Yes it is. Man that was easy.
In any case, what I am talking of here is that an apostle, a real apostle, was one of those who learned right at Jesus' feet. Paul does not qualify. Yet his words are literally confused with Jesus' own many times {I've watched you do it yourself often]. They were tax collectors etc until they abandoned those lives and became his followers. After that, they were receiving instructions 'directly from the source' if you want to quibble that Jesus was a literal conduit for God. Anybody else is second-hand, including Paul. Paul's lack of deep knowledge was painfully obvious when he first came among them and he only got better by being among the actual apostles
You are makeing this far too easy. Of all the apostles Paul had the only formal training in Old testament theology: HIS TRAINING IN JERUSALEM No doubt Saul left his home during his early adolescence and was taken to Jerusalem for his formal education in the most prominent rabbinical schools of that day. Among his teachers, young Saul had the privilege to be trained by Gamaliel, the most outstanding rabbi teacher of that time (Acts 22:3). Gamaliel was one of the most honorable and reputable Jewish rabbis during the days of the Apostles (Acts 5:34). He was the grandson of Hillel, the founder of the most influential rabbinical school of Judaism. Gamaliel was also the president of the Sanhedrin in succession of his father.
Tracing the Steps of the Apostle Paul*-*Truth in History
As far as the new testament is concerned:
"But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ...that I might preach him among the heathen (ethnos or nations) ..."
Galatians 1:11-12, 15-16
His claim to revelation from Christ is no less valid than any other apostle.
He was chosen by Christ himself, and affirmed by the other apostles. If they declared him authentic who are you to argue. Look who I'm talking to. His views were always upheld even in dissagreements with other apostles. He wrote more of the new testament that anyone. It isn't possible to prove any position as wrong as your is here.
However, no matter whom they were, they NEVER possessed the authority to change or undo God's laws.
So if God told them to write down the new covenant they could not have done it because you said so. Jesus himself introduced the new covenant.
Wow, so you think the suffering of the Jews is because they ignore God's laws. Holy **** son, you are all over the map of profane.
Are you being this wrong on purpose? Ezekiel 4:5-6
For I have laid upon thee the years of their iniquity, according to the number of the days, three hundred and ninety days: so shalt thou bear the iniquity of the house of Israel. And when thou hast accomplished them, lie again on thy right side, and thou shalt bear the iniquity of the house of Judah forty days: I have appointed thee each day for a year.
· Punishment = 390 years + 40 years = 430 years
Because of their disobedience to God's commands, the Israelites (Jews) were taken captive in 605 B.C. by the Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar (2 Chronicles 36:5-21).
I can supply about a hundred more and more can be found here:
1948 Prophecy Fulfilled
However I won't make any difference. It seems convienience trumps facts in your theological chaos.
I've danced the tango around you since the moment you arrived here, Mr Dunning-Kruger.
Well if you would do more research and less dancing you might have made a more challengeing case. Or one at all.
I realize the idea of divine retribution appeals to some like you; but we are talking of the thief on the cross sitting right next to Jesus. have you got a grasp of the conversation? If the thief was hung because God saw he was unjust.. then Jesus must have been unjust too, because there he was under the same condition. Think about that idea you are expressing, and then think about the scene we are looking at, when we are discussing it.
I don't even like devine retribution. Unlike you I don't decide what's true based on what I want to be so. There is so many things absolutely wrong with this statement I have to put it in list form.
1. I said even the thief himself said he broke the law and deserved punishment, and so your position is null and void. That means you won't admit it but instead cast about for a diversion.
2. The only evidence that exists for this thief suggests he was not a law abiding Jew, so your statement that he was not only was wrong but completely made up.
3. Have you actually read the bible? This same thief also declares that Jesus does not deserve his punishment, while the thief says that he does. For crying out loud it's in the same verse.
4.It is you who don't seem to even have a sunday school level of education about the scene.
If God said the Thief was getting what he deserved why did Jesus give him a pass to Paradise?
I was laughing so hard the Christian Phd I work with came over and read this stuff. He said you are a troll and being so wrong on purpose. I agree. Jesus is God and can declare Hitler righteous if Hitler believed, if he wants. Since all have sinned includeing the Jews and you, your complete denial of every biblical theme of justification by faith dooms everyone includeing you. Thank God you are completely wrong.
Any time you've offered this bland excuse it's been a case of deduction or simple psychological observation on my part; you're forgetting the context of what we are talking about, again. I am speaking of ALL the times you dismissed en mass ALL the fallacy spotting done to your posts. Please.
Nice punt.
Look, as hard as this may be to swallow, human behavior is very predictable. It fits into patterns. People who grasp or are interested in that kind of thing, can see the patterns. All I am doing is pointing out the behavior you are expressing in your posts. It's not actually that hard. I do not need omnipotence nor do I need to be inside your mind to know why you do things, or why you are reacting, when it's right there in front of us in your words. 'Claim to knowledge', if you think that's a legitimate debate fallacy idea try codifying it. Describe fully what it actually means. Give it a snazzy name. Get it 'published' somewhere. Then you can stand beside me. Definitely a leg up for you, considering.
Human nature is so predictable it has led to weapons that can destroy all mankind and to medicine that has stopped polio for all mankind. I am no longer interested in your evaluations of anything.
Oh, but you do mind when I do that.
You see, like that other poster, I've been educating you on the faults of your reasoning; you take that as an insult and refuse to see or learn. When something you've said is dismissed I've given reasons.
You have been educateing me alright. You have revealed not a lack of knowledge, but a aversion to it stronger than I would have ever guessed.
You are just dreadfully disingenuous when things go against you.
Stormtrooper.. Stormtrooper.. Stormtrooper...
It's pretty bad when this is the most relevant thing in your posts.
I QUOTED IT RIGHT AFTER THAT YOU SILLY PERSON. THAT WAS YOUR QUOTE WITH THE WORD 'QUOTE' IN BLUE.
But that quote perfectly lines up with my position and stands in oposition to yours. I said you didn't produce a quote by me that justifies your claims and you still haven't.
You have lost your grip on reality.
Reading your posts will do that.
In addition I would recommend that probably for your first time, you should actually Google up the 613 Levitical laws and see what they actually say. They do not read like something only priests could do.
For God's sake, there are sections containing only ceremonial law.
Direct observation of your own words.
This is not a mere personal fact, it's your visible habit.
Ooohhh, but wait, I forgot, we are dealing here with a person who thinks all of psychological medicine is quackery.
I never said that. Of course that has no bearing on you claiming I did. I said your rediculous addiction psychology is less than quackery, and the rest of psychology contains vast areas of guesswork.
Interestingly enough the Thief was not repentant in all the gospels; what specific gospel is the only one you use? If he were repentant I would guess it's Luke. And only Luke.
If you reject things said in a hundred places in the bible why would all four gospels make a difference. The gospels all cover different angles on purpose. They employ literary techniques such as telescopeing, etc..... If they did say the same exact things you would be the first one yelling they just copied one another. You have to step up your game or I have will have to look elsewhere for a challengeing discussion. I have never seen comments so the polar opposite of truths so well known that sunday school children understand them perfectly. Opposing viewpoints based on sound logic and consistency with what they are addressing are interesting, your isn't.
As for such guilt, I have none
That explains alot.
New International Version (©1984)
If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. Sincerely God.
Most people are dreadfully stupid, and no progress was ever made following the guy ahead of you.
