+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 16 of 68

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    6,872

    Paul was a Fraud.

    In order to promote his new religion, Paul misquoted and misinterpreted Old Testament scripture. If Paul’s theology stands, it must stand without the Old Testament. He made many references to the Old Testament, and not all references are in error, just the ones vital to Christian theology. The following are two major theological blunders made by Paul.


    His most serious blunder was when he misquoted Old Testament verse referring to Moses’ “fading glory.” Paul wrote, “We are not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face to keep the Israelites from gazing at it while the radiance was fading away.” (2 Cor. 3:13). If you read Exodus 34:29-35 (quoting from NIV Bible), you’ll find no mention of Moses doing what Paul wrote. What the OT says with reference to Moses’ radiant face is found in Exodus. “When Aaron and all the Israelites saw Moses, his face was radiant, and they were afraid to come near him.” (EX 34:30). This contradicts Paul’s version of what happened. Also, according to Exodus 34-35, “And when he came out and told the Israelites what he had commanded, they saw his face was radiant. Then Moses would put the veil back over his face until he went in to speak with the Lord.” Here, the verse does not say, “radiance was fading away.” This is the beginning of Paul’s assertion that not only are ‘believers” superior to the Jews, but that when you look at a believer you see Jesus Christ and the glory of God in their face, etc, etc. This leads to the notion that without Jesus Christ you cannot see the Lord and that Jesus in us has replaced the fading glory of Moses. Reading Paul, you get the impression that he thinks he is Israel's new spiritual leader.


    Paul’s assertion that gentiles have replaced Israel as the Lord’s chosen people is not found in OT scripture. The scripture is in Jeremiah (31:31-34) that references the Lord’s new covenant does not refer to gentiles replacing Israel. In particular, Jeremiah writes, “This covenant I will make with the house of Israel––” (Jer. 31:33).


  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    115

    Re: Paul was a Fraud.

    If you are going to spew..at least do so correctly...

    Quote Originally Posted by Cnance View Post
    In order to promote his new religion, Paul misquoted and misinterpreted Old Testament scripture. If Paul’s theology stands, it must stand without the Old Testament. He made many references to the Old Testament, and not all references are in error, just the ones vital to Christian theology. The following are two major theological blunders made by Paul.
    Ok, nice assertion ... now can it stand on it's own...


    His most serious blunder was when he misquoted Old Testament verse referring to Moses’ “fading glory.” Paul wrote, “We are not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face to keep the Israelites from gazing at it while the radiance was fading away.” (2 Cor. 3:13). If you read Exodus 34:29-35 (quoting from NIV Bible), you’ll find no mention of Moses doing what Paul wrote. What the OT says with reference to Moses’ radiant face is found in Exodus. “When Aaron and all the Israelites saw Moses, his face was radiant, and they were afraid to come near him.” (EX 34:30).


    How so? No, explanation. That's what happened and is explained further. Well, maybe your kneejerk reaction wouldn't be to cover up, but his was... how is that an error? He did something that you wouldn't or would do? And what you did or didn't do was explained further in another statement of what happened? Again, this is not a contradiction, it is at worst two stories combining to tell what occurred.


    This contradicts Paul’s version of what happened. Also, according to Exodus 34-35, “And when he came out and told the Israelites what he had commanded, they saw his face was radiant. Then Moses would put the veil back over his face until he went in to speak with the Lord.” Here, the verse does not say, “radiance was fading away.”
    And if it said exactly? We would be talking about how someone, somewhere, found something, and copied it.....You miss the point that it flows in telling the story. There is no contradiction other than what you want to be. If he put the veil back over his face, then wouldn't a light be considered fading away... at least it would be diminished... fading away...

    This is the beginning of Paul’s assertion that not only are ‘believers” superior to the Jews, but that when you look at a believer you see Jesus Christ and the glory of God in their face, etc, etc. This leads to the notion that without Jesus Christ you cannot see the Lord and that Jesus in us has replaced the fading glory of Moses. Reading Paul, you get the impression that he thinks he is Israel's new spiritual leader.
    NOWHERE in scripture does Paul say that. He simply says that gentiles are among the saved. A gentile, a jew, a purple or a blue ... Christ IS reflected... What in God's name are you reading? What kind of theology are you following?


    Paul’s assertion that gentiles have replaced Israel as the Lord’s chosen people is not found in OT scripture. The scripture is in Jeremiah (31:31-34) that references the Lord’s new covenant does not refer to gentiles replacing Israel. In particular, Jeremiah writes, “This covenant I will make with the house of Israel––” (Jer. 31:33).

    Paul DID NOT assert that. You quote scripture, yet fail to provide a quote for that one. Paul never said that.

    WHERE DID PAUL SAY THAT GENTILES HAVE REPLACED ISRAEL AS THE LORDS CHOSEN PEOPLE?

    THROUGH Israel God has blessed gentiles....

    -me
    ...There are hearts so hard in sin that nothing will work upon them to reduce and reclaim them...

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,333

    Re: Paul was a Fraud.

    First, Romans 3:1 "What advantage then hath the Jew? Or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God".

    Second, Paul could not have declared himself leader over any organization of men, since he plainly taught that it was impossible to choose to become "elect"(Romans 8:29-30, Romans 9:16, Ephesians 1:4).

    Third, Paul never challenged the covenant between Israel and God, but pointed out that the promise between God and Abraham came 430 years before the covenant at Sinai and therefore was of greater import.(Galatians 3: 17).

    This was Paul's main challenge to the covenant, which did not displace it, but was before the covenant, so that it actually stood in pre-eminence to the covenant.

    The promise to Abraham was stated in Genesis and repeated by Paul in Romans 9:7: "In Isaac shall thy seed be called".

    However, Paul distinguishes between the "flesh"(Israel) and the "promise" (those born as Isaac).

    "That is, they which are the children of the flesh(physical Israel), these are not the children of God. But the children of the promise are counted as the seed".

    One was by covenant and agreement, or contract, the other was actually by birth, as Isaac was born of promise.

    As Paul points out in Galatians 4:28: "Now we brethren, as Isaac was, are children of the promise".

    This same separation was spoken of by Jesus in his statement to Nicodemus regarding being "born again".

    Unless one is born again(from above) one cannot inherit the kingdom of God?

    By decision? No, since that would be a contractual obligation, and Israel had an exclusive contract.

    Those who are "born again" are born "not of blood, nor of the will of flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God".

    Paul further points out that distinction that they are not born by any contractual or covenant agreement in Romans 8:29-30 and Romans 9:16, among other scriptures.

    Jesus seemed to agree with this idea in John 6:44.

    Paul could not organize such a group, since they had been plainly agreed on as a covenant between God and Abraham, and as the agreement was one of birth, as Isaac was born, Paul could not in any way influence the decision, nor could any other human.

    They were therefore "born of God".

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    6,872

    Re: Paul was a Fraud.

    Paul did not state specifically that the Gentiles have replaced Israel. He did however infer by his new covenant references that Gentiles (believers) have replaced the Jews. See 1 Cor. 1:25, 2 Cor. 6:6, and Heb. 8:6. In particular, Paul wrote, “Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts. But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. . . . And we, who with unveiled faces, all reflect the Lord’s glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the spirit.” Doesn’t this mean that Jews do not know the Lord because they do not, and have not, accepted Jesus Christ as their savior? Isn’t the gospel message based on assumption that you must accept Jesus Christ to know the Lord? Thus, if you reject Jesus, you reject his father as well. Assuming Jesus was the Lord and not his son, most of what Paul wrote is false.

    What I said about Paul’s misinterpretation of the Moses veil incident is correct. If you take your theological veil off and look at the facts, it is clear that, accord to scripture, Moses did not experience fading glory. He put the veil over his face because “the Israelites were afraid to come near him.”

    Apparently, I have entered a theological pit of unproven assumptions. However, the problem for Paul and other New Testament authors is that much of what they say about Jesus, the son of God, is not found in the Old Testament. If Jesus was the son of God, why don’t we find that in the Old Testament? In addition, where is it written in the Old Testament that Jesus was God’s first born? Paul wrote, “For those God foreknew he also predestined to be confirmed to the likeness of his son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.” (Rom. 8:28-29)

    Because we cannot find the son of God in the Old Testament, I say there is something rotten in Denmark. Apparently, Paul and the gospel writers invented Jesus “the son of God.” A new God, a new theology, for new times, concocted by brilliant men obsessed with a new religion. On the missionary field, Jesus was a perfect fit. He solved that age-old problem of man’s separation from God. Jesus is man’s best friend, he understands your needs, he loves you and forgives all your sins, but is Jesus real?
    Last edited by Cnance; 09-19-2009 at 08:47 PM.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,333

    Re: Paul was a Fraud.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cnance View Post
    Paul did not state specifically that the Gentiles have replaced Israel. He did however infer by his new covenant references that Gentiles (believers) have replaced the Jews.
    Not precisely. He wrote that the promise came 430 years before the covenant at Sinai, which dealt specifically with those born as Isaac(Galatians 4:28). IOW, some of thiose born of that prmise would be Jews, some would be Gentiles, or Israelites in general. What Paul stressed, and what John 1:12-13 stressed, as well as Romans 8:29-30, is that the power of such choice does not lie within the will or organizational powers of men(or women).

    See 1 Cor. 1:25, 2 Cor. 6:6, and Heb. 8:6.


    None of these would support any organizational abilities or choices of men. In fact, 1 Cor, 1:25-27 directly challenges the capacity of men to organize in God's name.

    In particular, Paul wrote, “Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts. But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. . . . And we, who with unveiled faces, all reflect the Lord’s glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the spirit.” Doesn’t this mean that Jews do not know the Lord because they do not, and have not, accepted Jesus Christ as their savior?


    There is great confusion over the idea of "accpeting Christ as your savior". About 38,000 versions, which also include various definitions of "Holy Ghost".

    Jesus himself is said to have warned his disciples of "the leavening of the Pharisees". He condemned them in Matthew 23:13 of shutting up the kingdom of heaven against men".

    As he pointed out, the scribes and Pharisees "sat in Moses seat", meaning that they were the popular keepers of the law. But Jesus also, in Matthew 5:25, said that individuals could settle out of court to avoid court costs. This was lawful, since anyone who had a complaint against his neighbor for any trespass would have to pay double cost if he took it to court before the judges.

    This certainly was an incentive to settle out of court, as Jesus advised in Matthew 5:25. He expanded that principle in Matthew 18:15-18, quoting only the law of "two witnesses", found in Deuteronomy 17:6 and 19:15.

    Whatever they bound on earth would be bound in heaven, and wherever two or three were gathered "in my name, there am I".

    Such authorization woud certainly take awy legal power from any group of judges or lawyers.

    Isn’t the gospel message based on assumption that you must accept Jesus Christ to know the Lord?


    I suppose, except that Jesus warned against those who would "come in my name, and decieve many".

    If Jesus authorized settlement out of court by two or three among themseves, why would he assume that people must follow some specific, defined legal structure that separate the "wheat" from the "chaff"?

    Wouldn't that be the same legal process of which Jesus accused the Pharisees?

    In fact, Jesus said that "If any man says Lo, here is Christ, or there, believe it not(Matt 24:23)".

    IOW, for two or three to be gathered "in my name" is simply authority to settle any manner of trespass between themselves. For further guidance on the matter, simply look at the "Lord's Prayer".

    Jesus authorized the right to ask God's will on earth, but it followed specific guidelines: give us daily needs, allow us to forgive those who trespass against us, and deliver us from temptation and the evil one.

    If the "evil one" is in charge of all world governments(Matthew 4, Luke 4), this is further evidence that Jesus merely taught for us to seek settlement outside of government authority(or religion, for that matter).



    Thus, if you reject Jesus, you reject his father as well. Assuming Jesus was the Lord and not his son, most of what Paul wrote is false.


    If you reject Jesus, you would necessarily reject the authority to settle matters among yourselves, since the law demanded service to judges who woud rule over you, "shutting out the kingdom of God". Paul taught that we could "boldly go before the throne of grace". he further taught that all who served Christ are "dead to the law". This might be recognized in US terms as "privileges and immunities" against the law.

    What I said about Paul’s misinterpretation of the Moses veil incident is correct. If you take your theological veil off and look at the facts, it is clear that, accord to scripture, Moses did not experience fading glory. He put the veil over his face because “the Israelites were afraid to come near him.”


    Neither jesus nor Paul said the law was ever done away. The law is a "schoolamster". How does one know what is wrong unless one is taught?

    Many of these very same concepts that evolved in Paul's teachings have become part of our Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court has rled that the right against self incrimination comes from the bible(Deuteronomy 17:6 and 19:15). The right to face your accuser, even if that accuser is the law, comes from the bible (Isaiah 50:8). The presumption of innocence comes from the bible(Isaiah 54:17).

    property rightds forbidding the law from entering your home for debt(Deut. 24:10).

    Law against division of property by popular vote(Micah 2:5).

    Common law right of an escaped slave to be free(Deut. 23:15), which was violated and ignored by our constitutional "fugitive slave" law.

    Right against the government issuing debt based currency based on interest rates(Exodus 22:25, Ezekiel 18:13, 22:12, Nehemiah 5)

    If two or three can settle matters according to these laws, this would destroy the collectivist control of both government and religion, which is why Jesus was not liked, yet it was the law.

    If Jesus was the son of God, why don’t we find that in the Old Testament?


    By now, the point should be painfully obvious. If our society is to be a "government of laws and not of men", there would e no proof whatever of a God who stepped in and took charge, or a son of Gd, whose proven existence would make us simply follow a leader.

    In addition, where is it written in the Old Testament that Jesus was God’s first born? Paul wrote, “For those God foreknew he also predestined to be confirmed to the likeness of his son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.” (Rom. 8:28-29)


    The "firstborn" concept was one in which a man gave freedom to all men from the law, the firstborn to whom the law would look forward to deliver us from imposed penalty by God or man. Since "sin" is defined as breaking the law(1 John 3:4), Jesus merely was a person who declared the right of freedom before the law, protection by God from accusers(Isaiah 54:17).

    A new God, a new theology, for new times, concocted by brilliant men obsessed with a new religion.


    Actually all Jews thought of themselves as sons of God. In 2 Samuel 7:14, we see that David represented a line of kigs that were 'sons of God", but it also said they would be subject to correction by men. No divine rights among the kings of Israel. Jesus was merely one who claimed to be a son of God who taught that we have the individual right to stand against the power of law and have innocence presumed, as any person should have.

    On the missionary field, Jesus was a perfect fit. He solved that age-old problem of man’s separation from God. Jesus is man’s best friend, he understands your needs, he loves you and forgives all your sins, but is Jesus real?


    As real as your freedom before the law.
    Last edited by doojie; 09-20-2009 at 07:07 AM.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    6,872

    Re: Paul was a Fraud.

    I am impressed with Doojie’s reply to my posting. I was aware, but not with such clear insight, the Biblical foundations of common law. I do not question Biblical principles of mediation and dispute settlement or Paul’s advancement of Jesus as our mediator for those God given principles. If Jesus was the Lord and not the son of God, then we could still rely on Paul’s Biblical principles as applied to our lives. My problem is with Paul’s claim that Jesus Christ was the son of God, and his laws of faith because of that claim.

    If what Paul said about Jesus is not true, then he is a fraud. A secular definition of fraud is “a deception deliberately practiced to secure unfair or unlawful gain.” For Paul, it would be making false claims and assumptions about Jesus to convert “nonbelievers” to his a religion. Granted his business was religious conversion and not monetary gain, nevertheless it was fraud. . The consequence of Paul’s missionary efforts combined with other New Testament authors was to establish a church based on Jesus––the son of God. Again, assuming Jesus was not the son of God, then for nearly two thousand years Christians have been defrauded. If the case went to a heavenly court, what might the verdict be? Certainly, claims of salvation based on a false deity –– Jesus the son of God –– could not be honored. We know that the Lord is truthful and that he is faithful to his word. He would reject claims of salvation based on fraud.

    Regarding comments about sons of God as documented in the Bible, if Jesus claimed to be the son of God and he was, there would be no dispute. However, we know that the gospels were written from thirty-five to seventy years after Jesus was crucified. We also know that the gospel were not written by eyewitnesses, and there is considered evidence that they were written by well-educated Greeks, not by uneducated disciples or Jews.

    Based on Old Testament scripture, I cannot proof my case for Jesus being the Lord and not the son of God, nor can those who claim Jesus to be the son of God prove their case. When I have read the OT for references to Paul’s claims about Jesus, I have found none or questionable interpretations.

    One of Paul’s most bizarre claims was that believers would become co-heirs with Jesus, the son of God. He wrote, “The spirit himself testifies without spirit that we are God’s children. Now if we are children, then we are heirs---heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his suffering in order that we also share in his glory.” (Roman 8:16-17). Ministers often promote being “just like Jesus.” What better way to convert unbelievers then to offer them deity status with Jesus in the next world, but is that possible? In the Old Testament, I have found no such claim by the Lord that he had a heavenly son (not earthly sons mentioned in the OT) or that, assuming he had such a son, believers would be co-heirs and “share in his glory.”

    It is a foundational issue. If Paul’s premises are false ---Moses fading glory, Jesus is the son of God, believers are spiritually superior to nonbelievers (those who reject Jesus as the son of God), and believers will be “co-heirs” with Jesus in heaven –– then we cannot trust his writings.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,333

    Re: Paul was a Fraud.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cnance View Post
    I am impressed with Doojie’s reply to my posting.


    Thank you. I'm just dicovering these things myself.


    A secular definition of fraud is “a deception deliberately practiced to secure unfair or unlawful gain.” For Paul, it would be making false claims and assumptions about Jesus to convert “nonbelievers” to his a religion.


    It would be hard for Paul to gain authority as a religious leader precisely because of his own direct statements in Romans 8:29-30 and Romans 9:16-22. And, as we already discussed, 1 Cor.1:25-29.

    Jesus himself, in warning against false teachers pointed out that "IF any man says, Lo, here is Christ, or there, believe it not(Matthew 24:23)".

    Paul's teachings, as shown above, are fully consistent withis teaching. Since God foreknows all his children and has predestined them, human choices to "convert" would merely be a choice to believe something which suit our own imaginations. As Paul pointed out in Romans 8:7, the natural mind is enmity against God and cannot be subject to God's laws, so that every natural, physical attempt to organize in God's name would result in an infinity of splintering religious ideas about God, as we see today. Again, Paul's teaching and Jesus' teaching are consistent in that regard. If we take that and add it to Jesus' teaching in John 6:44, we see that conversion by human choice to any set of rules or algorithms or human concepts of God mean nothing at all.

    It is because of this fact, that no one can claim human authority, that all people are then "dead to the law" in the sense that there can be no authority to represent God as law.


    Granted his business was religious conversion and not monetary gain, nevertheless it was fraud. . The consequence of Paul’s missionary efforts combined with other New Testament authors was to establish a church based on Jesus––the son of God.


    Even Talmudic scholars admit that it is no blasphemy to calim one's self as the son of God. All Jews recognize themselves as God's sons. The Davidic line was called sons of God, but as 2 Samuel 7:14 points out, they were still subject to the correction of men.

    So, was it blasphemy for Jesus, at his trial, to proclaim himself the son of God? Not at all. Numerous would-be Messiahs had claimed the privilege. Since the office of High priest had become nothing more than a puppet rulership established by Rome, the Pharisees, as popular representatives of the people were opposed to them. Talmudist scholar Hyam Maccoby even suggests that Jesus was a Pharisee, which would be hard to accept since he condemned them so fiercely in Matthew 23.

    Again, assuming Jesus was not the son of God, then for nearly two thousand years Christians have been defrauded. If the case went to a heavenly court, what might the verdict be?


    Actually, if the case went to a heavenly court and Paul was wrong, then we would all face condemnation for sin, since sin is transgression of the law(1 John 3:4). Either God would have to offer full grace for the deception perpetrated by Jesus and Paul, or He would send people to hell for sincerely believing a lie. The problem is, we already know that people cannot determine the truth because of Romans 8:7, and because there are over 38,000 varieties of Christianity.

    A just heavenly court, therefore, would have to offer a verdict of "not guilty".

    This is exactly the reason why Jesus warned against deception in Matthew 24:23 and told us not to follow men, since we really can't know what is truth in any absolute sense. That's also why Paul said God has already decided the matter to our grace.


    Regarding comments about sons of God as documented in the Bible, if Jesus claimed to be the son of God and he was, there would be no dispute. However, we know that the gospels were written from thirty-five to seventy years after Jesus was crucified. We also know that the gospel were not written by eyewitnesses, and there is considered evidence that they were written by well-educated Greeks, not by uneducated disciples or Jews.


    That, in itself, proves nothing. Was the gospel changed? And if so, from what? Paul's writings are pretty much agreed on, and if he said that the natural mind is enmity against God, then what standard could we logically use to challenge the rightness or wrongness of scripture? Neither Paul nor Jesus guaranteed anything to us for our decisions or beliefs. Both of them said that God already had things figured out.

    Based on Old Testament scripture, I cannot proof my case for Jesus being the Lord and not the son of God, nor can those who claim Jesus to be the son of God prove their case. When I have read the OT for references to Paul’s claims about Jesus, I have found none or questionable interpretations.


    Then the logical choice would be to do exactly as Jesus said in Matthew 24:23, wouldn't it?

    One of Paul’s most bizarre claims was that believers would become co-heirs with Jesus, the son of God. He wrote, “The spirit himself testifies without spirit that we are God’s children. Now if we are children, then we are heirs---heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his suffering in order that we also share in his glory.” (Roman 8:16-17).


    Actually, he pointed out quite clearly that "believers" were those born as Isaac,(Gal 3:29, 4:28) foreknown and predestined. Not just people who decided they were somehow special.


    Ministers often promote being “just like Jesus.” What better way to convert unbelievers then to offer them deity status with Jesus in the next world, but is that possible?


    Which is precisely why Jesus said not to do so in Matthew 24:23.

    In the Old Testament, I have found no such claim by the Lord that he had a heavenly son (not earthly sons mentioned in the OT) or that, assuming he had such a son, believers would be co-heirs and “share in his glory.”


    Paul pointed out, as did Jesus to Nicodemus in John 3, that there are two borths. Paul defines these two births in Romans 9. One is of flesh(Israel) and one is of spirit, or promise. Those born of promise, meaning those born in the same fashion as Isaac, foreknown and predestined, would be "co-rulers". This was what Paul taught very clearly, so that it would e impossible to "hi-jack" God's promise by any human.

    It is a foundational issue. If Paul’s premises are false ---Moses fading glory, Jesus is the son of God, believers are spiritually superior to nonbelievers (those who reject Jesus as the son of God), and believers will be “co-heirs” with Jesus in heaven –– then we cannot trust his writings.
    But that is not what either Paul or Jesus said. Both of them pointed back to the promise made to Abraham which came 430 years before the law(Galatians 3), so that the promise had pre-eminence. Those born of that promise were born in the same fashion as Isaac. Foreknowm predestined, and glorified according to the faith of Abraham. The "plan" was never altered, as Ephesians 1:4 points out.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    6,872

    Re: Paul was a Fraud.

    At this point, I lack scriptural references for my argument. When you quote gospel scripture to support Paul you naturally find confirmation mainly because both scriptural sources are predicated on Jesus being the Son of God. I take the same position toward the gospel writers as I do Paul. Again, assuming that Jesus was the Lord and not the son of God, they too were frauds.

    When Jesus declared himself the Lord that hastened his brutal murder because no one could tolerate a man, any man, declaring himself to be God. Much of my argument is based on the 35 or more year gap in time from His crucifixion to the time of Mark, the first gospel. My nagging question is why did it take so long to write about Jesus's miraculous ministry? It makes a lot of sense to suppose that it took a long time for his followers to recover from the dreadful experience. Also, how could they come to terms with knowing the Lord had been crucified? A good cover story was in order. Who could explain such an event?

    Another nagging question is why can't we find scriptural references in the Old Testament to Jesus, the son of God. Because of the lack of references, some authors of antiquity went so far as to suggest that Jesus was a different God than the Lord of the Old Testament. Even within New Testament there are divergent theologies about Jesus, probably because each writer relied on different sources to create his story. Thus, 38,000 "varieties of Christianity."

    For me the awesome image of the Lord from the prophets is God, not the man-like Jesus who is totally dependent on his father, and who, although not a sinner, is much like us. What perfect marketing tool. Paul said it all --- Jesus died for you and me because he loved us, not only did he die for us, but he is willing share his heavenly throne with us. It is really scarly thought knowing of thousands, or perhaps millions of "co-heirs" running around heaven. Who's in charge?

    Thanks for our discussions. Quoting scripture from the New Testament to support two thousand years of theology can be a rewarding experience if you believe Jesus is the son of God. However, the more I pursue my divergent view the more I am convinced it has merit. You know, based on the lack of fit between the Old and New Testaments, Jesus may be the Lord and not the son of God.

    If I'm correct and Jesus was the Lord and not his own son, then it might be the best keep secret of the universe. Maybe, the Lord wanted it that way.
    Last edited by Cnance; 09-21-2009 at 01:57 PM.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,333

    Re: Paul was a Fraud.

    But you completely ignore the statement which Jesus gave. If anyone says to you "here is Christ, or there, believe it not".

    So if Jesus was not what he is represented to be, and you are correct, then there is no reason to believe any religion, because jesus said so.

    If Jesus IS who he is represented to be, the same solution applies. Thereofe, the statement attreibuted to Jesus would be true in either case.

    As for the various theologies taught as a result of the New testament, that is the logical result of Paul's statement in Romans 8:7, which also would be true regardless of whether Jesus is who he is represented to be.

    Obviously no one knows the true answer, so no need to follow any man. Therefore, the statement attrributed to jesus in this regard is true regardless of who he said he was.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cnance View Post
    At this point, I lack scriptural references for my argument. When you quote gospel scripture to support Paul you naturally find confirmation mainly because both scriptural sources are predicated on Jesus being the Son of God.


    Not at all. In both cases, it would not matter, since each statement confirms the truth of what we see around us. Neither Jesus nor Paul gave explicit instructions by which we could know for certain in any conception of God.

    So, what I stated would be true.



    When Jesus declared himself the Lord that hastened his brutal murder because no one could tolerate a man, any man, declaring himself to be God.

    The Old testament, Psalms, which was quoted by Jesus declared that men were Gods. And as I pointed out, it was not blasphemy among Jews to call one's self a son of God.

    Much of my argument is based on the 35 or more year gap in time from His crucifixion to the time of Mark, the first gospel. My nagging question is why did it take so long to write about Jesus's miraculous ministry? It makes a lot of sense to suppose that it took a long time for his followers to recover from the dreadful experience. Also, how could they come to terms with knowing the Lord had been crucified? A good cover story was in order. Who could explain such an event?


    Again, you would have to find evidence of something disproving the statements.

    Even within New Testament there are divergent theologies about Jesus, probably because each writer relied on different sources to create his story. Thus, 38,000 "varieties of Christianity."


    What different theologies? Paul was very explicit as to how things unfolded, and what he said is not taught by any of the churches today, mostly because it would put them out of busioness.

    For me the awesome image of It is really scarly thought knowing of thousands, or perhaps millions of "co-heirs" running around heaven. Who's in charge?


    Then you directly ignore Paul's plain statements, as well as Jesus' in John 6:44. Obviously God would be incharge, since he foreknew and predestined those rulers.

    Thanks for our discussions. Quoting scripture from the New Testament to support two thousand years of theology can be a rewarding experience if you believe Jesus is the son of God. However, the more I pursue my divergent view the more I am convinced it has merit.


    Then yopu would be 38,001, I suppose, since there is no way to discover any such truth by human reason.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    219

    Re: Paul was a Fraud.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cnance View Post
    In order to promote his new religion, Paul misquoted and misinterpreted Old Testament scripture. If Paul’s theology stands, it must stand without the Old Testament. He made many references to the Old Testament, and not all references are in error, just the ones vital to Christian theology. The following are two major theological blunders made by Paul.


    His most serious blunder was when he misquoted Old Testament verse referring to Moses’ “fading glory.” Paul wrote, “We are not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face to keep the Israelites from gazing at it while the radiance was fading away.” (2 Cor. 3:13). If you read Exodus 34:29-35 (quoting from NIV Bible), you’ll find no mention of Moses doing what Paul wrote. What the OT says with reference to Moses’ radiant face is found in Exodus. “When Aaron and all the Israelites saw Moses, his face was radiant, and they were afraid to come near him.” (EX 34:30). This contradicts Paul’s version of what happened. Also, according to Exodus 34-35, “And when he came out and told the Israelites what he had commanded, they saw his face was radiant. Then Moses would put the veil back over his face until he went in to speak with the Lord.” Here, the verse does not say, “radiance was fading away.” This is the beginning of Paul’s assertion that not only are ‘believers” superior to the Jews, but that when you look at a believer you see Jesus Christ and the glory of God in their face, etc, etc. This leads to the notion that without Jesus Christ you cannot see the Lord and that Jesus in us has replaced the fading glory of Moses. Reading Paul, you get the impression that he thinks he is Israel's new spiritual leader.


    Paul’s assertion that gentiles have replaced Israel as the Lord’s chosen people is not found in OT scripture. The scripture is in Jeremiah (31:31-34) that references the Lord’s new covenant does not refer to gentiles replacing Israel. In particular, Jeremiah writes, “This covenant I will make with the house of Israel––” (Jer. 31:33).


    Paul as Peter tells us is difficult to understand. We should not confuse the works of translators with Paul's teachings.Luke 2:24 or 28 to 39 tells us exactly what day Jesus was born on. You can even determine the yr where the scriptures tell us the Messiahs 30th yr corresponded to the emperors Tiberius's 15th year in power.

    The church decided otherwise and named Dec 25th as HIS birthday.the money changers in today's church still observe Dec 25 just as their father did .There is no mention anywhere in the bible of any of the 12 ever celebrating his birthday. Pretty sure had they chosen to do so they might have used the actual day Jesus was born on .That is what most people do.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    6,872

    Re: Paul was a Fraud.

    No, I am not beginning a new religion. Knowing what I know, that would be impossible. I appreciate your reply, but, again, it is a big stretch to believe Paul. Our arguments, as you say, are beyond human reason. How can I believe what Paul wrote when I can't believe his statements about Jesus. His most absurd statement is about believers becoming co-heirs with Jesus. You talk about Paul as if he were God. He was a man, with all of the frailties of men. Actually, in my lifetime, I have known few honest men. Back then, things weren't much different. Because Paul didn't know the Lord, he made up things to make his case for Jesus. As it turns out no one seems to know the Lord. That's why there's such a huge separation between humans and God, which is what you find in the Old Testament. The bottom line is God is Holy and we are not. Paul's proposition that believers can be Holy like Jesus, and because Jesus is the son of God, they to can share in his glory is pure nonsense. However, his theology is extremely appealing. Everybody wants to be like Jesus because that puts them up on their arrogant thrones.

    Well, if the Lord and not the son of God was crucified, then what are the consequencs for humankind? Apparently no one can handle the truth. The Lord was rejected by Israel and then when he came into the world as man he was rejected again. The consequence for humankind is no salvation. I am certain a religion based on no salvation would not fly. However, I would rather know the truth than believe a lie. It also gives me satisfaction knowing that the Lord remains untouched by false theology on His glorious throne in heaven.
    Last edited by Cnance; 09-21-2009 at 03:41 PM.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,333

    Re: Paul was a Fraud.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cnance View Post
    I appreciate your reply, but, again, it is a big stretch to believe Paul. Our arguments, as you say, are beyond human reason.
    Which is precisely the point made by Paul. Assuming there is a God who is all knowing, logic would dictate that he would know in advance who his children are, if there are any. In Romans 8:29-30, as well as Ephesians 1:4, Paul merely adheres to logic. Now, assuming it is not Paul, but Joe shit the rag man who made this statement, it would still be logically correct, assuming the existence of an all knowing God.

    It boils down to the statement made by William James. If God is omniscient, then your salvation cannot be dependent on freewill choice. If your salvation is dependent on freewill choice, then God is not omniscient.

    Paul merely recognizes that God is omniscient AND that he knows and predestines his children in advance. Certainly a logical conclusion, even if an atheist said it.
    How can I believe what Paul wrote when I can't believe his statements about Jesus. His most absurd statement is about believers becoming co-heirs with Jesus. You talk about Paul as if he were God.
    The problem is, you haven't shown why it is absurd. Since Paul merely stated that all believers are born of the promise to Abraham, foreknown and preselected by God, he is either completely right or completely wrong. But in either case, there's nothing you can do to change it, so there is no need to follow any man, which is precisely what Jesus said in Matthew 24:23.

    Now, suppose you believe that Paul and Jesus were correct. Paul said that if you believe it, then you are dead to the law, meaning you are free from the judgements of men over you.

    But you would be anyway under law, as Isaiah 50:8 and 54:17 says. Everyone has a right to face their accuser, and their 'righteousness" is guaranteed by God.

    Whether Jesus is some kind of special Christ or not, Paul merely argues that his death means that he paid a penalty for sin on our behalf and the trial is not necessary.

    Either way, Jesus or no Jesus, the accused is protected by not only by biblical law dealing with his right against self incrimination, but his integrity is guaranteed by God. In fact, Paul could have selected any martyr who died innocently at the hands of the law, but by elevating Jesus to the rank of son of God, he allowed for jesus to "go our bail" in advance.

    Nothing illogical about it at all.

    However, even if Jesus was not who Paul said he was, Jesus himself said to follow no man who claimed to come representing Christ, so there is no need to join any religion. Again, logic which conforms to the obvious.

    As it turns out no one seems to know the Lord.
    Exactly the point Paul made in Romans 8:7, the natural mind is enmity against god and cannot be subject to God's laws. You just agreed with the man you call absurd.

    That's why there's such a huge separation between humans and God, which is what you find in the Old Testament. The bottom line is God is Holy and we are not. Paul's proposition that believers can be Holy like Jesus, and because Jesus is the son of God, they to can share in his glory is pure nonsense.
    Here is the flaw in your reasoning. Since it is nonsense that believers can be holy like God, it is necessary that some form of grace should apply, assuming there is a God. Paul himself again agrees with your conclusion in Ephesians 2:8-10: For by grace are ye saved through faith AND THAT(faith)NOT OF YOURSELVES. It is the gift of God. Not of works, lest any man should boast".

    How does that disagree with your above statement?

    However, his theology is extremely appealing. Everybody wants to be like Jesus because that puts them up on their arrogant thrones.
    Let me repeat again, Paul never said they could get up on any arrogant thrones. Romans 8:7, Romans 8:29-30, Romans 9:16-22, Ephesians 1:4, and Ephesians 2:8-10, plus 1 Corinthians 25-27 all demonstrate beyond any doubt that there is no such choice.

    You are merely building a straw man based on general conclusions of religion to knock down.

    Well, if the Lord and not the son of God was crucified, then what are the consequencs for humankind? Apparently no one can handle the truth. The Lord was rejected by Israel and then when he came into the world as man he was rejected again. The consequence for humankind is no salvation.
    I see no evidence for any existence of God or any evidence that jesus was the son of God. Therefore, one would be free from all religious authority. But that correlates with what both Paul and Jesus said. No reason to follow any man. In fact, the ONLY correct choice under such circumstances would be to follow no man, which is just what Jesus said in Matthew 24:23. So, salvation or no salvation, you are free to follow no man, which makes the statements of both Paul and Jesus consistent with truth as far as we can prove.
    I am certain a religion based on no salvation would not fly. However, I would rather know the truth than believe a lie. It also gives me satisfaction knowing that the Lord remains untouched by false theology on His glorious throne in heaven.
    That's the whole point of Romans 8:29-30. God remains untouched by false theology because he already knows who His children are to be.

    Again, you merely agree with Paul.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    6,872

    Re: Paul was a Fraud.

    You certainly make a strong case for Paul. I have to admit it has made me run back to Paul for another look. Here, though, I am not sold on predistination. Paul appears to contradicted that proposition when he mentions universal sin of man in Romans 3:9-18. In particular, I agree with his statement, "All have turned way, they have altogether become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one." (Rom. 3:12). And, not excluding anyone, Paul writes regarding Abraham, "As it is written: "I have made you a father of many nations." Rom. 4:17). There are verses were he makes reference to Jews and Gentiles being saved by believing in Jesus.

    On logical grounds, I find it absurd that we can be co-heirs with Jesus. Assuming we are therefore equal to Jesus before the father, where does that leave Jesus our intercessor? What do we reign over? I thought we were to worship God in heaven not gather power before his throne. Wasn't that the problem with Satan? He demanded a throne, and on that throne he demanded God's angels worship him.
    Last edited by Cnance; 09-22-2009 at 09:13 PM.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    27,212

    Re: Paul was a Fraud.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cnance View Post
    No, I am not beginning a new religion. Knowing what I know, that would be impossible. I appreciate your reply, but, again, it is a big stretch to believe Paul. Our arguments, as you say, are beyond human reason. How can I believe what Paul wrote when I can't believe his statements about Jesus. His most absurd statement is about believers becoming co-heirs with Jesus. You talk about Paul as if he were God. He was a man, with all of the frailties of men. Actually, in my lifetime, I have known few honest men. Back then, things weren't much different. Because Paul didn't know the Lord, he made up things to make his case for Jesus. As it turns out no one seems to know the Lord. That's why there's such a huge separation between humans and God, which is what you find in the Old Testament. The bottom line is God is Holy and we are not. Paul's proposition that believers can be Holy like Jesus, and because Jesus is the son of God, they to can share in his glory is pure nonsense. However, his theology is extremely appealing. Everybody wants to be like Jesus because that puts them up on their arrogant thrones.

    Well, if the Lord and not the son of God was crucified, then what are the consequencs for humankind? Apparently no one can handle the truth. The Lord was rejected by Israel and then when he came into the world as man he was rejected again. The consequence for humankind is no salvation. I am certain a religion based on no salvation would not fly. However, I would rather know the truth than believe a lie. It also gives me satisfaction knowing that the Lord remains untouched by false theology on His glorious throne in heaven.
    are you saying that god has made attemps to get man back in the garden but he failed and that's that, live with/accept it!? you see yourself as a pragmatist!? :freak3: :spin2: :
    Last edited by lexx; 09-22-2009 at 05:02 PM.
    i do not endorse/recommend any advertising on scam.com associated with my name /posts or otherwise. thank you

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    6,872

    Re: Paul was a Fraud.

    Quote Originally Posted by lexx View Post
    are you saying that god has made attemps to get man back in the garden but he failed and that's that, live with/accept it!? you see yourself as a pragmatist!? :freak3: :spin2: :
    A realist. He tried by communicating with humankind through His chosen people and then he made the unltimate scrafice and came into the world as a man. He was totally rejected. End of story for mankind.

    However, men couldn't handle the truth. Thus, a whole new religion was formed based on God's death being a blissing rather than a curse.
    Last edited by Cnance; 09-22-2009 at 05:10 PM.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    6,872

    Re: Paul was a Fraud.

    Quote Originally Posted by lexx View Post
    are you saying that god has made attemps to get man back in the garden but he failed and that's that, live with/accept it!? you see yourself as a pragmatist!? :freak3: :spin2: :
    I already posted a reply to Lexx's message. However, I think I must comment further. Whether or not Lexx agrees with me, or even if he doesn't, what he said is a succinct summary of what I believe.
    Last edited by Cnance; 09-22-2009 at 09:03 PM.

Similar Threads

  1. Paul Ryan Is A Fraud
    By Administrator in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-11-2012, 08:47 PM
  2. No Ron Paul...you get out!
    By danrush1966 in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 01-11-2012, 05:01 PM
  3. Ron Paul's Son Rand Paul To Run For Senator
    By rogerbovee in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 02-11-2010, 09:21 PM
  4. Which Paul do you believe?
    By Cnance in forum Religious Scams
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 10-28-2009, 11:33 AM
  5. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-24-2007, 02:46 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •