How does Romans 1 explain this...?

[Ouroboros]

Invictus, one day you might lose your faith, and you will be so frustrated and upset over the delusions you held.

[Abiyoyo]

Dear Yoyo, thanks for that heartwarming testimony.  Perhaps this testimony will also be of interest to you.

Why don't you glory in the almighty power of the IPU Yoyo?  Can you not see the light?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I acknowledge that God has done some weird or even uncomprehendable things throughout the OT, NT, and in some peoples lives, including mine. What specifically is in reference, as example, to the veiw above? Death? Bad circumstances? Financial difficulties? Greed in the church? All the above? or something else. I really would like to know specifically what your main reasoning is to the above story.

[Abiyoyo]

hmm...Seems to me as God plays favorites then.  NUMEROUS "faithful" Christians have never had such fortunate circumstances as yourself.  I suppose that Han and his family are much less to god than you.  Sorry Han but these "testomonies" piss me off.  YoYo if you haven't read what happened to Hans families, you need to.  Many unbelievers quit smoking cold turkey, or with nicorrette, or gum, they don't have a built in "something" to need to glorify.  People lose weight, have coincidences, receive unnannounced money all of the time, Christianity doesn't have a special priviledge in cases like these.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Maybe if you knew what I have been through, and not assume, you would not have even made these comments. However, God in this case relieved me of an addiction that I have been critized, called a liar because, and a hypocrite. How is this a "special privalage" or "gift" that God has given me.

 

I have battled and prayed and fasted for a long time. I have true to the Lord in my faith, yet I could not quit. This was the most difficult thing I have ever been through. I am not saying that Hans testimony is of no importance, I havent even read it. I do care about whatever has affected his life, and will pray for him.

 

I was relieved of my addictions by Him, and not by me. I thought that satan was trying to affict me, but the whole time it was me resisting Gods will for me.

[Amanda]

Amanda, there also seems to be at our core a self-preservation mechanism which allows us to deceive ourselves and to blind ourselves to the less palatable things we wish to not see. The human animal is a master at self-deception. My most honest self has served me better and more faithfully, for my holistic good health, than my deceitful self and so I try to give it preference as it is trustworthy. I consider it my higher self, if you will.

 

We hide from things or try to cover up the things that we are not yet ready to deal with or have exposed. We put on masks because we do not want others to see who we really are. By living an opaque kind of life (often in the name of privacy), rather than an open and transparent one, we fool ourselves into thinking we do not have to be held accountable. The ostrich with his head in the sand comes to mind.

 

The truth we know today may be inadequate to meet our needs tomorrow so even the truth we know today oftens needs to evolve or be discarded. Elitism is rooted in insecurity. Fear often makes people inflexible.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

AHHHHHHH... beautifully said! I'd love to hear more from you! You have a wonderful articulation that is pure wisdom! Thank you for sharing!

[chefranden]

The quote function only works with a maximum of ten quotes. Sorry about that, VP.

 

I have edited your post.

 

This is the most useful information in this thread. Let's see Invictus refute it!

[Cerise]

I acknowledge that God has done some weird or even uncomprehendable things throughout the OT, NT, and in some peoples lives, including mine. What specifically is in reference, as example, to the veiw above? Death? Bad circumstances? Financial difficulties? Greed in the church? All the above? or something else. I really would like to know specifically what your main reasoning is to the above story.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Reasoning is this: Everyone can find five bucks on the street and claim it was because Jesus/Allah/Krishna/Pele/Santa Claus performed a miracle for them. Everyone can claim that they know a guy who knows a guy who heard from a friend that Jesus/Allah/Krishna/Pele/Santa Claus cured their cancer. Everyone can claim that Jesus/Allah/Krishna/Pele/Santa Claus relieved them of their addiction to drugs/porno/smoking/alcohol/violence/daytime television...

 

Personal experience is all well and good, but it isn't proof of anything for anyone but you. And you might be lying/delusional/hallucinating/blind etc.

 

It's also, as already pointed out, extremely offensive to laud one's "miraculous gifts from God" when faced with the evidence that 40,000 people everyday didn't get any kind of special help. They died. While the angels were doing laundry, and the Holy Ghost was messing around with SimCity, and Jesus was helping you with your addiction, a whole whack of other people died.

 

Can you explain that?

 

Where those angels when you need them...

[Abiyoyo]

With all sincerity I say, that I'm glad you were able to stop your addictions.  I mean that with no sarcasm at all.  However, that people credit this type of thing and glorify god with it only shows favoritism. 

 

Where the hell was the almighty loving bible deity god when that little girl was held by her rapist for 3 days and buried alive with her stuffed animal , couple of months ago?  Your addictions are small in comparison to what that little girl went through.  If helping grown-ups overcome addictions, get a surpirse cash amount in the mail, etc.,  is the best he can do then he isn't squat.  He is not worthy of worship.  Some Christian is hooting and hollering because "Praise God, I got that job!!"  At the same time, a little girl is being tortured, raped and buried alive with no help from this "god."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Where is the little girl now?

I can't describe in any words the sorrow or remorse that the family of that girl has, nor can I describe any "Godly" surrounding of that event. The only question I can ask is where is the girl now?

 

I think that is a fair question to anyone on this forum, at church, or anywhere. There are all kinds of people in this world. The Bible tells me that there has been human actions by choice on earth since Cain and Abel. Your question or direction nevertheless, is basically Why would this caring, loving, and mighty God let this happen to this sweet innocent girl?

 

Gets back to my question. If there this mighty loving God(Bible God), then there are all the things that the Bible says there are. My point is that on this earth and to most of society(including myself), this is a very horrible thing that happened.

 

Spiritually(Biblically), Is this little girl not being comforted in Abrahams arms?Is this little girl in a place that never thirsts? Did God say,He would wipe this little girls tears and comfort her, in her eternal home?

 

If the assumtion is that there is a God and He lets these things happen, because He's a false God, then that is lack of education in the scripture. If the assumtion is that there is no God(Bible) at all, then the girl was survived by her family.

 

The Bible God I serve tells me through the scripture that this little girl is receiving her comfort now, the man responsible will be held accountable on this earth as well as afterlife(even if saved). The Bible also tells me that this world is filled with both believers and unbelievers, and that we all have to live here until the Great and Awesome Day of the Lords return. Then he will gather all that have followed him(unperfect believers), then he will give this whole world another chance through the Great Tribulation, then he will say enough. Gather my harvest.

[Abiyoyo]

Reasoning is this:  Everyone can find five bucks on the street and claim it was because Jesus/Allah/Krishna/Pele/Santa Claus performed a miracle for them.  Everyone can claim that they know a guy who knows a guy who heard from a friend that Jesus/Allah/Krishna/Pele/Santa Claus cured their cancer.  Everyone can claim that Jesus/Allah/Krishna/Pele/Santa Claus relieved them of their addiction to drugs/porno/smoking/alcohol/violence/daytime television...

 

If the assumtion is that there is a God and He lets these things happen, because He's a false God, then that is lack of education in the scripture. If the assumtion is that there is no God(Bible) at all, then the girl was survived by her family.

 

 

 

Personal experience is all well and good, but it isn't proof of anything for anyone but you.  And you might be lying/delusional/hallucinating/blind etc.

 

It's also, as already pointed out, extremely offensive to laud one's "miraculous gifts from God" when faced with the evidence that 40,000 people everyday didn't get any kind of special help.  They died.  While the angels were doing laundry, and the Holy Ghost was messing around with SimCity, and Jesus was helping you with your addiction, a whole whack of other people died. 

 

Can you explain that? There are many things that I can explain by what I believe. The more important question is if I explained them, would you hear what I said and understand it? I really wanted to know specifically.

 

 

 

Where those angels when you need them...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Cerise]

Hey Yoyo, the little girl...well, she was a Wiccan. So you tell me. Where is she?

[Ouroboros]

Hey Yoyo, the little girl...well, she was a Wiccan.  So you tell me.  Where is she?

Oooh! Good punch!

 

Remind me not to get into an argument with you!

[Mr. Neil]

You must see how it all interacts together. Not just the appearance of a species, but how does this appearance fit with the beginning of life. How does the beginning of the universe fit with the species. How does what exists now fit with what existed before life. How does what existed prior to the “Big Bang” fit with what exist now.

 

Don’t just read the rehashed gibberish that floats on this and other websites; research, go to libraries and book stories. Go to college campuses, take courses and talk to people. Let it all sink in. Let your mind be free to wonder through the all the stimulation without any pre-imposed destination.

 

Put all the individual parts together and see the big picture. Then put yourself in the picture and look around.

Why?

 

Seriously, why should anyone do it that way? What kind of system of inquiry refuses to start until it fits all other fields of inquiry? That's retarded. You'd never get anything done that way. That would be like telling Newton that he was wrong to create a theory of gravity for not having a complete understanding (or any understanding) of subatomic particles, Einstein's theory of general relativity, and string theory.

 

You know, and I've gone through all of this with you before on the evolution shit. It's not a matter of "the appearance of the species". Fuck you anyway for dragging your evolution ignorance into my apologetics thread, but the theory evolution is a theory of common descent. You keep ragging on morphological evidence, but I've given you molecular evidence twice, and both times you've ignored it, like the intellectually dishonest liar you are.

 

Evolution is overwhelmingly supported by the science of genetics. Like the common descent between people, families, and sub-species, so is the common descent of species. For some reason, though, you want to put this arbitrary line between sub-species and species by childishly demanding that science can't have a complete theory of biology without including pre-biology as well, and there's simply no reason for such an unwarranted expectation.

 

We don't just "read gibberish on websites". Many of us are scholars and even teachers. We've taken the courses. We've been to the schools. We've read the books. And we've done the work ourselves. Have you been listening to a damn thing Spooky has been saying? How about Zach? Did you know that our resident mod, Zach Moore, is a molecular biologist? What more do you need, Invictus? We're not the ignorant yokels you keep trying to paint us as. Put away that broad brush.

 

The only one talking in gibberish is you. You are a dissident little troll who doesn't want to listen to a damn thing anyone says. You want to spend more time ragging on me for using a word such as "Christian" when you know precisely in which context I was using it. You'd rather play semantic games over the words I used in my set-up paragraphs than actually discuss the topic. The inquiry was easy to understand, but like all other transcendentalists, you'd rather pick apart my statement, looking for the cheap and easy way to avoid the argument by exploiting a questionable error. And you do it because, like all transcendentalists, you don't actually have the courage to argue anything.

 

That's why TAG isn't actually an argument. It's really just an attempt at wasting time. It's a method of goal-post-shifting to avoid having to deal with the inconsistancies of Christian faith with the reality of the world around us. It's an stance which abandons evidentialism, because if there's one area in which theism consistantly gets its ass kicked, it's evidence.

 

You are a lying chickenshit coward. You ignore, twist, and lie. You've been destroyed on every single point you've attempted to make.

 

I stand behind my original statement. A Christian is a person who believes in Jesus, and a presuppositionalist is a Christian with an annoying, self-refuting argument, based on the work of Christian apologists Van Til and Bahnsen. I reject your argument that to believe it to know, because it is in no way consistant with how these two words are used and/or defined, and as Han pointed out, it's incompatible with the verse in question, because you've equated belief of atheism with knowledge of atheism, and Romans 1 says that atheists know God and are therefore deceived and/or lying when they claim to be atheists.

 

You lose. You suck. You contradicted your own argument, and now you're the one who's descended into absurdity.

[Abiyoyo]

Hey Yoyo, the little girl...well, she was a Wiccan.  So you tell me.  Where is she?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Good question. Where is the little girl if she willingly believed and practiced Wiccan? I dunno. Where is she if the little girl was of a family that practiced Wiccan and she had to participate? Jesus talked about what would happen to anyone that caused any of these little ones to sin. Read on, the answers are in the Book, I just never quit looking. (FYI, the Bible God set a commandment about worshiping anything/one other than Him).

 

 

Oooh! Good punch!

 

Remind me not to get into an argument with you!

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Good advice, since I am not trying to throw punches at anyone, just making my POV based on my beliefs. The same beliefs that some become offended by because of there past situations that overcame them, causing them to reject them alltogether. I have not gave up, or found any 1 thing that has prompted me to change my standpoint.

 

Before everyone starts giving me there take on why Christianity is whatever they think it is, please consider that I have heard most of everyones "truths" and even researched and found different things, but all the none, meaningless.

[Abiyoyo]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Presuppositionalists are Christians who use Romans 1 to say that all people know that God exists and that atheists are therefore liars.

 

I agree that this is odd, when the whole point of Jesus and the spreading of the Gospel was to show Gods hand to all nations. I think that some may claim to this logic, while others probualy suggest that an unbeliever would see there unrighteousness or ungodliness in there ways through the works of people of God(I have seen this). I also think that this goes toward all men, even believers. W e were all made bound by flesh.(Biblically).

 

 

But what about agnostic Christians?  There are some Christians that I've met who will admit that they don't know that God exists, but that they have faith in God anyway.  How does the presuppositionalist explain this claim?

 

Good question. I would probualy fit more in the apnostic side though through this site I am coming to the conclusion that for every contradiction that I see in the Gospels(just example), there are more important doctrine(to me) that are verified by all accounts or 3of 4.

 

Are we to believe that these people are lying as well?  According to Manata logic, they are!  Or maybe they know of God, but they don't know that they know of God, and therefore don't know what they know.  Why would somebody accept "the truth", but still claim to not know the truth?

 

Did you read Romans 1-17? The book in criticism has the answer to that question. If I read this chapter literally, as it seems has been done, then should this verse not also be read the same way. It is very clear.(If read literally). KJV

 

 

 

 

 

Ugh... the mental gymnastics one must do to be a fundamentalist Christian.  Thank God I'm an atheist.

 

Actually, it really not that hard, if you can tell yourself that this is your guide to life, and also acknowledge that this book has been written by many different authors, in many different eras. (There may be some errors).

[Ouroboros]

Did you read Romans 1-17? The book in criticism has the answer to that question. If I read this chapter literally, as it seems has been done, then should this verse not also be read the same way. It is very clear.(If read literally). KJV

That’s kind of a low punch, because our site is an ex-christian site. I took a special Bible class for a couple of weeks stretch, just about Romans. So I read it several times.

 

The verse in question is the verse that claim that all unbelievers know in their heart that God exists, and the reason they deny the existence of God is because their evil. You don’t have to read 17 chapters to get the picture of that verse. Maybe you should read Romans 1 in the whole context of The Whole Bible, the Whole Church history, Science, Psychology and Philosophy. That’s the whole context you should read.

 

The whole context excuse doesn’t buy you any leeway here.

 

Actually, it really not that hard, if you can tell yourself that this is your guide to life, and also acknowledge that this book has been written by many different authors, in many different eras. (There may be some errors).

True, the Bible can be a nice book with some really nice proverbs and guides for life, and I don’t deny that. This particular topic is a rebuttal of St Paul’s poorly written and falsely statement in conjunction with a certain apologists claim that an atheist is evil and should know better.

 

Sorry for my rant YoYo, it’s not personal, I just trying to break the facts to you.

[Abiyoyo]

That’s kind of a low punch, because our site is an ex-christian site. I took a special Bible class for a couple of weeks stretch, just about Romans. So I read it several times.

 

The verse in question is the verse that claim that all unbelievers know in their heart that God exists, and the reason they deny the existence of God is because their evil. You don’t have to read 17 chapters to get the picture of that verse. Maybe you should read Romans 1 in the whole context of The Whole Bible, the Whole Church history, Science, Psychology and Philosophy. That’s the whole context you should read.

 

The whole context excuse doesn’t buy you any leeway here.

True, the Bible can be a nice book with some really nice proverbs and guides for life, and I don’t deny that. This particular topic is a rebuttal of St Paul’s poorly written and falsely statement in conjunction with a certain apologists claim that an atheist is evil and should know better.

 

Sorry for my rant YoYo, it’s not personal, I just trying to break the facts to you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Thats cool, I respect that. I was referring to Romans1:17, about faith. I will tell you my thoughts though. i think Bible classes are great, but I think that they can lead to destruction. Why? I have read the Bible in context(have found errors without the internet), and I have maintained a large picture of the point, and importance. I think the OT classes are good, for history and terms. I think when Christians get to deep into the Gospels, and the interpretations, Faith starts failing.

 

I have talked with many people that have taken the errors from the OT, and the variations and contradictions from the NT(mainly ways or practices) and that is the main pretense of there departure from the Lord. I look at the Gospels like this. Jesus came, God proclaimed Him to be His Son, Jesus said He was before all, He performed miracles, and Rose from the dead, presenting Himself in amny ways and fashions, most different. The main thing for me is that I by faith believe He rose. How could I ever prove it? I cant. Until the day I see Him.

 

Anyhow, I apologize if I sounded bad when I said that, I just more often than none see the contradictions presented in the Bible by people. When I see them, I find more truths and verifieds than I do falses. (Thats just me).

[Abiyoyo]

I'm so glad that you wrote this because I see genuine sincerity here, not a holier than though, "I've got it and you don't" attitude.  So even though this is posted to Han, it's now easier for me to see where you are coming from and I will try to keep that in mind from this point on, in my replies.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

What can I say but how thankful i am for that response.

 

Couldnt resist.

 

Seriously, I appreciate that.

[Mr. Neil]

That’s kind of a low punch, because our site is an ex-christian site. I took a special Bible class for a couple of weeks stretch, just about Romans. So I read it several times.

 

The verse in question is the verse that claim that all unbelievers know in their heart that God exists, and the reason they deny the existence of God is because their evil. You don’t have to read 17 chapters to get the picture of that verse. Maybe you should read Romans 1 in the whole context of The Whole Bible, the Whole Church history, Science, Psychology and Philosophy. That’s the whole context you should read.

 

The whole context excuse doesn’t buy you any leeway here.

I've run into that a lot with people like Jason Gastrich. The context argument gets old really quickly. It's like no matter what, there's always more to read before the atheist can understand the full context of a single verse or chapter.

 

This is a little off topic, but an example of context abuse is when you take something like Exodus 21, which has laws describing how one is to buy slaves, and the apologist screams "CONTEXT!" And you're just kinda left standing there like, "Slavery needs context?!"

 

 

Actually, it really not that hard [being a fundamentalist], if you can tell yourself that this is your guide to life, and also acknowledge that this book has been written by many different authors, in many different eras. (There may be some errors).

Well, then you're not a fundamentalist if you acknowledge possible error. But some people don't think like that. There are people who don't want to think about the possibility of errors and will strain themselves to fill in all the holes.

 

And then ther are those that simply don't think about their beliefs at all. In cases like that, I suppose fundamentalism would be quite easy when one doesn't leave room for criticial inquiry.

[Abiyoyo]

I've run into that a lot with people like Jason Gastrich.  The context argument gets old really quickly.  It's like no matter what, there's always more to read before the atheist can understand the full context of a single verse or chapter.

 

This is a little off topic, but an example of context abuse is when you take something like Exodus 21, which has laws describing how one is to buy slaves, and the apologist screams "CONTEXT!"  And you're just kinda left standing there like, "Slavery needs context?!"

 

 

Well, then you're not a fundamentalist if you acknowledge possible error.  But some people don't think like that.  There are people who don't want to think about the possibility of errors and will strain themselves to fill in all the holes.

 

And then ther are those that simply don't think about their beliefs at all.  In cases like that, I suppose fundamentalism would be quite easy when one doesn't leave room for criticial inquiry.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Thats weird you said that. I feel like God has lead me to help Christians start deciding whether they should believe the Bibles principles and teachings or what man has said they are.

 

The whole error free Bible, was fitted into some preachers sermon about the flawless word of God. This might come across as confusing. I believe the word of God is flawless in its direction and principles, and guide. I believe that the Bible was inspired by God(thats in the Bible). I believe that the Bible does have written errors in it(time, place, etc.). Yet, I still believe the context is the inspired words of God, through many different people and eras for them yesterday, and us today.

[Ouroboros]

Well, then you're not a fundamentalist if you acknowledge possible error.  But some people don't think like that.  There are people who don't want to think about the possibility of errors and will strain themselves to fill in all the holes.

 

I concur. The church I belonged to for 10 years was a fundamentalist church, as some of you know, the Word of Faith. Not only did we think the Bible be without faults, but we really took the verses literally. If it said “cast out demons”, then we would do that, if it said “speak in tongues” we would do that, if it said “women not talk in church”, then women couldn’t talk in church, and you can go on. But somehow, strangely enough now when I think about it, we never stoned anyone according to OT law!

 

17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

I’m taking your advice and read Rom 1:17-, and lets analyze it.

v17 says God has revealed his righteousness (how did he reveal it?)

v18 God has revealed his wrath against ungodliness and evil men who hold the truth (how did he reveal it)

v19 God showed it to them (how did he show it?)

v20 The invisible things are clearly seen (totally illogical)

v20 The visible-invisible things are understood by the people in v19 (why?)

v20 The evil people in v19 do all bad things, but are without excuse

v21 They knew God, but didn’t glorify God the right way and were not thankful, but were vain.

V22 So they are fools because of this.

 

So v21 tells us what these evil people did. They confessed to God, but didn’t believe in God, and they are now (v19) ungodly and unrighteous (evil). These verses talk about people that were Christians, but now are not, and they never glorified God, but they still can see what is invisible, shown wrath and righteousness, so they have no excuse.

 

All this together pretty much say this:

1. You’re an ex-Christian, that never knew God or you were not thankful (which is a lie)

2. You should know anyway that God exist, because God shows you invisible things (which is a contradiction)

3. You should know anyway know God because God showed his wrath and righteousness. (Which is what? Which wrath? And what righteousness?)

 

I had more share of God’s wrath before I de-converted, but now I’m free and moving forward in progress and happiness.

Secondly I don’t know, think, feel, believe, have notion of, trust or subscribe to the idea that the Bible God exists!

 

So in all these verses, St. Paul are a crappy theologian, crappy Philosopher and he never took the classes in basic Logic. Besides he has no knowledge of psychology or what people REALLY believe, think or trust.

 

Basically, all false in its literal meaning.

[Ouroboros]

The whole error free Bible, was fitted into some preachers sermon about the flawless word of God. This might come across as confusing. I believe the word of God is flawless in its direction and principles, and guide. I believe that the Bible was inspired by God(thats in the Bible). I believe that the Bible does have written errors in it(time, place, etc.). Yet, I still believe the context is the inspired words of God, through many different people and eras for them yesterday, and us today.

 

You believe in an inspired Bible, but not in a flawless Bible. That is not considered a fundamentalist in most groups.

 

John Shelby-Spong comes to mind here of some reason...

[Mythra]

I agree that this is odd, when the whole point of Jesus and the spreading of the Gospel was to show Gods hand to all nations.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hi YoYo:

 

Your quote raised a question in my mind. Perhaps you can answer it for me.

By your quote, did you mean this passage of scripture?

 

Matt 28:18

And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.

 

Jesus said this to eleven of the disciples on a mountaintop in Galilee. This is also known as the Great Commission.

 

Now, in the book of Acts chapters 10 and 11, we have the visions of Peter, giving him a revelation about the Gentiles, going to the house of Cornelius, etc.

 

We have passages such as this:

 

Acts 10:45

And the believers from among the circumscised who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out even on the Gentiles.

 

then, when Peter reports back to the church, we have this:

 

Acts 11:2

So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcision party criticized him saying, "You went to uncircumcised men and ate with them."

 

Now, my questions for you, Yo-yo.

 

Why did it take a special vision of Peter to give the disciples the great revelation that the gospel was also for the Gentiles?

 

Did all 11 disciples forget the words of their Lord in the Great Commission?

 

Why the arguments and contention amongst them about this issue?

 

Why didn't Peter just quote Jesus' commandment, and that would have settled the matter?

 

If Matthew 28:18 actually happened, it is inconceivable that these issues would have arisen in the early church.

 

Just another dilemna from the "perfect" word of god.

[Mythra]

You lost me, tf.

 

 

Unless you are talking about Jesus saying, "I came not to do away with the law" and "Not one jot or tittle of the law will disapear" vs. Paul saying "we are not under law, but under grace" and "all things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable".

 

Or, were you referring to something else?

[Mythra]

Hi Thankful.

 

I just thought a little more about the Paul vs. Jesus thing, and about the OT vs. NT discrepancies.

 

I don't want to portray myself as knowing more than I do. (there's enough people here already doing that) - I'm thinking of troy and invictus in particular.

 

But, I have been doing a little studying. And here are some of the things I've found that help to explain some things. (If I get some detail wrong, I apologize)

And, some of this you may already know.

 

Paul's writings preceded the writing of the gospels. It isn't really clear what Paul's concepts of christ were, but we do know that he makes no mention of any of Jesus' teachings, miracles, or virgin birth. Completely inconceivable, if Paul had known of these things.

 

The few references to a historical Jesus in Paul's writings (such as a reference involving Pontius Pilate) are believed by many scholars to be fraudulent later insertions.

 

Lots of things in the synoptic gospels are a counter-attack to Paul's teachings by the Judaizer wing of christianity. They seem to counter the "salvation by grace" concept by demanding adherence to the OT law.

 

This explains why so much of the New Testament seems to argue against itself

 

Marcion of Pontus was one of the early church fathers, who was later branded as a heretic by the Roman Church. He believed that the OT god and NT god were not the same god. Marcion wrote a gospel too, that is similar to Luke, except much of the historical "facts' are missing. I've read that Luke copied Marcion and added to it. I've also read that Marcion copied Luke and subtracted details from it. I tend to believe that Marcion's came first. Here is a pretty interesting read about Marcion.

Marcion.htm

[Ouroboros]

Hi YoYo:

 

Your quote raised a question in my mind.  Perhaps you can answer it for me.

By your quote, did you mean this passage of scripture?

 

Matt 28:18

And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.  Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.

 

Jesus said this to eleven of the disciples on a mountaintop in Galilee.  This is also known as the Great Commission.

 

Now, in the book of Acts chapters 10 and 11, we have the visions of Peter, giving him a revelation about the Gentiles, going to the house of Cornelius, etc. 

 

We have passages such as this:

 

Acts 10:45

And the believers from among the circumscised who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out even on the Gentiles.

 

then, when Peter reports back to the church, we have this:

 

Acts 11:2

So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcision party criticized him saying, "You went to uncircumcised men and ate with them."

 

Now, my questions for you, Yo-yo.

 

Why did it take a special vision of Peter to give the disciples the great revelation that the gospel was also for the Gentiles? 

 

Did all 11 disciples forget the words of their Lord in the Great Commission?

 

Why the arguments and contention amongst them about this issue?

 

Why didn't Peter just quote Jesus' commandment, and that would have settled the matter?

 

If Matthew 28:18 actually happened, it is inconceivable that these issues would have arisen in the early church.

 

Just another dilemna from the "perfect" word of god.

 

Hey! This is a good one, I never thought of this! Damn you're good.

[Ouroboros]

Hi Thankful. 

 

I just thought a little more about the Paul vs. Jesus thing, and about the OT vs. NT discrepancies. 

 

I don't want to portray myself as knowing more than I do.  (there's enough people here already doing that)  -  I'm thinking of troy and invictus in particular.

 

But, I have been doing a little studying.  And here are some of the things I've found that help to explain some things.  (If I get some detail wrong, I apologize)

And, some of this you may already know.

 

Paul's writings preceded the writing of the gospels.  It isn't really clear what Paul's concepts of christ were, but we do know that he makes no mention of any of Jesus' teachings, miracles, or virgin birth.  Completely inconceivable, if Paul had known of these things.

 

The few references to a historical Jesus in Paul's writings (such as a reference involving Pontius Pilate) are believed by many scholars to be fraudulent later insertions.   

 

Lots of things in the synoptic gospels are a counter-attack to Paul's teachings by the Judaizer wing of christianity.  They seem to counter the "salvation by grace" concept by demanding adherence to the OT law.

 

This explains why so much of the New Testament seems to argue against itself

 

Marcion of Pontus was one of the early church fathers, who was later branded as a heretic by the Roman Church.  He believed that the OT god and NT god were not the same god. Marcion wrote a gospel too, that is similar to Luke, except much of the historical "facts' are missing.  I've read that Luke copied Marcion and added to it.  I've also read that Marcion copied Luke and subtracted details from it.  I tend to believe that Marcion's came first.  Here is a pretty interesting read about Marcion.

 

Very good post Mythra!

 

I’d like to add to the thought a little bit. Take all the religions that have started the last 200 years, like Mormons, and Jehovah’s Witness etc. They deviate a little in the church and have a few but small break ups. But overall they have been very consistent with the original idea and teaching. Even if they changed certain liturgy and dogmas over the years, the whole church has been uniform.

 

So if it is possible to do this with one person, writing one frigging new version of holy book, and people can maintain unity, why would Christians be so immensely confused the first 50 years after Jesus death? The only explanation is that not even ONE single person really had a true idea of what the religion was supposed to be. I would say the confusion and diversity of the early church points even harder to the idea that Jesus never existed, and Christianity was a mix of different ideologies and religions.