Was Paul inspired by the Holy Spirit?

1. 60

   Disappearingheadposted 13 years ago

   Paul talked about the return of Christ in his letters to the Thessalonians and many scholars hold the view that Paul believed Christ's return was imminent or at least in his lifetime.
   However the vast majority of the Church believes His return is yet to come and therefore we have a problem. Either Paul was in error and if in error cannot have been writing under the influence of the Holy Spirit or the Church has misunderstood and Christ did indeed return as Paul and the early church expected.
   So which is it? You can't have your cake and eat it.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Twenty One Daysposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Kev! Tell me you are not behind this Libyan thing, jeje...
      
      There is no other place in ALL of Torah or The Letters that even suggests a "second coming". No where, except S/Paul's letters.
      I challenge ANY and EVERY "believer" to find any passage that Immanu El (aka Jesus) or The 12 mention such an event. According to the four-fold witnesses, he emphatically stated he was returning to the Father so the Spirit would come. The Spirit, who from then on, would be the Instructor of Righteousness/Truth, not S/Paul.
      
      The key player opposite S/Paul is John and his revealing of the Work of Y`shua Moshiach (aka Revelation), who also does not mention: "A Rapture", "Lucifer", "A Great Tribulation to Come", nor a return of Y`shua a second time.
      
      Also, the question comes: WHY? Why would he return having "sat down" completing his work, only to get up again and come "save" 144,000 people while the remaining 7 billion are "micro chipped" on their foreheads or hands-- and left for dead/eaten by birds.
      
      What is remarkable, I just had the discord with a young man of 27, who swears by a "war" between "Lucifer" and "God", which apparently he and all "believers" are engaged in, but only 144,00 make it out alive. A War neither begun by humans nor finished by humans...but a very odd "pause" by all parties in the war, so that select group can be "whisked away", transformed into battle gear, and come back just in time to see -not engage --but see the war end...
      
      Just my thoughts.
      James.

      replyreport
      1. 59

         Jeramiposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Daniel 9:25 has been interpreted to be talking about The Messiah the Prince returning .
         
           Daniel 9:26 describes his death 7 weeks earlier?
         
           I believe that this is why the Hebrew people of the first century were expecting his first comming and his second coming to be in that century.

         replyreport
2. 60

   knolyourselfposted 13 years ago

   " His return is yet to come and therefore we have a problem." You have a problem not me.

   replyreport
3. 60

   TLMinutposted 13 years ago

   Jesus thought he would be sent back soon too, didn't he? At first, until he realized it was only for the Father to know and decide?

   replyreport
4. 68

   VOICE CIWposted 13 years ago

   VOICE CIW Paul did not tell the Thessolonians that Christ has already come, the false prophets did, Paul told the Thessolonians that Christ has not come back yet, but they should go on living for Christ, with the knowledge that Christ can come any day or night. Paul could have expected Christ's Second Coming during his lifetime, but that is only because no one knew when Christ was coming back. Even today we still live with that expectation that Christ is coming back any day or night.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      Woman Of Courageposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Amen. Christ came on time the first time just as he promised, we have every reason to believe he will come again. The scripture can not be broken, because the word of God does not lie. God bless you.

      replyreport
      1. 68

         VOICE CIWposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         God bless you Sister, and believe me you are my Sister by the Blood of Jesus. You keep on contending for the faith, God is with you and so am I. The Bible says, " Let God be True and every man a liar. " I love you in the Lord.

         replyreport
         1. 59

            Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Hmmm... I'm somewhat confused as to whether or not you are saying you are a liar or you are telling the truth. Puzzling.

            replyreport
            1. 68

               VOICE CIWposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               VOICE CIW
               Let me make it so plain that a fool cannot error. Anyone that contradicts God's Truth is a liar, I don't contradict God's Truth.

               replyreport
               1. 59

                  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  So, in other words, every man is not a liar as you've self admitted to not be one yourself? Perhaps, a fool did error.
                  
                  

                  replyreport
         2. 59

            Woman Of Courageposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Voice, I love you in the Lord also. God bless you brother.

            replyreport
5. 59

   Jeramiposted 13 years ago

   The 11th chapter of the book of Daniel explains it quite well.
   
     V.1 in the first year of Darius the Mede ...
   
     Gabriel then goes on to foretell many details concerning Dominion over Israel passing hands from the Medo-Persian kingdom, to the Grecian Dinesty and to the Roman Empire.
   
      Chapter 7 clearly identifies three of the four kingdoms who are given dominion over Israel as Babalon, Persia, and Greecia.
       Grecia then divides into four smaller kingdoms out of one of these four kingdoms the "little Horn" shall rise replaceing three kings after the first ten.
       The little hors IS the 14th king of the fourth kingdom having dominion over that Hebrew Nation that ceased to exist in 138 AD.
   
      See also Nebeuchadnezzars dream/vision in chapter one
   (The statue)  Four kingdoms will be given dominion over the Hebrew Nation and then the stone that is cut out of the mountian without hand will smash the statue.
   
      "The Rapture" happened when Gabriel explained these visions to be saying that it would  OR    we can't believe what Gabriel says.
   
      
   
       (11:45)    He (The Little horn) shall come to his end and none shall help him; and at that time shall Michael stand up, ... , and at that time thy people shall be delivered, everyone that shall be found in the book of life.
   
      There are no visions described in the book of Daniel that do not reffer to that Hebrew Nation that ceased to exist in 138 AD. 
   
     12:7 thru  12:13 describes a length of time that is to occur after the power of the holy people are scttered to the four winds.  Revelation describes this as the woman being carried away into the wilderness for a time, times nd half a time.
   
   
      We relly need to read what Gbriel said, as opposed to what the precher teaches.
       This is the big secret that has been hidden for may centureis. 
        That 42 months that the beast is given is almost fulfilled (finished).

   replyreport
6. 59

   Jeramiposted 13 years ago

   The way that I understand it is that around 138 AD the 144,000 were redeamed AND all seven of the seal judgments had all been opened.
   
     then there is a space of half an hour that passes before we see the seven angels being given the seven trumpets.
   
     These plagues are inflicted upon the Romn Empire.
   Beginning round 538 AD.  After the sounding of the sixth trumpet, the story line in Rev. goes bck in time to describe events tht had not been covered when describing the events of the six trumpets.
      The first rescurection takes place before the vial judgments begin being poured out, When the first vial was poured out; the bubonic Plague killed 1/2 to 2/3 of the population of Europe.
   
     All of prophesy has been fulfilled, except for the 7th trumpet and 7th vial being poured out.

   replyreport
7. 59

   Jeramiposted 13 years ago

   Good night yawl    see ya in the AM.

   replyreport
8. 0

   Twenty One Daysposted 13 years ago

   I know this will martyr a wide percentage of the fundamental believers, and "warlords" of the "End Of Days", but I am compelled to shred every ounce of doctrine:
   
   inq: "So, they say this man, whom they call Messiah, Jesus --anointed with power to do great works-- is to come again. What evidence supports this "return" by he or his followers?
   
   res: "It is unfortunate that many who regard the text, do so with very little understanding of the symbolism behind the words. And often take literal, many off-the-cuff statements, for lack of that understanding. That said, the Hebrew scholars battled for years regarding of the Original Coming of the Messiah, as a King. Some years after the scribes were scattered they found evidence in the text of a near exact span of years between David and this man Jesus (1,000 years). They coincided with the mention in the beloved follower, John, explanation of the Work of Salvation, of the Anointing."
   
   inq: "So, are you saying there is no second coming?"
   
   res: "Well, should you consider what the actual purpose of the Messiah was, then no. I would have to say --without blinking, no, there is no second coming."
   
   inq: "How can you be so sure after nearly 150 years of powerful End Time talk, organizations built strictly on this belief. What about this great War called Armageddon and the Rapture? They have to be in some form true, yes?"
   
   res: "That is a lot of questions in one. First, the purpose of the Messiah, is clearly stated from Torah, straight through to the Letters. In order to complete the Work, the Sacrifice had to be made --as Abram was promised. There are many in between little things that happened at that event, one being the blessing of "blood upon us and our children", which the Pharisees said in anger, but became a blessing instead. Second --and most important-- is this: If any element of any prophecy or single element of the Law (of Sin/Death) had not been completely and utterly fulfilled, the Work would be null-n-void. Making the Sacrifice a vane one. Third, there is no such "War" to take place. Mediggo is actually a kibbutz in the north of Israel (a country, mind you, the size of New Jersey) about a mile wide and three miles long, that used to be one of the largest prison camps for Palestinian prisoners. I believe today it is a bus depot. Can you imagine every army on earth camped out there? Impossible, just by land space alone. There is also no mention anywhere of a Rapture or additional Great Tribulation, in Johns letter as most assume.
   
   As for them being true in some form, of course --a symbolic form. The Entire Revealing takes you through a step-by-step dismantling of the human restriction of The Law of Sin/Death --The Curse of Days-- not the systematic destruction of the planet & its inhabitants. Let's face it, after the third "Seal" or first "Bowl", mankind would have no strength to fight, they would just lay down and die of fear or worse. Imagine 1/3 of the present 7.5 billion humans being afflicted. That is worse than HIV or all diseases combined and it supposed to happen "like that". By the second "Bowl", humanity would be done.
   
   Sorry to go off left there... But in answer to your question: No. I believe Paul was convinced of this because of stories told among the believing or made up to scare the Romans, who were very superstitious folk. All the events of prophecy has to be fulfilled in order for the Messiah to claim rights to the New Coven. Also remember in John's Letter, after all the "battling" is over, a) "Salvation Has Come" b) First Resurrection c) "Kingdom Comes" d) Immanu El (Creator In/With Us") is fulfilled. This is the indwelling of the spirit --as Adam was once, as Immanu El himself is, in resurrected form. This is available to every human, not just a few.
   
   inq: "Wow. That is a lot to handle. But, definitely something to consider. Because if you really look at the entire point from Adam to Moses to David to Y`shua, the connection is obvious --the point of Salvation, the Sacrifice and everything between was to get humanity back to the place they were --in perfection, yes?"
   
   res: "Couldn't have said it better."
   
   James.

   replyreport
9. 59

   Jeramiposted 13 years ago

   James  ,  I agree with most of what you said above.
   
     I would like to add,  just something to think about.
   
     In 96 AD John spoke of an organized religion rising up out of the sea  that is going to lead the believes astray.
   
     Just over 200 years later, organized religion was designed and constructed by Constantine.
   
     By the end of the fourth century, Religion and government had joined to become one entity.
   
     John writes that this entity is given 42  (Prophetic) months to distort the word of God. 
      I do believe this 42 months is equal to approx 1650 of our years.
   
      Though we are describing this from diferent prospectives,
   I think that our beliefs are more similr than it pers t first glance..
   
      But ..  I could be wrong?

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Twenty One Daysposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Hey Jerami,
      
      Right on both points, we do agree.
      
      James.

      replyreport
10. 51

    paarsurreyposted 13 years ago

    Was Paul inspired by the Holy Spirit?
    
    Paul was not inspired by the Holy Spirit; he made a story that he had seen a vision.

    replyreport
11. 51

    paarsurreyposted 13 years ago

    Paul made a story that he had seen a vision which he did not; he was an enemy of Jesus and his followers; when he came to learn that Jesus had gone out of Judea to an area not under Roman domination and hence out of his reach; Paul changed his face; to put in Jesus words "a wolf in the sheep's clothing".
    Paul found out or invented another way of operation against Jesus and his true believers.

    replyreport
    1. 70

       Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       You answered this thread 26 hours ago. Now you come back to put in another post?
       
       Are you trying to stir up trouble?

       replyreport
    2. 78

       DoubleScorpionposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       I agree that S/Paul made up some stories...I am not so sure he was still trying to "take out" the christians, I think he switched sides in an attempt to profit from the new religion that was rapidly growing. He was a tent maker by trade after all, He couldn't have been that wealthy.

       replyreport
12. 51

    paarsurreyposted 13 years ago

    I am just expressing my views and beliefs I solemnly subscribe to; I think we all believe in freedom of thoughts and freedom of speech.
    
    One could differ with me with reasons; never mind.

    replyreport
    1. 78

       DoubleScorpionposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       I wasn't saying you are wrong Paar. I just have a different thought is all. I thought you might be interested in it was all.

       replyreport
       1. 51

          paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          Sorry, my response was not addressed to you.
          
          I like your responses.

          replyreport
    2. 70

       Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       There is a difference when motive is involved. You posted to this thread 26 hours ago(when I posted my last post) and to be serious about it....
       
       The secondary post you made, which was reviving this thread, after you were the last person to post to the thread to begin with, says that YOU were looking for attention....standing on a soapbox- shouting look at me.
       
       So, please, your actions go directly against the words you use.
       
       You wanted attention, you have it. So, what is your point?
       
       More about You, You, You? It's ironic you never learned, LIFE is not about you and never has been. It's NOT about a god either. Just in case you're thinking- It is NOT about me either.
       
       The Greater Good is involved and if you cannot see that, then I am glad to have pointed it out.

       replyreport
13. 51

    paarsurreyposted 13 years ago

    Paul changed his face; to put in Jesus words "a wolf in the sheep's clothing".
    
    Paul did not represent Jesus; neither his actions nor his beliefs.

    replyreport