Paul preaches against Creation

WolfgangvonUSA · 10-29-2004, 12:09 AM

Once again, the false apostle Paul preaches against Creation:

1Cr 7:1 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: [It is] good for a man not to touch a woman.

Gen 2:18 And the LORD God said, [It is] not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

But how on earth are we going to be fruitful and multiply unless we men touch women???

Gen 35:11 And God said unto him, I [am] God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins;

Gen 1:22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

Gen 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Gen 8:17 Bring forth with thee every living thing that [is] with thee, of all flesh, [both] of fowl, and of cattle, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth; that they may breed abundantly in the earth, and be fruitful, and multiply upon the earth.

Gen 9:1 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.

Gen 9:7 And you, be ye fruitful, and multiply; bring forth abundantly in the earth, and multiply therein.

Gen 28:3 And God Almighty bless thee, and make thee fruitful, and multiply thee, that thou mayest be a multitude of people;

Marsh · 10-29-2004, 02:59 AM

A quote from Leviticus 18:9

God: "have sexual relations with your sister"

A phrase out of context is a dangerous thing, guy. I think we all get the point that you don't like Paul. Fine. But please don't slander him by selectively portraying him as an anti-Christ. If we as Christians slander each other then we have learned nothing from Jesus.

Quahom1 · 10-29-2004, 04:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WolfgangvonUSA

Once again, the false apostle Paul preaches against Creation:

1Cr 7:1 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: [It is] good for a man not to touch a woman.

Gen 2:18 And the LORD God said, [It is] not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

But how on earth are we going to be fruitful and multiply unless we men touch women???

Gen 35:11 And God said unto him, I [am] God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins;

Gen 1:22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

Gen 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Gen 8:17 Bring forth with thee every living thing that [is] with thee, of all flesh, [both] of fowl, and of cattle, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth; that they may breed abundantly in the earth, and be fruitful, and multiply upon the earth.

Gen 9:1 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.

Gen 9:7 And you, be ye fruitful, and multiply; bring forth abundantly in the earth, and multiply therein.

Gen 28:3 And God Almighty bless thee, and make thee fruitful, and multiply thee, that thou mayest be a multitude of people;

Good Evening Wolfgang.

Paul perhaps thought the end of times would occur in the immediate, and considering his writings, it is not hard to think so.

"Now concerning virgins, I have no command of the Lord, but I give my opinion as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy. I think that, in view of the impending crisis, it is well for you to remain as you are. Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be free. Are you free from a wife? Do not seek a wife. But if you marry, you do not sin, and if a virgin marries, she does not sin. Yet those who marry will experience distress in this life, and I would spare you that. I mean, brothers and sisters, the appointed time has grown short; from now on, let even those who have wives be as though they had none, and those who mourn as thought they were not mourning, and those who rejoice as though they were not rejoicing, and those who buy as though they had no possessions, and those who deal with the world as thought they had no dealings with it. For the present form of this world is passing away. . . .

If anyone thinks that he is not behaving properly toward his fiancée, if his passions are strong, and so it has to be, let him marry as he wishes; it is no sin. Let them marry. But if someone stands firm in his resolve, being under no necessity but having his own desire under control, and has determined in his own mind to keep her as his fiancée, he will do well. So then, he who marries his fiancée does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better. A wife is bound as long as her husband lives. But if the husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, only in the Lord. But in my judgment she is more blessed if she remains as she is. "

Nice thing is that Paul began his serade with "my opinion", and not "the Lord's will".

Paul's "opinion" put him right back in the playing field with the rest of us.

You must remember Paul in all his personality, life, and experiences. Everything he did was "right now, and for keeps", and close to the end of times, in his mind...but what he taught was timeless. It applies to now as effectively as it would have applied to then. Boring you might say, but very safe, life wise.

Marsh has a valid point...one can't pick and choose verses, without taking the whole story into context. It doesn't work very well in conveying a message.

v/r

Q

WolfgangvonUSA · 10-29-2004, 04:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Good Evening Wolfgang.

Marsh has a valid point...one can't pick and choose verses, without taking the whole story into context. It doesn't work very well in conveying a message.

v/r

Q

Good evening Quahom1 and Marsha,

I agree that context is very important, so please allow me to discuss this issue in greater context by quoting from CHAPTER FIVE of 'the pauline conspiracy', written by Victor and available through this very website by clicking on http://www.comparative-religion.com/articles/pauline_conspiracy/pauline_conspiracy5.php

I have chosen to emphasize some of his text.

Paul not only comments about marriage, but makes it a living rule within the church, and the life he imposes upon women is monstrous. This is a matter which we must take one step at a time. We are dealing with a person who has no first hand knowledge of women, let alone marriage. We are dealing with a person who looks upon the female of the species as sub-standard, some sort of bond slave, even by Jewish standards.

Gen. 2:18, "It is not good that the man should be alone." Paul believed the opposite, thereby setting himself at variance with the usual Jewish point of view." (The Interpreter's Bible; Volume 10: Page 76)

Celibacy was not a Jewish practice. Paul was unmarried and may have decided that being single was best in view of his Messianic expectations. (Peake's Commentary on the Bible; Page 957: 834b)

For the most part, it would appear that Paul approved of marriage for one purpose only, so that believers would not fall into the trap of sexual immorality. This we will look at in detail since it discloses, even more deeply, Paul's increasingly irrational thought patterns.

"It is well for a man not to touch a woman. But because of the temptation to immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband." (I Corinthians 7:1-2; RSV)

Paul states it plainly. In order to avoid sexual misconduct, marriage is allowed as a concession, a concession of Paul's. He reiterates the same purpose for marriage involving the unmarried and widows.

"To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion." (I Corinthians 7:8-9; RSV)

Are we speaking of a narrow-minded bigot? The only reason that Paul sees for marriage is, sex. To his mind there was no other reason for marriage.

Paul also insists that the husband, and wife, should give each other their conjugal rights. (Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary: Conjugal rights; the sexual rights or privileges implied by and involved in the marriage relationship; the right of sexual intercourse between husband and wife. (See I Corinthians 7:3; RSV)

He admonishes man and woman not to refuse each other except by agreement in order to devote themselves to prayer, "...lest Satan temp you through lack of self-control." (I Corinthians 7:5; RSV)

It is obvious that Paul's singular view of marriage concerned itself with sex.

Paul speaks of divorce in the sense that it is best not to divorce, but if it becomes the case, the individual should remain single. The Interpreter's Bible, makes a grievous error here in an inexcusable attempt to parallel Paul's treatment of this subject with Jesus. (The Interpreter's Bible; Volume 10: Page 79)

Mark 10:12 is explicit in a wife's right to divorce her husband. Her right to divorce is not rejected here or in the Law. But if she uses that right, then she must remain single, or it bears the penalty of sin.

"...and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery."

On the contrary, this statement of the Law by Jesus affirms the woman's right to divorce. The difference here is that Paul does not give any reason for the wife to remain single. He absolutely defies Jesus' teaching on the subject.

From that precipice, Paul leaps into believers and unbelievers being married. Jesus never even contemplated this event, but Paul considers that the believer consecrates the unbeliever. (I Corinthians 7:12-16; RSV)

In Judaism, in a Jewish state, the question would never be broached. They married within their own society and faith, even going so far as to command an absolute prohibition on marriage to Samaritan Jews.

Once again, we must contend with Paul's generalization of religious terminology. God's calling to individuals is a very specific, personal experience which involves a 'real' communion with the Lord God. Paul uses it as an everyday, common occurrence.

"Only, let every one lead the life which the Lord has assigned to him, and in which God has called him." (I Corinthians 7:17; RSV)

Apparently, in Paul's view, a calling was based on the individuals' decision rather than an actual 'calling' by the Lord God. This gives away the reality of Paul's 'conversion' vision. And how can we take this position? Because after all is said and done, Paul gives himself away.

"This is my rule in all the churches."

"And so ordain I in all churches." (I Corinthians 7:17; KJV)

Paul rules, Paul commands, Paul orders. At the least, he compromises, gives permission by concession, but he is the standard by which all things are set. And if any one dare to think that we have escaped these dictatorial circumstances after two thousand years, they are sadly mistaken, for Paul rules the church to this very day.

In his 'advice' concerning the state of marriage, Paul shows us that he was ill informed on the basis for marriage and its irreconcilable consequences in being devoted to God.

The Interpreter's Bible, possibly tired of attempting to defend an indefensible position, finally makes a valid statement that this student can agree with. And in the end, declare what should be obvious to everyone. "Paul is here rationalizing his prejudices." (The Interpreter's Bible; Volume 10: Page 86)

The theologian is being kind, for there is another good reason that Paul did not simply come out and demand abstinence. Injecting himself into every facet of the congregation's private lives, he is obviously attempting to strengthen his rule over the community. But he does not yet have sufficient control to demand an end to marriage and sexual intercourse among the believers. As previously noted, the further we go into the organization that this man devised, the more it rings familiar as a sect under rigorous scrutiny and strict regulation.

As though to accentuate this very premise, Paul himself makes the point.

"A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. If the husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord. But in my judgment she is happier if she remains as she is. And I think that I have the Spirit of God." (I Corinthians 7:39-40; RSV)

In his egotism, Paul reduces a woman beyond subservient level. By 'bound', does Paul see women as 'bond servants'? Possibly, for his opinion of women is also about to be espoused, and it is prominent in certain Baptist churches today, with all its conditions of servitude.

But the final straw is his blatant, swollen opinion of himself. "And I think that I have the Spirit of God." In other words, 'I am speaking as the Almighty, and my word is law.' (The Interpreter's Bible; Volume 10: Page 89)

One might believe that he was totally unqualified to make suggestions on the subject, but that, of course, did not stop Paul. From there he goes on to instruct the church on food offered to idols. This is interesting because it involves Moses Law, and in denouncing the Law of God, Paul is forced to do some serious double-talking.

Paul has already stated that, "All things are lawful for me," but not all things are helpful. "All things are lawful for me," but I will not be enslaved by anything." (I Corinthians 6:12; RSV)

------------------------------------
Concluding note from Wolfgang - Whether or not the foregoing represents Paul's personal opinions or are allegedl to be the inspired Word of Yahweh, this doctrine has been passed down the centuries and has adversely affected millions of people.

I must agree with Victor that Paul was a false apostle, and it is revealing that neither his name nor the name of his disciple Luke are mentioned even once in the gospels of the true apostles of the Lamb, known always AS THE TWELVE.

Hallelu YAH !!

Wolfgang

Marsh · 11-01-2004, 05:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WolfgangvonUSA

I must agree with Victor that Paul was a false apostle, and it is revealing that neither his name nor the name of his disciple Luke are mentioned even once in the gospels of the true apostles of the Lamb, known always AS THE TWELVE.

And I can't believe that Moses never once talked about Jesus in the books of the Law. Oh wait, Jesus hadn't been born yet.

You know that Judas was one of "The Twelve," right?

WolfgangvonUSA · 11-01-2004, 06:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marsh

And I can't believe that Moses never once talked about Jesus in the books of the Law. Oh wait, Jesus hadn't been born yet.

You know that Judas was one of "The Twelve," right?

The coming advent of the 'Son of Man' or 'Shiloh' (or many other names) was mentioned many times in the OT as an event to be yearned for.

In a way Jesus did mention the Pharisee Paul when He said

Jhn 5:43 I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.

Mat 16:6 Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.

Rev 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: (This was said to the church at Ephesia, the area Paul had visited and had been rejected.)

2Ti 1:15 This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me; of whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes.

But these were warnings of the coming of a false apostle and not a prediction of a blessing, a warning that was not heeded as the apostate church has elevated the doctrine of Paul over and above the gospels of the true apostles.

And yes Judas was one of The Twelve, and he fulfilled the purpose given to him. Perhaps he will be forgiven for doing what was unpleasant but essential to create the scenario that would allow Yahshua to fulfill His mission of sacrifice and Redemption.

I am hoping you will respond to Victor's essay and my many comments in as much thoughtful detail as we have taken to present them to you for your consideration and enlightenment.

Try to remember that the wide gate is the wrong path. The Way to the Kingdom is by Way of the narrow gate. Remember that the mainstream church is the harlot described in Revelation.

Yah Bless!!

Hallelu YAH !!

Wolfgang

juantoo3 · 11-01-2004, 02:59 PM

Kindest Regards, Wolfgang, and welcome to CR!

Thank you for your posts.

I have heard in the past some of the ideas you present concerning Paul and his doctrine. While it is fair to say I hold some reservations myself, at the same time I am reminded that we are to seek truth where we may find it. I think Paul presents his dialogues in a manner that expressly states these are his opinions in how to live a virtuous life, but that they are his opinions. A person seeking to live a virtuous life must realize wisdom and virtue in the end by their own efforts as the Good Lord leads them.

I often quote the book of Romans, and I find a great deal of wisdom in the book of Hebrews. So, I am of the mind that one shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Even in my understanding (or at least trying to) that the earliest manuscripts of the New Testament were probably adulterated by the political powers of the time, we have no real way of knowing for sure what may have been altered or added. So, while on some level I am agreement with you concerning Paul, on another level I also find wisdom and solace in some of what he has to say. Not gospel, but a man's wisdom, a man who many believe tried his level best to lead a virtuous life, and to bring that wisdom and virtue to peoples far removed from the source from which they originated (that is, to the gentiles as distinct from the Jewish origin).

The logical end to your conclusion (Paul's teaching not worthy of consideration) is that no one can be saved unless they are converted Jews, all of the rest of the 99.999% (optimistic figure) of the world population that ever lived is damned by no other cause than birth, something I vehemently disagree with, as apparently did Paul.

As for the concerns about marriage and sex, may I ask plainly, what other purpose is there for marriage than for physical love, and by extension procreation? Companionship? One needn't marry for that. Financial solvency? Perhaps, but is that not a "false" reason for a marriage? Convenience? For whom?

I am not certain of the threat at that day and age of venereal disease, but I would think it a fair presumption to think the threat existed even then, with a decided lack of medical intervention. So, while remaining single and celibate may not seem in line with "legal" teaching of the time considering Paul's indoctrination (having been trained as a pharisee), it does promote a common sense wisdom of a man striving to live a virtuous life.

I agree that Paul's teaching gets treated with a reverence it may not fully deserve, even to the extreme in the case of Church politics in modifying doctrine as suits the times and whims of the power(s) du jour, but that in no way detracts from his well-intended example. Provided one sees his letters as just that, well-intended advice, and not necessarily gospel. In effect, "this is what seems to work for me, my advice is to try this path, and if it does not exactly fit you, then with the help of God modify it (slightly) to your position in life. Only do not do so on your own, and of your own accord and volition. Compare with the wisdom you already possess or have access to, and remedy any contradiction, all the while keeping your eye on the path of virtue." This is my crude summary, but I hope it conveys my understanding of Paul. Kind of like the gospels (and the law!) lay out the framework, Paul provides an owner's manual. Goodness knows, not everybody reads or follows an owner's manual as gospel!

My two cents, of which I have little precious time to give at this moment. Shalom.

JJM · 11-02-2004, 12:35 AM

Ok I haven't read this whole thread but I'd just like to say that this argument has no basis because Jesus says In Mathew 19:11-12:

"All men take not this word, but they to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs, who were born so from their mother's womb: and there are eunuchs, who were made so by men: and there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that can take let him take it. "

So to argue that Paul is wrong here is to say Christ was wrong. I’ll read it now but I just wanted to say this right off the bat because many of these posts are very long.

WolfgangvonUSA · 11-02-2004, 02:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JJM

Ok I haven't read this whole thread but I'd just like to say that this argument has no basis because Jesus says In Mathew 19:11-12:

"All men take not this word, but they to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs, who were born so from their mother's womb: and there are eunuchs, who were made so by men: and there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that can take let him take it. "

So to argue that Paul is wrong here is to say Christ was wrong. I’ll read it now but I just wanted to say this right off the bat because many of these posts are very long.

I have no idea of how this has anything to do with the validity of Paul's self -professed claim to be an apostle. Please clarify.

Wolfgang

Marsh · 11-02-2004, 05:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WolfgangvonUSA

And yes Judas was one of The Twelve, and he fulfilled the purpose given to him. Perhaps he will be forgiven for doing what was unpleasant but essential to create the scenario that would allow Yahshua to fulfill His mission of sacrifice and Redemption.

Actually, Jesus said that it would have been better for Judas to have a millstone hung around his neck and to be thrown into the sea than to commit such a sin.

It seems to me that all of your arguments are presupposing the fact that Paul was a pharisee and not a follower of Jesus. But you haven't proven this, Wolfgang, nor have you really attempted to prove this.

WolfgangvonUSA · 11-02-2004, 06:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marsh

Actually, Jesus said that it would have been better for Judas to have a millstone hung around his neck and to be thrown into the sea than to commit such a sin.

It seems to me that all of your arguments are presupposing the fact that Paul was a pharisee and not a follower of Jesus. But you haven't proven this, Wolfgang, nor have you really attempted to prove this.

Marsha, are you disputing that Paul was a Pharisee?

WolfgangvonUSA · 11-02-2004, 06:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marsh

Actually, Jesus said that it would have been better for Judas to have a millstone hung around his neck and to be thrown into the sea than to commit such a sin.

It seems to me that all of your arguments are presupposing the fact that Paul was a pharisee and not a follower of Jesus. But you haven't proven this, Wolfgang, nor have you really attempted to prove this.

Marsha,
What verse are you quoting regarding Judas and this millstone?

I, Brian · 11-02-2004, 09:53 AM

I'm also missing the point where 1 Cor 7:! is advocating complete celibacy of humanity, and therefore in violation of the quotes from Genesis - which I neither see as relevant nor necessary to the argument anyway.

WolfgangvonUSA · 11-02-2004, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by I, Brian

I'm also missing the point where 1 Cor 7:! is advocating complete celibacy of humanity, and therefore in violation of the quotes from Genesis - which I neither see as relevant nor necessary to the argument anyway.

Although Paul is not commanding humanity to become celibate, he is setting a very bad example that priests (and nuns) in the Catholoic church will be destined to follow, and this has been the cause of much sexual misconduct commited by these priests as the suppresion of natural desires often leads to other undesirable sexual conduct (with the choir boys or the nuns, etc).

As Genesis said, "it is not good for a man to be alone". Women were created to be his companions, emotionally and sexually.

Wolfgang

JJM · 11-03-2004, 12:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WolfgangvonUSA

I have no idea of how this has anything to do with the validity of Paul's self -professed claim to be an apostle. Please clarify.

Wolfgang

It has nothing to do with it. But it shows that Jesus also condoned Celibacy for those who could handle it and said they would be rewarded for it. And if Jesus condoned it you can't get mad a Paul for doing the same. Also once again you don't understand what an apostle is. He was sent by Christ in a vision. He was the only one who heard the words but those around him saw the light.