jump to last post 1-50 of 112 discussions (659 posts)

Yahshua And Paul

  1. 0
    Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago

    I've had several people say that Paul taught the same thing Yahshua did. They also asked me to post the contradictory beliefs. Here are a few.

    Manner of Worship:


    Usually these were small groups, though he did encounter the occasional large crowd. Yahshua always prayed privately, and taught his followers to do the same. In fact, he specifically prohibited public prayer and public displays of worship (Matt. 6:1-18).

    The fact that he belabored this point so thoroughly in his Sermon on the Mount, his first and greatest public teaching, almost suggest a premonition that others would follow to undermine and contradict him.


    Paul, in contrast, organized a great system of churches. The story of Acts is the story of Paul traveling throughout the known world, establishing great churches. His epistles, which comprise the greatest single portion of the New Testament, about a third of it, were written to maintain administrative control of this great ecclesiastical network and to standardize its doctrines, not based on the teachings of Yahshua, but on his own contradictory theology.

    Today people are once again coming down on the side of Paul and refuse to accept the simple teachings of the founder they accept, once again, in name only.

    Dealing with sinners:

    Yahshua ministered to the sinners, with no reluctance to engage adulterers, whores, publicans, tax collectors, lepers, or any other "unclean" person (the whole need not a physician; a church is a hospital for sinners rather than a showcase for saints).

    Paul, contradicts Yahshua: 1Cor 5:11 "But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat."


    Feeding the poor:

    Yahshua taught in Matt 25:31-46 that our final salvation and judgment would be based in large part on our willingness to feed the poor.

    Paul contradicts this:
    2 Thess 3:10 "For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat." Does this mean that if poor people are unemployed, we should turn them away from any charity?

    Slavery:

    When the Southerners in our country sought to defend slavery, they called upon Paul to back them up, citing Ephesians 6:5 and Titus 2:9-10, where he exhorts slaves to obey their masters, and the fact that slavery was widely practiced, but Paul never condemned it once.

    Equality for Women:

    Paul was very anti-woman. He ordered that they not be allowed to speak in the churches (I Cor 14:34-45) and that they stay home and take care of the kids (1Timothy 5:14), and that wives should be submissive to the mastery of their husbands (Ephesians 5:22-24 and Colossians 3:18-19).

    Homosexuals:

    The ONLY passages in the New Testament that are offered as evidence against equal rights for homosexuals are those taught by Paul (various passages have been construed to oppose homosexuality, but the most direct reference is in Romans 1:26-27).

    Yahshua himself never uttered a single word against homosexuals and, given his affinity for sinners, lepers, tax collectors, and other outcasts, it is likely that in our modern times it would be Yahshua who would be embracing the homosexuals rejected by those who claim to be his followers. Just as it was Paul's words that were held up in the mid-1800's to justify slavery, so Paul's words today are still used to persecute others.

    Ironically, Paul is the one who asserts that the Law of Moses is no longer operational, yet he echoes the Law on homosexuality (see Leviticus 18:22). Ironically, many of the same Christians who eat pork, shrimp or rabbit (forbidden in Leviticus 11 concerning the priests) because the Law no longer applies, still also cite Leviticus 18 when they want to oppose homosexuality -- trying to have it both ways.

    Those who claim to take upon them the name of “JESUS” should carefully examine Paul's undermining of Jesus’(Yahshua’s) message and his many contradictions of Yahshua and the other apostles, as well as the plain nonsense of his bloody atonement theory of human sacrifice, and then decide if they want to be Christians or Paulines.

    Punishment for Adam's sin

    Paul is the one who introduces the concept of original sin and the "inheritance" of sin, in Romans 5:12, "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned."

    Is sin a moral issue or a birth defect? Should babies born with birth defects be punished? Should we require abortions if the fetus is deformed?

    It is interesting to note that while Paul invents a theology of atonement based on the offering of Jesus as a human sacrifice for sin, Jesus explicitly rejects this doctrine. The gospel according to Matthew TWICE, in Matt 9:13 and Matt 12:7, states that Jesus said: "I will have mercy, and not sacrifice" (KJV). More modern translations, such as the RSV and NIV, update the archaic meaning of the word "will" and translate Jesus' statements in both verses as: "I desire mercy and not sacrifice." This could not be a more explicit rejection of Paul's later teaching.

    What did God say about this to Ezekiel?

    Ezekiel 18:20 says
    KJV
    “The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.”

    1. vector7 profile image59
      vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      And deary me, I didn't even get to you saying Christ doesn't atone for my sins.. lol

      I'll leave that to someone else to clear up for Christ's own words are against you on that note.

      Shame, shame, shame..

      You have a three verses misinterpreted without light of another single scripture.

      And even then you're nit-picking the translations like one word alters the entire Word of God.  lol

      How ignorant do you claim God to be in light of those three scriptures with the entirety of the rest of the books against you???

      Christ died to save me..

      I won't even bother to waste my time.

      You should read more. I should never have bothered on this.

      You missed mountains of information.

      You're contradicting the entire Holy Bible.. LOL

      cool

      1. recommend1 profile image70
        recommend1posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        What foolish babbling comments to make in response to a well put list of differences between elements of the bible that you clearly do not understand.  Your dribble of words are as confused as you clearly are.  You should start by considering that almost everything you know about Paul is fed to you by Paul himself.  If you are so easily satisfied you may as follow the white rabbit !

        1. vector7 profile image59
          vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Well I believe in the entire Bible friend.

          You do as you wish.

        2. sonfollowers profile image93
          sonfollowersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          "You should start by considering that almost everything you know about Paul is fed to you by Paul himself." 

          This is a fascinating argument.  I assume you recognize that this is also true of Moses.  Everything we know about him comes from his won writings.  Let's also add Joshua, Daniel, Jeremiah, Isaiah...  Ok, so pretty much all of the prophets (major and minor).  Are we to abandon them as well? 

          Deborah's take on 1 Corinthians 5:11 is an attempt to conjure disagreement where none exists (this is the case with most of her arguments).  See my hubs on this subject for details.  In this case, she misses the fact that the time Jesus spent with "tax collectors and sinners" was focused on outreach.  There's a difference between reaching out to people who need Jesus (which we certainly are called to do) and living with those who are involved in a sinful lifestyle as part of your inner circle.  The teachings of Jesus do not line up perfectly with those of Paul specifically because the context of their ministries were so incredibly different.  Jesus taught before his own death and resurrection.  Jesus taught before the Holy Spirit was given on the Day of Pentecost.  The teachings of Paul were necessarily different because Jesus' audience could not have understood many of the things Paul was given to teach.  These teachings only make sense in light of a resurrected Jesus.

          Jesus did not come to start a church (or a collection of churches) because his primary mission was to perform miracles, be crucified, be resurrected, and be taken into heaven.  In short, His role was not the same as those who came after Him (Peter, John, Paul..).

          About women, Paul was a product of his culture.  About the teachings on atonement, Jesus predicted his death and resurrection which was clearly a critical event to God's plan.  In Acts 3:19, Peter says "Now repent of your sins and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped away".  Isaiah spoke about Jesus and said that He would be "pierced for our transgressions and wounded for our iniquities."  Paul simply explained this in detail, but he certainly did not make it up himself.  He built on what was already there, provided by those who came before him.

          1. DoubleScorpion profile image86
            DoubleScorpionposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Questions, you might can clear up for me...

            When did Paul convert? (what year?)
            Where did Paul say he got his message and teachings from?
            According to Paul, when did he first meet Peter and James?
            Which was written first, The Pauline letters or the Four Gospels?

          2. recommend1 profile image70
            recommend1posted 4 years ago in reply to this


            Of course it is true of Moses and the other so called prophets, there is no historical proof of even their existence outside of the proliferation of writings copying a single source.  Even the Jews leaving Egypt story is totally unsubstantiated by historical records that include detailed accounts of the period.  No mention of any plagues or dead first-borns in Egypt, or around the date of the supposed birth of Christ, not even a singel historical proof or mention of the central Christ figure of the story.  However, the point holds good whether it is all just myth or if any shred of reality forms some basis for it all.

            Making the jesus figure and paul 'same' as in reducing the role of the central figure to a 'ministry' is pure pauline poison, by giving authority to himself and other 'ministers' he created a whole evil side to the original story, and the means of perpetuating it.

            Paul explaining is paul interpreting - and the resulting story undermines all the good that comes with the original idea, whether it has any base in reality or is just a story.

            1. sonfollowers profile image93
              sonfollowersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Aaaaah, ok.  You don't actually buy into the original premise anyway.  Underneath your disdain for Paul is a lack of acceptance of the Bible as a whole.  You should really stick to that argument.  It comes off as disingenuous to vehemently defend a Christ you don't actually believe in.  It seems like an argument for the sake of argument, or an attack cleverly disguised as a defense to create confusion. 

              Thanks for the clarification.  It certainly makes things easier.

      2. Shiningstar4u2c profile image61
        Shiningstar4u2cposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        WOW! Great Reply! To think Paul was against Jesus, How foolish and ignorant can a person be? it is true, as the Bible says, Ever learning but never coming to the Truth, it is a bottomless pit of intellectual reasoning. Paul was for Christ and gave His life after His conversion to show forth Christ to the World. This post is not even worth the time to read much less try to persuade them otherwise.

    2. recommend1 profile image70
      recommend1posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Nice to see someone who knows what they are talking about for a change.

      +1

      1. vector7 profile image59
        vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Might want to proofread your profile  intro before making any comments. lol

        Not much to proofread friend.

        Especially with twelve months to notice laready...

        1. 0
          Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

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

          Please try to control your anger and hate.
          This is for those who want to know.

          Thanks

          1. vector7 profile image59
            vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            LOL.

            I don't hate, another assertion you placed on me.

            I noted lack of attention to detail. And I was kindly trying to tell recommend it's best to proofread so as not to be questioned over such lack of attention.

            Where do you get hate from with a simple little discrepancy about the integrity of information.

            You guys have fun. I don't wish to be "attacked" any longer.

            smile

        2. recommend1 profile image70
          recommend1posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          You might want to keep to the thread topic instead of making personal attacks in place of coherent argument.  Your ridiculous uneducated response to a well presented set of clear facts betrays the fact of your  indoctrination in place of study.  Maybe you should get one of your teachers to look at this instead ?

          1. vector7 profile image59
            vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I didn't call you ridiculous.

            I didn't call you uneducated.

            I didn't call you anything..

            You should relax and quit throwing mean sentences and calling names as children do.

            And you DO need to proofread it. My goodness, why are you so pissed?

            YOU made the error. It was partially out of kindness I told you..

            OTHERWISE, I would have said nothing so EVERYONE could see it.

            I don't understand you people

            1. 0
              Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

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

              Do you have to use common low class language?

              It is against the rules to go off topic in the threads. It is against the rules to highjack a thread. You might want to read.

              Now you threatened to stay away. Please keep your word.

              1. vector7 profile image59
                vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                LOL...
                And you call ME hateful...

                And that isn't a threat...lol oh dear.....

                Fine.. Gladly


                And I am low class.

                I am a sinner just like Paul.

                Because I need Jesus.



                cool

                1. 0
                  Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  ********

                  Nothing I said to you was hateful. I did not call you low class. I asked if you had to use low class language.

                  If you don't understand what I am saying, how can you understand scripture?

                  And this is a thread.

      2. 0
        Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

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

        Thank you. I want peo[le to see the truth even though I am attacked for ot.

        1. vector7 profile image59
          vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I didn't attack you. Thanks for the character assertion.

          I attacked your ideas. Something I learned from Martin Luther King Jr.

          I won't post in your little arena again.

          You may have your fun.

          God bless.

          smile

    3. 0
      Virgil Newsomeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Maybe when you stop doing astrology, candle burning, fortune telling, kindalini, practicing and teaching reiki, and selling charms for wealth and love, maybe you will be able to see mroe clearly how ridiculous your OP is. 

      When you stop being a child of Satan and give your life to God, then God Himself might show you something.  Until then, you do no thave a leg to stand on. Your views are skewed by your own hatred and unforgiving nature. 

      According you what you wrote, your own God was unable to change Paul into a righteous man. 

      Did God change the heart of Moses, who was a murderer?  What about Jacob who was a con artist, a liar and a thief?

      1. 0
        Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

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

        As I have said many times,,,when a person writes a murder mystery they are not accused of being a murderer. I did not say I practice any of those things.

        Christians don't believe in smoking or getting drunk do they?

        But if they work in a grocery store they'll sell beer, wine, and cigarettes.

        BUT you judge me, which is wrong against God's word.


        If you love Paul and not Yahshua that's between you and God

        1. 0
          Virgil Newsomeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          astrology, candle burning, fortune telling, kindalini, practicing and teaching reiki, and selling charms for wealth and love,

          Everything in the list above, God is against.  Clean up your ownself before you start trying to clean everyone else up.  Jesus said, "Remove the beam from your own eye then you will be able to see clearly to get the spec out of your brother's eye." 

          Explain to me, if you will, how a person can serve two differtent masters.  I will not be holding my breath while waiting for your response.

          1. 0
            Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

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

            I serve God. God is not against these.
            I have no condemnation.

            I don't have a hub about fortune telling.

            Read the post you replied to.

            Now leave me alone and don't play the part of the opposer (Satan)

            Seek the truth and God will give it.

            Again

            As I have said many times,,,when a person writes a murder mystery they are not accused of being a murderer. I did not say I practice any of those things.

            Christians don't believe in smoking or getting drunk do they?

            But if they work in a grocery store they'll sell beer, wine, and cigarettes.

            BUT you judge me, which is wrong against God's word.


            If you love Paul and not Yahshua that's between you and God

            1. 0
              Virgil Newsomeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              God is against astrology, Deu 4:19  And lest thou lift up thine eyes unto heaven, and when thou seest the sun, and the moon, and the stars, even all the host of heaven, shouldest be driven to worship them, and serve them, which the LORD thy God hath divided unto all nations under the whole heaven.

              Deu 18:10  There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch,

              Isa 47:13  Thou art wearied in the multitude of thy counsels. Let now the astrologers, the stargazers, the monthly prognosticators, stand up, and save thee from these things that shall come upon thee.

              Isa 47:14  Behold, they shall be as stubble; the fire shall burn them; they shall not deliver themselves from the power of the flame: there shall not be a coal to warm at, nor fire to sit before it.

              __________________________________________________



              From your profile page,  "Read My Article:"

              How To Predict The Future With Numbers.

              __________________________________________________






              Now you want me to leave you alone?  You wrote a hub as a forum topic and expect me or another to write another hub in reply to it.  Now you try to turn things around by condemning those who might work in a Supermarket becase that market might sell beer and cigarrettes.

              You go on to tell me that I need to stop loving Pasul and love Yashua.  How do you know I do not love them both?  Your hatred has blinded you.  You try to burden everyone with the law of Moses.  You believe we should obey all 613 laws, when you yourself has failed many times in keeping the law.  Remember what Jesus said, "If you fail in one point, you fail in all."

              If you want a normal discussion, I am willing to discuss.  I am not in the habit of writing hubs in the forums.  If you do not wish to hear differing points of view or even discuss, then maybe you need to stay out of the forums.

              1. recommend1 profile image70
                recommend1posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I guess if we were to vote on it we would get an overwhelming majority for Deborah 's well researched facts, her general open-ness to discussion and ability to reason.

                christian fools who think that attacking her personally will derail this topic would get considerably less support.

                The point of the thread is that everything you think you know comes through the distortions of Paul - so you have no scripture to quote that is not stained by the politicisation of the original word. Placing this false apostle before the others is a corruption of the message to suit political power, why else would it have been taken up by the Emporer of the superpower of its day?
                Why did its bishops have to travel around the Roman world removing the bishops of the original message by force.  There is a very good argument that Paul is the 'false doctrine' predicted by the christ figure in the story, or a real person or anything you like - but it was predicted and appears to have been fulfilled by Paul - who you may be erroneously following.

                Now stop attacking Deborah and start defending your anti-christ indoctrination.

                1. sonfollowers profile image93
                  sonfollowersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Friend, this is nothing more than an attempt to redirect from the true issues.  Any disagreement about the comments made by Deborah are consistently characterized incorrectly as personal attacks.  Her assertions are simply not reasonable.  This is an attack on her statements, not her as a person.  You claim personal attack to create distraction.  I think that Deborah's opinions are representative of a very, very, small minority.  Numbers aside, they are based on an incredibly shallow view of the Bible.

              2. 0
                Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

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

                So you think attacking a person, saying they are a witch is normal discussion.

                I give this knowledge out of love and you return it with hate.

    4. brittanytodd profile image92
      brittanytoddposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      This is such an interesting post!  I wrote a hub about Paul's teachings and the contradictions within his writing.  It's nice to see all of these quotes next to each other.  The next step is looking at them in their original language and analyzing his word choice.  Great topic; thanks for posting.

      1. 0
        Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

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

        I am happy you are of the TRUTH. I will read your hub.
        Thank you.

        1. brittanytodd profile image92
          brittanytoddposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Thank you!  It's so good to see someone taking an intellectual look at the bible and its language.

    5. Dave Mathews profile image60
      Dave Mathewsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Deborah: Jesus, teaches prayer to a crowd of 5,000 when he teaches us all to pray: "Our Father Who Art in Heaven" also many times Jesus invites his apostles to pray with him. Peter James and John he invited three times on the eve of his crucifixion to pray together with Him.

      As for Saul and the things he taught, it was Jesus himself that enlightens Saul guiding and teaching Saul what to teach to the people. I find it hard to believe that Jesus would permit Saul to teach that which was not of God and what God desired taught to the people.

      As for your reference to Ezekiel, the lessons from him were expressed to the people before the coming of Christ. Christ Jesus establishes His new covenant with the people changing the way heaven will deal with man
      dealing in love and compassion and forgiveness, because Jesus eradicates sin and the harsh dealings through death. Jesus says he came to call sinners not the righteous.

      1. 0
        Gusserposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Saul claims to be enlightened by Jesus. There are no witness. The Bible says witness are necessary.  IF Satan was going to distort the new religion, what better way than to insert a non-deciple into it? After all, was that not Satans purpose, to deceive as many as possible? Jesus said the path was narrow , few will follow it,  that in the end many would call his name. 'He knew them not".  Modern Christianity is the largest religion in the world. THAT IS NOT THE FEW. THIS alone should give one pause.

        1. sonfollowers profile image93
          sonfollowersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Paul had plenty of witnesses of his conversion experience.  This statement is in error.  Luke believed him.  The Lord spoke to Annanias and verified Paul's conversion. He even told Annanias what Paul's mission would  be (carrying the message to the gentiles).  See Acts chapter 9.

          Christians are in fact the minority--a small percentage of the world's population.  The argument about the narrowness of the path is not a valid one.  That's not what Jesus meant.

          1. 0
            Gusserposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Name ONE witness to Saul's conversion---None are stated in the Bible. There are more Christians thay Muslims in this world. THAT is not the few. Perhaps you need to verify facts before spewing your indoctrinations.

            1. sonfollowers profile image93
              sonfollowersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Again, the involvement of Annanias is critical to the story.  Without Annanias (who received a message from the Lord about Paul's conversion and mission), the apostles would not have felt safe bringing Paul into their circle.  Also, Paul was not alone on the road to Damascus.  This is clear from reading the text.  There were men with him who saw everything.  There is obviously no way to verify that these men were interviewed on the subject.  We can't determine from here who was interviewed and who wasn't.  We can't go back and ask them.  From my perspective it's irrelevent.  The burden of proof is on those who believe that the Bible is valid but argue that the account in the Book of Acts is filled with deception.  There is no smoking gun that invalidates Luke's account.  The fact that these events are not verifiable by other sources does not qualify as a smoking gun. 

              About percentages, the argument is simply not valid with respect to Christ's "narrow path" statement.  Those who have found the path of Christianity are fewer than those who have not.  Jesus' statement has nothing to do with which religion is bigger.  Read it again.  The context is clear.

          2. DoubleScorpion profile image86
            DoubleScorpionposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Christians make up about 33% of the worlds population. Give or take...

      2. recommend1 profile image70
        recommend1posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        But Dave,  this is exactly the point.  It is only paul who claims that he was enlightened by jesus and his self-proclaimed claims to be guided in what to teach.  There is no record ever of any deity deciding what was and was not written about them or in their name, why should this instance be any different ?

        If the apostles appointed by jesus did not accept him, then why are his words given any credence at all ?

      3. Disappearinghead profile image88
        Disappearingheadposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Dave you say " I find it hard to believe that Jesus would permit Saul to teach that which was not of God and what God desired taught to the people.". Yet we see God allow TV evangelists teach lies every day.

    6. handyman22 profile image82
      handyman22posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Excellent article right on!!!  Paul was merely an extension of the theological practices of Caiaphas. When Caiaphas said we need a sacrifice for the people Paul turned these words into His own inspiration as being an act from God. When it was really an inspiration of Caiaphas that resulted in the execution of Jesus Christ. That is why there are all of these issues with Paul's writings.  In doing so His writings are said to be inspired of God when actually they are inspired of a man named Caiaphas. The inspirations of Jesus have been covered over by the beliefs of Caiaphas and Paul. Check out www.jesusism.net where the focus is on the teachings of Jesus rather than the doctrine of Caiaphas and Paul.

    7. 0
      JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      "Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven."

      It doesn't say 'do not take your alms before men.', it says don't do it to be seen of men. The same is for praying, it isn't meant to be done as a show of how religious you are to others. This is in no way a condemnation of praying in public.

      Christ's praying among the multitudes, according to your own theory, would have been condemned. He prayed at the sermon on the mount. He blessed the bread when he fed the multitudes. He prayed when his disciples were met together.

      His example is that we should pray when we join together as believers.

      Christ said he would build his church, so what is wrong with churches? (Matt. 16)

      Read the chapter in context. The practice of sexual immorality was not only ongoing, but boasted about. Those people had 'accepted' those sinful to the point of being corrupted. It isn't our place to take Christ's place, to sit with, teach, and forgive sinners.

      No, it means if someone is unwilling to work, not if someone doesn't have work to do. I saw someone standing with a sign asking for money, and I asked him if he needed work. He said yes, so I brought him to my house to do some yardwork. He worked a few hours, I paid him well for it, and took him back. I've also had people who weren't willing to work(or even accept a meal at a restaurant). Those people know they can get more money staying there with their sign than by doing something else. There are people who make 6-figures off of that kind of charity. Christ never said we should help people who are too lazy to help themselves... instead Christ showed that we should help those who are humble and sincere.

    8. 2besure profile image83
      2besureposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      The first thing I consider, is why would anyone who is a true believer try to dispel anyone who contributed to holy scripture?

      2Ti 3:16  Every Scripture is God-breathed (given by His inspiration) and profitable for instruction, for reproof and conviction of sin, for correction of error and discipline in obedience, [and] for training in righteousness (in holy living, in conformity to God's will in thought, purpose, and action), So that the man of God may be complete and proficient, well fitted and thoroughly equipped for every good work.

      You can not seek to pick and choose what part of scripture you deem a true and God inspired to line up with you human understanding.

      Hebrews 4:12  For the Word that God speaks is alive and full of power [making it active, operative, energizing, and effective]; it is sharper than any two-edged sword, penetrating to the dividing line of the breath of life (soul) and [the immortal] spirit, and of joints and marrow [of the deepest parts of our nature], exposing

      There are certain things that Paul has written that you want to dismiss.  According to Hebrews.....and sifting and analyzing and judging the very thoughts and purposes of the heart. What is you purpose for this line of questioning the validity of Paul's writings?  Especially, as the Apostle Paul wrote 2/3 of the New Testament! What will you seek to do next, throw out the New Testament?  A little leaven levaenth the whole loaf...Deborah, you are a false teacher!

      2 Peter 2:1  But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

      1. 0
        Gusserposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Your quoted verses are ALL refering to OLD Testament Scripture ONLY. The New Testament wasn't written at that time. IT was added several hundred years later. Jesus Taught & Lived the Old Testament Only.

        1. 2besure profile image83
          2besureposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Gusser, I believe you posted your remark in the wrong place.  All my scriptures are from the New Testament.

          1. 0
            Gusserposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Yes they are BUT they only claim that the Old Testament is God Given.  They were written in letters that were NOT in any Bible at that time. These Letters were added by the Roman Church many many years latter.

            1. 2besure profile image83
              2besureposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              The word of God is inspired and understood by the spirit of God.  the  Those who do not have the Spirit of God, can not discern His word by the Spirit. The word of God stands on it's own.  Co 2:12 -14  Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.  Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
              But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

              1. 0
                Gusserposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I am not against that----Simply pointing out that anything in the New Testament  is refering to the Old Testament since the New Testament did not become part of the Bible until hundreds of years later.

                1. 0
                  Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

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

                  You are correct. A lot of people don't see that.

              2. 0
                Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

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

                Everything you quote is written by Paul,  To Prove Paul

      2. 0
        Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

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

        When those things about every word being God's word, it was speaking of the Old Testament. The New Testament did not exist at the time.

    9. Jo_Goldsmith11 profile image61
      Jo_Goldsmith11posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Please learn to spell his name if you are going to write about him.
      his name is spelled Y-E-S-H-U-A-  look it up on yahoo if you don't believe me! www.bible-codes.org/Yeshua-correct-spelling-code.htm

      1. 0
        Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

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

        That is wrong It is Yahshua. I speak write and read Hebrew.
        I am mindful of the sacred name movement. Meaning the absolute name is needed, and it is not Yeshua. Thanks.

        He said he came in his father's name which is Yah..hence Yahshua.

        The Hebrew word hallelu-jah means praise to Yah

        This thread is about the differences of Yahshua and Paul not how to spell Yahshua's name

        Though I disagree with some of the stuff he says, I agree with Yahshua's name. read
        http://www.plim.org/JesusOrigin.htm

        1. Jo_Goldsmith11 profile image61
          Jo_Goldsmith11posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Okay, so you flip flop. You are trying to say that you wish to only agree with the things that make you happy...go for it! smile

          1. 0
            Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

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

            I never flip flop, I know and stand by what I believe.
            People as on that site can hold some of the truth.
            I was pointing out to you that I am not the only one who knows his name is Yahshua.

            Now if you're here to attack me, don't. If you are here to get off the subject of Paul, don't. It's against the rules.

            Some people want to hear what I have to say. If you disagree, all you have to do is exit.

        2. hookedhuntress profile image60
          hookedhuntressposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          “YAHshua” is not a possible Hebrew name as there are no pointings in the Hebrew that would allow for such a pronunciation and it cannot be found anywhere in the OT.  It is a made up name to reflect a theological agenda that Jesus came “in the Name of His Father, and therefore, must have part of “Yahweh” in His Name in order to be the true Messiah/Son of God.   For those who know Hebrew, “coming in the name of” [Hebrew – HaShem] means coming in someone’s reputation, character, and authority.  It is not a pronunciation, but that Jesus came in His Father’s authority.  There are examples in both the OT and NT that show others who come in the name of the Lord but do not have part of the YHWH in their names.

          This same errant teaching promotes that Yahshua means “Yahweh is our salvation”.  However; we find that the long form of Yehoshua would translate as "YHVH is salvation" or "He who is (or will be) saves".   Where the 'our' could possibly come from in their constructed name of YAHshua is not known.

          1. 0
            JoelMcLendonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            ********

            I am Hebrew, I was born in Israel and I disagree with you.
            Also no true Hebrew would call God Yahweh although you see that contains Yah also.

            Yahweh and Jehovah are mis-transliterations. Deborah has a hub explaining the Name and Character being the same. It is nothing new to her.
            But Yahshua came to reveal Yah's name. He had many names based on the attribute you were looking for.
            But Yah is his true name.
            Like she explained, the word hallelu-jah is praise to Yah (there is no J in Hebrew)

            What did you do, go to a website and copy their error?

            I suppose you think Jesus is better?

            People who truly know Hebrew, call him Yahshua here's one  http://Yahshua.net

            Now do a Google search on Yahshua

            http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sugexp … mp;bih=836

            I should have known you are the Christian religion. They think they know more about Hebrew than the Hebrews do.

            1. hookedhuntress profile image60
              hookedhuntressposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              There are many assaults on the biblical name of God and Jesus. Many are substituting made up names and claiming they are the true name and they also present a different god and a different Jesus. Many say they have the true "Hebrew" name when in fact they don't have a clue and don't speak Hebrew. But that doesn't stop them. And yes, we need to think about who God is and what we know of Him from the scriptures, not just what some would tell us He is about.

              There is no version or translation that has the "true name of God". It is hidden from us and will not be revealed until the age to come.

              To know His Name, is to know HIM - His character, reputation, authority. Jesus taught us to call Him Father. The NT calls Him Father. That is truth.
              No one is saying Jesus is better but why would English speaking people call Jesus/God by a made up supposedly "Hebrew "name?As if that is better?

              1. 0
                Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

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

                Jesus is not God.

                Yahshua came to reveal God's name. But it takes ears and eyes.

                Most of the NT contradicts itself.

                Are you saying you know the language better than a Hebrew?

                Joel and I read the untranslated Hebrew and Greek bibles, do you?

                If not than don't tell us Yah is not in the bible, it is.

                The real name is better. It says there is no other name by which we can be saved.
                Don't tell me it's not important

                I'm done talking with you.

                1. sonfollowers profile image93
                  sonfollowersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  "Jesus is not God." 

                  Jesus certainly did claim to be equal with God according to the gospels.  I think He would disagree with you.

          2. 0
            Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

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

            LOL, if you say it, it must be true

    10. 0
      Virgil Newsomeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I wonder why you would take content from another site the way you did and not even leave a link. 

      http://www.wordwiz72.com/paul.html

      I would also like to know why no one but brotheryo has addressed this post that I made yesterday.  http://hubpages.com/forum/post/1981203

    11. Don Crowson profile image77
      Don Crowsonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Issue 1. Jesus taught his Disciples.  Since the Christian faith begain wioth 12 Disciples, it is obvious the number of students would be small.  After learning what to teach, the Disciples became Apostle.  They went out to teach.  therefore, when the command is given, "Go and make Disciples." one would reason that the Apostles wuld have larger crowds. Otherwise the faith would not grow past the small crowds that Jesus taught.  I think your argument is very weak and the two are teaching the same message.  Paul is a Disciple wo went to Araiba to learn the Gosple. Galations Chapter 1

      1. 0
        Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

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

        So that's as far as you got, the number of people?

        You need to study and ask God for truth

        1. Don Crowson profile image77
          Don Crowsonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Are you tell me that the message of salvation is different because the number is different?  Paul preaches Christ crucified.  Does it matter if the number is small or large?  Of course not. I have given you the truth.

          1. 0
            Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

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

            No, it is different because Paul taught them different it has nothing to do with the number. Would it be so hard to read? or are you here just to diss me?

            1. Don Crowson profile image77
              Don Crowsonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I thought you were starting a discussion thread.  You should have put this information in a hub.  I have taken the time to show you errors in your thinking, but you obviously do not care for discussion.  You know all truth and want everyone to accept it without question. Fine, I will leave your thread to your loyal subjects

              1. 0
                Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

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

                You're stuck on the first thing in this list. I am speaking of the differences between Yahshua and Paul.
                I've already answered your question in my last post.

                This is a discussion, but not a diss board

          2. 0
            Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

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

            Christ Crucified. Is that what you feel is what he came to do?

        2. 71
          Norine Williamsposted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

          No!  You need to "STUDY" and ask GOD for "TRUTH" Deborah? 

          "ALL SCRIPTURE is inspired by GOD" (II Timothy 3:16) not just OT! 

          Why would JESUS "choose Paul as "A VESSEL" (Acts 9:15) if not "inspired by GOD?"  Paul said in Galatians 1:12 " I never received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by "REVELATION" of Jesus Christ!"

          Satan has DECEIVED you!

    12. Don Crowson profile image77
      Don Crowsonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Issue 2. Jesus came to save lost. He told the adusleress to go and sin no more. These are people who wering being taught the truth.  Paul has taught the church the truth and a Christian behavior is expected because they have been taught. 

      Check Matt 18.  Jesus told his followers that if anyone offends a brother, he should go to that brother to have him ask forgivn=eness.  If the offender does not repent, the offended one should take it to two or three witnesses.  If the offender still refuses to repent, he should take it to the church.  If the church tell the offender that he is wrong and the offender still refuses to repent, then the church has nothing to do with him.  Jesus sayas to treat his=m as a heathean. Teachings appear to be the same to me.

      1. 0
        Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        **********

        To which one in the list are you referring?

    13. Don Crowson profile image77
      Don Crowsonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Issue feeding the poor.  Go back to the time Adam and Eve were driven from the Garden of Eden.  What did God tell them they must do?  Work, work, work.

      Are you telling us that Jesus does not expect his followers to be responsible for putting food on the table? The message is the same.

      1. 0
        Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

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

        Yahshua's message was to feed the poor. Paul's was to ignore them. How is this the same message?

        How about those who can't find a job, or those who are crippled?

        1. Don Crowson profile image77
          Don Crowsonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          And where specifically did Paul say not to feed the poor?  He did not say tha, and you know it.

          1. 0
            Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

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

            If you don't work for whatever reason, and no money is coming in then you are poor.

            2 Thess 3:10 "For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat."

            That means young, old, crippled, retarded etc.

            YES, he did say that.

            1. Don Crowson profile image77
              Don Crowsonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              No, that is your interpretation of what was translated. He was talking about able-body men

              1. 0
                Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

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

                Prove it. Give me scripture.


                And there is plenty of abled bodied men and women who are unemployeed. They still have to eat

                1. Don Crowson profile image77
                  Don Crowsonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Well, something has happened to my poost. As I recall, I gave you a link for a Bible Commentary, abd you denied its validity because it is a Pauline Commentary.  I do not need any more proof than that to discern that you accept your own sources and are not open to any others.  That is not a discussion, that is narrow mindedness.

                  1. 0
                    Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

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

                    As a young girl, I was a Christian. I have studied every religion.
                    I kept praying for the truth and God gave me this. No I won't budge till he tells me to.

                    Right after I was shown about Paul, I met a spiritual Hebrew man. I was in the process of converting to a Jewish religion and studying the Hebrew language.

                    I went to stay with his grandparents in Savyon, Israel and got my certificate of semichah.

                    We had to prove we knew scripture.
                    When we got our certificates we got married, I was officially Jewish.

                    I have never been happier and more blessed.

                  2. recommend1 profile image70
                    recommend1posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Your posts are unorganised, trivial and attempt to set up a non-existant argument by quoting unrelated vague issues.  Answer the points Deborah is making if you want to take part, if you can't then maybe you admit to yourself that you don't know what you are talking about and save yourself the embarassment.

    14. Dave Mathews profile image60
      Dave Mathewsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I see some mistakes here that I feel require correcting.
      Jesus did not always pray privately when He taught the Lord's Prayer, there were over 5,000 people surrounding him. Even the night that he was taken to be crucified, he took Peter James and John with him and he asked them to pray while he prayed.
      When He spoke against praying publicly it was so they would not be seen to be acting like the hypocritical Pharisees.

      Indeed Jesus dealt with sinners on a personal level. That is why He came. All Paul warns is to not have close intimate relationships with sinners so as to be see, as making them appear as close friends. Paul does not say to avoid them totally.

      Jesus never taught that one's salvation had anything to do with good deeds ie. feeding the poor. Jesus teaching for salvation can be found at JOHN:3:14-21, and JOHN:14:6

      Jesus himself went against the Laws of Moses by performing healings on what was the Sabbath.

      The Holy Word of God, The Holy Bible, is inspired by Almighty God Himself, created through the power of the Holy Spirit of God, using the hands of man to write it and the trained minds of man to translate it. God is incapable of making a mistake. God is inerrant. The Holy Bible holds God's Words not man's. The Bible like God is inerrant, incapable of being in error and can never contradict God or itself.

    15. Chris Neal profile image84
      Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Except that Jesus was talking to the Pharisees, who made a great practice of showy worship in order to garner the praise of men. Jesus talked about this often, the wearing of the long tassels, the claiming of the best seats at dinner. If Jesus had truly been so against large corporate worship, He would never have allowed the 4,000 or the 5,000 to gather, He would have roundly chastised them for being so showy and sent them home.

      Paul's "great churches" often were a family or two in people's private homes. It wasn't until later that there started being anything like the "great churches" you refer to, the mega-churches, the large cathedrals.



      Yes, Jesus brought these people to knowledge of Him. He didn't say, "You're cool the way the you are, don't change." In fact, the unclean persons He ministered to were all too aware of their need for God! As opposed to the Pharisees, who thought themselves so holy that God owed them!

      Paul exhorted the early Christians not to mix it up with unrepentent sinners, or those who thought you could mix pagan practices like the sexual immorality of Corinth with Christian practices, sort of like some of the Gnostic churches. Jesus also preached against such practices.



      In the book of Acts, Luke (Paul's friend and confidant) relates the story about how the early church was selling it's belongings and feeding the poor. Paul told us that WE should not be lazy. He never said that we should deny the poor. Please find some other example if you're going to stick to your argument.



      I actually wrote a series of Hubs about this one. It's one of the most oft-cited reasons for disliking or disbelieving the whole Bible. Check them out. You're wrong.



      And yet many of the early Christian leaders, who Paul even mentioned by name in his epistles, were women!



      Did Jesus not quote Genesis 2:21-24? That pretty explicitly makes clear that God created them one man for one woman. Nowhere in either the Old or New Testaments does Jesus ever contradict that teaching. In ancient Jerusalem, there wouldn't have been much homosexuality to speak out against, certainly not openly expressed the way it was in Greece or Rome. Ancient Jews were well aware of the Mosaic prohibitions.



      Reference above.



      Thoroughly agreed. Then they can see that Paul, who started writing within 20 years of Christ's death and was intimately acquainted with Peter and the other Apostles and was in no way influential on them, is greatly in accord with Jesus (Yashua.)



      That is such a twisting of actual Scripture that it defies logic. Jesus was quoting the OT where God said He desires mercy, not sacrifice. That a contrite heart and humane treatment of fellow men was more important to God than keeping every single Mosaic Law (or the Pharisees take on them.) Again, when Jesus quoted it He directed it at the Pharisees and Scribes, who were so steeped in the law that they thought God owed them!

      Are you trying to start a cult?

      Jesus was offered as a "human sacrifice" BY God, AS God,, IN ACCORDANCE with the Old Testament prophecies!



      And by your own logic, we should all be back in the Garden of Eden after ADam and Eve, who should be kept outside for their own sins. People sin, people continue to sin. It's the sin nature that prevents us from having communion with God, and it is God reaching across the divide between Him and us that allows us to be with Him.

  2. 0
    Gusserposted 4 years ago

    Well said

    1. 0
      Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

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

      Thank You

  3. janesix profile image59
    janesixposted 4 years ago

    who is yashua? sounds like something you made up

    1. 0
      Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

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

      Yahshua is the real and Hebrew name for Jesus

  4. 0
    Pat Nicholsposted 4 years ago

    I wish I had the time tonite to reply to this but it is late so another day. But You are terribly wrong about Paul and I would hope to show you the other side that you have missed. Thanks for taking the time to write these verses down and making your point. I appreciate that. Talk to you again soon.

    1. 0
      Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

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

      I haven't missed anything, I know what God has shown me and I know what is written.
      I also know the prophecies about Paul being a stumbling block.

      If Christians would only fight for Yahshua the way they fight for Paul.

      1. vector7 profile image59
        vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        And Yeshua, Yahshua, Christ Jesus, the Son of man....

        IS MY EVERYTHING. I fight for Him every day of my life.

        Pointing fingers about things in general, espesially God's people is not good.

        There ARE good God loving Christians.

        Jesus is God.

        And the ENTIRE Bible is correct and VERIFIED BY CHRIST JESUS, YAHSHUA HIMSELF.

        What do you think He "studied" in the temples friend??

        The Old Testament scriptures of course.

        cool

      2. Chris Neal profile image84
        Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Which prophecies were those? Got chapter and verse?

  5. vector7 profile image59
    vector7posted 4 years ago

    First, a note on good research and scholarly advice, Matthew Henry's Complete Commentary would do you a world of good to read before throwing over zealous information out and condemning words of one whom Christ Jesus sent Himself.

    Why all the attacks from everyone against Paul? Because we don't particularly care for his teachings?

    What about Jesus Christ saying Hell exists? Is that too here denied???

    These things sadden me to read.

    Some scripture to begin as God's words are the foundation:

    John 13:20

    Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me; and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.


    Now, this scripture without doubt notes that Paul, previously called upon by the name Saul, by Jesus Christ's very words should be accepted as a trustworthy teacher. Claiming anything but the fact that this is the meaning Christ intends to convey to us is obviously in error and foolishness.

    For the very reasoning that unless one denies the scripture as the whole undisputable word of God, Saul was blinded by Christ Jesus after His resurrection and renamed Paul thereafter in Acts. The scripture even notes the men with Paul hearing Christs voice but seeing no man..

    Acts 9:3-9

    And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven:
    And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
    And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
    And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.
    And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice but seeing no man.
    And Saul arose from the earth; and when his eyes were opened, he saw no man: but they led him by the hand, and brought him into Damascus.
    And he was three days without sight, and neither did eat nor drink.



    Now, unless you deny these two established Biblical facts, you can not question Paul's teachings without questioning Christ Jesus Himself, which I believe is absurd.


    And while I could go on for ages about not praying in public at all, and considering that passage, Matthew 6:1-18 as some sort of strict unto death, which is also ridiculous, teaching.. It should be noted WHY Jesus said what He said and WHOM He reffered to in the teaching AND the REASONS He gave concerning the teaching within the very passage in question.

    Matthew 6:5

    And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.



    Now, you can mistrue this any way you particularly like, but Christ was speaking of their SHOW the Pharisees put on to be seen of men and PRIDEFULLY spoke with reason to be glorified by mere men.

    Jesus here notes that "They have their reward." Which is the praise of men. The best known characteristic of Christ was His humility even though He had power to do whatever He wished, He did not come to put on a show and walked humbly all His days on earth.

    And if this my friend is not enough, Christ proves this point by praying to the Father His thanks for hearing His request to raise Lazarus aloud for all to hear, AND gives the reason why within it when speaking to God the Father..

    John 11:41

    "Then they took away the stone from the place where the dead was laid. And Jesus lifted up his eyes, and said, Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me.
    And I knew that thou hearest me always: but because of the people which stand by I said it, that they may believe that thou hast sent me.

    And when he had thus spoken, he cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth.


    Attending to the reason by which Jesus prayed aloud, of which you say He "strictly" commanded against, though from the passage He would be in utter contradiction to His very own words had He meant what you say...

    The matter was to save souls, as was the whole intent of Christ's coming. That they may "believe" so they might be saved through seeing good works.

    Now this was not done as He spoke of in Matthew 6:2 where they "sound a trumpet before thee" with pride as a king, but for a GOOD CAUSE. Jesus done it not to "be seen of men.", but to do a good thing in humility amongst many so they may glorify God the Father, and believe on the Son of God in whom they are saved.

    As for Paul's "contradiction" on company with sinners, I can't believe such a  hasty and quick accusation..

    This is pretty elementary as the key word here is KEEP..

    We are not to continue in the way with sinners. That is, to KEEP, allowing the influence of sin to be around us CONSTANTLY.

    Paul states himself, to clear things up on how proud you make him sound, in 1 Timothy 1:12-15:

    And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who hath enabled me, for that he counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry;
    Who was before a blashemer, and a persecuter, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.
    And the grace of our Lord was exceeding abundant with faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.
    This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.


    The word, "keep" before company describes exactly what manner of sinner Paul intends us not to eat, and that is one who blatently does not care about his sin though he knows of Christ and that he shouldn't be sinning.. One who is not remoarsful of his actions to any extent whatsoever.

    I could go on in elaboration, but lets cut to the chase because I'm not so certain the beliefs claimed are of Biblical origin anyhow, though I sincerely pray I am incorrect...

    Paul meant a bum, a moucher, not to give your money to.. another miscontsrued statement from paul.

    Reference 1 Corinthians 13:3

    Pauls gives to the poor by his very own account.



    Jesus had twelve diciples who were men, Adam was held responsible for the fall, the reason for the virgin birth, and I'll not go on into that battle.. Women everywhere fight on the powertrip when they completely overlook the church being called the "bride" of Christ. The acceptance of the gifts God's gives is overlooked in pursuance for power and responsibility put on mans shoulders, all except for protecting the family, women want eveything save that. Take the good, leave the bad.
    Women are blessed, and loved dearly by God and have certain gifts men could only dream of. But they don't want it apparently, they want the blame Adam had to take.


    Old Testament scripture confirms Paul's assertions, and Christ Jesus often quoted from them laying claim to it's Truth and legitimacy in everything it said, which means Christ claimed it all as important as His very own words, nay, more important for He used the Old Testament scripture to defeat Satan and not His own words. But then again, just to clarify, Jesus is the "WORD" of God come in the flesh, meaning He is the Old Testament fulfilled.. etc, etc, there is plenty more there to base it all to foundation.
    All that meaning Jesus said the same thing as Paul, and again, Christ sent Paul knowing beforehand what Paul would teach. What do you think? Christ was ignorant of what Paul would teach us when He sent him???
    Then there is Jesus quoting Old Testament scripture in Genesis for a man and woman to be joined and what God has joined let not man seperate. Nothing of man and man, or woman and woman and if you wish to accept the curses spoken of in Revelation 22:18-19 go ahead and make it something besides what Jesus told us, but you are warned.



    And the rest is a bunch of out of context mess I have no intention of addressing after all the incorrect information already attended to.


    If they still think all that mess is right they don't care what is true and what isn't anyhow and I'm throwing pearls before swine.

    I hope this does some good in someone's life and let it be known that if man could have made the Bible incorrect in ANY WAY or go away it would have been done by now with all the foolish attempts.

    It's all right, in view of the correct light, and is only incorrect, by those who walk by night.

    Praise Christ Jesus the King of Kings and Lord of lords forever and ever. Amen

  6. 0
    Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago

    I am quoting Scripture.

    In those days there was two (2) sets of Apostles. The 12 chosen by Yahshua and Paul and his followers.

    Paul was in Asia a lot. But they were made to leave Asia.

    "This you know, that all those in Asia have turned away from me." 
    2 Timothy 1:15



    Revelations is speaking of Paul and his Apostles.

    (Do you know that all of Paul’s followers deserted him after they considered his ungodly ways.)
    The church of Ephesus was in Asia.

    Revelation 2:2
    “I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars:”

        1.  Paul's doctrine on the foreknowledge of God is not only groundless (because he had to abuse Scripture to support it), it is blasphemous,
    because it outright accuses God of unrighteousness.

    2.  We have record of Paul claiming to be an apostle to the Ephesians.

               "Paul, an apostle of Yahshua by the will of God, To the saints who are in Ephesus,"  Ephesians 1:1

        3.  We have no record of anyone else claiming to be an apostle to anyone anywhere, not even to the Ephesians.
        4.  Paul and his doctrine had troubles being accepted in Ephesus.

            "And he went into the synagogue and spoke boldly for three months, reasoning and persuading concerning the things of the kingdom of God. But when some were hardened and did not believe, but spoke evil of the way before the multitude..."   Acts 19:8,9

    Remember, this is recorded from Luke’s point of view and he believed Paul's doctrine was "the Way".  Notice that those who rejected Paul are men of the synagogue and not atheists or pagans. If these men had stood up in front of the synagogue and said, "Paul's doctrine is flawed. He is a false apostle, and a liar", Luke would no doubt have seen this as "speaking evil of the Way".

    If these four reasons are not enough to seriously call into question Paul's status as an apostle there is one more. It is a most interesting quote from Paul's own pen that finally seals the fate of his supposed apostleship. It comes from his second letter to Timothy, written during the same Neronian persecution in which John was given the Revelation. This letter is believed by many scholars to contain the last recorded words of Paul. Here he makes a short statement of lament that seems to have gone unnoticed... the implications of which are devastating to Paul if one is able to hear everything that is being said. Paul makes this statement to Timothy.

        "This you know, that all those in Asia have turned away from me."
    2 Timothy 1:15




    All of the Apostles of the Lamb are only 12. 12 for the 12 tribes of Israel.
    There was never meant to be 13.

    Revelation 21:14
    And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb

  7. 0
    Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago

    Vector7 says:

    Old Testament scripture confirms Paul's assertions, and Christ Jesus often quoted from them laying claim to it's Truth and legitimacy in everything it said, which means Christ claimed it all as important as His very own words, nay, more important for He used the Old Testament scripture to defeat Satan and not His own words. But then again, just to clarify, Jesus is the "WORD" of God come in the flesh, meaning He is the Old Testament fulfilled.. etc, etc, there is plenty more there to base it all to foundation.
    All that meaning Jesus said the same thing as Paul, and again, Christ sent Paul knowing beforehand what Paul would teach. What do you think? Christ was ignorant of what Paul would teach us when He sent him???
    Then there is Jesus quoting Old Testament scripture in Genesis for a man and woman to be joined and what God has joined let not man seperate. Nothing of man and man, or woman and woman and if you wish to accept the curses spoken of in Revelation 22:18-19 go ahead and make it something besides what Jesus told us, but you are warne
    *********************************************

    I am not denying the Hebrew Old Testament.

    Yahshua did not approve or disapprove of the New Testament because it didn't exist when he walked the earth;.

    God and Yahshua both knew Judas would betray him. But he was there to fulfill a prophecy.

    So your argument is not valid. And by the way, I've studied a lot throughout many years,



    You know, we as people can read between the lines, so although you say you are just quoting scripture (and insulting others), there is a tone that we feel.

  8. vector7 profile image59
    vector7posted 4 years ago

    If I offended you, I am sorry. I agree to completely agree friend.

    I see nothing as you see it, and never will.

    I do not hate you, I kindly dislike what you claim about my Bible and the writers being incorrect or horrible or whatever it is you claim.

    Christ Jesus, Yeshua my Lord and my God died for my sins as I read it in chapter ten of the gospel of John, and many other places.

    If you disagree.. I'm sorry.

    If you are upset because I was light hearted about it and don't agree wit any of it, I'm sorry.

    But you might as well forget placing the idea that I hate or am hateful to anyone.

    I simply am on another planet in regards to what you believe and what I believe. (As if it isn't obvious)

    I love everyone, and meant no harm.. lol, goodness, I never do.

    1. 0
      Pat Nicholsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      V7 I totally agree with what you have said! I could not have said it better myself!  I tire of always trying to fend off such error as these have posted. But in the end the Bible says, "The Elect got it and the rest were blinded". They cannot see that Paul was Christ Himself as His Spirit stepped into another body and continued on as He always has, never leaving us without a witness.
      God behind the badger skin of the robe of flesh of humanity God veiling Himself in darkness, but the blind cannot see beyond the veil of His greatest achievement which is "Christ In You" the Hope of Glory!
      Thanks V7 for taking a stand and speaking boldly the truth! God Bless!

      1. 0
        Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

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

        Since Paul and Yahshua lived at the same time, how is Paul the embodiment of Yahshua. That's ridiculous

        1. 71
          Norine Williamsposted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

          See how "TWISTED" your belief is Deborah?  Why would you say Christ walked the earth after Paul became "in Christ"  or an "Apostle?"  They did NOT "live [on earth] at the same time?"  Who told you this?  NOT SCRIPTURE! 

          Let me tell you WHAT GOD SAID that CONFIRMS "Paul was the embodiment of Yahshua" (aka JESUS)!   Acts 1:2 "Until the day in which HE was taken up, "AFTER THAT" he through the Holy Spirit had given "commandments" unto the apostles whom he had chosen."  Did HE not "choose" Paul as "A VESSEL" (Acts 9;15)?  Didn't that make Paul a "chosen" apostle? 

          Paul said in Galatians 1:12 "For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by "REVELATION" of Jesus Christ!"

          Judaism has TWISTED and DECEIVED you! 

          I pray!

    2. vector7 profile image59
      vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I don't plan on staying Deborah as I said I would honor your request on this single forum post for me to leave.

      But first,

      It's probably obvious, but in my first sentence of the first post on this branch, the second agree was meant to be disagree as reads the following...

      I agree to disagree..

      Thank you for your kind words Mr Nichols. smile

      May God Bless Everyone here.

      cool

      Praise the Son of man for being with me daily as He promised.

      Praise God.

  9. 0
    Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago

    In Acts when Paul made his final trip back to Jerusalem.

        On the following day Paul went in with us to James and all the elders were present. When he had greeted them he told in detail those things which God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. And when they heard it they glorified the Lord. And they said to him, "You see, brother, how many myriads of Jews there are who have believed, and they are all zealous for the law; but they have been informed about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs. What then? The assembly must certainly meet, for they will hear that you have come. Therefore do what we tell you: We have four men who have taken a vow. Take them and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads, and that all may know that those things of which they were informed concerning you are nothing, but that you yourself also walk orderly and keep the Law. But concerning the Gentiles who believe, we have written and decided that they should observe no such thing, except that they should keep themselves from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality."  Then Paul took the men, and the next day, having been purified with them, entered the temple to announce the expiration of the days of purification, at which time an offering should be made for each one of them. And when the seven days were almost ended, the Jews from Asia, seeing him in the temple, stirred up the whole crowd and laid hands on him, crying out, "Men of Israel, help! This is the man who teaches all men everywhere against the people, the Law, and this place..."    Acts 21:17-28a 

    I have already dealt with the issue of the Jerusalem council's edict concerning the four dietary and sexual purity laws that were to be observed by the Gentile believers...the ones that Paul lied about to the Galatians. But Paul's message didn't just affect the Gentiles. Here he is being accused of including the Jews. James' response is that this had better not be true!  When we consider what Paul taught, it is no wonder the Jews took offense.

        "For as  many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek,..."  Galatians 3:27,28a

        "Indeed, I Paul say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing. And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole Law. You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by Law, you have fallen from grace. For we through the Spirit eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love."    Galatians 5:2-6

        "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but a new creation. And as many as walk according to this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God."  Galatians 6:15,16

    1. brotheryochanan profile image60
      brotheryochananposted 4 years ago in reply to this


      Deuteronomy 10:16   Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your HEART, and be no more stiff necked. 


        Deuteronomy 30:6   And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine HEART, and the heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou might live.

      Jeremiah 6:10   To whom shall I speak, and give warning, that they may hear? behold, their ear is uncircumcised, and they cannot hearken:

      Jeremiah 9:25   Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will punish all them which are circumcised with the uncircumcised;

        John 7:22   Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision; (not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers;) and ye on the sabbath day circumcise a man.
        John 7:23   If a man on the sabbath day receive circumcision, that the law of Moses should not be broken; are ye angry at me, because I have made a man every whit whole on the sabbath day?

      Acts 7:51   Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.

      Acts 11:2   And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the CIRCUMCISION contended with him,
        Acts 11:3   Saying, You went in to men uncircumcised, and didst EAT with them.
        Acts 11:4   But Peter REHEARSED the matter from the beginning, and expounded it by order unto them, saying,
        Acts 11:5   I was in the city of Joppa praying: and in a trance I saw a vision, A certain vessel descend, as it had been a great sheet, let down from heaven by four corners; and it came even to me:
        Acts 11:6   Upon the which when I had fastened mine eyes, I considered, and saw four footed beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.
        Acts 11:7   And I heard a voice saying unto me, Arise, Peter; slay and EAT.
        Acts 11:8   But I said, Not so, Lord: for nothing common or unclean hath at any time entered into my mouth.
        Acts 11:9   But the voice answered me again from heaven, What God hath CLEANSED, that call not thou common.
        Acts 11:10   And this was done THREE times:

      Looks like the law kinda gets a kicking here. Paul is not saying anything different than what the OT says.

  10. 0
    Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago

    The Apostles send word to the Gentiles that they should keep themselves from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality.

    But Paul tells them just the opposite

    1 Corinthians 8:4-8
    4. As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one.

    5. For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)

    6. But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

    7. Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled.

    8. But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse.

  11. kirstenblog profile image77
    kirstenblogposted 4 years ago

    Deborah, as you probably noticed over the time I have been on this site, I regard religion as low as it is possible to regard something. I often disagree with you and will simply not post anything (unless I am really really bored or in a bad mood and itching for an argument to distract from real life junk). Being somewhat bored at the moment I thought I would read your post, heck you got Yahshua's name right to begin with! Most don't know that name at all. Anywho, I actually enjoyed your post. I don't know anymore about the man then what the myths tell us, but if the stories are accurate about the nature of this Yahshua then I gotta say, I think he would have enjoyed your post too. Frankly the impression I have had from reading the bible and going to a multitude of different christian churches is that Jesus wasn't all that keen on religion at all, that spirituality was what he was on about. As an agnostic almost atheist all that concerns me with all this metaphysical spiritual stuff, its the spirituality that holds my respect not the religion. The difference seems to be in belief as opposed to how one chooses to live.  I suspect Yahshua would have been fine with someone who believed in purple unicorns and loved healing the sick or helping the poor. Anyway, thanks for the post, it was fun to read smile

  12. brotheryochanan profile image60
    brotheryochananposted 4 years ago

    Manner of Worship: 

    There are a lot of your thoughts in this segment. So I will just ask one question. When the law and sacrifice and festive days are done aways with, what remains? When there are no more 'works' to do for forgiveness of sins:
    What remains? What is left to the believer to be in line with the creators way?

    Dealing with sinners:

    Yahshua ministered to the sinners, with no reluctance to engage adulterers, whores, publicans, tax collectors, lepers, or any other "unclean" person (the whole need not a physician; a church is a hospital for sinners rather than a showcase for saints).

    And the above we do to BRING them to Christ, but when a brother or sister remain in their sin, those sins mentioned below and some others we need to put ourselves away from them lest we be tempted also by their liberty. What did peter say to Ananias and Sapphira for their transgression? Outside christ we need to get to those people and bring inside christ, when inside christ we need to, lovingly, instruct the ways of the Lord. IF they just continue in their old lifestyle ways we have a problem. Since this is all new to the jews and gentiles there were many problems which as with ananias and sapphira needed to be dealt with quickly and strongly. Today we can be more liberal and loving but somewhere I would stop fellowship with a brother if i knew he randomly fornicated and got drunk just for the heck of it.

    Paul, contradicts Yahshua: 1Cor 5:11 "But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a BROTHER be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat." (KEEP COMPANY)


    Feeding the poor:

    Yahshua taught in Matt 25:31-46 that our final salvation and judgment would be based in large part on our willingness to feed the poor.


    Matthew 25:40   And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

    Bretheren is the key word. Jesus is not saying "oh feed the poor and be for a large portion saved". No. These scriptures are dealing with antisemitism . Sheep = Jews Goats = non jews. You know how semitism is rampant in the world as in a form of racism. These are the bretheren Jesus is talking about - the semitic, his jewish nation. Bretheren is important it tampers the whole bunch of scriptures you mention. Then there is another interpretation about sheep and goats.. sheep being those in christ and of his flock and goats being those outside of christ having not (yet) accepted him. But in no way is this another works based program to salvation.
     

    Paul contradicts this:
    2 Thess 3:10 "For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat." Does this mean that if poor people are unemployed, we should turn them away from any charity?

    No he does not. He says that every person should labor for their own money and self sustaining but rely on what God provides for them. In other verses he talks about people who think the church is an easy sucker and sponges off them.

    Slavery:

    When the Southerners in our country sought to defend slavery, they called upon Paul to back them up, citing Ephesians 6:5 and Titus 2:9-10, where he exhorts slaves to obey their masters, and the fact that slavery was widely practiced, but Paul never condemned it once.

    And neither did Jesus. Slavery had its good points and bad. Slavery was admonished in the OT and slaves were given valued positions. There was also the bond slave signified by a ring through the ear and that was a sign he had a wonderful master because this bond servant CHOSE to be committed to his master and the master looked good in society.

    You choose not to look at the following verses:
      Ephesians 6:6   Not with eye service(appearance only), as men pleasers (suckups); but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart;
      Ephesians 6:7   With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men:

    There is nothing wrong with this. Even when Joseph was in jail unto pharoah on a hideous mischarge, he took his punishment in stride and did his services as unto God.


    Equality for Women:

    Paul was very anti-woman. He ordered that they not be allowed to speak in the churches (I Cor 14:34-45) and that they stay home and take care of the kids (1Timothy 5:14), and that wives should be submissive to the mastery of their husbands (Ephesians 5:22-24 and Colossians 3:18-19).

    1 Corinthians 14:35   And if they will LEARN any thing, let them ask their husbands at HOME: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
    It is said in many commentaries that the women in the church were disrupting, why i do not know, perhaps they were whispering among themselves or asking their husbands.

      1 Timothy 2:11   Let the woman learn in silence (stillness) with all subjection. Hebrew women were not well schooled, sorry, but its true, few men were well schooled. We all think that people are grade 12 grads but they are not, my mom has a grade 9 education cut short by WW2.
      1 Timothy 2:12   But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence (G2271 - stillness, hearing not bustling).
      1 Timothy 2:13   For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
      1 Timothy 2:14   And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

    Mans headship over the woman is placed because of origin not superiority. It takes both male and female to mirror the image of God. Woman for her sensitivities and man for his straight unemotional, detached thinking. Woman was created to be mans partner. It was by the fall that man got headship not by creation. This is what Paul says and Genesis 3:16 [/i]

    Homosexuals:

      Romans 1:26   For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the NATURAL use into that which is AGAINST nature:
      Romans 1:27   And likewise also the men, leaving the NATURAL use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is UNSEEMLY, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

    Yahshua himself never uttered a single word against homosexuals.

    Yashua never mentioned smoking, drug abuse, electroshock therapy, speeding, cheating on taxes, working overtime and neglecting a family, swearing, medical procedures, that the earth revolved around the sun, Yashua never mentioned a bunch of things, but we can never say just because jesus never mentioned it, it doesn't exist. We see a natural, holy attribute to sexual relationships as clearly spelled out by God. When people come to God they eventually need to come out of their sins and clean up their lives by the promptings of God. There is nothing unscriptural about mentioning this type of sin. God certainly did in OT and we are sure he means the same toward it today.

    Ironically, Paul is the one who asserts that the Law of Moses is no longer operational, yet he echoes the Law on homosexuality (see Leviticus 18:22). Ironically, many of the same Christians who eat pork, shrimp or rabbit (forbidden in Leviticus 11 concerning the priests) because the Law no longer applies, still also cite Leviticus 18 when they want to oppose homosexuality -- trying to have it both ways.

    As you do also. A female rabbi? When was the last time you sacrificed a cow? Do you go to jerusalem on passover, pentecost or tabernacles? Why do you sell magic charms?
    What the christian says is that when jesus came those things that were natural became spiritual in application. He would write the law on our hearts - but not all at once, as he wishes us to change he speaks to us of this change and we make a decision. Jesus magnified the law, "if a man look upon a woman.. adultery in his heart". He took all 10 commandments and formed two based on love. Now where there is law and penalty there can be no love only obedience and hopeful appeasement but certainly not relationship. Relationship comes with love not obeying rules. You see Christian do not eat pork that is to say we do not partake of unclean things, spiritually speaking but we do eat pork tenderloin and fish and prawns, although with prawns we do not partake of the doctrine of bottom feeders. It all went spiritual in application. Just as jesus became the lamb that takes away the sin of the world, spiritually speaking.


    Punishment for Adam's sin

    Paul is the one who introduces the concept of original sin and the "inheritance" of sin, in Romans 5:12, "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned."
    Is sin a moral issue or a birth defect? Should babies born with birth defects be punished? Should we require abortions if the fetus is deformed?

    dunno where you get this from that. Paul is just reciting what happened when adam sinned, death entered.. there is no talk of original sin that concept occurred long long after paul. In fact i believe it is a catholic doctrine, but i'm running short of time and have to go out.

    I will tackle the obvious flaws in the rest of this post when i get back.
    have a nice day

    1. 0
      Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

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

      It doesn't matter when the words "original sin" came about.

      Paul still brought that concept into existence.

      Where does God say it?

      And since Earnest's death when you showed your true colors, I have lost any and all respect for you.

      Asking you about the scriptures is like asking a 400 pound woman her advice for losing weight.

      1. brotheryochanan profile image60
        brotheryochananposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        That is some way to get around a debate so close to your heart. I am sorry to diffuse your anti-paul campaign at every post but you do need instruction about context, rabbi.

        You forgot to answer the question and yes i am asking you to imagine that the covenant of law is over and all those rules the pharisees impugned are gone too and that animal sacrifice is no longer needed, since there is no temple anyway, which jesus predicted.

        Whatever conclusion you decided to come to about what I said is irrelevant to our Pauline discussion. I reminded people that death is serious and that our final attitude is important. He will be before the invisible sky fairy and calling him a psychopathic, murderering, myth as he was so bold to do here DAILY. As i said before the shame is not what i said, but, that it was so obviously the case. I had hoped for salvation to occur but persuasive evidence did not do its job, neither did countering his posts, especially those about contradictions or proper christian perspective. I hoped it might be a wake up call to others. I am however, exceedingly glad there is no burning in hell forever and ever.
        To all those who were offended, be reminded of the greater picture.

        Regardless of your assessment of my insight and knowledge of scripture - you thought i was happy to write that stuff for gosh sake - I see how you interpret things, partially and without proper understanding, so i can excuse that you only used part of my post and did not perceive the bigger picture or see its truthfulness. Indeed you seem to cater to a crowd that are scripturally ignorant. So whereas a 400 pound woman may well indeed know about weight loss programs and the such but is ineffectual to incur those desired effects upon herself, maybe due to metabolism or has unknowingly celiac disease  is not reason to judge the book by the cover. I assure you earnest was an open book, easily read and i figured a good attitudinal ensign for others to avoid.

  13. lovemychris profile image78
    lovemychrisposted 4 years ago

    I agree that Paul is nothing like Jesus.
    Jesus was more of a feminine message. And if you read The Gospel of Mary...she's the only one of the disciples who really got it!

    Paul's is more the macho "Apollo" type message. Concerned with brimstone and Judgement.

    All you need do is Love your God and Love one another...who here really does that?
    I seldom "feel the Love"!

    1. brotheryochanan profile image60
      brotheryochananposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Love wears many hats

  14. 0
    Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago

    Don't forget about my other statements about Paul (and there will be more)

    http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/92581#post1975775

    http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/92581?p … ost1975826

  15. 0
    Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago

    Paul must have thought those in the church were really stupid.

    He tells them this is the 3rd time he was coming to them. Paul tries to make them believe he is establishing his own words because there had to be two or three witnesses. Pauls a Pharisee and knows there is suppose to be two or three different witnesses not the same man three times.

    2 Corinthians 13:1-3

    1. This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.

    Paul likes to threaten them.

    2. I told you before, and foretell you, as if I were present, the second time; and being absent now I write to them which heretofore have sinned, and to all other, that, if I come again, I will not spare:

    They are starting not to see/ Paul is not of God.

    3. Since ye seek a proof of Christ speaking in me, which to you-ward is not weak, but is mighty in you.

    1. 0
      Pat Nicholsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      You just have a rebellious spirit of a witch on you is all. One day God will cast that devil out of you and then you will see much more clear. Your study of religion is intellectual in nature and you are ever learning and will never come to the knowledge of the truth, it is a bottomless pit of leaning to your own understanding and making it fit your own religious rebellious way of life. But that is ok, as in this country you are free to have your own way.

      1. 0
        Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

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

        You need to stop with the personal attacks.
        How dare you say I am a witch.

        I happen to be a Jewish Minister.

        Maybe you should ask God to forgive you, because I am quoting scripture, and God is who showed me Paul is false.

        Take it up with him.

        Stop your personal attacks, it's against the rules.

        To all your other words I say "oh brother"


        Judger, you know nothing of what's in me.

        1. 0
          Pat Nicholsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          A witch spirit just means you are in rebellion to the truth of God. You are not a Jewish Minister because God nor the Jews allow women in such places according to the Bible. Nothing personal toward you, in a sense, I am just saying that you have a mind overtaken you that is one of rebellion and that is why you have gone the route you have gone in your life.

          1. 0
            Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            **********

            I'll ask the staff to ban you if you keep on.

            You're not only attacking me, you are hijacking the thread.

            Read the rules.

          2. 0
            Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

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

            There are plenty of Jewish ministers who are woman.
            The Jews have never prohibited a woman to be a minister/Rabbe.

            You think something and state it as truth. smile

        2. 0
          Pat Nicholsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Oh you should know being a "minister" that the Bible says Rebellion is the same as witchcraft. That is all, I am simply saying you are in rebellion to the truth of God.

          1. 0
            Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            **********

            I'm not rebelling you are.

            1. 0
              Pat Nicholsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Well I see the real mind that has overtaken you, I have dealt with this kind many times before. You "hide" from your husband who is also a Jewish Rabbi and then you post things concerning Numerology and Astrology about yourself. Yep the Lord had it right in the Old Testament, when he said Rebellion was the same as Witchcraft and He hated WC so bad He said, "Suffer not a witch to live". The very old test. you claim to know rises against you in judgment and you say also you are a Jewish Mystic? This is all smoke and mirrors to lead astray the innocent by a cunning spirit whom can only capture those that are his not the Elect of God, for it is not even possible for them to be deceived!

              1. 0
                JoelMcLendonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

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

                She's hiding nothing from me.

                If you studied the Bible, you would see that it contains numerology.

                So go your own way if you don't like what she is saying.
                Or are you playing the part of the Devil?

                The scripture says if you know of a false prophet you are to warn the people and that's what she is doing.

                I know the life she lives.

                Do you break God's law?

                1. brotheryochanan profile image60
                  brotheryochananposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Use of numerology in the bible
                  http://carm.org/what-biblical-numerology

                  God uses the numbers to reflect himself

                  Use of numerology in kabbalah

                  Kabbalah Numerology gives a detailed account of the numerological influence upon your health, personality and even over your finances. It enables a person to calculate his/her Lucky number, Money Number, Lucky Color and the Health Number. Kabbalah is associated with the Jewish form of mysticism.

                  Everything from betting on horses to lucky numbers.

                  http://www.mysticscripts.com/kabbalah/

                  The two types of numerology are completely different.

                  Kabbalah numerology is used for personal gain

                  1. 0
                    Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

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

                    I use gematria which is not Kabbalah and it does not determine my health etc.

                    During bible days there was no numbers and letters were used to represent numbers. A=1, B=2, G=3 and so on.
                    That is Gematria
                    There is no such thing as Kabbalah numerology.
                    There is Greek and Hebrew Gematria. Greek is different because their alphabet is different.

                    Replacing numbers with the Alpha and vice versa...OH HOW EVIL..like the scriptures say...Gag at a gnat and swallow a camel.

                    You can post all the links you want that speaks against it and says it is wrong.
                    I can post links showing the Christian religion is the anti-christ. But it's not time for that.

                    Gematria does NOT reflect only God.

                    Instead of taking other people's definition for things, you need to study yourself and go back to the original lanaguages

              2. 0
                Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                ********

                The Hebrew Bible does not say "Witch" only the English one does.

                1. brotheryochanan profile image60
                  brotheryochananposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  1) (Piel) to practice witchcraft or sorcery, use witchcraft
                  a) sorcerer, sorceress

                  interlinear uses enchantress

                  the definition is not far from the word.

                  in other places defined as:  sorcerers, witchcraft.
                  This word is lumped in with, magicians, divination, user of enchantments - I guess those might be artifacts imbued with some sort of magical power. How are your jupiter talisman and venus talisman selling?
                  to continue, astrologers, wizards, familiar spirits hmm

                  1. 0
                    Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

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

                    You are copying someone's erroneous interpretation.

                    Did you read the original Hebrew & Greek? NO

                    It means no such thing in Hebrew

                    In Hebrew and Greek divination does not means seeing the future and sorcery has nothing to do with witchcraft

              3. 0
                Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

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

                The Elect are the Jews who are of the twelve tribes of Israel.

                You are not an Elect.

                1. 0
                  Gusserposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  And where & whom are those 12 tribes today?

                  1. 0
                    Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

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

                    Just before Jacob died, he pronounced benedictions and maledictions with predictions on the future to each of his sons. Judah was a

                    Although the tribes were scattered God knows where each and everyone is.

                    Genesis 49:28
                    All these are the twelve tribes of Israel: and this is it that their father spake unto them, and blessed them; every one according to his blessing he blessed them.

                    Asher
                    Benjamin
                    Dan
                    Gad
                    Issachar
                    Joseph*
                    Judah
                    Levi
                    Naphtali
                    Reuben
                    Simeon
                    Zebulun

                    Isaiah 65:9
                    And I will bring forth a seed out of Jacob, and out of Judah an inheritor of my mountains: and mine elect shall inherit it, and my servants shall dwell there.

                    James 1:1
                    James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting.

                    God promised them heaven and he doesn’t repent

                    Revelation 21:12
                    And had a wall great and high, and had twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and names written thereon, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel:

                    Matthew 24:31
                    And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

      2. 0
        Emile Rposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Come on. The woman is attempting to point out discrepancies and she's a witch? Where's a stake when you need one? That's the question.

        1. 0
          Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

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

          Thank you, I appreciate it.

          1. 0
            Pat Nicholsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I have exposed that spirit for what it is. Now I will comment no further. Good bye.

            1. 0
              Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

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

              You truly have exposed your spirit.

            2. Disappearinghead profile image88
              Disappearingheadposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Acusations of rebellion and deceptive spirits are rediculous. I don't agree with a lot of what Deborah says; we have different opinions on the nature of Yahshua and Paul, however since when did having different views indicate that one of us had some bogus Greek mythology inspired deceptive spirit?

              The Churches of various flavours have people who think God is showing them some revelation from the bible, yet they disagree with someone else who also thinks they are being led by the Holy Spirit. So each concludes the other is in error at best or has some deceptive spirit mumbo jumbo at worst. It is these sort of ignorant superstitious accusations that led to "heretics" being burnt at the stake!

              1. brotheryochanan profile image60
                brotheryochananposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Spirit means attitude when applied to a human.
                The spirit of the world is changing.
                That man has an angry spirit.
                The spirit of a witch could well be the attitude of rebellion.

                This is just a platonic doctrine about man having his own spirit (and soul) other than attitude.

                I know what ecclesiastics says about the spirit of man that goes up... but let me ask does the spirit actually go up when one dies? if that person is but biblically sleeping and awaiting without consciousness for resurrection? And the verses before say that in death there is no difference between the two... so how does the spirit of man go upward.. in thought, contemplation, toward God (atttitude) but this is while alive and not when dead. The thoughts of a beast are toward the earth and earthly in focus while alive but when dead both go to the ground.
                anyway....

                1. A Troubled Man profile image60
                  A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  lol It's hilarious as it is dishonest for believers to change the definition of words to support their ridiculous beliefs, making them even more ridiculous.



                  Gibberish.

                  1. brotheryochanan profile image60
                    brotheryochananposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    You post thinking that no one reads what you write. Spirit has been used for ages as describing the attitudes of people. Its more dishonest for you to pretend that you know when in fact you do not know.

                    Many have noticed the spirit you post with.

                    here are a few definitions of the word spirit. I will always back up what i say but there is no evidence about your opinions.

                    From dictionary.com and in bold type so that you are without excuse.
                    1.     the force or principle of life that animates the body of living things
                    2.     temperament or disposition: truculent in spirit
                    3.     liveliness; mettle: they set to it with spirit
                    4.     the fundamental, emotional, and activating principle of a person; will: the experience broke his spirit
                    5.     a sense of loyalty or dedication: team spirit
                    6.     the prevailing element; feeling: a spirit of joy pervaded the atmosphere
                    7.     state of mind or mood; attitude: he did it in the wrong spirit
                    ]b]8.     ( plural ) an emotional state, esp with regard to exaltation or dejection: in high spirits [/b]
                    9.     a person characterized by some activity, quality, or disposition: a leading spirit of the movement
                    10.     the deeper more significant meaning as opposed to a pedantic interpretation: the spirit of the law

                2. 0
                  Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

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

                  Being a Pharisee is His religion not where he is a Citizen. But you insinuate everyone else is stupid.

                  1. brotheryochanan profile image60
                    brotheryochananposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    no i don't.
                    you insinuate that i do.

                    I merely quote applicable scripture and verse
                    a Pharisee is a jewish religious leader, common knowledge.
                    Rome is a country
                    Tarsus is a city

                    where did i say otherwise?

            3. recommend1 profile image70
              recommend1posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Your posts are seriously creepy in the style of the ignorant witch hunters of the not-so-distant past.  I guess indoctrination and lack of reasoning ability would do that.

  16. Druid Dude profile image60
    Druid Dudeposted 4 years ago

    This is why I say that Paul was a Roman agent, in the direct employ of the Roman occupation force. Paul was a Roman citizen, he martyred many of Jesus' followers, including James the brother of Jesus, who was the head of the following after the crucifixion. Paul was not of the spirit...unless it was the spirit of gold in his pocket.

    1. 0
      Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

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

      You are correct, he infiltrated the church world to lead them from God.

      1. 0
        Gusserposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        The true path is narrow. Few will follow it. Interesting that 2 Billion "Christians" today believe they are the few. Jesus offered the truth. MAN preverted that truth in the early church. Satan decieved the many, as was his "job".

        1. Druid Dude profile image60
          Druid Dudeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Is that job, as in employment, or JOB as in the bible?  Ever see wheat separated from chaff? Interesting process. I am not a christian. I have no fear of God, and I know he's there. He is actually only half the story. Can't forget she.

          1. 0
            Gusserposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            employment

    2. brotheryochanan profile image60
      brotheryochananposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      "including James the brother of Jesus"

      James the just, leader of the church in jerusalem was killed in 62ad. So no, sorry, Paul did NOT kill James the Just. You are wrong. If you are pertaining to the passage of acts chapter 7, which has been said to be James wrongly translated as Stephen, the timing is completely wrong. Acts chapter 7 is not taking place in 62ad. Chapter 7 of acts takes place about 35,36ad. Certainly not 62ad. Paul was imprisoned in Rome when James was killed.

      "Paul was a Roman citizen...." 

      His being a pharisee makes him a jewish person and the son of a pharisee also.
      Acts 23:6   But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee.
      Philippians 3:5   ...of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;

      When asked if he was a roman
      In Acts 21:39, Paul says he was born at Tarsus in Cilicia, and in Acts 22:28, he says he was free born
          "the city of Tarsus having such privileges appears extremely probable. It has been concluded, with every show of reason, that Tarsus, though no Roman colony, yet had this privilege granted to it, that its natives should be citizens of Rome". Pliny, in Hist. Nat. lib. Acts 16:27, tells us that Tarsus was a free city and a roman colony.

      So we see another reason for GOD picking Paul. Since he can go easily back and forth between rome and israel his dual citizenship would help him travel and save him from Roman punishments, plus he could appeal to Caesar which was his right as a roman. Peter would have much more difficulty.

      I believe this is your third strike. So please do some actual research and kindly i ask, that you know what you are talking about instead of giving your own unsubstantiated opinion.

      1. DoubleScorpion profile image86
        DoubleScorpionposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Acts 22:23-29 Says that Paul was a Roman Citizen...

        23 As they were shouting and throwing off their cloaks and flinging dust into the air,
        24 the commander ordered Paul to be taken into the barracks. He directed that he be flogged and questioned in order to find out why the people were shouting at him like this.
        25 As they stretched him out to flog him, Paul said to the centurion standing there, “Is it legal for you to flog a Roman citizen who hasn’t even been found guilty?”

        26 When the centurion heard this, he went to the commander and reported it. “What are you going to do?” he asked. “This man is a Roman citizen.”

        27 The commander went to Paul and asked, “Tell me, are you a Roman citizen?”

        “Yes, I am,” he answered.

        28 Then the commander said, “I had to pay a big price for my citizenship.”

        “But I was born a citizen,” Paul replied.

        29 Those who were about to question him withdrew immediately. The commander himself was alarmed when he realized that he had put Paul, a Roman citizen, in chains

        1. 0
          Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

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

          Yes, he was a Roman citizen.

          1. brotheryochanan profile image60
            brotheryochananposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            handy stuff when travelling roman occupied lands.

            Like I have said, God stopping Saul in his tracks is absolutely brilliant and should be applauded not insulted.

      2. 0
        Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

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


        Acts 22:25
        And as they bound him with thongs, Paul said unto the centurion that stood by, Is it lawful for you to scourge a man that is a Roman, and uncondemned?

        Acts 22:27
        Then the chief captain came, and said unto him, Tell me, art thou a Roman? He said, Yea.

    3. pisean282311 profile image57
      pisean282311posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      @Druid Dude u r right...if james would have had his way, christinaity we know would have been lot different today...what we have today is paul's version and not christs version...

  17. 60
    druhepkinsposted 4 years ago

    I applaud you Deborah, for using your God given intellect to study, think and reason, instead of so many who simply digest, justify and rationalize.

    So many people fail to understand their own faith and that it has been mismanaged and edited by men for mass consumption thousands of years before their own existence. Mentally conditioned to believe it's blasphemous, challenging your beliefs is an act of courage and character that many just don't have.

    I agree with you wholeheartedly. I grew up in a conservative Christian household, but through study and close analysis I began to realize Jesus Christ himself would never be a fan of the big modern day church and what it has evolved into today.

    Thank you for your thought provoking perspective.

    1. 0
      Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

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

      Thank you for your kind words.

      I have received a lot of hate email, but I have received more "I appreciate your words" email. Guess who is sending the hate email?


      I find indoctrinated people not only don't see the truth, but, they don't wish to.

    2. brotheryochanan profile image60
      brotheryochananposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Even though you have low regard for the modern day church doesn't support any evidence that the church is/was a waste of time or that it is wrong to exist.
      When we look to revelations we see that Christ is talking to the churches and he gives his permission for them to continue and says that those who overcome he will give... Christ admits there are problems but in what system are there not problems. Christ looks to the overcomers then and now in a system that is troubled but ordained.

      For some reason people think that because this church system has some flaws in it that it should be expunged, but is this the case? Many systems have flaws and yet they continue.
      Also when we learn, we go to school - a flawed system - but we learn in school, develop social behavior etc. Church is like a school. People learn and grow and hear about God. Some churches like schools are better than others yet all have attendees.

      1. 0
        Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

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

        The Christian doctrine/religion has been spread world wide.

        Christians believe we are in the end times

        If the Christian doctrine is the word of God, why does it say there will be a famine?

        Amos 8:11
        Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD:

        1. brotheryochanan profile image60
          brotheryochananposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          And for 400 yrs (the period of silence between the OT and the NT) no one heard from God. is that not a famine of the word of God?
          This prophecy is already fulfilled.

  18. Jerami profile image79
    Jeramiposted 4 years ago

    "The Elect got it and the rest were blinded".   ???????

    ?????
       
       And yet in Revelation,(written almost 2000 years ago) it is written that a false religion will rise that will fool even the elect if posible.           Is it possible that Paul was laying the foundation for that transition?

       
      There are many who precieve themselves as the "elect" who have gotten it right; when in actuality, are those who have been fooled.

    1. recommend1 profile image70
      recommend1posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Hi Jerami

      I think this is the whole crux of this discussion.   If Paul is the originator of the false doctrine - and his invented version of the story and the issues involved would seem to support this idea - then all the preachers and writers of a thousand verses in these threads are wasting their time as they are spouting the false doctrine.  Although they are so busy spouting unthought-out stuff for their own glorification they would probably be wrong anyway.

      1. Jerami profile image79
        Jeramiposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        HEY recomend 1 ...I agree.      This is a complicated issue.

        It is difficult to say what is right, when there is so much to say.
        Where do we start?

          I think; as does Debra. that "IF" we profess to follow Christ? Then why do we believe anyone else when they contradict that which Jesus said?

      2. lovemychris profile image78
        lovemychrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Yes. The whole thing has been a sham for power. After all, how much power can you gain by turning the other cheek? They HAD to invent a different version...or they would be among the meek.

        1. Druid Dude profile image60
          Druid Dudeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Cilicia is Sicily...Roman turf. Separating wheat from chaff.

  19. lovemychris profile image78
    lovemychrisposted 4 years ago

    Well, I'm talking about worldly power, which He wasn't interested in. You know, the 5 senses that lure and lull us.

    The other senses are what Christ is about, IMO. Other dimensions,to be more precise.Other states of being. Those that don't rely on Ceasar's gold.

    "You have turned my house of worship into a den of thieves"...Amen.

    1. Druid Dude profile image60
      Druid Dudeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Check this out. The heirarchy of the Mafia is based on the Heirarchy of the Catholic Church, from where we get the concept of Godfather. It is also the same heirarchy which existed in Rome prior to the advent of Christianity. Fun Fact.

      1. brotheryochanan profile image60
        brotheryochananposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        indeed
        can you find any connection between masonry and catholicism
        just wondering

  20. 0
    Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago

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

    Paul admits he was crafty ( clever at achieving one's aims by indirect or deceitful methods) and used guile (Sly or cunning intelligence )

    2 Corinthians 12:16
    But be it so, I did not burden you: nevertheless, being crafty, I caught you with guile.

    NOTICE Paul said this about himself.

    1. brotheryochanan profile image60
      brotheryochananposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Notice Paul said he caught the corinthians in guile.

      First we should note that "be it so" is not Paul speaking of himself but it is an accusation from the corinth church. Be it so or as you say... (now paul defends against that accusation) I did not burden you...

      2 Corinthians 12:16   But be it so, I did not burden you : nevertheless, being crafty, I caught you with guile.
      and how did Paul do that?
        2 Corinthians 12:17   Did I make a gain of you by any of them whom I sent unto you?
      Paul is talking about what he received from them as in profit
        2 Corinthians 12:18   I desired Titus, and with him I sent a brother. Did Titus make a gain of you? walked we not in the same spirit? walked we not in the same steps?

      2 cor 8:6-9 expounds more on the gift (money) giving
      and
      1 cor 16:3 shows that Paul had the brethren of the church at corinth take control of the gift offering they would send to jerusalem.

      Clearly Paul is talking about gift giving, which is a function of Christianity ordained by Jesus.. and in the case of 1 cor 16 there are some funds being directed toward James the Just's church in Jerusalem. Later it seems the corinth people aren't that giving as Paul nor Titus get support for their preaching efforts in 2 cor 12:16-18 but they did not complain about it and went about doing their job. So Paul then says by craftiness or by the way the first gift giving was set up by their people taking charge of the funds to Jerusalem, he had no say in what was given and this crafty approach of hands off and just being the delivery boy is what opened him up to criticism,unjustly, by the corinth church.
      The guile he caught them in was their ungiving spirit to even help out the jerusalem church and then those, he and titus perhaps others.

      full counsel of God

      1. 0
        Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

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

        Wrong again, apparently you have problems locating the main plot in paragraphs.

        I am tired of answering you now, there is nothing new from you.

        One minute Christians say "The law is done away with"

        And to someone else.."stop or you'll go to hell"
        How hypocritical can someone be?

        If it wasn't so sad, it would be funny

        Scripture says nothing on the outside defiles a man..only what comes out

        Go judge yourself.

        If you don't want to kmow how and who deceived you, don't read this thread. It's that simple.

        1. brotheryochanan profile image60
          brotheryochananposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          here is your context of mattew 5:11

            Matthew 15:15   Then answered Peter and said unto him, Declare unto us this parable.
            Matthew 15:16   And Jesus said, Are ye also yet without understanding?
            Matthew 15:17   Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever enters in at the mouth goes into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?
            Matthew 15:18   But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. 

          Yet Jesus defined this parable as that which goes into a person cannot defile (G2840 ceremonially unclean, pollute) them, so then what about shellfish? or pork?

          further:
            Matthew 15:19   For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:
            Matthew 15:20   These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.

          again the law gets a kicking by Yashua for both eating any kind of food and for ceremonial washing. You see how Yashua looked beyond the physical and into the heart, basing importance on truth, honesty and those qualities that make a persons character not on whether they eat pork or not or prawns or wash their hands before eating. This is the new covenant. Truth in the inward parts. And this is why Yashua was the last sacrifice.

          Yashua said in essence, "we have tried the law for 2,000 years and none have been able to keep it. I have kept it and fulfilled it, lets be done with it and get back to what really matters and that is not the ceremonies, not the ordinances, not the letter of the law, but the heart. The spirit will be poured out into you and you will be children to a father".

          Paul said this when he said that circumcision avails nothing if a person is not right with God and that's true. Anyone could be circumcised but not adhere to God and how will circumcision avail them? It will not.

  21. 0
    Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago

    Paul said he robbed the other churches so the church at Corinth wouldn't be burdened by having to supply him.

    2 Corinthians 11:8
    I robbed other churches, taking wages of them, to do you service.

    1. brotheryochanan profile image60
      brotheryochananposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      in context... robbed means that he did not pay back what they gave him by his taking wages of them. Churches supported Paul, Philippi (Philippians 4:15-16) and Macedonia (2 Corinthians 11:9   And when I was present with you, and wanted, I was chargeable to no man: for that which was lacking to me the brethren which came from Macedonia supplied).
      The word (ἐσύλησα esulēsa) means properly, "I spoiled, plundered, robbed," but the idea of Paul here is, that he as it were, robbed them, because he did not render an equivalent for what they gave him. They supported him when he was laboring for another people.
      This is not evidence of a roman spy being supported by roman money.

      1. 0
        Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

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

        It was against God, the law, and what Yahshua taught to charge wages. Paul robbed them

        Matthew 10:8
        Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give.

        Always an answer/excuse for Paul, but never for Yahshua

        1. brotheryochanan profile image60
          brotheryochananposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Luke 10:7   And in the same house remain, eating and drinking such things as they give: for the labourer is worthy of his hire. Go not from house to house.

          I think you are citing a passage that refers directly to power not finances

          Also note paul did not take wages of them.

          I thought we were talking about Paul and i needed to give you the proper context of Paul. His teachings are not different than jesus and nor are they different than the OT, other than in spiritual application under the new covenant.

  22. Druid Dude profile image60
    Druid Dudeposted 4 years ago

    Considering that certain dates are correct, I would point out that the Mafia has also ordered hits from prison.

    1. brotheryochanan profile image60
      brotheryochananposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      oh yes indeed.
      We can say anything we want but what does the evidence say? Where is the support for that? There simply is none. We could say that Paul, visited by aliens, had a spaceship shoot James while passing by.

      But the point that two secular historians both say James the just was killed by Pharisees. This is not a hard thing to accept given the pharisees track record in killing Christ and his followers. Given the distance 1434 miles (shortest route - http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/d … amp;p2=110 - and the mode of travel, organization, natural impediments, and Pauls having a guard chained to him.....
          Paul was under constant guard. Verse 20 records his saying to Jewish leaders in Rome, "I requested to see you and to speak with you, for I am wearing this chain for the sake of the hope of Israel." The Roman government was sufficiently anxious about Paul that he was kept chained to a guard twenty-four hours a day. Roman custom provided for a change in guard every six hours, so Paul would have had four different men chained to him during the course of a day.
      Peter also had roman guards chained to him:
      'Acts 12:6   And when Herod would have brought him forth, the same night Peter was sleeping between two soldiers, bound with two chains: and the keepers before the door kept the prison.'

      ....the evidence leaves little room to think that Paul planned an assassination from prison. Notice also that we seem to forget all the christian attributes that Paul followed and he preached a resurrected Christ etc.

      assassination does not meet the criteria

      1. Druid Dude profile image60
        Druid Dudeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Whom he never even saw. False testimony.

  23. 0
    Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago

    I wouldn't be here showing the truth about Paul if I cared how you judge me.


    Proverbs 29:26
    Many seek the ruler's favour; but every man's judgment cometh from the LORD.

    1. brotheryochanan profile image60
      brotheryochananposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      How can we judge truth unless the other side also gives witness?

      In each case I have shown cases for a not guilty verdict of your charges toward Paul. I have shown context, application and secular evidence. I have used verses before and after which you think have no effect about your verse.

      Let others judge
      I agree

      but i also think we are not done.

  24. 0
    Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago

    Gematria

    Gematria is one of the 32 exegetical (critical interpretation)  methods used by the sages to interpret the Torah. Gematria allows us to analyze the Torah (or any other Hebrew text) using mathematics. Rav Ginsburgh, an expert mathemetician, has greatly enhanced this field of Torah study over the years.

  25. Jerami profile image79
    Jeramiposted 4 years ago

    I have come to pretty much the same conclusions as Debra;

      Only, I aproached this from a totally different.

      "IF"  we could just simply "Believe" the words written in red letters; those things which it is written that Jesus spoke, ???   
      "IF" we could believe those and NOT allow ...ANY person.. to cause us to NOT believe those things which Jesus spoke!

       "IF" we could just forget everything else that we have been taught and hold fast to those things in scripture written in red.

       IF we could do that; we would have a totally different view than the one we defend so staunchly.

    1. 0
      Emile Rposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      You are so right jerami. I think, because the words in red speak to the heart. Those words make you think and help you see how important your own behavior patterns are in the grand scheme of things. Left to stand alone, and taken as a whole, those words encapsulate love for everything in the cosmos. It's a difficult thing to envision how far reaching love can be and next to impossible to follow that example in our fleeting existence.

      Paul appears to be doing the same thing modern fundamentalists do. They try so very hard to use the text to justify what they want. They miss the mark in understanding, because they can't see the love. They are blinded by the power they hope to attain by ferreting out secret wisdom.

      The gospels weren't a puzzle to be solved. They are testimony of a statement, followed by action.  Meant to change the hearts of mankind. It was supposed to be good news. I thought.

      1. 0
        Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

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

        In reading the scriptures, we see that Yahshua was full of love, but love doesn't always feel good. For example when Yahshua turned over the chairs & tables in the Temple because they were buying and selling.

        Matthew 21:12
        And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves.

        And the many times he called the Pharisees hypocrites.

        Matthew 22:18
        But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?

        Yahshua taught if you get angry WITHOUT A Reason, it's wrong..which indicates it's not if you have a good reason. God knows we are human.

        Matthew 5:22
        But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

        1. 0
          Emile Rposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Of course love doesn't always feel good. If it did, our kids might never cry. I'll be honest, I get a little tired of the example where he ran the money changers out of the temple. That isn't a lack of love. Maybe a great deal of frustration that any could be so obtuse and greedy.

          You pointed it out yourself. Anger without reason is wrong. I think we all know that. The trick is, to be open and honest enough with ourselves to clearly and honestly judge the reason for our anger. Set our egos aside. If we do that, we will be able to see that most anger really isn't justified.

          That, to me, is the whole point of the gospels. To be open with yourself about every action. To honestly evaluate them and see them for what they are and how they affect those around us. The whole reason the law existed was because people didn't do that. Love God, Love your neighbor. If one does that, every law outlined in the entire text is more than satisfied.

          It was a pretty simple point. So simple and yet so hard to follow. Which is why we have religion. I think.

          1. Disappearinghead profile image88
            Disappearingheadposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I agree and a very insightful last comment Emile.

  26. 0
    JoelMcLendonposted 4 years ago

    This Mr. Yochanan who is condemning my wife for what she believes
    is the same man, knowing Deborah and I are married, sent her an email telling her she is yummy.
    When Deborah did not reply he started writing rude comments on her hubs
    and started arguing with everything she says.

    I'll echo your words Mr.Yochanan...HOW GODLY.

    1. brotheryochanan profile image60
      brotheryochananposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      The scriptures speak for themselves. I sold my miata because it attracted to many yummies.
      When deborah did not reply... she did not need to reply and the comments were because she was misinformed not because your upset and want to infer otherwise. Did i try to woo her away from you? Did i persist in dubious compliments or otherwise. No. One statement one time does not a godzilla stomping tokyo make.

      There is no argument. I have shown the other side of the debate. If you have trouble handling it, oh well. There is another side other than deborahs opinion and I have the insight to tell it.

      I can appreciate a good smear campaign as well you do and since you claim some attachment to God, though nothing is said about Him on your profile, I trust that you will not lie not stretch the truth or make assumptions that are unfounded any more than you have already done.

      have a nice day

      1. 0
        Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

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


        There was no smear campaign, If anyone smeared you, it is your actions
        I still have your email.

        You say if he can't take it...LOL do you think he feels threatened by you?
        We both just about threw up when you sent the email.
        My husband is the one my eyes see, now and always.

        Big deal, my husband came here for me and not for his teaching (Rabbe) he has a class he teaches at Temple.

        For your next email. The words links are copyrighted, you have no business copying and pasting it saya so on my profile. You can't even understand what people are saying.

        And yes, those are my websites and I like them.
        I don't like you stealing my work or words.
        LEAVE US ALONE

  27. 0
    Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago

    Anyone wishing to learn the real Kabbalah you can study here.

    You will find that the Kabbalah is based on God, creation and how we can get close to God.


    The websites that call Kabbalah devil worship, black magic etc..etc...are incredibly wrong. unfortunately there are more of those types of Kabbalah sites  than the real Kabbalah

    To get an idea of what Kabbalah is about read here
    http://www.inner.org/kabbalah/beginner/ … iarchs.php
    and here
    http://www.inner.org/kabbalah/beginner/intro.htm

    For beginners Kabbalah start here
    http://www.inner.org/kabbalah/index.php

    Jewish Mysticism
    http://www.inner.org/meditate/default.htm

    1. brotheryochanan profile image60
      brotheryochananposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      You should change the link on your profile then if you disagree with that site i copied and pasted from your profile, otherwise we have to agree it is a site that you are fond of.

      You really have to slag luke also because he writes of paul and then you have to rather slag the entire gospels because luke agrees with them  and if paul is not the author of the book of hebrews and i think not, hebrews states pauls beliefs too.

      I had hoped you would be persuaded by the evidence, properly displayed in context, but at the very least now both sides of the debate are available to all and this is good and proper, is it not? So in the fairness of discussion and equality of curriculum you should be happy to defend your side and thereby allow others to judge the material.
      handshake
      have a nice day

  28. 0
    Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago

    Paul on Circumcision

    "Mark my words, I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all" Galatians 5:2.

    "Paul wanted to take [Timothy] along with him on the journey, so he circumcised him because of the Jews who lived in that area, for they all knew that his father was a Greek" Acts 16:2. Paul was Timothy's mentor and thought of him as a son. Paul knew circumcision was a covenant with God and was needed as a symbol
    of God's promises. Although he didn't want to teach anyone the truth (his mission was to turn people away from God by teaching them lies), he did want Timothy circumcise.

    Paul's Attitude Towards Sin

    Romans 6:12-14, "Let not sin . . . reign in your mortal body . . . For sin shall have no dominion over you: for you are not under the Law [of Moses], but under grace."

    Romans 8:13, "If you live after the flesh, you shall die, but if you, through the Spirit, mortify the deeds of the body, you shall live."

    Romans 7 :14-25 "I am carnal, sold under sin. . . . I can will what is right, but I cannot perform it. For I fail to practice the good deeds I desire to do, but the evil deeds that I do not desire to do are what I am [ever] doing. . . . [I am] a prisoner to the law of sin that dwells in my bodily organs. . . . I [with mind and heart] serve the Law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin."

    Paul made a promise in Romans 6:14. In a behavior disturbingly similar to a modern politician, he wastes little time in revealing the empty nature of his own promise. Also, it is not immediately clear whether there is an observable difference between "living after the flesh," which Paul states will lead to death (Romans 8:13), and the "law of sin" that Paul admits to serving with his "flesh" in Romans 7:25.

    He is saying he can't stop sinning even if he wanted to. Therefore for Paul to look good, he has to say they aren't under the law. Sinning in the body is not wrong as long as his mind is spiritual...so Paul says

    1. brotheryochanan profile image60
      brotheryochananposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Why did Paul circumcise timothy and not titus?

      The issue for Titus and the Antioch church was, whether or not circumcision was needed for salvation.
      The issue for Timothy was not his salvation, but rather, opportunity to bring the Gospel of Jesus to Jews.

      Titus Galatians 2:1-3
      Full blooded Greek.
          With circumcision comes a commitment to the whole Jewish law through the hope that one could be made righteous by way of the law. For Titus to submit to circumcision would be direct opposition to faith and grace and the free gift of atonement by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, which was their message.
      Paul sent Titus to minister in Dalmatia. (2 Timothy 4:10)

      Timothy acts 16:1-3
      His father was a Greek but his mother was a Jew so the Jewish people would have considered him more Jew than Greek or at the very least they could have used that to create a stumbling block of offense. The reason for Timothy's circumcision was not a matter of salvation but of bringing the gospel to the Jews and as long as Timothy remained uncircumcised the door of opportunity would be closed. Paul wanted to get past that and move onto other areas of the gospel.
      Timothy is with Paul in Rome. (Philippians 1:1; Colossians 1:1; Philemon 1)

      Once again this is a stumper unless you confer with the full counsel of Gods word.

      Two different situations, two different solutions.

      Summary:
      Paul kept Titus, a gentile, from being circumcised to proclaim to Jews that salvation is not of works, a point of contention settled in the jewish council Acts 15:20-29, but he insisted that Timothy, a Jew by heritage, be circumcised in order to have an open door to preach salvation to fellow Jews who needed to be saved.

      This is along the lines of what Paul meant when he said:
      "1 Corinthians 9:22   To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some."

      Hope this helps

      Pauls attitude toward sin

      I am going to let someone else take this up. If no one then i will answer it later.

      1. 0
        Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

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

        I am not interested in what you believe. I do not want you explaining anything. I know what you believe

        This thread is about the different (opposing ) teachings of Yahshua and Paul

        It is not about what Paul did that you agree with. It is not about the fact you think I am of the devil.

        Keep the thread on target.

        Read the rules below.


        Forum Guidelines

        We ask that all Hubbers choosing to participate adhere to these guidelines, in order to maintain the kind of resource everyone will love using and feel comfortable participating in:

            Stick to the Topic:   Please stay on the thread’s topic when replying to an existing thread. If you don’t see an open thread about something you’d like to discuss, please open a new thread.

            Hijacking: debate and disagreements on points of substance are all right, but personal attacks, petty bickering, and thread hijacking will be dealt with swiftly.

            Respect:Please maintain respect for other Hubbers, even if you don’t necessarily agree with them. Keep your language clean and don’t make personal attacks.
            Be Helpful and Supportive: We’re all here to learn, so please be constructive when providing feedback.

        1. brotheryochanan profile image60
          brotheryochananposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I'm sorry you feel so threatened.
          There is no hijack, talk to hubby about staying on track also please since its so important to you.
          There are no personal attacks. I posted your beliefs and that's fair game. When you injected off topic discussion i responded in like, to those also.
          You have my respect, above what i want to give in the spirit of Christ. But you should not seek to silence contextual evidence that opposes your beliefs. I am sure we only seek clarity and fairness.
          You may state your opinions and i may state scriptural accuracy.
          Perhaps to you these posts not helpful and supportive but the christian community i am sure, enjoys them.
          As far as sticking to the topic, they are all on topic.

          Try to debate instead of ban, recall turning the other cheek or are you eye for eye still? Matthew 5:38,39

  29. 0
    Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago

    Paul's mission was to turn people away from God by teaching them lies.

    This is what Balaam prophesied.

    He is the stumbling block.

  30. Jerami profile image79
    Jeramiposted 4 years ago

    Good mornin Emile R
      The gospels weren't a puzzle to be solved....  Those words say it all.

      And it goes much deeper than it first apears.

      I can not imagine any reason why a GOD would warn his children of things which will be, in such a way that only a "SPECIAL" few (If any) will understand.   And then punish those that didn't understad. 

      Jesus said,  Many will come in my name, but they are wolves in sheeps clothing.
      So why be suprised when these wolves are getting all the attention?

    1. 0
      Emile Rposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I completely agree. smile

  31. 0
    Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago

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

    Paul is the only one that taught the law had been done away with. No one else ever said this.

    1. Druid Dude profile image60
      Druid Dudeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Jesus said the opposite. Ever play Clue?

    2. Disappearinghead profile image88
      Disappearingheadposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Although Jesus said that not one stroke of the pen will be removed from the law he also said that he came to the lost sheep of Israel. Thus I suggest that he was not talking to me about the law because I am an Englishman and a Gentile Dog.

      However he also said that the law was summed up in love God and your neighbour as yourself. This fits me better.

      So though Paul said the law was no longer in effect (which is not quite the same as done away with) it never applied to 95%-ish of the Church in the first place because they are not Jewish.

      1. Druid Dude profile image60
        Druid Dudeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        If you do the Ten, then you have no prob. Those who sit in church are they who don't understand God. School for dummies.

        1. Disappearinghead profile image88
          Disappearingheadposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Perhaps that's why they are there; so that they might understand God...... Or at least their denomination's interpretation.

          1. Druid Dude profile image60
            Druid Dudeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Jesus taught that your body is the temple. Acceptance of this reveals the Last Temple (Or Third Temple) which is also the real first temple. Alpha and Omega.

            1. Disappearinghead profile image88
              Disappearingheadposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Thus God dwells now in men rather than temples made with human hands.

              1. Druid Dude profile image60
                Druid Dudeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Always has...nothings changed. These things are buried inside of us. The Word made manifest...the Holy Grail. Us.

            2. brotheryochanan profile image60
              brotheryochananposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Then why in revelations does jesus talk about the angels of the 7 churches and why does jesus say to those who overcome... Jesus is not dissing the churches. Indeed Jesus says, to those who overcome, he is picking people out of those churches, so there must be some credibility to the churches existence.
              In the synagogues everywhere they have moses being taught - but the christians, the messianic followers had no voice and Jesus was not being preached. The Christians needed their own place to be Christians in.

      2. livelonger profile image90
        livelongerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        So did Hillel about a generation before Jesus. This was not a revolutionary formulation.

        1. Druid Dude profile image60
          Druid Dudeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Didn't say it was new. Elements of the philosophy exist in most, if not all the ancient cultures.

          1. Druid Dude profile image60
            Druid Dudeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Jesus said it wasn't new. He said that it was as plain as the noses on our faces. It is.

  32. 0
    Brenda Durhamposted 4 years ago

    Well, Paul was under a lot of criticism from more corners than the other disciples probably because he had been a Roman himself.  And of course he came under a lot of fire because many couldn't believe he had obtained forgiveness for his sins of murdering Christians!   They didn't trust him.  Most of all, they didn't trust in God's forgiveness.  Remember, even then nonbelievers and some religious people were judgemental and held grudges.  That's what happens when people don't understand the concept of repentance and forgiveness; they leave no hope, only condemnation.  Paul was finally seeing clearly after he met Jesus.  Jesus forgave him.  It was his detractors who were seeing in a "distorted" manner.  Good thing he wasn't reduced to begging for their forgiveness, because he would've been out of luck.

    1. brotheryochanan profile image60
      brotheryochananposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      So true.
      Breaking the law only brings judgment. This is why Jesus kicked at the law because the law did not and will not produce the fruit intended, and that is love. Relationship, not strict adherence to rules, promotes love.
      Can God forgive Paul for killing his Christians? Absolutely! Did God make everything rosy for Paul? Nope. At the beginning of Pauls conversion Jesus said:
      "Acts 9:16   For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name's sake."    For my names sake.    So is Jesus a liar or just Luke?
      But again, Paul was forgiven, transformed and used mightily of God to bring the dispensation of a new covenant to the gentiles. Of course this covenant is going to be different.. that is why it is NEW; and signed with the blood of Jesus as the first covenant was signed with the blood of animals.
      Peter said, "why put ye a yolk upon them that our fathers were not able to bear". And James the Just, a pious man resigned to three rules from the whole of the law.

      1. 0
        Brenda Durhamposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Thank God for distributing grace to the Gentiles!  Of which I am one.  Praise be to Jesus for the new covenant.  Without that I'd be lost.

        It's the letter of the law that kills.  And it does so because we humans are incapable of adhering to it fully.
        Ezekiel 20: 25 & 26 shows that God made those mandates in order to show His holiness, and even then He knew it would eventually require Jesus's sacrifice to fulfill His laws and establish the "new" covenant.

        "Wherefore I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should (could) not live;
        And I polluted them in their own gifts, in that they caused to pass through the fire all that openeth the womb, that I might make them desolate, to the end that they might know that I am the Lord."

        1. vector7 profile image59
          vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Amen to that..

          cool

        2. 0
          Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

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

          Brenda, is that the way you read the Bible? Making it say what you want it to?

          Over and over, God told them to walk in his Statutes but they wouldn’t. He asked them over and over to do so. But they wouldn’t


          Ezekiel 20
          19. I am the LORD your God; walk in my statutes, and keep my judgments, and do them;
          20. And hallow my sabbaths; and they shall be a sign between me and you, that ye may know that I am the LORD your God.
          21. Notwithstanding the children rebelled against me: they walked not in my statutes, neither kept my judgments to do them, which if a man do, he shall even live in them; they polluted my sabbaths: then I said, I would pour out my fury upon them, to accomplish my anger against them in the wilderness.
          22. Nevertheless I withdrew mine hand, and wrought for my name's sake, that it should not be polluted in the sight of the heathen, in whose sight I brought them forth.

          Because the people wouldn’t then God gave them statutes that were not good etc.

          24. Because they had not executed my judgments, but had despised my statutes, and had polluted my sabbaths, and their eyes were after their fathers' idols.

          25. Wherefore I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live;


          26. And I polluted them in their own gifts, in that they caused to pass through the fire all that openeth the womb, that I might make them desolate, to the end that they might know that I am the LORD.

          It's really sad that people blaspheme the laws of God because they don't want to live by them.

          1. brotheryochanan profile image60
            brotheryochananposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            lol
            yes that is the way we all read those scriptures.
            God gave statutes and judgments to help them survive in their society, but they did not and could not keep them, because they were human having not the outpouring of the Holy Ghost in them empowering them. The only had something written. Not a charmed piece of paper and ordinary piece of paper with words on it.
            I understand what God did. He did what was necessary and appropriate but the Law failed to produce righteousness in people. All the works of sacrifice and temple attendance and instruction did not produce the effect of a holy nation and that is obvious.
            Spirit is strong but the flesh is weak.
            Its not blaspheme its God being honest in a hyperbole language.

    2. recommend1 profile image70
      recommend1posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      This would have some validity except that the ONLY place you get that from is from Paul himself,  now he WOULD say that wouldn't he ??   I don't recall any of hte actual apostles,  you know, those appointed by the christ figure, giving him any credence at all.

      It is hardly any surprise that much of the intolerance and bigotry that we have come to associate with christianity comes from Paul's take on things.

      1. brotheryochanan profile image60
        brotheryochananposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        You'll find persuasive evidence of apostles approval of Paul in acts.

        And it might be of more credence and acceptability to believe that the characteristics you mention come from human nature.

        If you want to see intolerance, eat a prawn in front of a mosaic law follower.

        1. recommend1 profile image70
          recommend1posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          NO you will not - do not lie for jesus here.  You are fond of putting up reams of scripture here, if you can find what you claim then post it.


          You are right here, the characteristics that paul espouses and encourages are only from human nature, he would appear to be a political intruder and no part of the church of your christ.


          This is precisely in the spirit of the paul that you follow, when faced with opposition you revert to attacking others customs and their practices, as is also your friends behaviour, who,  when unable to disprove (or even counter) what Deborah put up - to call her a witch !Not long ago he would have tried to get her burned, see how far the insidious poison of a false doctrine can take you.

          1. brotheryochanan profile image60
            brotheryochananposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            If i discovered my life path was a 6 as a follower of christ and conforming to his image i would have to then discover that i was becoming his life path number and 6 has no bearing.
            If i was argumentative according to numerology I would have to realize that becoming more like Jesus would make me less argumentative.
            It doesn't matter what numbers define our life path or temperament, becoming like jesus changes that. It doesn't matter if the zodiak tells me i am a sagitarius, what was Jesus. Superstitious beliefs.

            Attacking others. When it comes to opinions in opposition to textual evidence they need to be reproved. Accept this for what it is.

            Really to call paul false is to circumnavigate the writings of the NT completely. But you have your doctrines and your words are plenty harsh also.

            have a nice day

  33. mega1 profile image82
    mega1posted 4 years ago

    oops, sorry, stumbled into this bible study class by mistake!  thought this was the hubber's forums about writing and goofy stuff.  so sorry.  mistook this for the one about shills - never mind!

  34. Jerami profile image79
    Jeramiposted 4 years ago

    brotheryochanan said
      "Then why in revelations does jesus talk about the angels of the 7 churches and why does jesus say to those who overcome...

      ================


    Me  is a wondering?
    What "IF"  a little later in the book (a couple of hundred years later) they joined together  making a diffrent organization; a seven headed dragon.
       And it was given 42 months to blaspheme (teach an untruth) and ..........

       Just saying;  "What IF"  it all started out being the truth and the truth eventually was lost?

       What IF?

    1. brotheryochanan profile image60
      brotheryochananposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      What if? Well i am not a big fan of what ifs. I prefer what does (in this case) the bible say.
      If we look at the OT and the people of God, the Hebrews, in Numbers 14, where the 12 spies were sent to seek out the land and they came back and said, we cannot take that land... and joshua and caleb said, We be well able to take that land... My point is as in the Hebrew 'church' of that day there were good followers and bad. Some who got it and some who didn't, there are in the gentile church of christ today, some good followers and some bad, some who get it and some who don't.

      So the two scenarios mirror each other in effectiveness and quality.
      The truth is not lost but some miss the truth because they are not 'centered' on God. They think works or obeying the old law will justify them. They think they need to open a third eye or have some secret knowledge. Mistakes happen and false teachers will pervert the true way and Jesus knew this but he showed us all that we are to lean on our father, constantly, and love him to keep us in his truth. He will not deceive. The truth is not LOST. It has been preserved more than any other document of antiquity. It is sober and precise, informative through intentional and incidental information, and historically.

  35. recommend1 profile image70
    recommend1posted 4 years ago

    Just bumping this thread up - I notice all the religious folk have run to make new nonsense threads because they cannot answer this major issue regarding what they perceive to be the word of their god

    - that is apparently a re-write of the original by a self-interested and self-proclaimed apostle

    - who just happens to be THE pillar of the most widely accepted gospels and various spin-off versions.

    It is quite funny to look back here and see that the stoutest defenders of the fake apostle, who preached bigotry and prejudice, are the ego-maniacs, bigots and prejudiced big_smile

  36. dutchman1951 profile image61
    dutchman1951posted 4 years ago

    Very Interesting comparisions Deb.  Making me think a lot here, good job

  37. Jerami profile image79
    Jeramiposted 4 years ago

    I'll attempt to remain neutral in my next comment.
    Let's suppose that Paul was a righteous man, and his message was true.

      The writings of Paul were selected to be included in the bible when many other writers were not, because his teachings better served the NEW one world religion which Constantine was promoting at that time.

      Whether we want to recognize this fact or not; This union between religion and government was accomplished exactly the same way in which prophesy says that it will be.

      In order to determine when prophesy is fulfilled, we have to know when prophesy says that it will take place.

      When we ignore these timelines which are stated in scripture; everything then SEEMS to be a mystery.

      It is clearly stated in the book of Daniel that 62 weeks in prophesy is the same as approx 568 years on this plane of existence.

      Ignore this fact; ...  and enjoy the mystery which is created.

  38. Jerami profile image79
    Jeramiposted 4 years ago

    Rev 13:7 ...  and it was given unto him    to make war with the saints and to   OVERCOME THEM; and power was given unto him over all kindreds, and tongues and nations.

      His victory was God given according to our book.
      His victory does not prove his rightiousness.

      And many of the very elect might be fooled.
      They will break Gods laws thinking they are doing Gods will.

      And maybe they are ?

  39. 0
    Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago

    Sorry this is so long, at least read the bold and colored parts (if you want)

    There was suppose to be and there was only twelve Apostles.


    Many Christians believe that Paul was God's chosen replacement for Judas Iscariot who betrayed Yahshua and fell from his office as one of the twelve apostles. Some even teach that Peter was wrong to call the Messianic believers together to choose a replacement for Judas.

    This they support with the argument that Peter did it before Pentecost. They assert that Peter was "in the flesh", out of line, and without the authority to do such a thing. Some have even tried to compare Peter to Abraham, and his choice for a replacement apostle to Ishmael, whom God likewise rejected and instead chose Paul for the job. Naturally, when it comes to accusing Peter of error, these teachers who are willing to say Peter was wrong in choosing a replacement for Judas, never consider the possibility that Peter was wrong about Paul.

    The title of "apostle", as it is used in the NT, has been redefined  exclusively by Paul and Luke to include anyone who believes they are a divinely appointed messenger sent out into the world.
    No other writers in the NT ever refer to anyone other than the twelve as "apostles". Whether one believes that the office of apostle extends beyond the original twelve and Judas' replacement or not... it is apparent from the book of Revelation and Yahshua's own words that there are a specific twelve who are also referred to as "the apostles of the Lamb".

        Now the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. Revelation 21:14

    And here is something important to note that Yahshua said to his followers.

        "Assuredly I say to you, that in the regeneration, when the Son of Man sits on the throne of His Glory, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Matthew 19:28

    Bear in mind that there were over a hundred others besides the twelve "apostles" who followed Yahshua and were called "disciples". Many of them were there and heard these words when Yahshua spoke them to the twelve. Paul was not one of them! 
    So, if Judas Iscariot's name is not one of the twelve whose names are on the foundations of the city and will judge a tribe of Israel, and Paul is a false apostle who presumptuously took the title "apostle" to himself... the question remains, who is number twelve?


    Peter calls for a replacement for Judas

    We need to take a close look at the meeting where Peter calls for a replacement for Judas. Again, notice that this event is deemed necessary precisely because it was understood that there must be twelve apostles, no more, and no less.

          “And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples (altogether the number of names was about a hundred and twenty), and said, "Men and brethren, this Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke before by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Yahshua; for he was numbered with us and obtained a part in this ministry." ...
         "For it is written in the book of Psalms; 'Let his habitation be desolate, and let no one live it'; and, 'Let another take his office.' "Therefore, of these men who have accompanied us all the time that the Master, Yahshua, went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John to that day when He was taken up from us, one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection."  Acts 1;15-17, 20-22

    Peter is very serious about filling the office with a qualified person. In a detailed manner he lays out exactly what the replacement's qualifications must be. The prospective apostle had to have accompanied the other apostles the entire time, from the time that John baptized Yahshua, all the way through to Yahshua's ascension.  He had to have been there, and seen and heard everything they saw and heard. This was the minimum criteria that Peter insisted be met by a prospect. If a  prospect who met these requirements had more knowledge of Yahshua , like from before His baptism, this would no doubt have been considered a bonus. We must also keep in mind that Peter was looking for someone who would be a good witness. It would be pointless to choose someone to be witness who wouldn't tell! This would require that a prospect demonstrate having a propensity to tell of what he had seen and heard, and the more willing the better. So it would not be out of the question for a replacement to be more qualified in this regard than some of the remaining eleven! t

    The fact that Peter required the would-be apostle to have been there also fits with what Yahshua had said in Matthew 19:28 as quoted above. He said,


    Yahshua Stated
    "You who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones..."
    Paul never followed Yahshua. While the others were following Yahshua, Paul was killing his disciples

    The hard fact of the matter is that Paul had not been there. He didn't walk with Yahshua those three and a half years and therefore could not be considered a legitimate candidate to replace Judas as one of the twelve by either Peter's or Yahshua's criterion. The replacement had to have been there learning from Yahshua.


        “And they proposed two: Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias, And they prayed and said, "You , O Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which of these two You have chosen to take part in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place." And they cast their lots, and the lot fell on Matthias. And he was numbered with the eleven apostles. Acts 1:23-26”

    Out of all those present, they had reduced the number of possible prospects to two. These were considered the very best candidates. Both were well qualified in the eyes of the eleven. They could have made the choice between the two themselves and I believe their choice would have been recognized in heaven. Yahshua had given Peter and the other apostles that much authority when He said to them;

         "Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. Again I say to you that if two of you agree on earth concerning anything that they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in my name, I am there in the midst of them." Matthew 18:18-20 

    But they desired that the Lord make the final choice between the two.

    there in the midst of them." Matthew 18:18-20 

    The casting of lots to discern God's will is also not without precedence. They were very familiar with the priest's use of Urim and Thummim to determine God's will... as well as the story of Jonah and the terrified sailors who cast the lot which God caused to indicate Jonah as the source of their problem.

    there in the midst of them." Matthew 18:18-20 

    On an issue as important as determining who the twelfth apostle should be, their desire to seek God's opinion would not have gone unnoticed in heaven. They prayed and cast lots and the lot fell on Matthias. The answer to the question of who is the twelfth apostle... is Matthias!

    1. brotheryochanan profile image60
      brotheryochananposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Praying is fine.. but i do not see casting lots as being a NT practice ordained of God. Yes they used it in the OT, like what, twice?
      They should have waited for the answer but instead Peter just got up, before the holy spirit fell upon him and jumped the gun again. And we get a guy we never heard of or hear of .. If God wanted 12 apostles he would have 12 apostles. There was really no reason to be hasty.

      1. 0
        Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

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

        I'm sure they and God forgot to ask you permission.

        You don't understand that divination is not telling the future.

        Casting lots It is getting an answer from God, the quickest way. It is not wrong.

        I'm sure you will forgive God for answering them that way, won't you.

        I'm done with you. You need to grow up as far as debating.
        And you need to find God.

      2. 0
        Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        *********

        God had always picked Mathais, the Apostles just didn't know which it was.
        The prophecy had to come to pass, therefore Judas was chosen for awhile. This could not be revealed to the others at the time.

        A guy you never heard of? Wow.

        Yes, it would have been better to place the hateful murderer as the 12th one.

        Goodbye. You have a long way to go. Yet you think you are a scholar

        1. brotheryochanan profile image60
          brotheryochananposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I'm not feeling the love of God here deborah.
          I try to put out this information without personal jabs and pokes but you don't seem to be able to do that, either do you respond in an efficient way.

          It saved a lot of lives to turn paul around, is this not mercy?

          Paul was not a hateful murderer, he was a pharisee who thought he was doing Gods work, persecuting the Christians, and he did it efficiently and effectively. He did not accept Jesus as messiah. After conversion he wanted so desperately to preach the gospel to the jews after all, he was versed in the OT and educated at the school of Gamaliel, a pharisee, son of a pharisee. But God said, NO. you will go to the gentiles. Is this not also how God works?

          Enough with your assumptions just stick to debate. I am sorry that all your posts have another side evidenced by scripture that you think is all lies.
          I do not need to ask permission from God at all. I do thank Him for what he shows me. We are trying to bring you persuasive evidence that your beliefs about Paul are unfounded.

          How do you backup your claim that God had always picked matthias? There are lists in the gospels of the apostles Matthew 10:2-4, Mark 3:14-19, luke 6:13-16 and matthias is not mentioned in any of them.

  40. 0
    Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago

    I would like at least one Christian to show me in scripture that the law does not have to be followed.

    Please, no quotes that Paul made.

    1. brotheryochanan profile image60
      brotheryochananposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      There are already some on this page.

      Mark 2:27   And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:

      1. 0
        Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

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

        Wow! That doesn't say anything about the law.

        1. recommend1 profile image70
          recommend1posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Be gentle with him, he has totally lost any credibility in this thread, at least leave him his random, pointless lines of verse.

          1. brotheryochanan profile image60
            brotheryochananposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            boo hoo
            its not a quote from Paul
            and the sabbath is part of the 10 commandments.

            again you are wrong.
            sound of the buzzer!

            Your assuming smear campaign is read by all i hope you realize. I know my words are true but have you looked at the validity of yours? This post here mirrors you more than me.

        2. brotheryochanan profile image60
          brotheryochananposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Its another kick at the law to be placed among the other kicks at the law in a cumulative persuasion that the law is not operable. Sister Brenda said it well prior.

          When christians say the law is done away with, or its not in effect this is a christianese term. We know that God is holy and that he dislikes sinful activity but we don't infer that we can do whatever we want. We still need to conform to Gods holiness. And this conformity is accomplished by the work of his spirit in us. God convicts us of wrongdoing and as we walk with Him, he teaches us. But what we don't do, is put ourselves under the law, we don't make ourselves adhere to each jot and tittle because this is not the path of love that jesus is all about. God takes us step by step so that the things we did 2 yrs ago we no longer do today and what we do now we won't do in 2 more yrs and when we finish the race we will be much different people than what we were at the beginning; this is the grace of God and while we are growing we, by faith believe that He will guide us faithfully into that which He has for us.

          1. Disappearinghead profile image88
            Disappearingheadposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Well said.

          2. 0
            Gusserposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Jot or tittle--great choice of words.  Jesus used them saying "not 1 jot or tittle of the law was changed. OOPSY

            1. brotheryochanan profile image60
              brotheryochananposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              dotting the i's and crossing the t's.

        3. brotheryochanan profile image60
          brotheryochananposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Sabbath is not part of the 10 commandments.

          oh wow
          gotta link for that?

          and it wasn't a quote from Paul.

    2. Disappearinghead profile image88
      Disappearingheadposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Acts 15:

       5 Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.”

       6 The apostles and elders met to consider this question. 7 After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8 God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9 He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10 Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? 11 No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”

       19 “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood.

       22 Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, men who were leaders among the believers. 23 With them they sent the following letter:
         The apostles and elders, your brothers,

         To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia:

         Greetings.

       24 We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. 25 So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul— 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. 28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.

      As Peter said, I am justified by faith in Jesus who shows no distinction between Jew and Gentile and offers His spirit to both. I cannot be justified by following the law.

      Although Jesus said that not one stroke of the pen shall be removed from the law, he also stated that he came to the lost sheep of Israel. Therefore as I'm an Englishman and a gentile dog he was not addressing me and thus the law is not my heritage and I am not under it.

      Therefore I shall continue to enjoy bacon butties, prawn vindaloo, and wearing ladies clothing, with a clear conscience.

      1. 0
        Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

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

        There are 613 laws given to Israel. They were not Required by the Gentiles.(like washing their hands, shaving their head etc.)  But they still have to obey the ten commandments and the 4 laws the Apostles gave them.

        The Elders really debated about the laws and like Moses, who allowed divorce with a bill of divorcement, because the hardness of their hearts, the Apostles gave in.
        No law was done away with.

        1. Disappearinghead profile image88
          Disappearingheadposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Although I agree the 10 commandments are perfectly valid and I have no problem following them, technically they were only given to Israel.

          1. 0
            Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

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

            In the Acts 15 you gave before.

            It Says in Essence

            They should know the ten commandments (laws of Moses) because they are preached every sabbath everywhere..We'll give them a few more (4) though

            Acts 15

            20. But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

            21. For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.

            1. Disappearinghead profile image88
              Disappearingheadposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              OK fair point.

              1. 0
                Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

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

                Give me a chance. Please don't totally reject me yet.

                I know you have a good heart.

                1. Disappearinghead profile image88
                  Disappearingheadposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  No worries, I respect what you write here.

        2. brotheryochanan profile image60
          brotheryochananposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          You mean this whole thread is about JUST and ONLY the 10 commandments? (and the 4 given in the jerusalem council)

    3. handyman22 profile image82
      handyman22posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Deborah what great enthusiasm you have and understanding. Jesus in no way did away with the law. Jesus clearly says, " I did not come to destroy the law but to fulfill or complete the law." If you believe what he said the law along with his teachings was complete. This makes anything Paul says or anyone else irrelevant. Jesus added more understanding of the law. Unfortunately over time HIs words have been twisted to reflect the doctrine of Paul. Paul teaches a convenience theology filled with misrepresentations and lies. It is impossible to do away with the law because it is a moral guide that exist for every human on the face of the earth. When it is not followed the wrath of God becomes self evident. I published a page specifically on the topic at http://www.jesusism.net/jesus_pharisees.html If you would like to take another view of this. Also this issue of adultery no one can hide from this law.

      1. 0
        Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

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

        Thank you. You are correct. I feel bad for those who are blind, but happy for those who can see.

        Some think this is an arguement or a debate, and really it's God talking to them.

        I will read your article.

  41. dmop profile image86
    dmopposted 4 years ago

    If we call ourselves Christians should the teachings of Christ not override those of any other teacher. I have said this for years, I am so glad that I have stubled upon (no pun intended) this Hub, thank you so much for writing it. Jesus also taught that a teacher of Gods devine word should not accept payment for his teachings, yet nearly all preachers are paid, many of them become rich from the contributions from their followers, which are ment to help the less fortunate.

    1. 0
      Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Thank you, I'm glad you found us too.

      Paul was accused of taking money for his services and admitted to it.

      1. brotheryochanan profile image60
        brotheryochananposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Yes by a gentile church that was asked to give to a jewish church - during the famine of that time.
        The gentile church was not giving at all to anyone. Paul and titus did not get any aid while they preached.

        1 Corinthians 16:17   I am glad of the coming of Stephanas and Fortunatus and Achaicus: for that which was lacking on your part they have supplied.

        We notice that they were having problems with giving of their stuff and Paul rebukes them for that, saying they miss the spirit of christ - which is true. And although Jesus says, carry script nor purse and don't wear two coats etc. Support has to come from somewhere. And jesus said to take care of other peoples needs.

        Just because Paul was accused of it, doesn't make it real.
        I think the real contention here was a gentile greek church giving to a jewish church. James led rather a compromising church.  He asked Paul to be purified after the manner of the jews, which Paul did, again this is Paul saying that I am become to all men all things that some might be saved. Which is that lie he said about.

        Romans 3:7   For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?

        I seriously doubt, if i were a betting man i would bet against it that Paul dealt deceitfully with anybody.

  42. cadebe profile image71
    cadebeposted 4 years ago

    Matthew 5:17 - "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets, I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

    The laws had been misquoted, misinterpreted and turned into confusing sets of rules.  Jesus brought people back to the law's original purpose.  That said, I don't think Paul advocated doing away with the law.  In Romans 10:4, Paul writes that Christ is the end of the law but my interpretation of that statement falls along Christ being one's true savior and not the law.  Also, Christ fulfills the goals of the law because He exemplified God's desires on earth. In the same book of Romans, chapter 2, Paul admonishes those who know the law and attempt to judge others by it, but do not live by it themselves.

    1. brotheryochanan profile image60
      brotheryochananposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Nice cadebe
      The law became their god and the doing of the law their justification.
      Oh if i sacrifice and if i pray 3 times a day, If i avoid shellfish, and if i do no work on the sabbath, God will be pleased with me.
      But there was no reliance on God Himself there was reliance on a set of rules to get a person there. And nobody fulfilled it perfectly because they became legalists and not lovers.

      1. 0
        Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

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

        That was true of only the Pharisees..One Sect..Don't Lump all Jews together.
        Yahshua came for the Jews.
        Anytime Yahshua mentions this he is speaking to them

      2. 0
        Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

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

        You have the love of God?

        According to Yahshua and others, your works do justify you.

        Matthew 16:27
        For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works

        1. brotheryochanan profile image60
          brotheryochananposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          The Pharisees controlled the people and were the major religious group of the time. What they said was gold. People are work oriented: do this and that and you'll get this and that. All our lives we are taught that our work, effort will get us what we want, when in reality it is God who gives the increase.

          But we need to distinguish between the works in God and the works outside of God.
          The pharisees loved long prayers etc. People can feed the starving and donate money till the cows come home, BUT if their faith is in their works those works are dead. We must have no substitute for Christ and faith in nothing else but Him. We must do the works that He wants us to do and not lean to our own efforts. This is where the law became a stumbling block. As with Job - his works justified him to God or so he thought.
          Which is what i said earlier.

          Am i supposed to see your love of God in these posts?

  43. 0
    Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago

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

    What those of God say about the law.

    1 John 5

    2. By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.

    3. For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.


    1 Chronicles 28:8
    Now therefore in the sight of all Israel the congregation of the LORD, and in the audience of our God, keep and seek for all the commandments of the LORD your God: that ye may possess this good land, and leave it for an inheritance for your children after you for ever.

    2 Chronicles 7:14
    If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.


    Yahshua never did away with nor destroyed the law. Yahshua never taught they did not have to obey the law.
    That’s why a lot of People like Paul, he taught lawlessness.

    They know that if they recognize Paul as a FALSE apostle, they will have to obey the law,

    1. Disappearinghead profile image88
      Disappearingheadposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Paul did not teach lawlessness. He taught that following the law instead of God does not justify us. Faith in Jesus who is the fulfilment of the law justifies us. Thus one who has faith in Jesus will not live as one who is lawless even if they do not consciously follow the law.

      1. 0
        Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

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

        You can't follow the Laws without following God.

        The Pharisees cared about the lesser laws of tradition instead of the things that took love.

        Paul taught Lawlessness. I'll be posting those scriptures

        1. brotheryochanan profile image60
          brotheryochananposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Obviously you can follow the laws without following God. Doesn't mean you will be successful.

          Matthew 19:20   The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?

          Luke 18:21   And he said, All these have I kept from my youth up.

          The Pharisees cared about the (heavy) weightier and (lighter) lesser matters of the law yes. They had the whole thing worked out.
          But the law became a 'curse' to them in that it only pointed out what sin was, but gave them not the wisdom nor the insight to keep the law.
          We can use curse like the word albatross in that sentence or we can use curse the way the Hebrews used curse... to place a curse on someone by muttering or speaking. In this case the law spoke to them of sin and they could not measure up.

          Paul did not teach lawlessness

          Romans 6:15   What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.

          Take that out of context if you can

  44. 0
    Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago

    Like some of you,
    Paul said the law is a curse

    Galatians 3:10
    For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse:

    But
    John says you are cursed if you don't know the law.

    John 7:49
    But this people who knoweth not the law are cursed.

  45. 0
    Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago

    If I bring home a chair made of wood, I don't say "have a seat on the tree"
    I say "sit in the chair"

    The scriptures say Yahshua died on a cross. They asked another to carry it for him.

    But Paul said Yahshua died on a tree. He never said cross.

    He did this so people would think that Yahshua was cursed

    Galatians 3:13
    Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

    1. Disappearinghead profile image88
      Disappearingheadposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      You argue Paul was a false prophet etc... What do you believe his agenda was? Why would he want to 'distort' what Jesus taught? What was he going to gain when he was continuously beaten, put in prison, and finally executed for his preachings? Do you simply not believe in his conversion on the road to Damascus?

      1. 0
        Gusserposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        If Satan was his master--destroying the teachings of Messiah was his goal. Deceiving  as many as possible,.

        1. brotheryochanan profile image60
          brotheryochananposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          We can surmise all we want about IFS, but the question is not, IF; the question is what did happen. Read the bible and find out that 'if satan anything', is not the question to ask.

      2. Jerami profile image79
        Jeramiposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        "IF" Paul was a False teacher; he might not have even known that he was.      Could Satan have appeared to Paul on the road to Damascus?
          I would think that many "False Prophets" are sincere in believing that they are one.
          The deception might not have been on Paul but through him.
        I have known many people that thought they were doing a good thing always; even though they left a wake of destruction behind, every where they go.

          As Jesus said on the cross; forgive them for they know not what they do.

          If we are going to believe what is written in scripture, we must also believe that Satan is able to fool many of the very elect.                   Are we or Paul any less likely to be fooled as Judas was.
          My question would not be so much  “IF”  Paul was a deceiver,  But why, at the council of Nicaea, did they choose Paul’s letters first and foremost above all of the others available?

          It is Gods will that all prophesy be fulfilled exactly as foretold. 
        And I think that Paul’s teachings were but one (possibly the first) of many stepping stones which brought many prophesy to fulfillment.

          If we could prevent even one of the end time prophesy from happening; would we be doing Gods will?

        1. 0
          Gusserposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          The Bible says Satan & his Demons CAN appear as ministery of light.

        2. brotheryochanan profile image60
          brotheryochananposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Acts 9:17   And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost

          Acts 13:2   As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, "Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work where unto I have called them".

          Biblically speaking, Jesus appeared to Paul - as i have said before - A work of sheer brilliance!

          1. 0
            Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

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

            Written by Luke, Peters best friend. Not evidence.

            The evidence that he was a false prophet is that he did not meet the requirements to be one.

            1. brotheryochanan profile image60
              brotheryochananposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              what is the definition of apostle according to the greek words??

              I do not agree that just because peter said.. taken from among these who have been from the beginning is a qualification.

              [I do not see casting lots as a disciples approved way of getting answer from God. I see prayer as being the pattern.
                --- sidenote ---
              (You mentioned The urim and thummin which are stones on the ephod  of the priests robe which shone when the lord was with them. It was not an instrument of divination. The consultation of the urim and thummin was just to look at it. If it shone, God was with, if not, God was not with them.)]

              -I can see that being witness to the resurrection is important.   Which Paul saw a resurrected Christ.
              -being taught by Jesus is important. Which Paul was during his 3 days of blindness - God had his full attention.
              -And being sent by God.    My verse above shows that God sent him.
              -Paul was baptized in the Holy Ghost and as a pentecostal i know what that means. Jesus was baptized in the Holy Ghost before his ministry began.

              But lets just say Luke is lying also.. that the NT if full of lies and lets just read the OT. Anybody can say there are lies all around but! what does the evidence suggest?

              You need to respond in more detail the evidence against your claims because i see you are on the ropes to put it nicely.

      3. 0
        Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

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

        The same reason he was murdering them. He wanted to kill and/or lead away from what Yahshua taught.

        1. Disappearinghead profile image88
          Disappearingheadposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I appreciate his motive to lead people from Yashua whilst he was murdering Christians, but why the change of tack suddenly on the way to Damascus? If you doubt the conversion, then we are left with the idea that he though the best way to lead people away from Yashua was to pretend to be a Christian. This to me seems to require considerably more effort on his part than murdering them and is likely to be less productive, as the millions of people who have come to faith in Yashua (many strongly influenced by what they perceive to be good Pauline teaching) testify.

          1. brotheryochanan profile image60
            brotheryochananposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Now Luke sucks also....
            There is no end
            I see her ideology fall like lightning

    2. brotheryochanan profile image60
      brotheryochananposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Acts 5:30   The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.  (Luke repeating Peters words)

      1 Peter 2:24   Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.   (Peter)

      the word tree both times is the same greek word. G3586 - stick, club or tree or other wooden article or substance.
      Interlinear says wood, pole.

      Peter is speaking both times. It seems Peter likes to call it a tree, but in the verse you quote, Paul is quoting the Old Testament.

      A huge number of times, cross is translated. Majorly, of course, by Paul.
      I think it safe to assume that Paul taught cross, while Peter used tree and I think tree is used to drive a point home of what happened when God placed his hands on Jesus head, pronounced the sins of the world upon that flesh sacrifice in accordance with sacrificial custom.

      1. 0
        Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

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

        Peter did not write 2 Peter and their is evidence 1Peter was altered.

        So you agree, Yahshua was cursed. If I was God, I would spew you from my mouth.

        1. brotheryochanan profile image60
          brotheryochananposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I reread my post and i did not say God was cursed. Enough of the legalism and show some understanding will ya. You assume to much.

          Now i said peter used tree and Paul once in quoting the OT. I did not say that i agree and i am sure if I did explaining it to you would be extremely difficult. I am on the fence. I can see where it might apply and i can see that is a bit harsh. So i just gave you the examples in the NT to let you sort it out. Not so you could make an assumption and try to pin something on me again.

          If Peters words are tree in acts 5 why do you think Paul altered Peters words in Peters letters? Since peter seems to agree with tree, how does that add credibility to your private interpretation that Paul altered Peters letter?   Got a link for that?
          We know that Mark wrote his gospel from Peters words, so if mark wrote peters words for the gospel, how does Peter not writing his letters make 2 peter less credible? In other words, if Peter, a fisherman by trade, does not write his own gospel what makes you think he should write his own letter? And that, by his not writing 2 peter or 1 also, i suppose; How does this make the content of 1 and 2 peter contentious? Is there not room to suppose that Peter dictated his letter to another as he did the gospel of mark?

          And since Paul died before 2 Peter was written how could Paul have altered it.
          The first words of 1 Peter are as follows: I PETER, an apostle of Jesus Christ... So is Peter lying? or did you miss that?
          In 2 Peter, Peter writes:
          2 Peter 3:1   This second epistle, beloved, I NOW WRITE unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance:

          1 Peter was altered.
          1 Peter 5:12   By Silvanus, a faithful brother unto you, as I suppose, I have written briefly, exhorting, and testifying that this is the true grace of God wherein ye stand.
          Is this what you mean?

          In both aspects of your accusations i find your hypothesis lacks support.

          So now peters letters and lukes letters and Pauls letters are not good enough?
          You spin a large web to pander your wears.
          Are matthew and mark and john okay?
          I guess you would have to rule out johns gospel because he shows a deified christ. And a tax collector how in the world could you trust him?

          Yashua was cursed during the cup of the wrath of God, so the story goes. It was the OT Priestly duty to lay their hands on the animal to be sacrificed and put upon the animal the sins of the animal, thus placing curses on the animal.  Do you not know about curses don't you rabbi?
          The reason things hung on a tree are cursed is because the blood remains in the body, like a thing strangled. Do you not know this also rabbi?

          No wonder God came to the gentiles.
          God going to the gentiles is Nobel prize material!

          1. 0
            JoelMcLendonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I tend to agree with Deborah that you make up stuff to prove your points. Where did you learn that Paul died before 2 Peter was written?

            According to the Scholars  Peter died a martyr's death in Rome under the persecution of Emperor Nero around the same time of Paul's second imprisonment in Rome.

            Peter died before Paul

            As far as Luke he wrote what Paul told him because he wasn't there at the time.

            Since he was not an eyewitness he didn't know what was true and what wasn't. Luke was a Gentile

            1. brotheryochanan profile image60
              brotheryochananposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Its called research

              Of course you are not going to get  talk about Paul before chapter 9 and Paul did not dictate anything to Luke prior to his conversion. I wonder what parts Paul did dictate to Luke.. since Luke states that he is so very thorough in being precise:

                Luke 1:1   Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
                Luke 1:2   Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
                Luke 1:3   It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
                Luke 1:4   That thou might know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

              Luke writes Acts to the same fellow:
              Acts 1:1   The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach,

              So now you want me to think that Luke is lying to the guy he wrote to before. Sorry not buying it.
              What parts did Paul dictate to Luke? Was Paul in the upper room? NO in fact Paul is not on the scene until chapter 9 then he is in Arabia for 3 yrs.. he travels... but there is evidence that Luke is with Paul when Luke uses 'We' to refer to himself in Acts.

                Acts 20:5   These going before tarried for US at Troas.
                Acts 20:6   And WE sailed away from Philippi after the days of unleavened bread, and came unto them to Troas in five days; where WE abode seven days.
                 Acts 20:13   And WE went before to ship, and sailed unto Assos, there intending to take in Paul: for so had he appointed, minding himself to go afoot.
                 Acts 20:14   And when he (PAUL) met with us at Assos, WE took him in, and came to Mitylene. 

              Luke travels with Paul and spends time with Paul. So your uninformed assumption that he was not an eyewitness is wrong. Sorry. There are more instances of Luke referring to himself but these are the earliest accounts. So what parts of Acts did Paul tell Luke? and as Luke is very efficient in his documentational abilities, are we to just assume that Luke ignored other input? I do not think so.
              Luke was a gentile, a doctor, a learned man.
              God invited the gentiles so whats the smear there.. racial prejudice? I certainly hope not.

          2. 0
            JoelMcLendonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Mr.Yochanan
            There are many other sites you can read but Wikipedia here

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Epistle_of_Peter
            explains that the scholars do not believe Peter wrote 2 Peter.

            Challenging authorship
            Main article: Authorship of the Petrine epistles
            Two sides of the Papyrus Bodmer VIII. This Papyrus today is the oldest source to the Second Epistle of Peter

            Although 2 Peter internally purports to be a work of the apostle, most biblical scholars have concluded that Peter is not the author and consider the epistle pseudepigraphical.[3] Reasons for this include its linguistic differences from 1 Peter, its apparent use of Jude, possible allusions to 2nd-century gnosticism, encouragement in the wake of a delayed parousia, and weak external support.[4]

            Find more reasons here

            http://newapologia.com/who-wrote-2-peter/


            The most persuasive reason from the above website is that Peter refers to Paul’s letters as scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16). It is unlikely Paul’s letters were collected and considered scripture while Peter was alive.


            If Paul didn't write it, a Pauline follower did.

            Deborah is showing much love and patience. She's giving you something for your salvation and some of you are just hateful to her. I applaud her for continuing.
            Though there is a time to stop, and she has.

            1. brotheryochanan profile image60
              brotheryochananposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              And the fact that pauls letters were in circulation throughout the churches means they were not taken seriously. I don't think so.
              Now we have a letter that says peter wrote it, but he didn't. Yet the use of the word tree is consistent with Acts use of tree in Peters speech in Acts 2.
              What a convenient hypothesis.
              Psuedopigrapha cover the time span of 200bc to 200ad. Of the list of those books from many many sites I have never ever seen 2 Peter listed so i doubt MOST scholars believe 2 peter to be psuedopigrapha.

              It certainly does not have the style and flow of a psuedopigrapha book. It has the more sober and direct style of canon.

              Most scholars you write - I would like to debate that word most. We can always find scholars that say this and that. These days anybody can get a doctorate in any field of study and because of that we have a large left wing NT branch of radical scholars. What is their motive. We must be very careful when taking information from even people with letters after their names.

              1 Peter 5:12   By Silvanus, a faithful brother unto you, as I suppose, I have written briefly, exhorting, and testifying that this is the true grace of God wherein ye stand.
              A fellow by the name of Silvanus had a hand in writing 1 peter so how should not 2 peter be different?

              So no i don't agree with you turning to wikipedia because it says what you want it to say. Normally i don't use wiki if i do its only because occasionally they have some extra info, but i enjoy better citation sites and use a large number of different sites - never atheist sites because those are just off the wall ridiculous.

              I am sure you applaud rabbi deborahs efforts but you still look beyond the evidence in opposition.

              Glad she stopped and now, how about you?

              1. handyman22 profile image82
                handyman22posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Why do you believe what men say, they distort the truth just like Satan did when he tempted Jesus with scripture? Jesus Christ teaches to look beyond what men say and to see what truly exist in their hearts that bears witness in their actions. Men support doctrine that supports their own ideals wanting things to be the way they want rather than the way they are.

                1. 0
                  Emile Rposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Although I tend to agree with the OP, in all fairness to BO; that works all the way around. Everyone sees what they want to when it comes to religious texts; and they claim it as truth because it's the truth they want to see. You can hardly blame a man for arguing his case.....however poorly it might be supported by your perception of reality

                2. brotheryochanan profile image60
                  brotheryochananposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I see your conundrum.
                  Your way of thinking states that no man can be correct. It is not logical to assume that no one can be correct.

                  If we could just look into peoples hearts life would be easier, but there is only one who can do that. For us to know a persons heart takes a long time and this is only perceived surfacely through various experiences.

                  But man can be correct. Interpretation can be correct.
                  In your way of thinking you do greatly err, not knowing the scriptures (for many are quite evident in meaning) and not knowing the power of God and that he is prone to revealing his word to those who DO NOT just want to see what THEY want to see - not all people assess the word according to their own criteria. When you judge this you judge amiss and descry an innocent person sundry times.

                  1. handyman22 profile image82
                    handyman22posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    If  a man is all knowing as you say is possible then he is acting as though he is God himself or believes others have all the answers then he believes that person is His God. This happens way to much in our society. By believing in men as God there is no reason for a person to have God in their lives. This is exactly what Eve did you are doing the same thing as Eve did Thus making your beliefs to be like Gods but not be that of God.

  46. 2besure profile image83
    2besureposted 4 years ago

    Great point Gusser!

  47. Druid Dude profile image60
    Druid Dudeposted 4 years ago

    Jesus said: I come not to bring peace, but division. Paul and Peter were the means of the division. I include Peter here, because it is clearly demonstrated in the gospels that he had no clue what Jesus was saying. Jesus said: Peter, you are a rock, and upon this rock I will build my church.      A rock can't hear, a rock can't see, and a rock has no understanding. If the church, or temple is the body, what then was Jesus saying he was going to build upon the rock?

    1. brotheryochanan profile image60
      brotheryochananposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      In context:
        Luke 12:51   Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:
        Luke 12:52   For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three.
        Luke 12:53   The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

      Nowhere can you insinuate that God is gonna raise up a false prophet to bring division.
      Let me repeat a rule for determining meaning ... use the verses around the text to add context to what you are trying to figure out.

      Secondly, the scripture about Peter goes like this:
      Matthew 16:18   And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

      Thou are Peter and upon THIS rock... this is quite strange wording for saying that Peter is the rock. So what is the rock?
        Matthew 16:16   And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. (this is Peters confession)
        Matthew 16:17   And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. 
      The part in bold is confirmation that the confession is what is important here. The part underlines shows it is a revelation.

      Jesus is going to build his church upon the confession that:
      "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God."

      and what is going to bring that division?
      .. to paraphrase.. belief in Jesus as Messiah

      so two strikes to add to those others strikes, but it's nice that you gave it a shot. Keep workin on it.

  48. Jerami profile image79
    Jeramiposted 4 years ago

    2Ti 3:16  Every Scripture is God-breathed (given by His inspiration) and profitable for instruction...

      He was talking about scripture as it existed at that time.
      The apostles did not consider their letters to each other to be holy scripture.
      So what was he talking about as being Holy scripture?

      It was the council of Nicaea,  which validate these letters and these "only" to be the ONLY inspired word of GOD.
      Everything else was worthy of the bond fire. …..     I don't think so.

      I don't feel like I am questioning GOD when I question the truthfulness of those who picked and chose what would be considered to be the "ONLY Inspired Word of God.
      In fact God instructs us to do so.

      I think that it is written that GOD said to place our faith in NO man, for they will disappoint us.

    1. 0
      Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

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

      Correct

    2. brotheryochanan profile image60
      brotheryochananposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      We need the previous verse to get 2 tim 3:16 in proper context.
      2 Timothy 3:15   And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
        2 Timothy 3:16   All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness

      New Testament letters were not written "from a child".  So the OT is what is being talked about as scripture. But also notice the OT will make you wise up to salvation... but what then? The OT predicts christ over and over again.. but what then? Once saved... then what?

      But is there credence to the NT letters. Absolutely! We have apostolic eyewitness declaration. We have an early time frame. We have 58,000 manuscripts that recite verses over. Apparently if we got rid of all the greek manuscripts we could still write a NT from texts from surrounding countries. We have usage: the originals old and worn from use and circulation throughout the churches. Copies of copies - not rewrites.

      In short testimony from holy men under influence of the Holy spirit, all verifying their beliefs and backing each other up. Those who knew Christ and Hebrews - who ever authored that.

      And like i have said the canon of the OT and NT could not be stopped. The NT is apostolic and used and the contents verify and support one another.

      If we can trust scientists and journalists and newspapers to print the truth how can we ignore holy men writing about the God they worship?

      1. 0
        Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

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

        You said the book of Peter said Christ hung on tree.
        Paul said the person who hangs from a tree is cursed.
        So pointing out that the book of Peter says this, you agree with Paul.Keep up will you.

        I get tired of posting the same stuff over and over. Explaining very plainly but having people not understand.

        How do you think you understand the bible when you can't put two and two together

        1. brotheryochanan profile image60
          brotheryochananposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          lol
          more arrows

          I said the book of Peter said.... where does this mean i say? When i say, i say.
          clearly you are on the ropes and frantically trying anything.
          I explained myself clearly.
          try to keep up rabbi

  49. 0
    Virgil Newsomeposted 4 years ago

    Jesus> Joh 5:21  For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.
    Paul> 1Co 15:22  For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
    _______________________________________________________________________________
    Jesus> Mat 6:25  Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?
    Paul> Php 4:6  Be careful for nothing; but in every thing by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God.
    _______________________________________________________________________________
    Jesus> Joh 10:11  I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.
    Paul> Eph 5:2  And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour

    _______________________________________________________________________________
    Jesus> Joh 8:58  Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
    Paul> Col 2:9  For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
    Php 2:5  Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
    Php 2:6  Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
    Php 2:7  But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
    Php 2:8  And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

    _______________________________________________________________________________
    Jesus>Mat 6:14  For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you:
    Paul>Eph 4:32  And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you.
    _______________________________________________________________________________
    Jesus> Joh 14:6  Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
    Paul>1Ti 2:5  For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
    _______________________________________________________________________________
    Jesus> Mat 5:17  Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
    Paul> Rom 3:31  Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.
    Gal 3:17  And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.
    _______________________________________________________________________________
    Jesus> Mat 19:18  He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
    Mat 19:19  Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
    Paul> Rom 13:8  Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.
    Rom 13:9  For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
    Rom 13:10  Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
    _______________________________________________________________________________

    Jesus>Mat 19:11  But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.
    Joh 6:37  All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
    Joh 6:44  No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
    Joh 6:65  And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
    Paul> Eph 1:5  Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
    Eph 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:
    _______________________________________________________________________________
    Jesus>Mat 17:22  And while they abode in Galilee, Jesus said unto them, The Son of man shall be betrayed into the hands of men:
    Mat 17:23  And they shall kill him, and the third day he shall be raised again. And they were exceeding sorry. 1Co 15:3  For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
    Paul>1Co 15:4  And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

    1. brotheryochanan profile image60
      brotheryochananposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Nice post
      well done

    2. Dave Mathews profile image60
      Dave Mathewsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Virgil: You bring some very important scripture to the foreground here. Thank you. I see the comparison as well as agreement in the scripture.

    3. 0
      Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

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

      Virgil Newsome wrote:
      You said

      Jesus>Mat 19:11  But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.
      Joh 6:37  All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
      Joh 6:44  No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
      Joh 6:65  And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
      Paul> Eph 1:5  Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
      Eph 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:


      Jesus was not talking about predestination. He was speaking of the drawing of the Holy Spirit. Being chosen in the present time.

      If Yahshua died for sins as your church says, and we are predestined for heaven or hell..why did he go through all that. What did it change?

      1. brotheryochanan profile image60
        brotheryochananposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Are you sure deborah

        The drawing of the Holy spirit is what brings people to Him. So how is this different from being predestinated to be the sons/children of God?

        You need to look at his evidence again.
        What about the other 9? will you not answer to them also?

        When you say IF jesus died for our sins are you now not accepting what john the baptist said:
            John 1:29   The next day John sees Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which takes away the sin of the world.

        1. brotheryochanan profile image60
          brotheryochananposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          no comment i see

          1. 0
            JoelMcLendonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Mr. Yummy
            You knew she wasn't coming back here, so why the question of No answer?
            DH

          2. 0
            JoelMcLendonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Plenty of difference.

            Your God is evil if he predestines people.
            We serve the God of Israel, not your God.

            1. brotheryochanan profile image60
              brotheryochananposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              was moses predestinated? If so then your god is evil also
              how about jeremiah? Will you go on to say that all people who ever did anything for God are all predestinated?

              We need to realize that predestination has a biblical definition and is apart from the worldly definition.

              1. brotheryochanan profile image60
                brotheryochananposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                It would be nice to get a reply about this one, but there is no reply is there joey

              2. 0
                Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                *****

                He never said we are predestined you did. God  does not predestinate anyone.

                1. Sagittarius 2012 profile image60
                  Sagittarius 2012posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  If there is no predestination, what i agree with, then how will you explain the story about Esau and Jacob?
                  Does God prefer cheaters, decivers and usurpers over the good and honest people?

  50. recommend1 profile image70
    recommend1posted 4 years ago

    I note that the religious group has abandoned trying to defend the false disciple paul who they all follow with such devotion, using his words as they were intended, to poison the original words and principles.

    Normal dishonest tactics, trying to ignore facts and carry on as if the basis of their bigoted and unchristian spouting were not totally devalued.   Digging up as many weeks old threads to push the evidence down the list and under the mat big_smile

    1. Disappearinghead profile image88
      Disappearingheadposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      It has not been proven that he was a false prophet. Virgil is simply presenting a case for Paul's defence by posting sayings that show Paul was in harmony with Yashua.

      1. 0
        Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

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

        The evidence that he was a false prophet is that he did not meet the requirements to be one.

        1. brotheryochanan profile image60
          brotheryochananposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          after analysing the definition of the word apostle and seeing that jesus did pick 12 apostles, and he did not say there could not be another or that he wouldn't replace one who died...  I can forgive the translation of the word and seeing as today we call the work of apostle - missionary. I can see room to add that this is a debate more of semantics than any breaking of requirements.

    2. brotheryochanan profile image60
      brotheryochananposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      That's right disappearinghead.
      There has been much persuasive evidence that Paul is Apostle, messenger, advocate to the Gentiles. Scripture has been put into proper context, situations explained. The topic answered.
      The only evidence for Paul being against Christ is personal opinion and recommends calling the kettle black, which is not evidence at all.

      1. recommend1 profile image70
        recommend1posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        This is an outright and blatant lie. 

        Deborah has presented a whole rack of evidence that clearly points the finger at paul being nothing more than an opportunistic politician.

        The only 'evidence' posted here to the contrary come from the words of this self-seeking self-promoting self-proclaimed apostle.

        Unless of course we include the whingeing about how to spell Yashua, reams of unrelated bits of scripture, most of it written by the man in the dock, and a bit of a witch hunt from some unsavoury contributing so-called christian.     

        It is so obvious that the addition of paul to the bible by the early christian church is blatantly about allowing the church hierarchy to assume positions of grandeur, expressly against the wishes and teachings of the jesus figure as promoted in all the other books. 

        There are none so blind as those who find verses to suit their own dogmatic, bigoted views so contrary to those of the jesus figure they profess to follow.

        1. handyman22 profile image82
          handyman22posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          The real problem is that the Doctrine of Paul is placed as being superior to that of Jesus Christ. When this happens Paul becomes your teacher about God and Jesus teachings are pushed to the side. The biggest lie supported by all churches is that the entire Bible is inspired word of God. That is a lie only the words that meet the criteria laid down in Deuteronomy and the words of Jesus Christ will bear a witness to that statement. Accepting the lie that the entire Bible is the word of God opens the door for everyone to say their inspiration is from God. And that is exactly what happens. The words of people are not those of God, unless you believe the people are your God. Which is often reflected in the words people speak when they claim to speak God's word. Then they twist it to exalt themselves, just as Satan did when he tempted Jesus in the desert.

          1. 0
            Gusserposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Agreed and very well said.

          2. brotheryochanan profile image60
            brotheryochananposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            How can the entire bible not be the word of God? Its all about God!
            God to the Jews with Jesus, matthew, mark, luke and John
            God to the gentiles with Paul, Peter, James, Jude, John again and Hebrews, Titus and Timothy.

            If Jesus were sent to the gentiles he would have said all that Paul says, but Jesus expressly tells us he is sent to the jews, the lost house of israel and we can see throughout the OT that his ministry takes place predominantly and rather exclusively in what is called palestine today.

            so people who think there is a problem here, have a problem indeed.

        2. brotheryochanan profile image60
          brotheryochananposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          You are wrong on so many fronts recommend.
          There is more persuasive evidence against her here than for her.

          I suggest you try to read the posts instead of just reacting like your nation has indoctrinated you to do.

          1. Druid Dude profile image60
            Druid Dudeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Every book is about God. Everything you hear, everything you see. You need the eyes and the ears. If you don't have them, no one can force them on you.

 
working