+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 33 to 40 of 40

  1. #33
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    6,872

    Re: Vengeful.. but slow to anger?

    Quote Originally Posted by doojie View Post
    Let's look at Romans 8:10-17:
    "And IF Christ be in you..." He never said "choose Christ, and he will be in you".

    Verse 11; "But IF, the spirit of him...."

    Now these verses are consistent with Romans 8:7 and 8:29-30.

    Verse 12:"we are DEBTORS..." We owe something. We haven;t been made free yet.
    13: "For IF ye live after the flesh, but if ye THROUGH THE SPIRIT do mortify the deeds of the body..."

    What is the spirit? Paul explains it clearly through the rest of chapters 8 and 9.
    14: For as many as are led by the spirit of God, they are the sons of God.
    15: For ye have not received the spirit of bondage, but ye have received the spirit of adoption...."

    16: "The spirit beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the childsren of God".
    17: And IF children, then heirs..."

    Notice that nowhere in that section did Paul once say you could become sons of God by choice. he said IF...

    All the way up to verse 29, Paul points out that IF you are a son of God, and then, you have the inescapable statement that God already foreknows and predestines his children, which eliminates the authority of christianity.
    No, even though I don't believe it, I am following Paul's words. In Romans 8:4.

    Paul wrote preceding these verses, "who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the spirit." Romans 8:4. That does not say they are "according to the spirit." It says they "live according to the spirit." That means by choice, not by decree. If you live according to the spirit, you chose to do so.

    Adversely, Paul points out what happens if you choose a sinful spirit. "Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what that nature desires; but those who live in accordance with the spirit have their minds set on what the spirit desires." Romans 8:5. Doesn't "live by" mean to chose? What else could it mean? In both cases, they "live by" the spirit. If one lives by the spirit, one is not possessed by the spirit. "By" means in accordance thereof, or as a guide.

    I have rtead evetry verse and quoted from paul himself to show you why he doesn't contradict himself. All I'm gwetting from you is an insistence that he did.
    Well, you just referenced verses where you claim Paul said sons of God have no choice. Yet, preceding those verses, Paul used the words "those who life according to." Doesn't that mean choosing. How to you "live in according to" if not by choice. Do you mean Paul meant that men who make choices are driven by the spirit? That's a contradiction.



    What bias? Paul went to great extremes in two adjoining chapters(or somebody did) to show us we cannot make a proper choice to get us from here to God, and the physical evidence, with 38,000 versios of christianity verifies it. Where's the bias? Jesus himself pointed out in Matthew 10:34-38 that if you ****u to follow him, it will produce exactly that very splintering and speciation. Again, verified by the facts.
    I didn't say Paul had a bias, although he clearly does, I said you have a bias.

    And I have shon you direct wuoted that demonstrate why you;re full of shit, direct statements.
    How? By what logic or by what argument did you show me that?



    Most theologians/ First you claim christianity has no authority, and now you borrow from christianity to state your "authority". If there exists no decision procedure to get from here to God, and if you can make no such decisions, and if jesus himself said not to follow any such religion, then "most theologians" would obviously be wrong, as you have already stated.
    When I say Christians follow Paul, I am referring to history. I was once a Catholic. I recall, and I am certain it is still true, an enormous number of references to Paul. Catechism lessons made more references to Paul than to the gospels. Don't tell me Paul has not influenced the Catholic Church. The facts speak otherwise.

    You're arguing back and forth to prove your own bias, then accusing me.
    How do I argue back and forth? My arguments have been consistent. I don't need to change. My original criticisms about Paul are on target.


    And you use only one verse that tells us nothing specific, while i continue to quote verse aftert verse to show you're wrong.
    You quote just a few verses. I quote about an equal number to reply. So what's the problem? Quote more verses, that way we can expand to include all of Paul.


    Then if I have distorted Paul's meaning, and Paul was an evangelist, e told the peoplethey could make no choices to get them any closer to God. Poor evangelizing. You can't start much of a religion by telling people they can make no decisions, nor perform any work to get them to god.
    That's not true. Most of what Paul wrote has to do with Jesus the redeemer for everyone. If your read Paul carefully, you'll realize what he was promoting a new religion. In essence, he said people are helpless by themselves, they can to nothing about their salvation, all is hopeless, but, wait, there is hope. If you do as I (Paul) say and believe Romans 10:9, you will be saved. I guarantee it. Paul was an evangelist, not a philosopher. He was not promoting an elitist doctrine, he was promoting a new religion. How could he could he win over Gentiles if he didn't offer salvation to all men?

    Since both you and I have agreed that christianity is full fo shit exactly because of the fact that you cannot choose God, then therre is no need to get approval from the christian community. You wish the christians were right, so you could find a flaw.
    No, I was saying to rewrite Paul you would have to get their approval, a sort of joke. I am not on a campaign to discredit Christians. I am in search of truth. All I want before I die is to know the truth about God.

    Paul was a fraud. It is difficult to understand how the NT authors could make up so many lies about God.

    Okay, you could say I am a fraud for suggesting Jesus was God. After all, I have little scripture to support such an assertion. It is interesting however that the son of God isn't in the Old Testament. I believe that speaks volumes. Why didn't the Lord God mention his son?

    The true story about Jesus (God) is Revelation 11. Paul and the other NT authors committed fraud by making up lies about Jesus.
    Last edited by Cnance; 10-16-2010 at 07:37 PM.

  2. #34
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,333

    Re: Vengeful.. but slow to anger?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cnance View Post
    No, even though I don't believe it, I am following Paul's words. In Romans 8:4.

    Paul wrote preceding these verses, "who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the spirit." Romans 8:4. That does not say they are "according to the spirit." It says they "live according to the spirit."
    And again you commit a logical mistake. If we live according to the spirit by choice, then we are making choices clearly defined that show what the "spirit" is. IOW, if I choose right from wrong, I should be able to define clearly a difference between right and wrong.

    However, using exactly the same conclusions as you, the various religions have splintetred into 38,000 versions of right and wrong, all claiming to have the "Holy Spirt", which is in many cases contradictory.

    That is evidence that Paul was telling the truth in Romans 8:7. If the natural mind is enmity against od and cannot be subject to God, yet assumes that it can, by choice, live according to the spirit of truth, the result will logically be an incrasing number of definitions of God.

    Again, Paul's statement conforms to Godel's theorem, which tells us that truth cannot be placed in one system.


    Adversely, Paul points out what happens if you choose a sinful spirit. "Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what that nature desires; but those who live in accordance with the spirit have their minds set on what the spirit desires." Romans 8:5. Doesn't "live by" mean to chose?

    Again, if it meant "to choose", there would be clear definitions as to what it is that's being chosen, yet using the same logic as you have, the assumptions of your own human mind, the result is 38,000 versions of that truth. By using your mind, you have proven Romans 8:7 correct again.

    What else could it mean? In both cases, they "live by" the spirit. If one lives by the spirit, one is not possessed by the spirit. "By" means in accordance thereof, or as a guide.
    If only you could simply stop there and kick out everything else Paul writes.

    Well, you just referenced verses where you claim Paul said sons of God have no choice. Yet, preceding those verses, Paul used the words "those who life according to. Doesn't that mean choosing. How to you "live in according to" if not by choice.
    First of all, in accordance with an omniscient God, Ephesians 1:4:
    "According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world".

    Since you have concluded God is omnisicent, this is in accordance with your statement. Therefore, whatever people choose, they will choose according to God's perfect knowledge.

    Next chapter, Ephesians 2:10: "For we are his workmanship, created in good works, which God hath BEFORE ORDAINED that we should walk in them".
    Do you mean Paul meant that men who make choices are driven by the spirit? That's a contradiction.
    men cannot choose to live by spirit, and Paul himself never claimed such power by freewill. Simplt look at Paul's description of himself in Romans 7:18:

    "For I know that in me(that is, in my flesh) dwelleth no good thing: for TO WILL IS PRESENT WITH ME; BUT HOW TO PERFORM THAT WHICH IS GOOD, I FIND NOT"

    Verse 23: But i see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and BRINGING ME INTO CAPTIVITY to the law of sin which is in my members".

    In verse 14, Paul declares himself to be carnal, sold under sin. And as we see from verse 18, he can't do it.





    I didn't say Paul had a bias, although he clearly does, I said you have a bias.
    Of course I have a bias. We all do, qwhich is precisely why Paul said it is impossible, in accordance with Godel's theorem, to define truth by our own minds in one single package. Paul declared that he himself was unable to choose such actions of goodness.

    How? By what logic or by what argument did you show me that?
    Because you took one scripture, Romans 10:9, and lifted it out of the whole framework in which Paul refuted your own conclusions, such aas the scriptures I showed you above, and Ro,ans 11;7, and 11:32, as well as Matthew 13:11, which show that it is impossible to choose truth by freewill. Now I add Ephesians 2;10 to the mix, and you keep repeating, "there are contradictions" with nothing to back you up.



    When I say Christians follow Paul, I am referring to history. I was once a Catholic. I recall, and I am certain it is still true, an enormous number of references to Paul. Catechism lessons made more references to Paul than to the gospels. Don't tell me Paul has not influenced the Catholic Church. The facts speak otherwise.

    Thomas Aquinas, the greatest logical mind, supposedly of the catholic church, tried to build a bridge of authority connecting the church to God by reason. He failed. He coud not make the connection.

    Why? Romans 8:7. His mind, my mind, your mind, Paul's mind, by Paul's own admission, cannot be subject to God.

    The catholic church, unfortunately did a lot of cherry picking, as they had to, inorder to borrow authority from Paul, yet Romans 8 and 9 cancel their authority, as well as all christian authority.

    How do I argue back and forth? My arguments have been consistent. I don't need to change. My original criticisms about Paul are on target.
    You're trying to argue that christianity is flawed, and then you use theologians to "prove" your points, after you've already declared they are flawed in their logic. Either they're right, or they're wrong. You're using them both ways to "prove" your conclusions.


    You quote just a few verses. I quote about an equal number to reply. So what's the problem? Quote more verses, that way we can expand to include all of Paul.
    All I've seen up until recently is Romans 10:9, over and over again.

    You're arguing that Paul influenced the catholic church, and now you see that the catholics were wrong. Obviously it never occurred to you that they were wrong because they ignored the key statement on which Paul focused in two chapters, that we cannot come to God by any human decision procedure, and that God already knows who his children are, as logic dictates fo omniscience. You use all kinds of argumnets to somehw slide aropunf basic logic.


    That's not true. Most of what Paul wrote has to do with Jesus the redeemer for everyone. If your read Paul carefully, you'll realize what he was promoting a new religion. In essence, he said people are helpless by themselves, they can to nothing about their salvation, all is hopeless, but, wait, there is hope. If you do as I (Paul) say and believe Romans 10:9, you will be saved. I guarantee it. Paul was an evangelist, not a philosopher. He was not promoting an elitist doctrine, he was promoting a new religion. How could he could he win over Gentiles if he didn't offer salvation to all men?


    And what did Paul say? He said that it is impossible to develop a decision procedure to get from here to god. If you believe in Jesus, who paid the penalty for sin, therefore, you are free from the proposed decision procedures of all men, since Jesus has already paid the price for sin. So what, then, do you choose? You choose to be free frommen, since no law, no system of rules, no effort of men, can bring salvation. If they could, there would e no need whatever for the sacrifice of jesus to pay that penalty in our stead.



    [quote]No, I was saying to rewrite Paul you would have to get their approval, a sort of joke. I am not on a campaign to discredit Christians. I am in search of truth. All I want before I die is to know the truth about God.[/quote

    If you could find the truth about God in any humanly definable sense, it would be subject to programming, so that anyh computer can embody "God" as much as any human. Better, in fact, since the computer is not limited by human nature. You cannot find truth, in that sense, about God, because the very realization of truth would cancel the very humanness necessary for free will choice among systems of thought. Once truth can be defined in one package, which Godel has demonstrated it cannot, there would logicaly be one religion, one government one control by one group of men, or as Ayn Rand says, one neck ready for one leash.

    Paul has shown this, and thousands of varying christian beliefs prove it as fact.

    Paul was a fraud. It is difficult to understand how the NT authors could make up so many lies about God.
    If all the various churches tried to establish authority as God's representatives by Paul's teachings and failed, then we can assume it was precisely because of Romans 8:7, Romans 9:16-22, and Romans 8:29-30. By defining their authority according to free will choice, as you keep insisting, they branched into thousands of confusing religious ideas of God, and the number grows. How does that make Paul a fraud? Answer my questions.

    Okay, you could say I am a fraud for suggesting Jesus was God. After all, I have little scripture to support such an assertion. It is interesting however that the son of God isn't in the Old Testament. I believe that speaks volumes. Why didn't the Lord God mention his son?
    Let's conclude that an all-knowing God never intended a sacrifice of Christ. Being all-knowing, he must have known that there would be a Godel's theorem to demonstrate that all truth cannot be placed in one package. He must have known there would be a Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, a Darwin, a Dawkins, or E.O. Wilson, to name a few. The very existence of Godel's theorem showing the impossibility of placing truth in one consistent complete package, would have demonstrated to an all knowing God that hos chosen people simply could NOT have organized in perfect accordance with his law. But he knew they could not(Deut.5:29)

    The true story about Jesus (God) is Revelation 11. Paul and the other NT authors committed fraud by making up lies about Jesus.
    The only thing i see in Rev 11 is that two witnesses will be hated by the world because they presch a truth that eliminates the authorities of the world. You can do that by simply readin Romans 8 and 9, and Jesus' statement in Matthew 24;23.

    I have answered your every argument with statements from Paul and with logic. Let's see what you've got.
    Last edited by doojie; 10-17-2010 at 02:16 AM.

  3. #35
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    6,872

    Re: Vengeful.. but slow to anger?

    Quote Originally Posted by doojie View Post
    And again you commit a logical mistake. If we live according to the spirit by choice, then we are making choices clearly defined that show what the "spirit" is. IOW, if I choose right from wrong, I should be able to define clearly a difference between right and wrong.

    However, using exactly the same conclusions as you, the various religions have splintetred into 38,000 versions of right and wrong, all claiming to have the "Holy Spirt", which is in many cases contradictory.

    That is evidence that Paul was telling the truth in Romans 8:7. If the natural mind is enmity against od and cannot be subject to God, yet assumes that it can, by choice, live according to the spirit of truth, the result will logically be an incrasing number of definitions of God.

    Again, Paul's statement conforms to Godel's theorem, which tells us that truth cannot be placed in one system.

    Again, if it meant "to choose", there would be clear definitions as to what it is that's being chosen, yet using the same logic as you have, the assumptions of your own human mind, the result is 38,000 versions of that truth. By using your mind, you have proven Romans 8:7 correct again.

    What you've neglected in your rebuttal is Paul's intent according to his own words. If, as you say, Paul meant "that truth cannot be placed in one system," then why did Paul say with certainty, "And if anyone does not have the spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ." Romans 8:9. Throughout Romans 8:5-15 Paul is making judgments regarding one's spirit. That is just liked all 38,000 religions who claim the have the Holy Spirit.

    Paul is stating with certainty that without a "good" spirit we are condemned. Romans 8:6. If therefore no man can know the truth about God, why does Paul claim to have such knowledge. Isn't knowledge about the spirit to be free of death knowledge of God? Paul claims no man can have such knowledge, and yet he according to his own words claims such knowledge.



    First of all, in accordance with an omniscient God, Ephesians 1:4:
    "According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world".

    Since you have concluded God is omnisicent, this is in accordance with your statement. Therefore, whatever people choose, they will choose according to God's perfect knowledge.
    If men are sinful, they can have no such knowledge. The belief that we have been chosen before the foundation of the world comes from the mind of a sinful man.

    Next chapter, Ephesians 2:10: "For we are his workmanship, created in good works, which God hath BEFORE ORDAINED that we should walk in them".
    How can I believe Paul, a sinful man?


    men cannot choose to live by spirit, and Paul himself never claimed such power by freewill. Simplt look at Paul's description of himself in Romans 7:18:

    "For I know that in me(that is, in my flesh) dwelleth no good thing: for TO WILL IS PRESENT WITH ME; BUT HOW TO PERFORM THAT WHICH IS GOOD, I FIND NOT"
    Then, why can he claim to know about the spirit of God?

    Verse 23: But i see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and BRINGING ME INTO CAPTIVITY to the law of sin which is in my members".

    In verse 14, Paul declares himself to be carnal, sold under sin. And as we see from verse 18, he can't do it.
    A carnal man telling us about God's truth. I'd say that's the height of hypocrisy.

    Paul claims to have knowledge about Jesus, the spirit of God, and answers to many other important questions relating to God's truth. If Paul truly believes "the sinful mind in hostile to God," then why does he, a sinful man, claim to understand the truth about God? You can't have it both ways, be a sinful man, and have divine knowledge.

  4. #36
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,333

    Re: Vengeful.. but slow to anger?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cnance View Post
    What you've neglected in your rebuttal is Paul's intent according to his own words. If, as you say, Paul meant "that truth cannot be placed in one system," then why did Paul say with certainty, "And if anyone does not have the spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ." Romans 8:9. Throughout Romans 8:5-15 Paul is making judgments regarding one's spirit. That is just liked all 38,000 religions who claim the have the Holy Spirit.
    Read the whole damn chapter. Romans 8:29-30 says plainly that there is no way to choose such actions. Romans 9:7-22 shows that those born of spirit are those born just as Isaac was born(Galatians 4;28, Gal. 3:29). If you are born of spirit, you are foreknown(as Isaac was) predestined(as Isaac was). Paul took you by the hand and led you through that, including his own plain statements in Roans 7 that he himself could not overcome. I gotta say it, You're a ing moron. How many times do I have to explain simlicity itself?

    Paul is stating with certainty that without a "good" spirit we are condemned. Romans 8:6. If therefore no man can know the truth about God, why does Paul claim to have such knowledge. Isn't knowledge about the spirit to be free of death knowledge of God?
    Anyone whio accepts his/her individual freedom is still free, God or no God. paul has merely stated that which is obvious from the facts of experience.



    Paul claims no man can have such knowledge, and yet he according to his own words claims such knowledge.
    Paul has merely claimed that God alone knows who his children are, and IF you have that spirit, IF you happen to be born of that birth, THEN(syllogism) you have the "Holy Spirit".

    You can't choose it, and Paul nowhere says you can. In fact, he goes into great detail to say you can't.



    If men are sinful, they can have no such knowledge. The belief that we have been chosen before the foundation of the world comes from the mind of a sinful man.
    What do you mean "we"? Paul has already pointed out a simple process oflogic: if God is all knowing, then he knows who will 'accept" and who will 'reject" him. Paul has merely verified this fact in Romans 8:29-30, while the churches, in trying to run around it, BECAUSE of THEIR sinful minds, result in 38,000 versions of Christianity. I can't choose it, you can't choose it, no one can, except God.

    How can I believe Paul, a sinful man?
    You don;t have to. All you have to di s recognize that it is impossible to make such choices since no one can know all truth in such fashion, and therefore Paul has told the truth.

    If you can prove we actually DO have such knowledge, by all means show it.


    Then, why can he claim to know about the spirit of God?
    because the spirit of God belongs to those who are born of promise, in the same fashion as isaac, which is exactly what he says, so either God has knopwn and selected you, or he has not, and there ain't one damn thing you can do either way. Therefore, by the simplest of logic, you need not follow any man claiming to represent Christ, which is what Paul and Jesus said.

    A carnal man telling us about God's truth. I'd say that's the height of hypocrisy.
    Let's agree with that. Then we STILL arrive at the same conclusion, that there's no need to follow any man, since truth cannot be packaged by one man, so you STILL come up with the same conclusion.

    Paul claims to have knowledge about Jesus, the spirit of God, and answers to many other important questions relating to God's truth. If Paul truly believes "the sinful mind in hostile to God," then why does he, a sinful man, claim to understand the truth about God? You can't have it both ways, be a sinful man, and have divine knowledge.
    What divine knowledge? paul plainly said it in different ways. God foreknows his children, those children are born as Isaac, foreknown, predestined, etc, and that birth is not within our power to choose. You don;t need divine knowledge to figure out something that simple.

  5. #37
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    6,872

    Re: Vengeful.. but slow to anger?

    [quote]
    Quote Originally Posted by doojie View Post
    Read the whole damn chapter. Romans 8:29-30 says plainly that there is no way to choose such actions. Romans 9:7-22 shows that those born of spirit are those born just as Isaac was born(Galatians 4;28, Gal. 3:29). If you are born of spirit, you are foreknown (as Isaac was) predestined(as Isaac was). Paul took you by the hand and led you through that, including his own plain statements in Roans 7 that he himself could not overcome. I gotta say it, You're a ing moron. How many times do I have to explain simlicity itself?
    What you've explained is simple enough if you believe Paul. I don't believe him. In his own words he admitted he was not divine? Why would he have divine knowledge?

    Paul wrote, "the sinful mind is hostile to God," Romans 8:7. Then Paul wrote, "I know nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have a desire to do good, but I cannot carry it out. For what I do is not the good I want to do--this I keep on doing." Romans 7:18-19.

    Therefore, how does Paul know, "For those God foreordained to be conformed to the likeness of his son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers." Romans 8:29? If Paul was, as he admitted a sinful man incapable of doing good, how could he know that? It is interesting that we find no reference to God's firstborn, Jesus, in the Old Testament. Paul made it up for his new religion.

    As for Gal 28, Paul extended God's promise to Abraham to fit with his own agenda to create "sons of God." What a neat marketing tool. Believe in what I say and you will become "sons of God." Oh, excuse me, you are "sons of God, I just can't tell anyone if there are or not. Don't fret however, if you are God's chosen, you're saved. That puts it all out there in LA LA Land.

    As for Gal. 29, ("If you belong the Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.")
    I accept God's promise for Abraham's descents, but I do not believe Paul had authority to amend it or incorporate it into his theology.


    This has been my main point every since we've discussed Paul. I believe Paul was a man driven by evangelist zeal to form a new world religion. It's all about what Paul wants for the world. God has nothing to do with it.

    Anyone whio accepts his/her individual freedom is still free, God or no God. paul has merely stated that which is obvious from the facts of experience.
    What experience? How can anyone have an experience that tells him or her about a relationship with God. To have the full story, you have to read Paul. Most people profess faith in something. Even atheist extol the virtues of something, mostly science. So true freedom is not a normal experience. Also, Paul keeps coming back to the same story.

    "Believe in my gospel message for your salvation." Romans 1:16; 10:9; 13:11, 2Cor. 1:1; 6:2; 7:10
    Eph. 1:13; 6:17, Php 2:12.

    Paul has merely claimed that God alone knows who his children are, and IF you have that spirit, IF you happen to be born of that birth, THEN(syllogism) you have the "Holy Spirit".
    How can Paul make such a claim? By his own authority? God made his covenant with Abraham Gen. 12:2-3 and with Isaac Gen. 19, not with Gentiles or Paul.

    You can't choose it, and Paul nowhere says you can. In fact, he goes into great detail to say you can't.
    I knew that without reading Paul. It's within God's domain, not humans.

    What do you mean "we"? Paul has already pointed out a simple process oflogic: if God is all knowing, then he knows who will 'accept" and who will 'reject" him. Paul has merely verified this fact in Romans 8:29-30, while the churches, in trying to run around it, BECAUSE of THEIR sinful minds, result in 38,000 versions of Christianity. I can't choose it, you can't choose it, no one can, except God.
    The only difference is Paul was the first to make Holy Spirit claims. Paul's claim that Jesus was God's firstborn is untrue. Where in the OT did God claim to have a son? If I have a choice, which I do, I choose the Lord God over Paul.

    I have cross checked most of Paul's references and found that in areas of theological importance such as the "new covenant," "son of God," and "sons of God" (predestination) there are no literal references in the Old Testament.


    You don;t have to. All you have to di s recognize that it is impossible to make such choices since no one can know all truth in such fashion, and therefore Paul has told the truth.

    If you can prove we actually DO have such knowledge, by all means show it.
    Yes, I agree Paul was truthful in saying no man can know. However, that is a simple truth. There are more important truths Paul claims to know. He claims to know that Jesus is the son of God, he claims to know that Jesus was God's firstborn, he claims to know about the sons of God. Yet, he claims he to be sinful man. I accept that Paul was a sinful man. As a sinful man, he concocted stories about Jesus, salvation and God.




    because the spirit of God belongs to those who are born of promise, in the same fashion as isaac, which is exactly what he says, so either God has knopwn and selected you, or he has not, and there ain't one damn thing you can do either way. Therefore, by the simplest of logic, you need not follow any man claiming to represent Christ, which is what Paul and Jesus said.
    That is Paul's story. In God's promise to Abraham and Issac there is no mention of salvation. Paul corrupted God's promises.


    L
    et's agree with that. Then we STILL arrive at the same conclusion, that there's no need to follow any man, since truth cannot be packaged by one man, so you STILL come up with the same conclusion.
    Well, if that's true, include Paul as one not to follow.



    What divine knowledge? paul plainly said it in different ways. God foreknows his children, those children are born as Isaac, foreknown, predestined, etc, and that birth is not within our power to choose. You don;t need divine knowledge to figure out something that simple.
    God's promises to Abraham and Issac make no mention of salvation. The promises are to bless and to curse those who curse you. God also promised Israel land. The modern state of Israel is a fulfillment of that promise.

    In the Old Testament, I don't recall Gentiles or Paul being included in God's promises to Israel.

  6. #38
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,333

    Re: Vengeful.. but slow to anger?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cnance View Post

    What you've explained is simple enough if you believe Paul. I don't believe him. In his own words he admitted he was not divine? Why would he have divine knowledge?
    Understanding what Paul wrote doesn't require divine knowledge.

    Paul wrote, "the sinful mind is hostile to God," Romans 8:7. Then Paul wrote, "I know nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have a desire to do good, but I cannot carry it out. For what I do is not the good I want to do--this I keep on doing." Romans 7:18-19.

    Therefore, how does Paul know, "For those God foreordained to be conformed to the likeness of his son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers."


    Simple and very basic logic, which anyone can see with a little thought. If God is all knowing, he would obviously know in advance those who would "accept" or "reject" him. Therefore, there woud be no doubt as to the outcome for God.
    No decision you can make will alter God's perfect knowledge. Now, whether or not God predestined them or foreordained them is irrelevant, since they will only do exaclty as God's knowledge dictates. There would be no difference whatever between foreknowledge, predestination, and omniscience.



    Romans 8:29? If Paul was, as he admitted a sinful man incapable of doing good, how could he know that? It is interesting that we find no reference to God's firstborn, Jesus, in the Old Testament. Paul made it up for his new religion.
    What religion? Paul has already stated clearly that you cannot affect God's perfect knowledge, and since you, Cnance, have admitted of God's omniscience, your only refutation is to simply ignore the obvious, and even Lord jag knows better than that.

    As for Gal 28, Paul extended God's promise to Abraham to fit with his own agenda to create "sons of God." What a neat marketing tool. Believe in what I say and you will become "sons of God." Oh, excuse me, you are "sons of God, I just can't tell anyone if there are or not. Don't fret however, if you are God's chosen, you're saved. That puts it all out there in LA LA Land.
    Logically, you have one of two choices:
    1. You can believe that God selects a few and sends the rest to hell, ala Calvinism
    2.You can believe that, since God is omniscient and already knows who will accept or reject him, the rest will have an opportunity at a later time, which Paul clearly states in Romans 11.

    Now, whichever one you choose to believe, there is absolutely nothing you can do to affect the outcome, because God is all knowing.

    If you can offer any provable decision procedure whatever to get from here to God, I'm still waiting.

    As for Gal. 29, ("If you belong the Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.")
    I accept God's promise for Abraham's descents, but I do not believe Paul had authority to amend it or incorporate it into his theology.
    In fact, there is no need to incorporate it into any human theology. If God is all knowing, then certainly he would know which Israelites would be "saved" or "die". Even stopping at the Old testament, an all knowing God would alrady be well aware of who would be his servants and who would not. Nothing would be gained from the effort from God's perspective.


    This has been my main point every since we've discussed Paul. I believe Paul was a man driven by evangelist zeal to form a new world religion. It's all about what Paul wants for the world. God has nothing to do with it.
    That would be nice if Paul had actually offered something that could be used to organize a world religion but his direct teachings say there is no way we can by-pass Gd;s perfect knowledge of who is "saved" and who is not. From that perspective, any other decison offered b any man would be illusory, which is why jesus asaid to follow no man saying "here is Christ".

    What experience? How can anyone have an experience that tells him or her about a relationship with God. To have the full story, you have to read Paul. Most people profess faith in something. Even atheist extol the virtues of something, mostly science. So true freedom is not a normal experience. Also, Paul keeps coming back to the same story.
    Yes he does, that tose born of promise are foreknown, as isaac was, which is fully consistent with an all knowing God. He also tells us that the promise made to Abraham dealt with those who wwere born of that promise, and whether you believe Paul or not, it must logically be accepted that God already knows his children from the start, so Romans 8:29-30 is true from awhatever perspective you choose.

    "Believe in my gospel message for your salvation." Romans 1:16; 10:9; 13:11, 2Cor. 1:1; 6:2; 7:10
    Eph. 1:13; 6:17, Php 2:12.
    Not one of those statements contradict Paul's statements of Romans 8 and 9. I'll have to deal with them below.

    How can Paul make such a claim? By his own authority? God made his covenant with Abraham Gen. 12:2-3 and with Isaac Gen. 19, not with Gentiles or Paul.
    Precisely, so if Paul is wrong, then God will still know those who will be his children, and knew from the beginning. Even excluding gentiles, it is impossible to get around God's foreknowledge.

    I knew that without reading Paul. It's within God's domain, not humans.

    The only difference is Paul was the first to make Holy Spirit claims. Paul's claim that Jesus was God's firstborn is untrue. Where in the OT did God claim to have a son? If I have a choice, which I do, I choose the Lord God over Paul.
    Choose whatever you wish, You wil be just one of thousands who have their ideas about God. Paul has already pointed out the futility iof such processes, and so did Jesus. No one is required to believe you or anyone else making such claims.

    I have cross checked most of Paul's references and found that in areas of theological importance such as the "new covenant," "son of God," and "sons of God" (predestination) there are no literal references in the Old Testament.
    That's fine. And since God is all knowing, and knows who his children will be, then there is certainly the knowledge that there is no way for anyone else, by any process to be "saved". Romans 8:29-30 is still true.


    Yes, I agree Paul was truthful in saying no man can know. However, that is a simple truth. There are more important truths Paul claims to know. He claims to know that Jesus is the son of God, he claims to know that Jesus was God's firstborn, he claims to know about the sons of God. Yet, he claims he to be sinful man. I accept that Paul was a sinful man. As a sinful man, he concocted stories about Jesus, salvation and God.
    Again, if Paul was wrong, the same conclusion applies,. There dexists no certain knowledge of salvation, and therefore no need to follow any man.






    God's promises to Abraham and Issac make no mention of salvation. The promises are to bless and to curse those who curse you. God also promised Israel land. The modern state of Israel is a fulfillment of that promise.

    In the Old Testament, I don't recall Gentiles or Paul being included in God's promises to Israel.[/quote]

  7. #39
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,333

    Re: Vengeful.. but slow to anger?

    Cnance, since you listed Ephesians 1;13 as a "contradiction", let's look at the chapter:
    Verse 4: "according as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love.
    "Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by jesus Christ..."

    Just these two verse declare recognition of god's omniscience, with which you have also shown agreement. Now, we can say that God ONLY dealt with israel, but then ONLY Israelites would qualify for that predestination. Whow were those that qualified? Those born of promise to Abraham. You say no, so let's assuime that every Israelite is to receive this promise by adoption. That would mean no logical reason to give a law at Sinai, since all would qualify regardless. That's totally ridivculous.

    Slip down to Eph. 1:9: "Having made known to us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure, which HE HATH PURPOSED IN HIMSELF"

    Again, assume that God ONLY dealt with israel. Who are those IN ISRAEL, who understand this mystery? If we understood it, it wouldn't be a mystery, nor would it require many different versions, would it? Yet even among Jews, there is a variety of religious views.

    In verse 11, someone has obtained an inheritance. Who? If israel failed, themn ther is no reason to do anything, no reason to believe, and nothing is to be gained from the searfh, since israel blew it. In either case, there is no reason to folow any religion or believe any man, since no one can prove the "mystery".

    If you are right, there is nothing to be gained from joining any religion. If Paul is right, there is STILL nothing to be gained. The only difference eing that Paul offers a reward based on grace and freedom, and you offer nothing but death.

    Nothing is to be gained in either case, except that we are free from all religions.

  8. #40
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    6,872

    Re: Vengeful.. but slow to anger?

    Quote Originally Posted by doojie View Post
    Cnance, since you listed Ephesians 1;13 as a "contradiction", let's look at the chapter:
    Verse 4: "according as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love.
    "Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by jesus Christ..."
    Those are fine uplifting words that Paul wrote, but is it true? Where is the Old Testament is there such a commitment by God? I'm not against salvation, but it must be real. No where in the Old Testament does the Lord claim to have a son, no where in the Old Testament does the Lord, or His son (who doesn't exist), chose us before the foundation of the world. These are Paul's words, something he concocted to promote a new religion.

    Just these two verse declare recognition of god's omniscience, with which you have also shown agreement. Now, we can say that God ONLY dealt with Israel, but then ONLY Israelites would qualify for that predestination. Whow were those that qualified? Those born of promise to Abraham. You say no, so let's assuime that every Israelite is to receive this promise by adoption. That would mean no logical reason to give a law at Sinai, since all would qualify regardless. That's totally ridivculous.
    Again, promises made to Israel do not include salvation. How can someone be predestined if salvation is not possible? Paul was responsible for claiming salvation through Jesus. Since then, there has been much discussion about predestination. It is part of Protestantism and has greatly influenced Christianity in one form or another.

    As I mentioned, the promises to Abrahan and Isaac do not include salvation. The extension of the promise to salvation was Paul's addition to God's promise to Israel. Therefore, that promise is null an void.

    Slip down to Eph. 1:9: "Having made known to us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure, which HE HATH PURPOSED IN HIMSELF"

    Again, assume that God ONLY dealt with Israel. Who are those IN ISRAEL, who understand this mystery? If we understood it, it wouldn't be a mystery, nor would it require many different versions, would it? Yet even among Jews, there is a variety of religious views.
    I accept that. I'm making my argument based on literal interpretation of scripture and, of course, my own opinion.

    In Ephesians 1:10, Paul writes, "to bring all things in heaven and earth together under one head, even Christ." That is way off the mark. Here he infers Christ can be the head when he as already referred to Christ as the firstborn of many brothers. Also, there can only be one head in heaven. It's not subject to dispute or debate. God is the only ruling authority in heaven.

    In verse 11, someone has obtained an inheritance. Who? If israel failed, themn ther is no reason to do anything, no reason to believe, and nothing is to be gained from the searfh, since israel blew it. In either case, there is no reason to folow any religion or believe any man, since no one can prove the "mystery".
    It is not possible to prove the mystery of God. Having that kind of knowledge would make you equal to God. It is another one of Paul's riddles, one with no meaning and no resolution.


    If you are right, there is nothing to be gained from joining any religion. If Paul is right, there is STILL nothing to be gained. The only difference eing that Paul offers a reward based on grace and freedom, and you offer nothing but death.

    Nothing is to be gained in either case, except that we are free from all religions.
    Regardless, it wont change the truth. Only God knows. Paul assumes authority he doesn't have and makes promises based only on words. I accept the idea of being free from false beliefs, that includes the writings of Paul.

    My position about salvation however is not unique. You will not find Paul's salvation in the Old Testament. I ask questions about Paul and the OT that apparently no one has asked. That's a puzzle. Because there is such high regard for Paul no Christian questions him. In the Catholic Church he's Saint Paul.

    I suppose for the sake of everyone's mental health, it's best to believe in salvation. As for me, I'd rather know the truth than live a lie.

    I hate fraud!
    Last edited by Cnance; 10-18-2010 at 09:55 AM.

Similar Threads

  1. Is the internet slow because of all the snow ?
    By Administrator in forum Mail Order Scams
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-14-2014, 06:21 PM
  2. Scam.com painfully slow / unuseable?
    By kaat in forum General Chat
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 06-28-2009, 08:34 AM
  3. The Anger of the Left
    By franKg in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 05-21-2007, 08:09 AM
  4. EFG, So Slow, Help!
    By Samsong in forum Mail Order Scams
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 10-23-2006, 06:48 AM
  5. How America Nukes Its Own Troops - Death By Slow Burn
    By Solve et Coagula in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-06-2006, 10:17 AM

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
  •