jump to last post 1-13 of 13 discussions (85 posts)

Was St. Paul a Universalist?

  1. rdhowell profile image61
    rdhowellposted 5 years ago

    Some prominant theologians have asserted that St. Paul's theology appears to be universalistic in its overall thrust. One isolated passage can be used to illustrate the idea:
    Romans 5:18 �Therefore just as one man�s trespass led to condemnation
    [or doom] for all, so one man�s act of righteousness leads to
    justification and life for all."
    One thing is for sure, if Paul indeed taught universalism, then every other Biblical writer must, in principle, agree with St. Paul, else there is a contradiction, and the inspiration of scripture is in jeopardy.

    1. profile image0
      JoelMcLendonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Paul was a false Apostle. He murdered many but he knew he couldn't murder all of Yahshua's (Jesus) followers so that wasn't working so well.
      He infiltrated the Church and led people away from God and Yahshua by teaching a different doctrine.

      The reason you see contradiction is because there is.

      2nd Peter was not written by Peter. Many Scholars believe Paul doctored it up to make it look as though he was approved by Peter.

      1. brotheryochanan profile image61
        brotheryochananposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Then we also have to exclude Lukes accounts in acts about Pauls conversion as being doctored or just outright lies - and i mean all of it, including the sending of annais to restore pauls blindness.

        Luke has credibility.

        Personally i believe that God stopping the number one persecutor in his tracks is brilliant! Looking at it I can see how this would be an act of God. Lets also assume that if Paul was an infiltrator - do we think God turned a blind eye to this? Doubtful indeed.
        Look at ananais and sapphira how their little hypocrisy got them killed.

      2. brotheryochanan profile image61
        brotheryochananposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Mark, called john mark in the bible, wrote his gospel from peter. So safe to assume Peter wasn't a great writer. I dislike writing too, but i do it, however bumbly. Peter could write a shorter letter but a gospel... that would be daunting.
        To say that Paul doctored Peters letter up would mean that they spent a time together and i don't think that happened. Paul was out of country most of his ministry and in the last years, jailed in rome under house arrest.
        When Peter separated himself from the church gentiles and only ate amongst the jews, Paul was correct to reprimand him and call him to his hypocrisy, remember Peter was the one who saw the vision of the sheet full of animals descending and God saying, what i have called clean, call not unclean.
        For Peter to say, Pauls words are weighty is a criterion of embarrassment. Why say something that is embarrassing if it is not true?

    2. recommend1 profile image71
      recommend1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      It is quite possible that Paul was the anti-christ spoken about in the early church who would lead nations astray - seems to be working for the US, so it may just be true big_smile

      1. brotheryochanan profile image61
        brotheryochananposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Nobody has problems with Pauls writings, unless they intentionally want to or they don't know enough.

        1. recommend1 profile image71
          recommend1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Many people have huge problems with Pauls's writings - except those either blind, or those too stupid to look into the history of those texts they espouse that have caused untold bloodshed and misery in the world.  Pauls' texts have been used to enslave people for centuries, the clever part of the exercise is that it is always the interpreter who does the evil work for it.

          1. brotheryochanan profile image61
            brotheryochananposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Thats a nice rant but not a shred of it is true.
            In times of controversy we need to look to evidence and allow the evidence to persuade us and not ignore evidence and hang onto our own hand picked notions.
            First you have to make a point of pauls texts being the texts that lead to enslave people. I don't think you can do that, i think you might be able to surmise that but evidence. notta.
            Many people have problems with the gospels, with Jesus, buddha, ghandi. Many people just have problems. But what does this prove? nothing. To say, because there are problems with another's writings means little because the reasons for that are many.
            Its always the interpreter, on that you are correct. Texts can never shed blood, i don't know where you got this idea from. Someone could say, we the people.. and their idea of we might be racist, so its not the texts. Its the agenda of the person that leads to interpretation. You want to discredit the gospels you will hastily grab any scenario that discredits the gospels. This is human nature.
            Pauls letters are wonderfully perfect, when kept in context and with good christian understanding.
            Try an open mind next time.

            1. recommend1 profile image71
              recommend1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

              If yhou lifted your eyes from the narrow lines of your one book you would understand what open mind means.

              Paul was NOT an apostle and so charged by the Christ of your book with spreading his word - he was a Roman tax collector who had a bright idea some 30 years after the event.  When he tried to butt into the 'Christian' circle of which Peter was the head, as clearly dictated by the Christ of your book, he was rebutted totally and set up in opposition.  If Peter was indeed the rock in the words of the Christ figure then Paul would fit the satanic alternative that the Christ figure also predicted - to the letter.

              Just becasue others do not agree with your ramblings does not make them closed minded - it just means that they disagree with your 'stars in your eyes' approach to enslaving yourself rather than in seeing how the same texts can free you.

              1. brotheryochanan profile image61
                brotheryochananposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                first off Paul was not a roman tax collector - he was a pharisee, likely a member of the sanhedrin. and during his christian time a tent maker.
                How do you fit paul into the arena 30 yrs later?

                I think you need to know about that confrontation
                Galatians 2:12   For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself,  fearing them which were of the circumcision.
                  Galatians 2:13   And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.
                  Galatians 2:14   But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compel the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

                Those of the circumcision were travelling jews who said, people must be circumcized according to the law of moses. They were keepers of the law of moses and forceful people.

                Galatians 2:3   But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:

                This circumcision quandary was clearly laid out in acts 15 with Peter, Paul and James.
                Acts 15:10   Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?   This is part of what Peter said when dealing with judiasiers.
                Acts 15 takes place around 48ad

                Closed minded means not believing the persuasive evidence of the book you don't believe in - but it's there.

                have a great day

                1. recommend1 profile image71
                  recommend1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  What does all that blather have to do with the question ?  your confusion is getting more pronounced every post.

                  1. brotheryochanan profile image61
                    brotheryochananposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    not my confusion - yours.
                    I addressed your posts and gave evidence against them both.

      2. profile image0
        Deborah Sextonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        ******************

        Everything you say is correct. That's exactly what Paul is.

        Judas was called by God too, for the same reason. To fulfill prophecy, not to lead people to God.

        1. brotheryochanan profile image61
          brotheryochananposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          The time line for the antichrist and pauls appearance are completely ages apart.
          There is so much activity, mostly law of moses keepers, trying to tear the church apart. Sauls activity being stopped dead in its tracks is such a beautiful chess move it deserves applause not insults.

    3. profile image0
      Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Good thoughts, but it appears from the posts in reply that selfishness will, most times, trump inclusivity. No one knows what waits on the other side so many are scrambling to steal a greater portion of what they perceive to be the inheritance. It's a story as old as life.

      1. brotheryochanan profile image61
        brotheryochananposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Its not selfish to know the overall picture of what is represented. Using the full counsel of God we can know that there has always been exclusivity. We know that God chose a people - not all nations. We know that God punished those who did not add up to the standard He set. We know that the Hebrews were hand fed by God as to His Ways. When we recall the words of Jesus we know that salvation is extended to all people as per john 3:16 but we know also that we must pick up the ball of salvation and run with it.
        There are so many examples of a non-universalistic way that some of those that are licking their wounds in a pity session would entertain such non-sense. Its a story as old as life.

        1. profile image0
          Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this



          lol lol I'm sorry. I had to pull that piece out. You are a hoot. Keep telling yourself that. Keep telling us that. It's beyond hilarious.

          1. brotheryochanan profile image61
            brotheryochananposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Yes some people do interpret things according their personal preference so keep telling us yours its a hoot also.

            The full counsel of the bible refutes universalism and that is plainly obvious to read and painfully obvious to those whom pick and choose what they want to believe instead of being persuaded as to what to believe. The latter is definitely not hilarious and is most certainly selfish.

            have a nice day

            1. profile image0
              Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              BO, everyone chooses to believe in line with what they want to believe when it comes to questions on the spiritual. With thirty thousand sects within your religion, your claim of 'the full counsel of god' to back your foolish claims is laughable because out of the entire Christian population the handful that might agree with your bizarre thought processes would only be a portion of the tiny sect you are a part of.  That, in and of itself, helps any sane person see exactly what your claims are worth. smile

              1. brotheryochanan profile image61
                brotheryochananposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Firstly, i have purported nothing of my beliefs that are only a part of pentecostalism. I am speaking christianity 101 most times. So my sect has had nothing to do with what I have spoken.
                Second you play a numbers game. Tiny is good. It's easy to be baptist or catholic, presbyterian etc.
                The full counsel of God is what others will tell you when they say, context, context, context... that is the full counsel. When a contradiction is being debunked or a point is being proven by use of many scriptures from both OT and NT, that is the full counsel.
                If you think there is not a full counsel, well, how silly is that.

                Thank you for being on the argumentative side once again as is your style.

                1. profile image0
                  Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Well, I certainly understand when you call me argumentative. Your close minded and narrow approach invites argument. There isn't room for meaningful debate or discussion. You can't see the forest for the few trees you pick out to look at.

                  Let's review 'the full counsel of God.' You can't make that claim. Not honestly. Theologians rebuke your interpretation. Most other sects rebuke your interpretation. Most other believers rebuke your interpretation. You have full counsel of your ego, by all accounts. Is  it your argument that the terms ego and God are synonymous? If so, I can see where you are coming from.

                  1. brotheryochanan profile image61
                    brotheryochananposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Bring your facts, bring your research. I am always open to relevant information that is pertinent. But what am i to do with your personal opinion?
                    Everybody has one hun.

        2. rdhowell profile image61
          rdhowellposted 5 years ago in reply to this



          First, the overall picture represented by Paul is (for one thing) that God will have mercy upon all.
          Second, there has always been inclusivity as well. Not sure what your point there was.
          Third, universalism may be "non-sense" to you. Your comments here are just as non-sensical to plenty of people as well.

          1. brotheryochanan profile image61
            brotheryochananposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            First, God will have mercy upon all those who come to God through his principles, there is no other way. Anyone of those all can come to God through Christ. And without prejudice or resentment God will accept all but they can't just be sitting on the couch, never know God, die and presto.. universalized! 
            Second, Jericho for example, God was outside the city with his people for 6 weeks until they began to march. The people of Jericho shut tight the gates and remained inside. What happened? Gods people marched around Jericho, the walls fell and jericho was overthrown. God's inclusion there was, if Jericho opened the gates and surrendered to Israel then no overthrowing and no killing would happen, but they did not take up the ball of coming to Gods people and surrendering their lives. People have to come to God in order to be His. If they (we) do, then inclusiveness, if they (we) do not, then exclusivity.
            Third, to take one scripture and interpret it to mean something on its own will always make a wrongful conclusion. Like what is being made here, this is why i say the 'full counsel' of scripture. Other scriptures must back up universalism and others scriptures do not. Universalism does not even come close to the overall thrust of Paul's messages over all his letters and is not backed up in the OT either.

            1. rdhowell profile image61
              rdhowellposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              That is why I mentioned that I was quoting from one isolated passage. Lest anyone think that I do not understand that principle. You obviously don't understand the overall thrust of Paul's message.

  2. Druid Dude profile image60
    Druid Dudeposted 5 years ago

    Paul was a Roman agent. An infiltrator...spy.

    1. brotheryochanan profile image61
      brotheryochananposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      There is so much, so very much good solid stuff that Paul says it is difficult to think any damage he could do is less than minimal. As dispenser, if i may use that word, to the GENTILES he covers different areas and problems, than Jesus who dispensed to the jewish nation. For example, Christ set up the church because the synagogues preached only moses and the law and silenced the Christians. In short what occurred in christ was not preached or endorsed by the religious leaders of that time. So with this church and the introduction of the gentile people and the end of law and the new law of the spirit in Christ Jesus Paul by revelation of God set forth the guidelines for the church. Not a problem there. Paul had to specifically deal with much of the judiac influence and sloppy interpretations of what doctrines and practices this new way should be "others have crept in unawares etc". Other apostles had the same concerns. "Christ may bring salvation but to be correct with God you must keep the Law of Moses".
      Paul left his comfy lifestyle and good wage, security and pension smile to live a life of opposition and suffering to proclaim the gospel and creeds of the Christians.
      No spy.

  3. couturepopcafe profile image60
    couturepopcafeposted 5 years ago

    If Paul was making reference to Adam and Jesus, there doesn't seem to be a contradiction. Are you talking about the difference between believers and non?

    1. rdhowell profile image61
      rdhowellposted 5 years ago in reply to this



      Actually it seems to me that he was referring to the entire human race. But again, this is only one isolated passage. I think you have to look at Paul's entire theology as a whole. I am familiar with the argument that this verse refers only to those who accept the invitation to "accept Christ." But I don't think that limited interpretation holds water.

      1. brotheryochanan profile image61
        brotheryochananposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Only those who accept christ can enter into the kingdom If that is the limited interpretation you refer to, it holds much water.
        Back in the OT, the children of God had to sacrifice animals, keep the law, attend the festivals etc. God did not extend 'salvation' to anyone else, although it is true that those who chose to do things His way, were accepted.
        In the NT we see that God has set up another way and he signed this new covenant in blood again, but this time with the blood of Jesus. We cannot skip around this point and neither does the korans boast of negating it count for anything other than drivel. God has His ways and all must abide in accordance to that.

        1. A Troubled Man profile image59
          A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Yes, God changed his mind because he was wrong in the first place. Unfortunately, he was wrong in the second place, too. He just can't seem to get anything right.

          Can we fire Him for such poor performance metrics?

          1. brotheryochanan profile image61
            brotheryochananposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            No
            can we fire you for being so wrong?

            Firstly, God did not change his mind, he changed the covenant and there is nothing wrong with that.

            I suppose you would rather journey to the temple and have an animal killed. Or take time off from work to attend the festive days or each sunday do nothing; even perhaps have a bunch of pharisees dictate to you 1500 plus laws that you must abide by?

            Yes please diss God for abolishing what turned out to be, by human nature, an abused and corrupted system and giving us a so much better way to know Him. Diss Him for his magnificent ingenuity that contrived this better way that through his knowledge of humankind and future events, set up such a wonderful way that all which is needed is humbleness, confession and faith. [Diss Him because he is such a horrible creator giving us a yucky planet and is far to distant from all of us that only secret knowledge and hidden ways can reveal Him to us.]
              -- sarcastic comments in square brackets --
            poor performance metrics... have you thought about your own metrics?
            As God improved his performance metrics it took Him, in the form of man, to sacrifice Himself and install a new covenant via His blood. You will have to be a living sacrifice, offering your life to God. A life is required to erase sin and to up the metrics bar.
            God is brilliant.

            1. A Troubled Man profile image59
              A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              lol Contradict much?



              Those were Gods words, his commandments. Then, he changed his mind.



              lol Gobbledegook.

              1. brotheryochanan profile image61
                brotheryochananposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                The OT is full of types and shadows that speak of messiah, both his triumphal and servant roles. Christ is all through the OT, prophesies indicate quite clearly and a nation awaited his arrival. How is this a change of mind if the intention is to have another covenant from the beginning.
                You make it sound like.. oh gee i better figure something else out this isn't working - which again - is far from the evidential truth.
                Paul explains it this way:
                1 Corinthians 15:46   Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.
                and jesus says the same:
                Matthew 9:17   Neither do men put new wine into old bottles: else the bottles break, and the wine runs out, and the bottles perish: but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved.

                I know you are trying to figure this whole thing out and I wish you success.

                1. A Troubled Man profile image59
                  A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  There's nothing to figure in light of the blatantly obvious. There's nothing in the OT that said he was going to change his mind about his commandments, until he changed his mind about his commandments.

                  1. brotheryochanan profile image61
                    brotheryochananposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    no capriciousness whatsoever

        2. rdhowell profile image61
          rdhowellposted 5 years ago in reply to this



          I'm not sure you understand my point. The question is not whether or not only those who accept Christ can enter into the kingdom. The question is whether or not Paul believed that all persons will eventually accept Christ.
          As far as your comment "it holds much water", I'm sure you sincerely believe it does. But a belief is not proof. So I am going to come right back at you, as they say, and reply that no, it does not hold water.

          1. brotheryochanan profile image61
            brotheryochananposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Do you know of any who died and didn't accept christ. I do. So this rather puts this concept to bed.
            I believe that Paul wanted everyone to accept Christ and the bible says that God would have all to be saved but I suspect the reality is that not everyone will accept Christ and even if, say, all were to accept Christ we have the parable of the 10 virgins; the 5 wise and 5 foolish.
            Matthew 25:12   But he answered and said, Verily I say unto you, I know you not.
            In respect to universalism  i suppose one might say, they accepted christ all 10 but 5 did not make the grade and did not enter into the kingdom, which is a point of destination to those who are saved.

            1. rdhowell profile image61
              rdhowellposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Here is a key passage that prevents the concept from being "put to bed":

              22For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

                 23But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

                 24Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.

                 25For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.

                 26The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.

                 27For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.

                 28And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

              1. brotheryochanan profile image61
                brotheryochananposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I would reply to this but i don't want to go through explaining what i said earlier.

                1. rdhowell profile image61
                  rdhowellposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  No problem. Many will not believe though one rose from the dead.

  4. MakinBacon profile image84
    MakinBaconposted 5 years ago

    It's irrelevant "if Paul indeed taught universalism," because he didn't.

    There is no reality to the assertion you make that "the inspiration of scripture is in jeopardy" if there is a contradiction in the interpretation of the Bible.

    Man's interpretations and assertions have absolutely nothing to do with the inspiration of the scriptures, as it is concluded they are inspired, or God-breathed, and can be used for instruction and correction in a number of ways, according to the revelation of Christ in them.

    As to so-called prominant theologians, who cares? You also didn't name these prominant theologians. The ignorant and unlearned, as Peter said in reference to Paul's writings, always distort the scriptures.

    And the learned men of Israel, who knew the letter of the scriptures, had the very one they revealed and pointed to killed.

    Christ will judge the living and the dead, and those that rejected Him will be thrown into the lake of fire for eternity. Now you don't have to be confused any longer.

    1. rdhowell profile image61
      rdhowellposted 5 years ago in reply to this
  5. brotheryochanan profile image61
    brotheryochananposted 5 years ago

    "justification and life for all"

    Potentially
    There are no blanket promises with God and He has his way of doing things.
    All people must come to God through Christ then they are justified and then life is bestowed upon them. People must turn from their ways and live a life unto God which is not universalism.

    Not universalism.

    1. couturepopcafe profile image60
      couturepopcafeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      broyo (sorry, couldn't resist condensing your name) - But isn't there a blanket promise with God? All believers are forgiven. That is the covenant.

      1. rdhowell profile image61
        rdhowellposted 5 years ago in reply to this



        Yes, and it seems that, according to Paul, all humans will eventually believe and thus be forgiven.

      2. brotheryochanan profile image61
        brotheryochananposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        This is a common misconception about believing. Believing takes a step of faith. If i believe there is something wrong with my car i take it to the car shop.
        The work of Jesus christ includes the cross. As the lamb that takes away the sin of the world each believer needs to realize that they have sinned and that Jesus died to end the law and begin the new covenant. As john the baptist said, "repent and make a way for the coming of the lord". as Peters said in Acts 2:38 Repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus christ... and Paul again restated in Romans 8:8,9 Confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart .. you shall be saved.
        You see a pattern here. Confession by mouth and belief in heart.
        What is belief in the heart? We can understand and believe something because we heard it but is this is in our heart? Matthew 15:8 this people draw near to me with their mouth but their heart is far from me.
        And lets use: Proverbs 23:7 for as he thinketh in his heart so is he: and also, Matthew 6:21 for where your heart is there will your treasure be also: and Matthew 12:35 out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.
        so we see that the heart has depth of meaning to our actions. If we believe in something enough it will not be just head knowledge but from the heart and believing something in our hearts flows out from us, it is a truer and more deeper believing that just to know some information and believe.
        So my point is the condition of God in this instance is sincerity, depth of belief, and producing fruit, works or actions that show this belief to be more than head knowledge. Repentance is always associated with Jesus christ. So there is condition number one. And the depth of a persons belief will change their lives, condition number 2.
        And this opportunity is available to all and is freely given to all, IF we step through steps one and two.
        All people are forgiven if they ask for it.

    2. rdhowell profile image61
      rdhowellposted 5 years ago in reply to this



      Can you explain why you interpret "justification and life for all" as implying only a potentiality? It does say "all", after all.

      1. brotheryochanan profile image61
        brotheryochananposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        your probably using the NIV bible. The king james does not say ... for all.
          Romans 5:18   Therefore as by the offense of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation (adam); even so by the righteousness of one (Jesus) the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
          Romans 5:19   For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall MANY be made righteous.

        but the term for all in your post is not a wide sweeping term meaning everyone. It means all as in the sense of those to whom it applies to because we know there are conditions to salvation which enables justification. So as it does not apply to 'all' people it does apply to 'all' or 'many' in proper context.

        1. rdhowell profile image61
          rdhowellposted 5 years ago in reply to this
  6. Druid Dude profile image60
    Druid Dudeposted 5 years ago

    Emile...Everyone can believe whatever they choose or are gullible enough to swallow...but, and it is a huge BUT: There is only one single truth...everything else is BS. It is inescapable and WAY universal. To find it requires a journey that few have made, and fewer yet have survived. I'm a survivor. I hold that one truth right in the palm of my hand. It makes me laugh, and it makes me cry. It is heaven and hell...in a nutshell. The truth has not yet been full7y found...except by me. I was the first, and I shall be the last, but many are between one and the other. Maybe you are there, maybe you are not. I don't know about anyone...except me. The one truth has yet to be written. But now I know what to say. Soon. Peace

    1. profile image0
      Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      If you are saying you have found your truth, I'm cool with that.

      If you were implying that you have found the one universal truth, I can only say...hmmm. I'd be curious what you might claim it to be.

      1. couturepopcafe profile image60
        couturepopcafeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        He can't claim it to be. Who feels it knows it. He can only claim it for himself. That is the universal truth. One energy, one unit, one infinity of knowledge available to the mind freed of all obscuration which will eventually come to be the One. The mind cannot be perceived and perceiver simultaneously but is said to perceive only when it reflects the knower and the known. The mind acts not for itself but for another. For the one who sees the distinction, you cannot confuse mind with self. This is the beginning of awareness, when the mind begins to discriminate and gravitates toward liberation. If you remain undistracted you will be free from cause and effect.

        1. profile image0
          Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          That's an incredibly well composed response. It's in line with my beliefs, but leaves ample room for further reflection. Thanks for passing that bit of wisdom on. smile

          1. brotheryochanan profile image61
            brotheryochananposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            that was an incredible bunch of sentences saying nothing.
            One energy, one unit one infinity of knowledge available to the mind freed of obscuration which will eventually become the one. And yet being free of obscuration says that one is already there. How can getting to be there and there be the one?
            Infinity of knowledge.. does this not imply an owner of that knowledge or is it just floating around waiting to be picked up by the antennae of those more fortunate?
            The mind cannot be perceived... how ludicrous is that. the knower and the known is that obscuration?
            The mind acts for another.. what other? the mind acts for the individual as he stated above.
            cannot confuse mind with self.. mind is part of the self, it reflects the whole of the self.

            ramblings
            I'd like to hear all that over again in cohesive english this time please.

            1. profile image0
              Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Her thoughts were quite eloquent. If you admit you don't understand what you read it seems pointless to diss it.

              1. brotheryochanan profile image61
                brotheryochananposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                What and miss out on an atheist pass time? I can diss it and I can ask for a clearer explanation. Perhaps you can decipher that quagmire of weirdness for me please. And since it mirrors your own beliefs perhaps you could put of a bit of detail into it. What i expect from you is a general overall 2 sentence quickie, but i'd prefer a word by word translation because i think much of that is just jargon.

                Maybe it could be posted as a question and we could all have a shot at interpreting it. Even Jesus parables are easier to understand.

                1. profile image0
                  Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I don't know that I could give her post justice in a two sentence quickie. I actually consider it odd that you would make such a request, considering how long you go on and on and on at times.

                  But, the point I got was 'God' is the consciousness that binds the intricate tapestry of the universe  and it is within our power to feel the connection to that consciousness,  know what it knows because we are an integral part of it; feel our unique place within that fabric if we can free our minds; and the only thing standing in our way is our skewed perception that we are somehow separate.

                  One sentence thanks to semi colons. That's an incredibly poor recap. There. I've said it first. smile

                  1. brotheryochanan profile image61
                    brotheryochananposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    thank you

  7. Druid Dude profile image60
    Druid Dudeposted 5 years ago

    I believe...notice the word...take it, or leave it. The brother of Jesus, James by name, was martyred. He was the head of the church in Jerusalem after the crucifixion. This is a matter of history. His murderer was Paul, who saw the opportunity to advance his career. As the murderer of James, he was an agent of Rome. He was a Roman citizen, and he was a good Roman, already in the employ of the Emporer. If a dog would bite his first master, would he not also bite his second? All of the written gospels are virtually worthless matterial writtings, corrupted by those who sought to usurp the church. Evidence. All them thar statues, works of art, gold and silver. Adding sugar where needed to take over and pervert the true faith. This is the difference between what is written and what is spoken. It is the difference between the non-spiritual and the spiritual. That is why no gospels exist before the first century A.D. That is why there is no gospel of Jesus. Some say he was illiterate...to them, Isay: Then how could he read the Torah, necessary for every Jewish boy to pass into man hood? Case closed. Everything must make sense. If it doesn't make sense...then it is NON-SENSE! My granddaddy told me that when I was but a child. Have a nice day!smile

    1. brotheryochanan profile image61
      brotheryochananposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      (Josephus, Antiquities 20:197-201)
      Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the Sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or some of his companions]; and, when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for what he had already done was not to be justified.

      We gain a few more details from Eusebius. Yet the most important detail we receive is that James' death took place right before Passover. Although neither Jewish nor Church literature preserves an actual date for James' death, from Josephus' and Eusebius' information we may conclude that James was martyred in 62 CE during the week before Passover.  Most likely the year the Paul was under house arrest in Rome.

      As to the no gospels exist before the first century AD that's simply not true there is a huge amount of textual material dated before the end of the first century. The historical accounts of the life spans of these writers says they could not have written anything after they died before the end of the first century.

      and no gospel of Jesus or anyone else for that matter, even buddha didn't write his own stuff and that did not reach book form until a 1,000 yrs after his death, burial and no resurrection.

      As to the corruption by the catholic church. I hear you on that one but the textual evidence we have of the copies of the originals did not create a complete rewrite of the bible. The text of the copies of the originals again dating before the end of the first century - of this there is no doubt - do not vary greatly from the book we have no as much as the english language via translation has permitted. It was Luther who wrote his thesis and nailed it to the vatican door which was inspired by his reading the scriptures, which would say that even the catholic church did not change the scriptures but were incriminated by the words of the bible.

      Not only do things have to make sense but there needs to be historical documentation, some evidence. We can all make stuff up that seems to make sense but what does the evidence say.

  8. Disappearinghead profile image88
    Disappearingheadposted 5 years ago

    In answer to the question, I'm not sure. Looking at Romans 5:18-19, it's easy to interpret these statements as pro-universalism:

    18. Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. 19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

    The key thing is the language: ONE trespass , condemnation of ALL, ONE righteous act, life for ALL. MANY made sinners, MANY made righteous.

    Church always told me that ALL are sinners, but not ALL are saved. Yet Paul appears to contradict this. If ALL and MANY are sinners which is everyone, then the ALL justified and MANY righteous, must also be everyone. To claim that all and many can change their meanings from everyone to only a select few within these two verses is illogical.

    1. rdhowell profile image61
      rdhowellposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I agree. But I still have reservations. For one thing, it's just difficult to change your beliefs from what you were always told to believe.

      1. brotheryochanan profile image61
        brotheryochananposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Agreed but on a humanistic level only. The spirit of truth when he is come will teach all things. We must be supple before God and open to His revelation, He know what the truth is and will impart such to a heart that needs to know.
        People say, "prayer never gets answered". And they are wrong. We pray about answers to things that bother us and we get results.
        People say, "christians don't think about what they believe in". Thankyou for proving them wrong in this area also.

        1. Disappearinghead profile image88
          Disappearingheadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          The practical problem with the concept of the spirit of truth teaching us all things is that the results are subjective. That is, the world is full of Christians who as you say are supple to God and open to His revelation, yet on matters of doctrine they do not agree, hence umpteen thousand denominations. They all think God has shown them the truth so when another Christian holds a different view, it does not compute, so they conclude the other Christian has not heard from God.

          1. Jerami profile image76
            Jeramiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            YEP;    You are right!   ....    everybody is wrong but me.



                I'm goina/have to .....     see how long that I can float on that concept.



               I'm wishing me a lot of luck with that concept.    And I'm also hoping that somebody else is wishing me luck too.

          2. brotheryochanan profile image61
            brotheryochananposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            You forget about some things.
            People don't read the bible to learn or be taught most read it because they are supposed to. People don't necessarily put God to the forefront that is to say, they do not eat, sleep and ponder God all the moments of the day. To break this down into secular application - not everyone has phd's, or doctorates. Not all are theologians. There are lay persons in every field of study. Some have not studied every field or area.

            The word is not subjective when it lines up with what the bible teaches. Many people just parrot what the church teaches and you have encountered misteachings yourself. Some have studied this area and that and not that area and this other one, so some do not know about this but they know about that. smile

            The thrust of my statement was that each heart which sincerely wants to know about God will receive of God in His time. He may not tell us that santa is made up until we are old enough to handle the truth to expound a principle here.

            I believe that your subjective conclusion is subjective to, as mine is, a set of standards of which we differ from.

            also there are not 33,000 denominations as i have stated before. All anglicans have the same creeds as do all methodists and baptists and pentecostals and catholics. As that outrageous number labels all church names as separate denoms it is far from the truth. A denomination would have to contain different beliefs, which we know, all baptists have the same belief as do etc etc.

            1. Disappearinghead profile image88
              Disappearingheadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              It's a nice idea that God doesn't reveal that Santa is made up until someone is ready, but the fact is that Churches and Hubpages are full of people who seek God and study the bible with, as far as it depends on them, an open heart. However, you know that they are both chocka full of completely different views. I've heard multitudes of people state that God has shown them this or that, or the Holy Spirit has revealed something else; yet I listen and often think that what they are saying is nonsense. Similarly I would be burned at the stake as a heretic for the views and opinions I hold.

              As long as people rely on "the Holy Spirit revealing truth" the results will be subjective, because what people "hear" in combination is preconceived ideas, agendas, wisdom of the crowd, imagination both concious and unconscious. The Church is full of those who say God has said when God has not said. Nobody is immune: neither you or I.

  9. profile image0
    Deborah Sextonposted 5 years ago

    A Little About The False Apostle, Paul

    Paul taught the doctrine of predestination, it not only does not exist in Yahshua's words or the Hebrew Scriptures, but there is much evidence to the contrary to be found in them. 
    But Yahshua taught Whosoever will. (There for everyone)

    Paul an Apostle? NO

    Other than the twelve apostles who spent three and a half years with Yahshua, no one other than Paul can be identified as having claimed for themselves the title of "apostle".  Barnabas was referred to as an apostle along with Paul by Luke in Acts 14:14, but there is no record of Barnabas claiming the title for himself.

    Paul's view of himself as an apostle didn't stop at only claiming to be an apostle. He also did what he could to communicate to his followers that he topped them all. He even had the nerve to belittle the very apostles that Yahshua had called and trained for three and a half years to be his witnesses! Among this braggart's self-flattering quotes are the following. see Galatians 2:6,7,9

    This is nothing but an arrogant lie. A couple verses later, Paul takes another cheap-shot at Peter. With Peter nowhere around to defend himself, Paul brags to the Galatians how he had determined Peter was a hypocrite, and how he had put him down before the entire church of Antioch. see Galatians 2:11-14
    Aside from Paul's incredible arrogance, I also need to point out that Paul himself was the ultimate hypocrite for condemning Peter for accommodating Gentiles when he was around Gentiles and acting like a Jew around Jews. Here is what he claimed to do, and commanded the Corinthians to do as well.   

        "For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law; to those who are without the law as without law... that I might win those who are without law; to the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some." 1Corinthians 9:19-22

        "Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. Give no offense, either to the Jews or to the Greeks or to the church of God, just as I also please all men in all things, not seeking my own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved. Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ."   1Corinthians 10:31-33

    When Paul says, "Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ" we should not do as he says... because in no way did he imitate Yahshua! Can anyone imagine Yahshua playing chameleon and saying anything like "I have become all things to all men" or  "I please all men in all things"?
    During this time, the only Apostles were the 12 and Paul, who called Barnabas an Apostle too. When Paul belittles the Apostles, he is speaking of the 12.

    So here we have Paul, claiming to be greater than any other apostle, belittling Peter, James, and John by saying they only "seemed" to be pillars of the church, and that they "added nothing" to him. Then he brags about how he told off Peter... calling him a hypocrite, and he subtly curses the apostles by telling the Galatians to consider accursed anyone who differs with him. All this, while in fact, he was being the greatest hypocrite of all! The superstitious belief that Paul's words are infallible is so thick that people can't see the forest for all the trees that are in the way! If anyone else had even begun to do and say the things that Paul did, we would have recognized their incredible conceit and rejected them a long time ago. Here is something relevant that Solomon said.

        "Let another man praise you, and not your own mouth; A stranger, and not your own lips."   Proverbs 27:2
    By Scott Nelson

    1. brotheryochanan profile image61
      brotheryochananposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Boy you don't get Paul at all do ya.
      Predestination:
      Ephesians 1:5   Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
        Ephesians 1:11   In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:

      The only predestination talked about is after we are in Christ because then God can use us until then we are going our own way. You can find this in a lot of what jesus said to his flock.

      Apostleship
      required to have seen the risen Christ, so that he could preach a resurrection of which he had himself been an eyewitness (1 Corinthians 9:1 Acts 9).
      He had to be called and commissioned by the risen Lord directly (John 20:21; Acts 26:15-18), which also meant that he received the gospel from Christ Himself (Galatians 1:11-12).

      Paul fills all of this from damascus road onward. Unless of course Luke is now a liar, in both the gospel of luke and acts . And not to mention all those churches Paul founded across the known world and not to mention the time Paul spent with the disciples.

      1Corinthians 10:31-33
      I cannot find imitate in the NT. What version are you using? Notice that in verse 28 Paul says not to eat food offered to idols. So how is he pleasing all men. There is a way to preach the gospel that is not argumentative or displeasing. All Paul is saying here is in the area of eating and drinking do not upset your host unless he specifically says this is offered to idols. Paul is dealing with a specific situation and is not becoming an adulterer to please adulterers as you infer.

      Paul claiming to be greater than Peter

      Matthew 16:23   But he turned, and said unto PETER, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offense unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

      So the real satan and antichrist is Peter!  Peter denied the lord 3xs after being with Jesus for 3.5 yrs! Peter alludes from the book of enoch. Peter can't even write well and neither does he try to put out letters to the churches. Peter never starts any churches. Peter rolled the dice to elect mathias who we never hear of again. Peter cut off the guards ear that jesus healed back on. Where was Peter found by the resurrected Christ? he went back to fishing. What did Paul do? He left his prior life behind completely, his job, income, status.
      So what now?
      Can we think it probable that Peter was in error? I think we can.
      God bless Peter of course and its comforting to know that God can use anybody - except Paul of course. Cmon deborah.

      I think you need to know about that confrontation
      Galatians 2:12   For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he (peter) withdrew and separated himself,  fearing them which were of the circumcision.
        Galatians 2:13   And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him (peter); insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.
        Galatians 2:14   But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compel the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

      This is not bragging as you perceive it but honest commentary

      1. profile image0
        Deborah Sextonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        ******************************

        Make up anything you want to support your beliefs.

        predestination |prēˌdestəˈnā sh ən|
        noun
        (as a doctrine in Christian theology) the divine foreordaining of all that will happen, esp. with regard to the salvation of some and not others. It has been particularly associated with the teachings of St. Augustine of Hippo and of Calvin.

        Predestination is a Christian doctrine according to which a person's ultimate destiny, whether it be salvation or damnation, is determined by God alone prior to, and apart from, any worth or merit on the person's part. In some cases, it is claimed that God only determines those to be saved; in others, that he determines those to be saved and those to be condemned. The latter teaching is called double predestination. It is a Roman belief.

        1. brotheryochanan profile image61
          brotheryochananposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          we need to go with the biblical definition and the definition that aligns with the full counsel of God.

          If God predestined people to be saved then he cannot punish those who are not saved as he stacked the deck. If God predestines people to be saved and not others then the whole notion of free will and our ability to choose is negated.

          1. profile image0
            Deborah Sextonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            *********************

            That is my argument. God does not predestine our salvation.

            Whosoever will

            Your friend Paul told that lie, and many mothers

            1. profile image0
              Deborah Sextonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              **************

              That should say "many others" not mothers

      2. profile image0
        Deborah Sextonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        ***************************

        Apostleship

        What it Takes

        Act1
        21. Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,

        22.Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.

        23.And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.

        Paul did not meet the requirements

  10. Disappearinghead profile image88
    Disappearingheadposted 5 years ago

    Whether he was a universalist or not, universalism seems to be the only loving and truely compassionate way to go. If God is not a universalist, then I'm very much disappointed as anything else means that love and compassion have limits.

  11. rdhowell profile image61
    rdhowellposted 5 years ago

    Hi Deborah
    I don't know about all of the false apostle stuff. I haven't done any research on that. But I have done research on predestination, and actually it appears that Paul did not teach predestination. If you're interested, we can discuss that.

    1. Disappearinghead profile image88
      Disappearingheadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      It's a shame that this set of threads has turned into another Paul = Saint/False Prophet argument. Irrespective of who he was, the question is was he or was he not a universalist?

      However, I am interested in Deborah's view on uiversalism from her Jewish perspective. From what I have read up on the Church from the 4th century onwards, it assimilated many pagan beliefs and abandoned Jewish ones, thus the Christian view on universalism/salvation/heaven/hell/satan/demons is rather tainted to say the least. Considering that I don't believe the NT is scripture because:
      a) Unlike the Hebrew ones, the NT never says of itself that is scripture and it doesn't include phrases like "thus says the Lord".
      b) When Paul said that all scripture is God breathed.... the NT didn't exist so can't be included in that statement. Even if he was a false prophet, even he wouldn't claim his letters were scripture.
      c) What we have in the NT was selected by committee of the Catholic Church, and since when did God grant them the authority to decide what was or was not scripture? Jude and 2 Peter almost didn't make it because of their dubious references to the myths of the Book of Enoch.

  12. rdhowell profile image61
    rdhowellposted 5 years ago

    Hi Dh,

    Yea, well these things usually start going in all directions. That's why I usually stay on topic. But in this case, the doctrine of predestination has been an interest of mine because it relates to universalism by virtue of the idea that some are predestined to "hell." And of course it involves Paul.
    You bring up an interesting point also. My thesis looked at the possible influence of Greco-Roman ideas on Christian ideas of a "hell." It is strange, to say the least, that we only see an idea of "hell" in the entire Bible when, coincidentally, the Christian writers discovered these ideas in the culture in which they wrote.

    1. Disappearinghead profile image88
      Disappearingheadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      If we study the Hebrew scriptures, we see no hell at all; only Sheol which is the resting place for all before resurrection. Interestingly, God tells Abraham that he will rest with his fathers upon death, yet his fathers were idol worshipers. Thus the interim fate of all is the same.

      Another interesting one is the word 'Hades' is used in the NT eleven times, but the KJV translated it as 'Hell' ten times but 'Grave' only once. Why? How did the translators decide that Hades should
      be translated as Hell in all instances bar one? Here below is the single instance where it is translated as Grave in the KJV.
      1 Corinthians 15:55 "O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?"
      The KJV translators didn't want anyone getting the impression we could escape hell.

  13. rdhowell profile image61
    rdhowellposted 5 years ago

    I agree. That's why I always go right to the source - the original language it was written in.

 
working