Should Paul be removed from the NT?

[JJM]

Originally Posted by Abogado del Diablo

How do you know God can't lie, or we can't misunderstand, or (quite possible) someone wrote a story in which chirst says this when it didn't actually happen?


There's no evidence of that.

Ok obviously we don't know that this isn't just made up. We do have to trust that this is a legitimate quote from Christ. All religions require some faith. Obviously we don't know but if you don't trust any scripture nor the teachings of any church then you have nothing to go on with Christianity. SO yes I'm assuming that this is legitimate. Now how do I know that God can't lie?

Heb 6:18

That by two immutable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we may have the strongest comfort, we who have fled for refuge to hold fast the hope set before us.

That is how I know God can't lie. The second reason the Old and New Testament constantly talk about how lying is a sin. God can't sin. Because God decides what sin is so if he did it, it wouldn't be a sin. SO God doesn't lie.





Matthew 16:18

And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Now it is possible that I have misunderstood this but to my understanding this says Christ founded a church and that the gates of Hell will not prevail against it. Therefore it must always have existed. This is a given and however because if the church was corrupted Hell would gain the upper hand this must mean that the church won't be corrupted. That is my evidence. now if I'm misinterpreting this how is it meant to be interpreted.

Originally Posted by Abogado del Diablo

Why? Isn't "Free Will" an aspect of christianity? Couldn't everyone choose not to be a part of "that Church" or decide they prefer "false doctrine"? Then there wouldn't be a church even if christianity were "true".

Because the above quote says so and God can't lie. Of course free will is part of Christianity. However it is by the grace of the Holy Spirit that that false doctrine is not defined. Also even if everyone could leave the church Christ being God would have known whether or not that was going to happen before making such a statement.

Originally Posted by Abogado del Diablo

Huh!? Shall I build a bridge out of it?


I'm sorry. I still have no idea what you are talking about here.

Only three churches claim to be the original church and infallible. Those are the two things needed to qualify for the Church Christ actually founded. They are the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox churches. Does this make sense now?

Originally Posted by Abogado del Diablo

I don't see anything about heaven or hell there. I do see "come to the knowledge of the truth" though.

1 timothy 2:3-4
3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth

That means he wants all people to be saved.

Originally Posted by Abogado del Diablo

How do you know what it's purpose is? It sure seems like it's based on fear. Even Mary, the Mother of Jesus is reported to have said it's based on fear. Simon Peter supposedly said it was still a requirement, too.

Please show me this. The fear of God is not a fear of what he can do to you but a sign of Respect for his power. And also saying that I do what he wills because those who sin have no fear or respect for God’s truth and laws.

Originally Posted by Abogado del Diablo

No they don't. Faith is a gift from God so that no man can boast (you said so yourself). God must choose to give some humans no faith and send them to hell. What is hell, anyway? And how do you know that?

Hell is a place for those who have turned their back on God and hate him and his ways. SO yes people do chooses Hell. I will get into the faith thing when I reply to your next post.

Originally Posted by Abogado del Diablo

What is "sin" according to Paul?

Ro 6:23
For the wages of sin is death. But the grace of God, life everlasting in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Hell is the eternal Death. however I don't see what sin is could you show me.

Originally Posted by Abogado del Diablo

Not possible. Sorry.

Listen you said there was radical differences between what Christianity is and what you think it is supposed to be. Why won't you just tell what they are and stop being so stubborn?

[JJM]

Originally Posted by Abogado del Diablo

Whoops, I read your post wrong. That'll teach me to write at 5 am!

Ephesians 2:8: "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God-- 9not by works, so that no one can boast. 10For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do."

Or the NKJV: "8For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God,"

Faith is a gift of God's grace. This makes sense with the literalist christian tradition. The faith we're talking about is faith in the historical reality that Jesus Christ was God made flesh who died for our sins. Obviously, ancient aboriginal americans and New Zealanders never even heard the story of Jesus. So faith is indeed a gift of being born at the right place and time, at the very least. The rest were created for the purpose of sending them to hell.

Ephesians 2:7-9
That he might shew in the ages to come the abundant riches of his grace, in his bounty towards us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you are saved through faith: and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God. Not of works, that no man may glory

This is clearly saying that it is grace that is the gift God gives. If God gave faith then it is possible that God would refuse salvation to some. However from his quote above we know that he wants all people to enter heaven. SO that must be wrong. This quote is saying that no matter how much faith we do not have nor how many good works we do we will never deserve Salvation and that Saving Grace is God's gift. However faith is something we have to have on our own that we must be open to. And grace is something God wishes to bestow on everyone who will have it.

[JJM]

Originally Posted by Abogado del Diablo

Also Philipp. 1:29:

"For to you it has been granted on behalf of Christ, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake"

Philipp. 1:28-29

28 And in nothing be ye terrified by the adversaries: which to them is a cause of perdition, but to you of salvation, and this from God. 29 For unto you it is given for Christ, not only to believe in him, but also to suffer for him:

if you read the verse above you see that it refers to salvation so it is salvation a.k.a. saving grace that is the gift from God not faith.

[Abogado del Diablo]

Originally Posted by JJM

Ephesians 2:7-9
That he might shew in the ages to come the abundant riches of his grace, in his bounty towards us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you are saved through faith: and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God. Not of works, that no man may glory

This is clearly saying that it is grace that is the gift God gives. If God gave faith then it is possible that God would refuse salvation to some. However from his quote above we know that he wants all people to enter heaven. SO that must be wrong. This quote is saying that no matter how much faith we do not have nor how many good works we do we will never deserve Salvation and that Saving Grace is God's gift. However faith is something we have to have on our own that we must be open to. And grace is something God wishes to bestow on everyone who will have it.

It is absolutely NOT saying that. Nobody would think that "Grace" would come from one's self. The clause "not of yourselves" would be nonsense if it referred to "grace." It refers to the noun that precedes it - "Faith". Which in turn is a gift of God's grace. Be careful to look objectively at this. The predisposition is to twist simple language into difficult language to make it fit with a theological preference. But it says what it says.

[Abogado del Diablo]

Originally Posted by JJM

Ok obviously we don't know that this isn't just made up. We do have to trust that this is a legitimate quote from Christ. All religions require some faith. Obviously we don't know but if you don't trust any scripture nor the teachings of any church then you have nothing to go on with Christianity.

Oh, but I absolutely do. It makes more sense to me now than when I "believed" in heaven and hell and "sin" and whatnot. You just have to be able to hear it. He who has ears to hear, let him hear.


[color=black]

Originally Posted by JJM

SO yes I'm assuming that this is legitimate. Now how do I know that God can't lie?

Originally Posted by JJM

Heb 6:18

That by two immutable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we may have the strongest comfort, we who have fled for refuge to hold fast the hope set before us.

Circular logic. You can't justify the credibility of a source by quoting from the source. For example, how do we know scripture is the word of god? Because it says "all scripture is God breathed?" Yeah, but's that in the very scripture we're talking about. Get it?

Originally Posted by JJM

The second reason the Old and New Testament constantly talk about how lying is a sin.

Originally Posted by JJM

God can't sin.

I would think "god" can do whatever "god" wants to do.

Originally Posted by JJM

Because God decides what sin is so if he did it, it wouldn't be a sin. SO God doesn't lie.

Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premises.

Originally Posted by JJM

Now it is possible that I have misunderstood this but to my understanding this says Christ founded a church and that the gates of Hell will not prevail against it. Therefore it must always have existed. This is a given and however because if the church was corrupted Hell would gain the upper hand this must mean that the church won't be corrupted. That is my evidence. now if I'm misinterpreting this how is it meant to be interpreted.

I'm really sorry, but this still makes no sense to me.

Originally Posted by JJM

Because the above quote says so and God can't lie. Of course free will is part of Christianity. However it is by the grace of the Holy Spirit that that false doctrine is not defined. Also even if everyone could leave the church Christ being God would have known whether or not that was going to happen before making such a statement.

Unless he didn't make the statement, of course. And, of course, god can lie unless he isn't omnipotent.

Originally Posted by JJM

1 timothy 2:3-4

Originally Posted by JJM

3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth

That means he wants all people to be saved.

But it doesn't say anything about heaven or hell, which was the original inquiry. Where do you get the idea that "saved" means going to heaven v. eternal damnation in hell?

Originally Posted by JJM

Please show me this. The fear of God is not a fear of what he can do to you but a sign of Respect for his power.

You say "tom-ae-tow" and I say "taw-maw-tow". Same thing.

Originally Posted by JJM

And also saying that I do what he wills because those who sin have no fear or respect for God’s truth and laws.

Do you sin?

Originally Posted by JJM

Hell is a place for those who have turned their back on God and hate him and his ways. SO yes people do chooses Hell. I will get into the faith thing when I reply to your next post.

Turning your back on God is turning your back on the sacrifice made by Jesus. Yes?

Originally Posted by JJM

Ro 6:23
For the wages of sin is death. But the grace of God, life everlasting in Christ Jesus our Lord.

That doesn't say what Paul thinks sin is. It's also horribly out of context. I suggest you carefully read the entire book of Romans. You may find that passage does NOT mean what you've been taught it means.

Originally Posted by JJM

Hell is the eternal Death. however I don't see what sin is could you show me.

Do you sin?

Originally Posted by JJM

Listen you said there was radical differences between what Christianity is

Originally Posted by JJM

and what you think it is supposed to be. Why won't you just tell what they are and stop being so stubborn?

I am telling you. I am quite serious that if your goal is to find ways to keep your faith, you can't hear what I have to say.

[Abogado del Diablo]

Originally Posted by JJM

[font=Verdana]Ok obviously we don't know that this isn't just made up.

How do we know this? In my understanding of Christianity, it doesn't matter whether Jesus actually said any of the things attributed to him.

And, like I said before, it makes a lot more sense to me now than the traditional, "faith as in God became flesh died for our sins, those who believe the literal truth of that go to heaven the rest go to hell" approach.

[JJM]

Originally Posted by Abogado del Diablo

[/color][/font][/color]


How do we know this? In my understanding of Christianity, it doesn't matter whether Jesus actually said any of the things attributed to him.

How do we know what? It does matter if Christ ever actually said any of the things attributed to him because if he didn't then why on earth would we believe he ever even existed. There is no other reference to him in history except in Josephus but that was after his resurrection. The point is that if they where just making stuff up then there are no reason to believe any of it.

Originally Posted by Abogado del Diablo

And, like I said before, it makes a lot more sense to me now than the traditional, "faith as in God became flesh died for our sins, those who believe the literal truth of that go to heaven the rest go to hell" approach.

I don't believe this I never said I did. You seem to think that I do. This is the biggest flaw that Protestants ever came up with. Humanity is saved by Grace. Because we have all sinned and none of us deserve Heaven. However that grace isn't withheld form those who don’t know that he is God nor is it given to all who believe he is God. This is what I've been trying to get across to you the whole time. God wishes to give his Grace to everyone and will to all those who accept it. That is why I said men put them selves in Hell. God doesn't condemn people there people choose to put themselves there by rejecting God. TO those who more is given more is expecting. That line is important. Because I will tell you right now it is much harder for a Christian to get into heaven than someone who has never been told about God. Because a Christian knows what he should do and if he chooses not to he is Rejecting Christ. However the non-Christian doesn't know all and thus can't be held accountable for his sins out of ignorance. The only way that someone can go to hell for not being Christian is if they truly know that Christ is God. If that has been revealed to they and they reject it. However only God knows if this is the case and no human on earth can know if someone has truly rejected God. You are only required to Do what you know is right. So if a Muslim truly doesn't understand Christianity and he attempts to worship God in the Muslim matter and follows God the way the Koran, which is his only source of knowledge of God, tells him then he will go to heaven because he has never rejected God. Only if this man was told about Christianity and began to see that his religion was wrong but held onto it anyway would he go to hell because of it. One is only required to follow how he knows best. If he attempts that he will be saved regardless if he's Christian or not. A Christian is not only required to believe that Christ is God but actually live by Christ’s principles if not he is rejecting God’s word and Christ is the Word.

[Abogado del Diablo]

Originally Posted by JJM

How do we know what? It does matter if Christ ever actually said any of the things attributed to him because if he didn't then why on earth would we believe he ever even existed. There is no other reference to him in history except in Josephus but that was after his resurrection. The point is that if they where just making stuff up then there are no reason to believe any of it.

Oh, but absolutely there is a reason to believe it. The tricky part is what are we to believe. That's what we are talking about. There's a difference between "believing" in the authority of scripture and "knowing" its meaning. Ask, seek and knock if you want to. Nobody can force you to though.

Originally Posted by JJM

I don't believe this I never said I did. You seem to think that I do. This is the biggest flaw that Protestants ever came up with. Humanity is saved by Grace. Because we have all sinned and none of us deserve Heaven. However that grace isn't withheld form those who don’t know that he is God nor is it given to all who believe he is God. This is what I've been trying to get across to you the whole time. God wishes to give his Grace to everyone and will to all those who accept it.

That would be a work. Faith is a gift so that no man can boast, however.

Originally Posted by JJM

That is why I said men put them selves in Hell. God doesn't condemn people there people choose to put themselves there by rejecting God.

Sure he does in that theology. Faith is a gift of god's grace.

Originally Posted by JJM

Because a Christian knows what he should do and if he chooses not to he is Rejecting Christ.

What does Paul say about rejecting Christ?

Originally Posted by JJM

However the non-Christian doesn't know all and thus can't be held accountable for his sins out of ignorance. The only way that someone can go to hell for not being Christian is if they truly know that Christ is God.

Truly "know" it or truly "believe" it?

Originally Posted by JJM

If that has been revealed to they and they reject it. However only God knows if this is the case and no human on earth can know if someone has truly rejected God. You are only required to Do what you know is right. So if a Muslim truly doesn't understand Christianity and he attempts to worship God in the Muslim matter and follows God the way the Koran, which is his only source of knowledge of God, tells him then he will go to heaven because he has never rejected God. Only if this man was told about Christianity and began to see that his religion was wrong but held onto it anyway would he go to hell because of it. One is only required to follow how he knows best. If he attempts that he will be saved regardless if he's Christian or not. A Christian is not only required to believe that Christ is God but actually live by Christ’s principles if not he is rejecting God’s word and Christ is the Word.

A christian isn't required to do anything.

[JJM]

Originally Posted by Abogado [/color

del Diablo]

Originally Posted by Abogado [/color

[/color]

Oh, but I absolutely do. It makes more sense to me now than when I "believed" in heaven and hell and "sin" and whatnot. You just have to be able to hear it. He, who has ears to hear, let him hear.

[color=black]

May I ask what it is you have to go on then?

[color=black]

Originally Posted by Abogado [/color

del Diablo]

Circular logic. You can't justify the credibility of a source by quoting from the source. For example, how do we know scripture is the word of god? Because it says "all scripture is God breathed?" Yeah, but's that in the very scripture we're talking about. Get it?







I would think "god" can do whatever "god" wants to do.





Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premises.

Ok how am I using Scripture to prove scripture? I'm using scripture to prove that God doesn't lie not that scripture is valid. And you’re the one who asked for citation. Secondly Ok I should have said doesn't sin obviously he can. However it doesn't make sense for God to say something is evil and then do it. If he wanted to do it he could have just decided that it isn't evil.



[color=black]

Originally Posted by Abogado [/color

del Diablo]

I'm really sorry, but this still makes no sense to me.

Alright then I'll try to make it clearer. This is assuming that Christ actually said this because if he didn't then obviously it doesn't matter but we have no way of truly knowing if he did or not. Christ says and upon this rock I will build my church now he can't build a church if he didn't found one therefore I concluded that Christ founded a church. Secondly and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. This shows 2 things one that this church must still exist because if it didn't Hell has prevailed because Hell still exists and the church doesn't. The second is that this church must be infallible because Satan is a corruptor and obviously prevails if he corrupts the church. Does that make sense now?

[color=black]

Originally Posted by Abogado [/color

del Diablo]

Unless he didn't make the statement, of course. And, of course, god can lie unless he isn't omnipotent.





But it doesn't say anything about heaven or hell, which was the original inquiry. Where do you get the idea that "saved" means going to heaven v. eternal damnation in hell?

I say that saved means going to heaven because that is its meaning. What other meaning is there? Besides the other two which I mentioned. But If it is saying God wants everyone to be baptized thus gaining the capacity to go to heaven then why would he then withhold it from some. If it is the third well that is an Idea that was invented by Luther and wouldn't be the meaning of Salvation in this verse. So is there another meaning of salvation?



[color=black]

Originally Posted by Abogado [/color

del Diablo]

You say "tom-ae-tow" and I say "taw-maw-tow". Same thing.



[/font]



Do you sin?

Please excuse me yes of course I do. This was a bad statement. I'll say a little more at your next do you sin.



[font=Arial]

Originally Posted by Abogado [/font

del Diablo]

Turning your back on God is turning your back on the sacrifice made by Jesus. Yes?

It is accepting the sin in your life.



[font=Arial]

Originally Posted by Abogado [/font

del Diablo]

That doesn't say what Paul thinks sin is. It's also horribly out of context. I suggest you carefully read the entire book of Romans. You may find that passage does NOT mean what you've been taught it means.

I know it doesn't say what sin is I said that. What do you think it means? Obviously original sin is the cause of our human death. Our acceptance of sin a.k.a. Blasphemy against eh Holy spirit is the only unforgivable sin and causes our eternal death.

[font=Arial]

Originally Posted by Abogado [/font

del Diablo]

Do you sin?

Well of course I do I meant those who accept their sin knowing that it is sin. God knows Most will never stop sinning but if we don't attempt not to sin then we are not accepting the word of God which is Christ.



[font=Arial]

Originally Posted by Abogado [/font

del Diablo]

I am telling you. I am quite serious that if your goal is to find ways to keep your faith, you can't hear what I have to say.

Well here's the way I see it. If you show me a good point then I'll be glad to loose my faith. Now of course I want to keep it but that doesn’t mean I'm going to turn my back on obvious evidence that I'm wrong. Right now though you are telling me that you have something about my religion that you wish to share but before you do you want me to promise I will conform to your views before you've said anything because you don't want to waste your time. I see that as very absurd. This is what I'm going to tell you I want to keep my faith and if your views are primarily in line with my faith or lack any reason then I'm going to tell you. If I think that yours does have some reason to it but is still wrong I'm going to tell you and maybe you can clarify and I'll understand or we will have to agree to disagree and If what you say makes sense then I will either take your views or leave Christianity all together. However you are helping no one trying to get me to conform to your views before you have told me what they are.

[JJM]

Originally Posted by Abogado del Diablo

It is absolutely NOT saying that. Nobody would think that "Grace" would come from one's self. The clause "not of yourselves" would be nonsense if it referred to "grace." It refers to the noun that precedes it - "Faith". Which in turn is a gift of God's grace. Be careful to look objectively at this. The predisposition is to twist simple language into difficult language to make it fit with a theological preference. But it says what it says.

Of course not But they would assume that they could earn salvation and salvation would come from them.


For by grace you are saved this seems very simple His grace is a gift of salvation.


through faith We receive this gift through Faith.



and that not of yourselves, we can’t earn the salvation.



For it is the gift of God. Just what it says.



This verse is saying that salvation is a gift of Grace a grace we receive through faith not that God gives us the faith. Notice I said his gift was his saving Grace. It is also saying that no matter how hard we work we can't earn salvation it is always a gift not that certain works aren’t necessary to achieve that gift. For We need true faith and faith without works is dead.

[JJM]

Originally Posted by Abogado [/color

del Diablo]

Originally Posted by Abogado [/color

Oh, but absolutely there is a reason to believe it. The tricky part is what are we to believe. That's what we are talking about. There's a difference between "believing" in the authority of scripture and "knowing" its meaning. Ask, seek and knock if you want to. Nobody can force you to though.

I realize that but if you honestly think that Christ didn't say any of this then the meaning doesn't matter and I don't understand why you believe. I believe he did say this but my point is if you don't think he said any of it then your belief is completely irrational.

[color=black]

Originally Posted by Abogado [/color

del Diablo]

That would be a work. Faith is a gift so that no man can boast, however.

Sure he does in that theology. Faith is a gift of god's grace.

Once again Saving Grace is a gift of God a gift we receive through having faith and living that faith because faith without works is dead. The Idea that It is by simply having faith one is saved was an invention of Luther’s and the Idea that God's gift is faith instead of Saving Grace sound very much like Calvin.



[color=black]

Originally Posted by Abogado [/color

del Diablo]

What does Paul say about rejecting Christ?

Paul says that we must have true faith. James says true faith is following the laws of Christ. Christ says what the laws are and that we are only binned by those which we truly know of. There for by rejecting Christ we go to hell. Not to mention God wants all to go to heaven so he would only not give it to those who don't accept it.



[color=black]

Originally Posted by Abogado [/color

del Diablo]



Truly "know" it or truly "believe" it?

I'd say kind of a mix between the two. In the End it's God's call.

[color=black]

Originally Posted by Abogado [/color

del Diablo]

[color=black]

A christian isn't required to do anything.

A Christian is required to do two things have faith and live that faith.

[Abogado del Diablo]

Originally Posted by JJM

May I ask what it is you have to go on then?

I don't understand your question.

Originally Posted by JJM

Ok how am I using Scripture to prove scripture? I'm using scripture to prove that God doesn't lie not that scripture is valid. And you’re the one who asked for citation. Secondly Ok I should have said doesn't sin obviously he can. However it doesn't make sense for God to say something is evil and then do it. If he wanted to do it he could have just decided that it isn't evil.

Why doesn't that make sense that god would do evil? What is evil?

Originally Posted by JJM

Alright then I'll try to make it clearer. This is assuming that Christ actually said this because if he didn't then obviously it doesn't matter but we have no way of truly knowing if he did or not. Christ says and upon this rock I will build my church now he can't build a church if he didn't found one

What is a church? What did christ mean when he said it? Who wrote that passage?

Originally Posted by JJM

and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Which side are you on? How do you know?

Originally Posted by JJM

This shows 2 things one that this church must still exist because if it didn't Hell has prevailed because Hell still exists and the church doesn't.

You've been to Hell?

Originally Posted by JJM

The second is that this church must be infallible because Satan is a corruptor and obviously prevails if he corrupts the church. Does that make sense now?

That's better. What if the church is absolutely nothing like what you think it is? What if the "church" has been staring you in the fact your whole life and you haven't really seen it?

Originally Posted by JJM

I say that saved means going to heaven because that is its meaning.

According to what/whom?

Originally Posted by JJM

What other meaning is there?

You can save a kitten from a tree. You can save save a friend from embarassment. You can save a man from sacrificing the joy of life to pursue empty promises. It could mean lots of other things.

Originally Posted by JJM

But If it is saying God wants everyone to be baptized thus gaining the capacity to go to heaven then why would he then withhold it from some.

Good question. Why do you think?

Originally Posted by JJM

So is there another meaning of salvation?

Yes. Lots of them

Originally Posted by JJM

I know it doesn't say what sin is I said that. What do you think it means? Obviously original sin is the cause of our human death. Our acceptance of sin a.k.a. Blasphemy against eh Holy spirit is the only unforgivable sin and causes our eternal death.

What is "original sin"? How do you know? Where is "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit" defined as you indicate here? What is "eternal death?"

Originally Posted by JJM

Well of course I do I meant those who accept their sin knowing that it is sin.

You mean you don't sin when you know it's a sin?

Originally Posted by JJM

God knows Most will never stop sinning but if we don't attempt not to sin then we are not accepting the word of God which is Christ.

Is that what Paul says about rejecting christ? He has a very sophisticaete and nuanced philosophy on this issue. And if attempting not to sin is the meaning of "accepting the word of god" for purposes of salvation, then that would be salvation through "works." Read Paul's writings on this subject carefully and thoroughly and for yourself. Try not to have any pre-conceived notions about what he is trying to say when you read it. You might be surprised.

Originally Posted by JJM

Well here's the way I see it. If you show me a good point then I'll be glad to loose my faith. Now of course I want to keep it but that doesn’t mean I'm going to turn my back on obvious evidence that I'm wrong.

It's not about evidence. It's about knowing the truth.

Originally Posted by JJM

Right now though you are telling me that you have something about my religion that you wish to share but before you do you want me to promise I will conform to your views before you've said anything because you don't want to waste your time.

No. I haven't said anything like that. First, I don't have anything to say about your religion. What I have to say has nothing to do with your religion. Second, I didn't say you have to conform. In fact, I don't want to challenge your religion. I'm suggesting that you challenge it. You don't have to if you don't want to, though. And in the end, I can't make you. And I'm fine with that. But my telling you things isn't going to mean anything to you. You have to be the one to ask.

[Abogado del Diablo]

Originally Posted by JJM

I realize that but if you honestly think that Christ didn't say any of this then the meaning doesn't matter and I don't understand why you believe. I believe he did say this but my point is if you don't think he said any of it then your belief is completely irrational.

It's not "belief" for starters. And it certainly isn't irrational. When you can understand how it's possible, you will know the voice of God.

Originally Posted by JJM

Once again Saving Grace is a gift of God a gift we receive through having faith and living that faith because faith without works is dead.

That's not what Paul said. Salvation is by God's grace through faith - which faith is not of our selves -- not through works.

Originally Posted by JJM

The Idea that It is by simply having faith one is saved was an invention of Luther’s and the Idea that God's gift is faith instead of Saving Grace sound very much like Calvin.

Actually, Calvin got it from Paul. And he completely misunderstood it, too.

Originally Posted by JJM

Paul says that we must have true faith. James says true faith is following the laws of Christ.

Which laws are those? What does Paul say about having to follow the "law"?

Originally Posted by JJM

Christ says what the laws are and that we are only binned by those which we truly know of. There for by rejecting Christ we go to hell. Not to mention God wants all to go to heaven so he would only not give it to those who don't accept it.

What is "original sin" then? Is that a sin we knew of when we committed it? Again, what does Paul say about rejecting Christ?

Originally Posted by JJM

A Christian is required to do two things have faith and live that faith.

Nope. A christian isn't required to do anything.

[Abogado del Diablo]

Originally Posted by JJM

Of course not But they would assume that they could earn salvation and salvation would come from them.


For by grace you are saved this seems very simple His grace is a gift of salvation.


through faith We receive this gift through Faith.



and that not of yourselves, we can’t earn the salvation.



For it is the gift of God. Just what it says.



This verse is saying that salvation is a gift of Grace a grace we receive through faith not that God gives us the faith. Notice I said his gift was his saving Grace. It is also saying that no matter how hard we work we can't earn salvation it is always a gift not that certain works aren’t necessary to achieve that gift. For We need true faith and faith without works is dead.

"Faith" is set off in the sentence against "works." Salvation is by "faith" - which is not of yourselves" not by works - which is of yourself. If salvation were through faith which is of yourself, then it would be through a "work", i.e. having faith.

[cosmo]

Should Paul be removed from the NT?

There is much controversy over his self proclaimed authority.

In Acts 9, Paul heard a voice from heaven saying, “’Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?’ …And the lord said, ‘I am Yeshua whom you are persecuting. ‘Arise, and go into the city, and you will be told what to do,’” (Acts 9:4-6). This is the same revelation of which Paul speaks in Galatians 1:11-12, where he states, “But I declare to you, brethren, that the gospel that I preach, is not from men. For I did not receive it nor was I taught it from man, but by the revelation of Yeshua the Messiah.”
According to Luke, Yeshua identified himself from a voice from heaven, and tells Paul to go “into the city” to receive the rest of the revelation. That’s it. There was no other further information or specific message. Paul would be “told what to do.” By contrast, Paul claims (in Galatians) that Yeshua taught him the gospel and that no one else taught him. These are two completely opposite accounts of what occurred.

If we go with Luke’s account, we have some logical deductions. First, Paul must have known the gospel already because of his previous encounters with Messianics. Any fervent persecutor typically learns about their “enemy:” their beliefs, practices, hangouts, etc. Thus, when a heavenly voice rebuked him, he would have naturally reversed his prior opinion on the gospel. Secondly, Acts declares that Paul fasted for three days in Jerusalem until Ananias healed and supped with him. From Jerusalem, he went to Damascus and fellowshipped with the disciples, where he caused quite an uproar amongst the Jews (Acts 9:19). According to Paul, “I did not immediately consult with flesh and blood” (Galatians 1:16), yet Luke declares otherwise. Paul did immediately consult with the flesh and blood prophet Ananias, and when he arrived in Damascus, he did immediately associate with the disciples that lived there (Acts 9:19). As seen by his enthusiastic and vocal acceptance of Yeshua, logic dictates that he would have engaged Ananias and the Damascus disciples in many long and involved discussions about this faith. Paul so was eager to speak about nothing except Yeshua (see 1 Corinthians 2:2; 2 Corinthians 4:10-11; Philippians 1:21); it is illogical to think that he kept his thoughts and studies to himself.

In Acts 9:25-28 Luke declares that when Paul returned to Jerusalem, the disciples were initially hesitant to associate with him. Barnabus befriended him, however, and introduced him to the apostles. Luke then states (Acts 9:28), “And he was with them moving freely around Jerusalem,” indicating a working (albeit possibly strained) relationship between the apostles and Paul. By contrast, Paul declares, “Then after three years I returned to Jerusalem to see Peter, and lived with him fifteen days. I didn’t see any of the other apostles, except James the Lord’s brother,” (Galatians 1:19).

So why are these contrasting accounts important to our study? As far as we are aware, Luke had no agenda except to present the facts (as he knew them) regarding Paul’s experiences. By contrast, Paul considered his version of the “facts” vital to justifying his questionable authority. His “apostolic” claims rested upon something he could not prove: that he had “walked” with Yeshua and been taught directly by Yeshua (a prerequisite to being called an apostle). Since he could not prove these things, he had to point back to his initial revelation … and then claim that his subsequent interpretations and applications of scripture were authoritative because of that one-time encounter (cf. Romans 1:2-6). Lest anyone doubt his authority, he frequently mentioned the insights he received from the Spirit – the same Spirit that indwelt Yeshua.[i] By sharing the same Spirit, he could speak as one who had walked with Yeshua – making him equal with the apostles (Jude 8); making him worthy of emulating.[ii] In Philippians 3:17, Paul goes so far as to tell them, “be followers of me.”

Being a “follower of Paul” became problematic for him. In 1 Corinthians 1:11-13, he addresses the conflict. “I have been told … that there are arguments among you. …each of you are saying, ‘I am of Paul,’ and ‘I of Apollos,’ and ‘I of Cephas,’ and ‘I of Messiah.’” When this was probably written (50’s CE), schisms were forming based on the various men. What makes this schism particularly noteworthy, however, is that the Corinthian believers considered Paul, Apollos, and Cephas to be rabbi’s of equal merit with Yeshua. Evidently, each group had rival theologies (hence the arguments); and each man’s followers considered his theological position to be superior to the others.[iii] Though Paul was “preaching Messiah,” his followers considered themselves to be followers of Paul, as opposed to being followers of Yeshua. This is very revealing. Paul’s theology must have been considered different than that of Yeshua, and of Cephas (Peter), and of Apollos; but these were not the only ones.

When Paul arrived in Jerusalem, Luke states that “the brethren received us gladly,” but those “brethren” evidently did not include James and the “elders” of the Jerusalem congregation. Paul met with them the following day, where Paul felt he had to explain himself and his ministry. Although they rejoiced in his Gentile ministry, they were not pleased with the effect his message was having on the Jewish believers. The Jewish believers had heard wide-spread rumors that Paul was teaching Jews to forsake the Torah (Acts 21:21, 28). To clear his name and reputation of these charges, Paul had to prove himself: he needed to undergo a Nazarite vow. This, in itself, shows the wide-spread controversies caused within the believing community by Paul’s message. His message was not the same as James’ or those of the Jerusalem council (cf. Galatians 2:12). It distinguished between the obligations of the Gentiles and Jews. He taught that Gentiles – because they were wholly ignorant of Scripture and righteousness – had minimal requirements for entry into the faith (Acts 21:25).[iv] By contrast, the apostles to the Jews – those who had been trained in Scripture from childhood – taught a more strict observance (Acts 21:21) of it.

continued...........