why st. paul failed to mention miracles of jesus?

1. 0

   jomineposted 12 years ago

   The letters of Paul fail to mention any miracles Jesus, his trial before a Roman official, nor to Jerusalem as the place of execution not even the place of birth, and paul is a contemporary of jeus???

   replyreport
   1. 66

      aka-djposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Why is this an important point for you?
      
      Paul himself raised a young man from the dead.
      His message was that Jesus was the Messiah.
      That He rose from the dead.
      He took the message of salvation to the Gentile world.
      And his message is still echoing down to this very day!

      replyreport
      1. 87

         Paragliderposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Not a bad attempt, in terms of structure, but you could work more on the rhythm & rhyme, e.g.:
         
         Paul raised a young man from the dead.
         His message was: Jesus is head!
         He rose from the grave
         with a mission to save.
         And his message will not lie in bed!
         
         See what I mean?

         replyreport
         1. 70

            aguasilverposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            or maybe....
            
            Christ raised a young girl from the dead.
            Paul's message was: Jesus is Head!
            He rose from the grave
            and is able to save.
            But His message got lost in your head!

            replyreport
            1. 60

               Davidsonofjesieposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Hi auqa long time no see,I thank God for you

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  china manposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  I think your thanks should go to hubpages who supply the forums that bring aqua and you together - not some mythtery thing.

                  replyreport
                  1. 64

                     pisean282311posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     funny isnt it...we humans give credit to god but dont give credit to fellow humans...you are right...hubpages is to be thanked first , then internet provider , then computer provider and then god if one wants to...

                     replyreport
   2. 0

      just_curiousposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Jomine, don't you think when Paul shared the story of being blinded on the road to Damascus he thought that was a miracle of Jesus? He spoke many times about the appearance of the Holy Spirit to the believers. He may not have been an original follower, but he was given ample evidence to believe in the deity of Christ. And he shared his belief. I don't see that as a good argument.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         china manposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Well you guys had better go back to school - last I heard the guy never met Jesus and was rejected by the elderly apostles - in particular Peter, after which he went off in a huff to some other country and started his own brand of christobabble.

         replyreport
         1. 70

            aguasilverposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            You heard wrong.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               china manposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               You want to enlighten me ?

               replyreport
               1. 70

                  aguasilverposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Not really, I promised myself not to get involved in these time wasting activities where all I do is provide windmills for people to tilt at.
                  
                  It was however interesting to see the reactions to what Davidsonofjesie wrote.... one can see a lot by how folk react when they hear stuff they don't want heard.
                  
                  No, I will leave the normal suspects to form the line up and smile for the cameras.

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     china manposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     Not forgetting that you are also wrong.

                     replyreport
                     1. 70

                        aguasilverposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        Sorry, can't come out to play, left my ping pong bat at home!

                        replyreport
                        1. 61

                           Woman Of Courageposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                           Lol

                           replyreport
         2. 0

            just_curiousposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Well I never heard that one. I was curious so I googled it. Nothing came up. Which leads me to question, are you attempting humor?

            replyreport
            1. 0

               china manposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               No - just dropping in an inconvenient well documented fact that kristians don't like to talk about.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  just_curiousposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Really? Seriously, I have never heard this one. I find it difficult to believe it is truly well documented. Where would one go to read this?

                  replyreport
                  1. 73

                     DoubleScorpionposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     Galatians 2:11-16
                     11.When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong.
                     
                     12.Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group.
                     
                     13.The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.
                     
                     14.When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?
                     
                     15.“We who are Jews by birth and not ‘Gentile sinners’
                     
                     16.know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified.

                     replyreport
      2. 0

         jomineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Jomine, don't you think when Paul shared the story of being blinded
         
         but that was is acts - not written by paul.
         i said there is nothing in letters of paul....

         replyreport
         1. 0

            just_curiousposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            I suppose it depends on how critically you want to tear up the Bible. Acts may have been written by Luke, but it was about the experiences of Paul. I think Paul was outspoken enough would have called anything written in Acts a lie; if that's what he believed them to be.

            replyreport
   3. 62

      Greek Oneposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Paul wasn't at these events.
      
      If he did mention them, you might just have dismissed them as hearsay

      replyreport
      1. 0

         china manposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN !!!!!!   I have missed your empty but extremely amusing one liners.  It has been just slog slog slog here defending civilization from fundies, racists and end of hte worlders !

         replyreport
         1. 62

            Greek Oneposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            just getting ready for the end of the world... building a fort in my backyard to against the racists and fundies

            replyreport
            1. 0

               china manposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               That won't help - apparently the neutrinos will pass through everything without any noticeable effect except that all the kristians will go into a trance !

               replyreport
               1. 62

                  Greek Oneposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  even the hot ones?

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     china manposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     Oh I hope so - praise the lordy !!
                     
                     Now get over to the Katrina athread and make some erudite comment about the situation in New Orleans - still !

                     replyreport
2. 64

   Daniel Carterposted 12 years ago

   Seems "structure" in these examples is the same as a limerick.
   May want to investigate/explore a more formal type of poetic structure.
   
   Just sayin'.

   replyreport
   1. 87

      Paragliderposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      You think I was being serious??

      replyreport
      1. 0

         just_curiousposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         I thought you were great. Cute rhyme.

         replyreport
3. 72

   Cagsilposted 12 years ago

   Paul's "Christology" is wrong. Simply because it comes from not only his own deceitful ways, but that of others as well. The reason Paul's not correct in his interpretation is because it's exactly that an interpretation.
   
   Paul never met or knew Jesus. His "Christology" isn't a translation of Jesus' work/teachings, because it had already been corrupted by those who were the educated elite/rulers of the time before Paul. So Paul already had corrupted works to work with.
   
   Not to mention, Paul incorporated Plato's mysticism as part and parcel of his "Christology".

   replyreport
   1. 0

      jomineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Paul never met or knew Jesus??
      
      but paul is contemporary to jesus

      replyreport
   2. 0

      just_curiousposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I'll agree with you that some of Paul's thoughts are his own.  He admits that pretty freely when he says he has no divine direction on things like women wearing head scarves at worship. But he admits that when he finally met Peter and the other diciples he went over his understanding of the message and they were in agreement that he was sharing the Truth. He was preaching the Gospel for several years before he met the others, so to say that he had corrupted works to work with is saying that the message he received from Jesus was corrupted.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         china manposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         No - it is to say that he created his own agenda for his own political ends- which is why he fell out with Peter (who the lead character mad the rock of his church) - when he tried to publicly challenge him. Having been sent off with his bitterness to isolation somewhere he carried on outside of the group.  To say Peter was in agreement is false.  It is almost certain that the bible according Paul is not the teachings of your Christ or of his apostles.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            just_curiousposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Hey china man.  I'm still waiting for you to tell me where to go to read about this outside group.  Please enlighten me.  I am curious.

            replyreport
         2. 70

            aguasilverposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            "Peter (who the lead character mad the rock of his church)"
            
            Wrong I'm afraid, when Christ made that statement, he actually said more than what you and the RCC have taken it to mean, the whole thing in context (OK if you make loose statements, you will get scripture to correct and rebuke you)was:
            
            Matthew 16 15-20
            
            He said to them, But who do you [yourselves] say that I am?
            
            Simon Peter replied, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.
            
            Then Jesus answered him, Blessed (happy, fortunate, and to be envied) are you, Simon Bar-Jonah. For flesh and blood [men] have not revealed this to you, but My Father Who is in heaven.
            
            And I tell you, you are [e]Peter [Greek, Petros--a large piece of rock], and on this rock [Greek, petra--a huge rock like Gibraltar] I will build My church, and the gates of Hades (the powers of the infernal region) shall not overpower it [or be strong to its detriment or hold out against it].
            
            I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind (declare to be improper and unlawful) on earth must be what is already bound in heaven; and whatever you loose (declare lawful) on earth must be what is already loosed in heaven.
            
            Then He sternly and strictly charged and warned the disciples to tell no one that He was Jesus the Christ.
            
            Now when you read the whole section, you can easily see that Christ was referring to the first question: But who do you [yourselves] say that I am? that Christ asked and which Simon (Peter) answered: You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.
            
            That question, still today THE most important question anyone will ever answer, was the basis for Christ telling Simon (Peter) what would be THE foundation of Christ's body of believers, the simple fact that they admit WHO Christ IS, and refuse to be silenced by those who deny Christ.
            
            That's the problem with secularists making broad sweeping statements without relevant understanding of scripture.
            
            Until one can answer the REAL question in the affirmative, one will never understand the scriptures, nor be qualified to offer a sensible explanation about them.
            
            Who do YOU say He is?
            
            

            replyreport
            1. 61

               Woman Of Courageposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               aqua, I thank God for you brother.

               replyreport
            2. 0

               china manposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               I have no idea why you would regurgitatea all that - you include the relevant part that is quite unambiguous - And I tell you, you are [e]Peter [Greek, Petros--a large piece of rock], and on this rock [Greek, petra--a huge rock like Gibraltar] I will build My church,
               
               and on this rock - PETER - I will build my church
               
               and the point is simply that your lead character clearly states in your own book that Peter is the one to follow - and you all follow Paul !
               
               Simple enough, no long passages required, no prevarication needed.

               replyreport
               1. 70

                  aguasilverposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Apparent you never bothered to actually READ what I stated, and therefore continue in your error, as the RCC has done for centuries.
                  
                  Christ was speaking clearly about the fact that it was the declaration of WHO HE IS that defeats all His protagonists and abusers, it is His believers faith and trust in Christ that defeats the enemy, and NOTHING will stand against THAT ROCK.
                  
                  Peter was simply another apostle, albeit a main apostle, but NOT empowered to rule over others.

                  replyreport
                  1. 87

                     Paragliderposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     So was he out of order in dealing with Ananias and Saphira?

                     replyreport
                     1. 70

                        aguasilverposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        No he was perfectly able to pronounce the judgement that the Holy Spirit had imparted to him, but that did not allude to any overall corporate authority over the body of believers universal, which has existed throughout history, from the start of the church in Acts.
                        
                        Those believers 'belong'to no denomination, though they may well meet in fellowship with one, however, they are distinctly 'called out' from the world, and carry the 'torch of the testimony' as individuals.
                        
                        Churchianity has always sought to say that IT is the one true way and body, however any examination of 'church'history will demonstrate that the 'inglesia' the 'called out' believers have always carried the faith by way of obedience to and guidance from the Holy Spirit, NOT from obeying doctrines of man.

                        replyreport
                        1. 0

                           china manposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                           doctrines were only written by men - who claimed to be under the guidance of a spirit - each of them would have interpreted the voices they heard (sprit or delusion is irrelevant to this argument) through their own perceptions.  Peter would have been from his experiences and lessons from the source of your beliefs, while Paul was a political addition after the event and so writing his own 'vision' that pretty much disagreed with much of what peter and the others said.

                           replyreport
                           1. 70

                              aguasilverposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                              To a degree I can agree with this, I personally obey the red letter bits and hold the rest to be instruction, not command, and it is apparent that Christ tells us how to enter into the kingdom of God, whereas the apostles tell us how to run a church body, two differing things, not always at odds, but often in contention.
                              
                              As for the divine inspiration, well God obviously has the ability to ensure that what He wants us to know and understand gets to us no matter what, so yes it will have been divinely inspired and reported/recorded however it must never be forgotten that God may not ALWAYS wish us to have clarity, or at least not the clarity that comes from reading words and making rules as a result of our pontificating and deliberations.
                              
                              Divine inspiration by default must flow from the infilling of the Holy Spirit, and we are told to test ALL things against three witnesses, scripture, the spirit and our knowledge and intellect, in other words, we don't just assume that any spiritual communication we hear is from God, and having spent a good period of time in my life hearing from 'other' spirits, I can spot the difference, so to speak, and when checked against scripture, the difference is clear, for the enemy does not give instruction that can be confirmed in scripture.
                              
                              For instance the various Popes that called for the Crusades would never find scripture in the new covenant that would condone their actions, they made it up to suit themselves.
                              
                              Likewise apartheid was constructed on the twisting and perversion of scripture, one particular scripture taken out of context.
                              
                              And the same is true of this 'rock' thing, for it is the only reference that the RCC could hang their hat upon to claim supremacy over all believers.... and I really think that HAD Christ wanted to make that a command, He would have made it more specific and detailed.

                              replyreport
                        2. 87

                           Paragliderposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                           The reason I asked is that to me there are three possibilities in the Ananias story: 1. Peter exceeded his authority by killing two people, 2. God had a senior moment and forgot it was the New Testament, going back to his OT murderous ways, 3. It never happened.
                           
                           1 & 3 are plausible. 2 makes no sense to non-believers and is an embarrassment to believers.

                           replyreport
                           1. 70

                              aguasilverposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                              Nice try, no cigar!
                              
                              The operative words here are 'to me'.... well yes, to you it may well have been that way, but to me, it was God telling us clearly that we are NOT to lie to the Holy Spirit, and their offence was NOT keeping the dosh, it was telling folk that they had put everything 'in common'when they sold their land.
                              
                              They dropped dead, so Peter was not killing them, he was merely telling everyone else what God had decided.
                              
                              So no senior moment, I have no doubt that God has often taken people out of play permanently when they offend the Holy Spirit or warrant the judgement, but maybe not asking folk to pronounce judgement publicly first.
                              
                              No senior moment, no murderous ways, we are not talking about whole nations or tribes (and even then God normally gave them a few generations to repent and get back to him, before he pulled the switch on them)... no just general housekeeping.
                              
                              If it did not happen, your argument ceases to have substance.
                              
                              Like I said earlier, those who know and are known to and by the Holy Spirit can understand, those secularists who have no such relationship, cannot understand.
                              
                              Such is life (and death).

                              replyreport
                           2. 59

                              Jeramiposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                              I had a different take on this story which had little to do with these three questions. Yet maybe a little.
                              
                              I think that all of these people were withdrawing all of their assets to form a commune out in the country someplace, Exiting Jerusalem as they were told to do in Matt. 24.
                              
                                A short time after this, Saul had to leave Jerusalem in search for Christians to bring back to Jerusalem for trial and punishment.  Does this mean that there were none in Jerusalem?
                              
                                 Ananias wanted to be a part of this,    BUT not completely committed to it, setting aside enough money to return to Jerusalem, if and when he changed his mind.
                              Allowing  Ananias to go with them might not have caused other problems, and denying him might have caused even another set of problems that they didn’t want to deal with.
                              
                              I don’t know, just a thought.

                              replyreport
                  2. 0

                     china manposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     And so - given your contorted reasoning to dispute that your book says that christ said to Peter - YOU are the rock on which I will build my church -
                     
                     You prefer to follow the teachings of the politician Paul who you think knows better what the central character said and meant - than the guys who are supposed to have shared his journey, thoughts and actions.
                     
                     Your satan figure got in there real early didn't he

                     replyreport
                     1. 70

                        aguasilverposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        Still not reading the scriptures contextually?
                        
                        Let's cut out the whole verse, I printed it to show that my expression was not just snipping one verse, but actually flowed contextually, and anyone who wishes can read the whole section and form their opinion, hopefully one based upon reading with the assistance of no more than a dictionary, which will explain all that is required.
                        
                        Matthew 16 15-20
                        
                        He said to them, But who do you [yourselves] say that I am?
                        
                        Simon Peter replied, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.
                        
                        Then Jesus answered him, Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah. For flesh and blood have not revealed this to you, but My Father Who is in heaven.
                        
                        And I tell you, you are Peter and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades (the powers of the infernal region) shall not overpower it.
                        
                        Now I warrant that the contextual meaning of these verses is to refer to the revelation that Simon Bar Jonah makes, when he recognises and confesses for the first time in scripture, that Christ is the Son of the living God.
                        
                        Actually upon this 'rock' of a statement the whole confession of faith rests, as clearly illustrated in John 3:18....
                        
                        He who believes in Him [who clings to, trusts in, relies on Him] is not judged [he who trusts in Him never comes up for judgment; for him there is no rejection, no condemnation--he incurs no damnation]; but he who does not believe (cleave to, rely on, trust in Him) is judged already [he has already been convicted and has already received his sentence] because he has not believed in and trusted in the name of the only begotten Son of God. [He is condemned for refusing to let his trust rest in Christ's name.]
                        
                        We see in those words the same statement, the expression that it is this CONFESSION and BELIEF in Christ being the Son of God, that separates those called out and set aside for salvation from those who are not, BY THEIR REJECTION of Christ and refusal to confess that Christ IS the Son of God.
                        
                        That is the ROCK that Christ's body of believers stands upon.
                        
                        You may wish to hold onto the belief that God appointed a single man to be head over all believers, and who supposedly rules by passing that authority down via a long line of successors, but God has NO GRANDCHILDREN and each believer must come to faith and confession of who Christ is by themselves, and likewise God empowers those who stand, like Peter did, on the rock of the truth of who Christ is.
                        
                        We need no priest to intercede, Christ alone is our intercessor, we only need to stand firm on who He is, THE Christ, the Son of the living God.
                        
                        BTW there was no CAPITALISATION on 'you are the rock', it's all diminutive lower case, it's not a statement or appointment, just an observation that Simon Bar Jonah had demonstrated the required faith and confession to rise above the kingdom of the world and enter into the Kingdom of Heaven (Gods Kingdom).

                        replyreport
                        1. 60

                           hanging outposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                           Nicely done aqua. Its a shame that those who persecute the most cannot get beyond the 101 class. I have often found, like the bully who wimpers when he gets hit and the arrogant man who is becomes confused when proven wrong and the thief when caught are merely self elevated bags of hot air who esteem themselves better than others and will go to any length to keep their vain opinions intact.
                           Context is everything, let that be a first lesson since it appears to have no others. If the bible must be quoted by heathens, then let the heathens know how to do it correctly, this is like instead of giving a man a fish you teach him how to fish. lol.

                           replyreport
   3. 60

      hanging outposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      

      replyreport
      1. 72

         Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Ironically you laugh at something already proven fact. Go figure.

         replyreport
4. 52

   Composer2005posted 12 years ago

   Paul & jesus are merely two story book imaginary characters!

   replyreport
   1. 0

      just_curiousposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Silly man. That's an imaginitive take on the topic.

      replyreport
5. 87

   Paragliderposted 12 years ago

   Yet however you look at it, it is unjustifiable. Ananias and Sapphira sold a piece of their own property, and gave much of the proceeds to Peter and co., keeping a portion back for themselves.
   
   That doesn't merit summary execution, whether the deed was done by God or man.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      Jeramiposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      It would seem that to have given them their money back and told them that if they were not totaly committed to their efforts they were not welcome to come along, if the purpose was in establishing a commune.  But to have done that might have caused disent among the rest of the group.   
      
        I was just proposing another posible slant to the story.
        Thing is, we don't know all the facts?
      
        I have always been suspect as to why the books in the canon were chosen as they were.

      replyreport
      1. 87

         Paragliderposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         I agree that we don't know the facts, but if we accept that, then we also don't know the facts about any other Bible story either. It's not good enough to take all the cozy stuff at face value while doubting the nasty stuff. Better just to admit that the whole book is mired in doubt. It's certainly not worth killing for and never has been.

         replyreport
         1. 59

            Jeramiposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Well, to be honest I had always suspected that Peter might have been the deciding factor of these deaths??
              There are many times in life that we get in situations that there are no right answers as to how to get out of them.
              It is often impossible to immediately recognize the lesser of two evils. 
              I do agree that killing someone should never be seen as the best way out. But it can happen that it is.
              And we do not know   ALL   the facts behind this story.
            In fact, we know very little.
            
               I really do not understand why this story as short as it is, having few details, would have been included into the canon in the first place?

            replyreport
            1. 87

               Paragliderposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               I think the answer to your last question is power and control. It is a clear threat as well as a justification for inflicting dire punishment on 'transgressors'
               
               However you look at this story, it reflects very badly on some or all of: God, Peter, the author.

               replyreport
   2. 70

      aguasilverposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Let's look at the actual account huh!
      
      Conjecture and speculation are never as good as the real thing.
      
      Acts 5 (Amplified Bible)
      
      BUT A certain man named Ananias with his wife Sapphira sold a piece of property,and with his wife's knowledge and connivance he kept back and wrongfully appropriated some of the proceeds, bringing only a part and putting it at the feet of the apostles.
      
      But Peter said, Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart that you should lie to and attempt to deceive the Holy Spirit, and should [in violation of your promise] withdraw secretly and appropriate to your own use part of the price from the sale of the land?
      
      As long as it remained unsold, was it not still your own? And [even] after it was sold, was not [the money] at your disposal and under your control?  Why then, is it that you have proposed and purposed in your heart to do this thing? [How could you have the heart to do such a deed?] You have not [simply] lied to men [playing false and showing yourself utterly deceitful] but to God.
      
      Upon hearing these words, Ananias fell down and died, and great dread and terror took possession of all who heard of it.
      
      And the young men arose and wrapped up [the body] and carried it out and buried it.
      
      Now after an interval of about three hours his wife came in, not having learned of what had happened.
      
      And Peter said to her, Tell me, did you sell the land for so much? Yes, she said, for so much.
      
      Then Peter said to her, How could you two have agreed and conspired together to try to deceive the Spirit of the Lord? Listen! The feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out [also].
      
      And instantly she fell down at his feet and died;  and the young men entering found her dead, and they carried her out and buried her beside her husband.
      
      And the whole church and all others who heard of these things were appalled [great awe and strange terror and dread seized them].
      
      In the chapter before this (Acts 4 31-32) we see the following:
      
      And when they had prayed, the place in which they were assembled was shaken; and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and they continued to speak the Word of God with freedom and boldness and courage.
      
      Now the company of believers was of one heart and soul, and not one of them claimed that anything which he possessed was [exclusively] his own, but everything they had was in common and for the use of all.
      
      So Peter never killed anyone, they dropped dead,  and I believe that even if he had killed them, or had them killed, he would have just reported it as such, for those days it would be no big thing to kill a thief, and especially not a thief from God.
      
      These people had just witnessed the most astounding event in their history, possibly in all history, the arrival of the Holy Spirit, which was henceforth available to ALL men who would accept the calling, no more restricted to the High Priests, prophets and Kings, this 'power' was now open to all, and in their joy they had immediately realised that they should hold all things in common.
      
      They were not setting off to start some commune or kibbutz experiment, they KNEW that by sharing as needed, they were fulfilling Gods wishes, and He would forever replenish their needs.
      
      Then along come these two characters who want to be seen to be part of the whole thing, but demonstrate that they don't REALLY trust God, they keep a rabbit patch back for their personal security, and even that would have been OK, had they not LIED to God, and the brethren.
      
      They were the leaven in the bread, the deception that would allow the enemy to undermine what had happened, and God removed them, instantly, no fuss, no pain recorded, just gone, on the spot.
      
      Why must folk try to make something bad out of it?
      
      Does the coming of the Holy Spirit frighten folk so very much?

      replyreport
6. 59

   Jeramiposted 12 years ago

   Paraglider wrote ...
     I think the answer to your last question is power and control.
   
   = = - -
   
   ME 
     Yep!  I thought so too,  Just wasn't wanting to just come out with it.   
      Power and control to the church that Rome built.
      ============================================
   
   Paraglider wrote
   It is a clear threat as well as a justification for inflicting dire punishment on 'transgressors'
   - - - - - - -
   ME
      Supreme power for those men at the head of the church.
   And we see how they used that power for the next 1000 years.
   
     Those leaders put themselves in the position as if they were god.
     Is this not foretold in the book of Revelation?
   
   ==================================================
   However you look at this story, it reflects very badly on some or all of: God, Peter, the author.
   
   - - - - - - - - - -
   me
      But those that selected what books to be included in the canon didn't care, they had what they wanted.
   
      Truth can always be manipulated
   And after 1650 years it is difficult to separate the truth from the manipulation. 
      I think the manipulation began during that time that the canon was assembled.
   ===============================================
   
   
   Paraglider wrote ...
     I think the answer to your last question is power and control.
   
   = = - -
   
   ME 
     Yep!  I thought so too,  Just wasn't wanting to just come out with it.   
      Power and controll for the church.
      ============================================
   
   Paraglider wrote
   It is a clear threat as well as a justification for inflicting dire punishment on 'transgressors'
   - - - - - - -
   
   ME
      Supreme power for those men at the head of the church.
   And we see how they used that power for the next 1000 years.
   
     Those leaders put themselves in the position as if they were god.   Is this not foretold in the book of Revelation?
   
   ==================================================
   Paraglider wrote
     However you look at this story, it reflects very badly on some or all of: God, Peter, the author.
   
   - - - - - - - - - -
   me
      But those that selected what books to be included in the canon didn't care, they had what they wanted.
   
      Truth can always be manipulated
   And after 1650 years it is difficult to separate the truth from the manipulation.  (The weat from the tares)
      I think the manipulation began during that time that the canon was assembled.

   replyreport
7. 87

   Paragliderposted 12 years ago

   Apart from the bit about it being foretold in Revelation, I agree with what you (Jerami) are saying here.
   
   Revelation can be interpreted to mean almost anything, or nothing.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      Jeramiposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      And yet if we just analyze the major points it does tell a story and little if any interpretation is needed.
      Whether this story is symbolic or literal is not the question.  The question is; "what is the most immediate understanding of what is written."
      
        I'll just point out a few for consideration.
      
         Rev 5:3 ...  here, the word Man was interpreted from the same word as when in Daniel  ... 
      The Man Gabriel was seen coming swiftly... So the word man in this instance should not be a point of debate.
      
        No man was found in heaven of earth  worthy to take the book...  And John wept. He would have expected to see Jesus take the book.  He didn't see Jesus anywhere. Where was Jesus?
      
          5:6    suddenly the Lamb appearing as if it had (just then) been slain and the Lamb immediately took the book and began opening the seals thee of.
         Where was Jesus  just moments before?  Jesus isn't in Heaven or on the earth?   Could he have been  in route between heaven and earth?
       
         I ask, what is your immediate understanding of what this is saying? 
         Mine is that according to this story from that which is written; as soon as Jesus arrived in heaven after the crucifixion, he began opening the seals.  Around 30 AD the seal judgments had begun being manifested upon the people that had broken their covenant and rejected their messiah.
      
        These seal judgments were all finished with the opening of the seventh seal.  A great multitude is seen in heaven; these are those that came out of the great tribulation;  which would have to include the first fruits.
      And THEN  after a period of time passes,  the seven angels are given the seven trumpets
      
        This definitely establishes a pattern!   And demonstrates a time frame for which all of these prophesy will be expected to be played out.  Beginning around 30 AD . 
      
          I believe that I have used a minimum of interpretation to come to the above conclusion.
      When analyzing the timeframes as stated in this book,  42 months, 1260 days 1290 days, 1335 days, A time and half times and lets not forget a Season;  these  references precise periods of time which have to be considered BEFORE we can even attempt to understand these prophesy.   
      
      
         Even the most skeptical should at least investigate this premise before it is rejected.

      replyreport
8. 87

   Paragliderposted 12 years ago

   Why use an 'amplified' text if the aim is to look at the actual account? Comparing that text with most others, it's clear that amplified here means justified. But let's move on.
   
   Before your 'holy spirit' had affected the group, people weren't much given to dropping dead. After, according to the account, two of them do, putting fear into the others.
   
   Jesus's reported miracles were generally restorative. Why the sudden change to this 'miracle' of execution?
   
   So I still insist that the story reflects very badly on at least one of God, Peter or the author.

   replyreport
   1. 70

      aguasilverposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Lets not just move on, people may think you were speaking with authority:
      
      I use the Amplified bile for ease when talking to folk who perhaps do not know their bible, or are used to (say) the Good News bible, or The Message..... parodies of scripture.
      
      For study I use a KJV the good old King James version, which as Derek Prince said, has about 400 errors, but at least after 300 years we know where they are!
      
      I am not a KJ literalist, other bibles will do, and (for instance) The Message was very handy when I was in a dry spell for getting me to re read the bible.... the style was so loose I needed to read it parallel to the KJ in order to be amazed at the translations.
      
      Anyhow, I digress, in the KJ, the verses read:
      
      Acts 5 (King James Version)
      
      Acts 5
      
      1But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession,
      
      2And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles' feet.
      
      3But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?
      
      4Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.
      
      5And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things.
      
      6And the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him.
      
      7And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in.
      
      8And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much.
      
      9Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out.
      
      10Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband.
      
      11And great fear came upon all the church, and upon as many as heard these things.
      
      Which apart from the odd Hast, Yea, Thee and ye, seems pretty much the same, and certainly is in context with the Amplified verses.
      
      Now your other comments:
      
      
      
      God is always original in His actions, and you will note that after the event, folk were no more prone to drop dead either, and probably not prone to lie to God or the Holy Spirit.
      
      This was a one off event to deal with what was a spoiling tactic of the enemy, and which stopped the 'rot' before it started... and still works to this day as a warning NOT to mock or try to cheat God.
      
      
      
      Jesus was not doing any execution, there was no 'execution' there was a sudden and non violent death, they were in effect removed from circulation. The died spontaneously.
      
      
      
      And you would still be wrong!

      replyreport
   2. 0

      china manposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      The lesson is - DON'T go asking christians for a refund !

      replyreport
9. 87

   Paragliderposted 12 years ago

   Yes, except that the writer almost certainly believed in heaven, hell, a risen Jesus, Gabriel and the rest. I would want some evidence of these 'initial conditions' before bothering to interpret any story they were involved in.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      Jeramiposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I understand that, I realy do.  I am speaking of examining the story similar to how we do when reading a novel, or watching a movie.
      
        I know that when watching a movie I pick out parts that just do not make sense in the confines of the story line.
        And some movies have no depth that the story line is so tightly wound that the end is too predictable.
      
        Sometimes when we think that the entire movie doesn't make any sense, suddenly something is revealed at the end of the movie that brings all of the details together making sense of it all.
      
        As far as the story line of Revelation is concerned,  As if it were a movie, I think that this time line thing is the thing at the end of the movie that makes sense of it all.
        Whether  this move is fact or fiction.
        It is the story line that I refer to

      replyreport
10. 87

    Paragliderposted 12 years ago

    Well, I'll grant you this much - if some of the events in Revelation ever come to pass, we'll certainly all know about it! But I'm not holding my breath.

    replyreport
    1. 70

       aguasilverposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       We certainly will all know about it, or at least those who previously disbelieved will, and you know what, even then there will be dissenters who demand proof over and beyond what they will be experiencing!

       replyreport
       1. 72

          Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          Actually, in the beginning, this statement is false.

          replyreport
          1. 0

             china manposted 12 years agoin reply to this

             Don't you mean "in the end"   

             replyreport
             1. 75

                the pink umbrellaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                in the "omega"

                replyreport
                1. 0

                   china manposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                   I thought that was a trans-fatty bul@@it dietary supplement !

                   replyreport
11. 52

    Composer2005posted 12 years ago

    just_curiousposted 42 hours ago in reply to this
    Silly man. That's an imaginitive take on the topic
    
    Composer responds: Apart from your empty conjecture, some legitimate evidence story book jesus and Paul literally existed outside of the bible story book would be good any time soon for us to examine and scrutinise?
    
    Better luck next time!

    replyreport
    1. 0

       just_curiousposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Don't use big words you don't understand. I reiterate my previous statement. Yours is an imaginative take on it. Nothing wrong with imagination and certainly within your rights.

       replyreport
       1. 52

          Composer2005posted 12 years agoin reply to this

          Just as I thought, your legitimate evidence remains a constant zero but your BS 100%
          
          Better luck next time!

          replyreport