her the mother of God. In the same manner of speaking God is not inhabiting a body to produce physical children. The children of God are so because of God indwelling them. This is a spiritual activity not a physical one.

Well someone here tried to prove that god begets that means its 'physical one'----Lol---How can God be God when he begets

"Say: He is Allah,The One and Only.Allah, the Eternal, Absolute.He begets not, nor is He begotten.And there is none like unto Him."[Al-Qur’an 112:1-4]

I agree with you on this point. Although a virgin giving birth is a sign of the Messiah it does not directly prove the divinty of Jesus. However in the Angel's answer to Mary's question: "How can this be?", we find that Jesus is God in the flesh because of the indwelling of God.

Exactly, its just a miracle

Luke 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee: wherefore also the holy thing which is begotten shall be called the Son of God.

First you said "This is a spiritual activity not a physical one" now you are using the word 'begotten'-----begetting is a animal act , God never begets----if you say god begets----then I am sorry to say you are degrading your god

And BTW this word 'begotten' is deleted from New International Version of Bible

Luke 1:35 (New International Version © 2010)

35 The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called[a] the Son of God.

And remember according to Bible all people who follow God are Sons of God

Obviously you missed this little word. There is no evidence that there are two Gods which is what that word is implying. The evidence is that there is one God who is Father and Son and Paraclete just as there is one God who is creator and judge and provider.

Sorry but this 'one God who is Father and Son' isnt present in Bible

However there is no Biblical evidence that Mary was divine in any way.

Also there is no Biblical evidence that Jesus(pbuh) was divine in any way


"They do blaspheme who say:‘Allah is Christ the sonOf Mary.’ But said Christ:‘O Children of Israel! Worship Allah, my Lord .And your Lord’. Whoever joins other gods with Allah –Allah will forbid him the Garden, and the Fire Will be his abode. There will for the wrongdoers .Be no one to help."
[Al-Qur’an 5:72]

 

[A Thousand Suns]

Where is our proof? Its in our heart. It is a gift of God. Now faith is the "evidence "of things to come. Why should we believe Paul ,because he believed God concerning christ. jesus preached the word of faith and so did Paul.

Its not evidence its Blind faith----and the reason you shouldn't believe in Paul because he's clearly contradicting Jesus(pbuh)

 

[A Thousand Suns]

the proof is in Pauls conversion...he was initially a persecutor of christians, then he becomes a christian. He was a well respected Pharisee...then he becomes a despised christian by choice.

The account about Pauls conversion comes from Luke....a doctor who wrote the Gospel "Luke" through the mouth of the Apostle Peter. He then went on to write the account of 'Acts' where he is instructed to write about Paul (originally named Saul)

That account of Acts was a record of the early happenings of the Christian church. It could easily have been refuted by opponents if it was nonfactual...but it wasnt refuted. Paul was known by the Pharisees because he was a student of a the famous Gamaliel. The history written in Acts about Paul was confirmed and accepted by many first century christians...the fact that the congregations were initially frightened of Paul testifies to the fact that he was initially opposed to Christianity.

I wasn't asking evidence based on bible----I was asking a historical evidence ,there must be other witness who saw Paul or met with him

 

[smokydot]

I wasn't asking evidence based on bible----I was asking a historical evidence ,there must be other witness who saw Paul or met with him

The Bible is historical evidence.

Paul visited with the leaders of the church in Jerusalem--Peter, the head apostle, James, the brother of Jesus, and John, writer of the gospel of John.

The leaders of the church in Jerusalem saw and met with him.

 

[A Thousand Suns]

The Bible is historical evidence.

Paul visited with the leaders of the church in Jerusalem--Peter, the head apostle, James, the brother of Jesus, and John, writer of the gospel of John.

The leaders of the church in Jerusalem saw and met with him.

I want to know historical evidence not based on Bible because there are many historical mistakes in Bible itself Ie Flood OF Noah

 

[smokydot]

I want to know historical evidence not based on Bible because there are many historical mistakes in Bible itself Ie Flood OF Noah

Do you have any historical records outside of Italy that show Caesar existed?
Because not all of the Roman historical records are completely accurate.

 

[A Thousand Suns]

Do you have any historical records outside of Italy that show Caesar existed?
Because not all of the Roman historical records are completely accurate.

So you don't have historical records of Paul's birth

 

[smokydot]

So you don't have historical records of Paul's birth

Was he born in Rome?

It's the historical records of Italy that have mistakes.

So do you have a historical record outside Italy of Caesar's existence?

 

[A Thousand Suns]

Was he born in Rome?

It's the historical records of Italy that have mistakes.

So do you have a historical record outside Italy of Caesar's existence?

So lets say Historical records have error , Bible contains historical errors----that means we have no way to knowing when was he actually born??

 

[smokydot]

So lets say Historical records have error , Bible contains historical errors----that means we have no way to knowing when was he actually born??

I don't think the Bible presents anything about Paul's birth.

It does present him meeting with the apostles of Jesus, so that locates him as a contemporary of the apostles.

Why is his birthdate important to you?
We don't know the birthdates of any of the NT writers.

 

[Muffled]

2)Jesus(pbuh) taught the Law of God

“Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil"- Matthew 5:17-29

But Paul broke the law of God----and told the law of previous Prophets isn't needed any more---According to him "Jesus fulfilled the law" which is in direct contradiction of what Jesus(pbuh) said:

Conclusion

So we can clearly see Paul and his theologians are going directly against Jesus(pbuh) teachings---

The word of Paul and the word of Jesus are consistent. However one ought to recognize that this is true only for Christians who have asked Jesus to be Lord and Savior.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

From my own studies of the Bible, and particularly the New Testament, I have seen a huge difference in what Paul taught and what Jesus taught. Paul was the one who seemed to introduce pagan-influenced ideas into Christianity. He gave two differing stories of his experience on the road to Damascus. And he admitted to using deceit to gain converts. Paul, to me, seems like a shady character. And, most Protestant churches, mainly the conservative ones, have always focused more on Paul's teachings than on those of Jesus. I've heard more sermons preached from Paul's writings than the Gospels.