Discussing the Messiah from an Historical Perspective

OK. So, do you believe he's lying?

 

Lying about what ? I already said that I believe he was telling what he thought to be the truth about Sola Fide.

What he says about submission to authority and women Paul may have himself believed as well but perhaps not.

 

My guess is this answer will fly over the top.

 

Is a denial response. Ignore everything else (because that would conflict with dogma) and focus on some meaningless question and repeat it over and over again. It is a thought stopping technique.

 

The only possible solution to a belief that has no foundation.

 

Or in the case where one holds two beliefs that are in contradiction as is so often the case with literalists but also with cult adherents.

Was talking to a talking to a Hari Krishna devotee one day. Those were the folks that would prance around in pink garb and shaved heads if I recall correctly .. was long time ago.

I am a curious fellow and so was asking what the deal was their religion ... listened and listened and then started asking questions. Soon I had the fellow in "contradiction corner" and he started to act like the evil computer that is driven crazy in one of the Star Trek episodes "does not compute - does not compute"

First he started to repeat his premise but I kept bringing him back to the contradiction (cant even remember what it was). the fellow then... right out of the blue ... starts chanting "Hari Hari, Krishna Krishna, Rama Rama " and so on.

One second I am having a conversation and the next second this guy is dancing around the space chanting. I had no idea what was happening at the time but after a friend of mine was abducted into a cult (a Christian one) I started to research and study the mind control techniques that cults use.

There are various ways that cult leaders can teach (unbeknownst to the adherent) or implant thought stopping techniques into the adherent so that if they come across information that conflicts with their believes they go into denial mode.

The brain can then invent all kinds of ways to repress these bad thoughts.

 

Paul said this.
I am just telling why he wanted the promiscuous people of his own times out of the conversations.

It makes sense.
The Feminists already have spoken and managed to get what they wanted in their sexual revolution of 1960.
Now the men need talk and show that Welfare costs, the illegitimacy that fatherless kids suffer child abuse from, and the high crime rates that followed since then.

Today, the women need be silent, as the facts are examined without benefits to women in the discussion.
Same conditions existed in Paul's time, in Rome, too.

 

WRONG here,...

Jesus told us that just faith in his name was satisfactory:

John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

 

Hitler did exactly what Revelation had predicted:

Rev. 11:7 And when they, (the two candlesticks, i.e.; the House of Jacob and the House of Judah), shall have finished their testimony (in the 17th century, against their own messiah ben Joseph, and changed their written texts in the Talmud so as to remove the name of Jesus and their direct protests against him), the (seven headed) beast (of Western civilization) that (had) ascendeth out of the bottomless pit (in The Renaissance) shall make (secular) war against them, (these Jews of the diaspora), and shall overcome them (in 1942), and kill them (with gas and starvation and brutalities).

Rev. 11:8 And, (the House of Jacob and the house of Judah), their dead bodies shall lie in the street (of Nazi Paganism) of the great city (which is the tenth horn of Western Civilization), which spiritually (in its philosophical outlook) is called Sodom, (a place practicing pagan sexual license and libidinal excess, one to be destroyed by fire) and (that ancient place of Jew trust in the shadow of) Egypt, (the time of their confusion: [Isa. 30:2-3]: Egypt, the land of both their beloved Joseph and also, their slavery), where, (in their blindness of scriptural truth) also our Lord was crucified (among them in 32 AD).

Rev. 11:9 And they of the people and kindreds and tongues and nations (of the 1260 years of the Jewish dispersion among them, the Diaspora), shall not see their dead bodies to be put in graves (but in Concentration Camps) three days (of years) and an half, (i.e.; 1942-1945), and kill them (with gas and starvation and brutalities)

Rev. 11:10 And they that dwell upon the earth, (in Nazi Western Europe), shall rejoice over them, and make merry, and shall send (supposed Christian seasonal) gifts one to another, (like the skin of Jews for lampshades, etc); because these two prophets, (the House of Jacob and the House of Judah, the two candlesticks: [Rev 11:4]), tormented them that dwelt on the earth.

Rev. 11:11 And after (the Holocaust), three and an half days (of years, 1942-1945), the Spirit of life from God entered into them, (the House of Jacob and the House of Judah: [Rev 11:4]), and they stood upon their feet (in the land Promised); and great fear fell upon them (in Islam) which saw them, (the prophecy of the Fig Tree, blooming was fulfilled: [Matt 24:32).

Rev. 11:12 And (the survivors), they heard a great voice from heaven saying unto them, Come up hither (where all Nations can see). And they ascended up to heaven in a cloud (of history); and their enemies (especially in Palestinia) beheld them.

Rev. 11:13 And the same hour was there a great "earthquake," (i.e.; Israeli Statehood!!), and the tenth part of the city, (the Promised Land), fell (to the returning Jews), and in the "earthquake" (of their in-gathering) were slain of (muslim) men, seven thousand: and the remnant (Islamic armies) were affrighted, and (all the Judaeo-Christian world) gave glory to the God of heaven (that prophecy had been fulfilled).


It is important to KNOW that Revelation was already written by Jews long before Jesus came in 32 AD.It was in Hebrew and hence at least 2 centuries before Jesus appeared.

 

There is nothing sensible about your claim that "all women" are promiscuous. What is even more nonsensical is the inferred claim that women are somehow more promiscuous than men such that they should not be allowed to speak in Church.

Paul had issues with women. Got it.

Folks were even more promiscuous back in Deborah's time and yet God saw fit to allow this women to be a Prophet and to teach men.

God and Paul are clearly not on the same page.

Religious manuscripts such as the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Mary have been unearthed, and numerous other religious texts that managed to evade the attempts of the Church to erase the past and destroy anything that conflicted with their made up doctrine.

These tests also suggest that Jesus also was cool with women "opening their mouths". Not once does Jesus ever state that women are not to speak in Church.

Paul's misogynistic attitude towards women and his rash claims about other things give credence to the theory that Paul made at least some things up as he went along. That Paul attached God to some of his own personal beliefs.

Romans 13 - is another example of Paul "winging it".

I get what Paul was doing here and it is very smart. Paul is trying to make Christianity acceptable to the governing authority at the time and he realizes that this is perhaps the only way that Christianity will survive. Given his audience with the emperor - Paul may have been given advice on how to make this religion that was gaining attention conform to the what the Romans would accept.

Who knows exactly what happened but what we do know is that this would be something absurd to come from the mouth of a God. Patent nonsense.

The Israelites rebelled against authority. Jesus rebelled against authority.

Paul is suggesting that Stalin and Hitler were Gods servants doing Gods work for our own good ? That the Jews should have accepted Antiochus when he set up the "abomination of desolation" in their temple and not rebelled ?

This is Paul trying to appease the Romans and has nothing to do with any "inspiration" from Jesus or God.

 

Perhaps faith in his name is satisfactory but this does not change the fact that according to Matt and Mark Jesus preached a works bases salvation formulation.

Having alternate salvation paths is different than the doctrine of "Faith Alone".

James 2 states that "faith without works is dead/ useless". The brother of Jesus poses the question "Can such a faith (faith alone - without works) save us"

His answer to this question is a definitive "NO" and he calls people that believe such doctrine "Foolish"

James 2 New International Version (NIV)

Favoritism Forbidden

2 My brothers and sisters, believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ must not show favoritism. 2 Suppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in filthy old clothes also comes in. 3 If you show special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say, “Here’s a good seat for you,” but say to the poor man, “You stand there” or “Sit on the floor by my feet,” 4 have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?

5 Listen, my dear brothers and sisters: Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who love him? 6 But you have dishonored the poor. Is it not the rich who are exploiting you? Are they not the ones who are dragging you into court? 7 Are they not the ones who are blaspheming the noble name of him to whom you belong?

8 If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, “Love your neighbor as yourself,”[a] you are doing right. 9 But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers. 10 For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. 11 For he who said, “You shall not commit adultery,” also said, “You shall not murder.”[c] If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker.

12 Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom, 13 because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment.

It is not like this debate is unknown. This debate went on between Paul and the Church of Jerusalem and the church today is still split over this question. The majority (Catholic and Orthodox) believe in a works component to salvation. It is only Protestants that believe "Sola Fide - Faith alone".

You can take which ever side you like but what is nonsense is to claim that both doctrines are not found in the NT.

 

That was my point before... that BOTH are stated in the Bible.
And there is a place for both, too.

Faith alone is a doctrinal interpretation and based upon a weak bible interpretation that tries to support the idea.
It is NOT what the Bible actually says, as I have shown you above.

Jesus said faith without works can save us, too, but he also recommended works specifically. (Matt 25:31-end)

 

I never said "all women are promiscuous."
I said Feminists have created the Asexual Revolution of 1960 and made America a matriarchy since, by comparison.

I said Paul did not want the women to continue the propaganda he also was fighting in Rome.
And, he wanted men to wear the pants inside their own homes, too.
That was what Paul was selling at the time, and what was getting Christians martyred, too.

 

Deborah was saying things that needed be said, and helping the work against the sexual culture at the time, so she was supported there.
But that has zero to do with the need to keep Feminists and Gays out of the discussion because they are the parties which Christians need attack, not debate.

 

Paul was dead right in what he said.
You are wrong in your opinion here.

As far as ignoring what he government was doing, again,... Paul was dead right.

The reverse of what Paul was doing the Feminists had already accomplished by amassing in large groups as Christian churches sat and watched, or even hlped them.
The result was the women won, and a Politically correct status suddenly emerged.
Then the government had to change once this occurred.
Revolting against the restraint against Divorce, slutty behavior, Gays out in the public eye, promiscuous sales methodologies, and sexually inspired movies and magazine advertisements the new loose culture force political changes as we saw by 2015 in America.

Paul realized that all Rome was to change once Christianity became popular.

And that was what happened,

 

If you agree with Paul in that leaders like Stalin, Pol Pot are a servants of God to whom you should submit then go ahead.

Just because you favor submission to freaks and genocidal maniacs does not mean I have to agree with you.

 

You don't agree when you are dead wrong, so don't hold me to that.
But here, again, you are wrong.

Paul was right.
Christians tolerated the Romans who were killing them in the arena.
But in the end, Rome lost and converted to Christianity.



Romans 12:1 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.

 

Dead wrong about what ? All I have done is quote what follows from the words of Paul.

If you think Paul is dead wrong that is fine but do not blame me for his words.

 

Provide evidence Jesus want's christians to attack certain groups, or any group for that matter.
More made up BS.

 

?
You are dead wrong about the Bible, saying, "it never mentions a new name for Jesus, which was Trinity, as had been established, recorded, accepted by the Roman government, too, and used since 325AD by Christians everywhere."

I showed you Rev 3:12, twice now, and you dismissed that concrete evidence that you were wrong.

 

Dave, you are making things up. I never said that the Bible did not mention a new name for Jesus and God.

Secondly. The Bible does not say that this new name is "Trinity" as you claim. In fact the passage is anti-Trinitarian.

Rev 3:

The speaking voice (some vision of Jesus) says that he will write a new name of his God. God is cast as someone other than Jesus.

Jesus also states that "another name" for himself will be revealed.

1) NOWHERE in this passage it suggested that this name is "TRINITY" This is fantasy that you are making up in your mind.

2) Nowhere in this passage is it suggested that Jesus and God are the same entity. The fact is that this passage has Jesus referring to God as someone other than himself.

 

So then you agree that prophecy does say Jesus will have a new name.
You say you have no clue what that name will be.

But you emphatically deny it could ever be Trinity, which has been used as a new name for almost 2000 years?

 

Revelations was not even considered Canon until centuries after Christianity was established.

Second, the passage in question states that there will not be one but "TWO" names. A new name for God and a new name for Jesus. It does not say that these names will be the same and it does not state that either of these names is "Trinity".

Further .. those names have yet to be given as it is talking about a time when the a new Jerusalem comes down out of the heavens.

Last, God and Jesus are referred to as separate entities and there is no suggestion of any "Trinity - that Jesus is actually the God of Abraham".

You are making up a story that does not even come close to fitting this passage.

 

The Book of Revelation is actually an ancient copy of Jewish prophecy.

The Jewish Revelation was written in Hebrew at one time, and is older that 200 BC,... long before Jesus even appeared.
That John woukd write this book, adding the name Jesus and Lamb, etc is all that was done.
The Book of Revelation is ACTUALLY Jewish,...


"*...but the apocalypse has become especially important to Jewish students since it has been discovered by Vischer (see bibliography) that the main apocalypse actually belongs to Jewish apocalyptic literature."

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12712-revelation-book-of

 

That's nice, but what does this have to do with the fact that your claim that the passage in Rev 3 supports the Trinity is false ?