Court case against Christianity

[wizanda]

Considering how many posts there are all over this forum questioning Christianity, I will start a new one, as a centralized one.



I see on this forum many intelligent scholars and since most Christians, do not wish to hear this, I feel this is probably a better place to say this and discuss it.



A lot of what I am saying is already in articles on my site and I plan to make this known world wide.



Christianity world wide at present doesn’t follow Christ, it follows the Pharisees, let me explain.



As many intelligent scholars have noticed, Paul contradicts most of Christ’s teachings.

So changing the meaning of what he taught, it is almost impossible to follow both if they contradict each other; this is why there is so many different Christian denominations.

Many Muslims do already know this and this is one of the things Mohammed was told the Bible had been changed for.

Here is a list of some of the points:

This is a quick guide to the contradictions between Saul/Paul and Yeshua/Jesus



1. Christ said he came to fulfill the law and not to end it. Paul said he came to end the Law, and if we are in Christ we are free of the Law.



2. Christ said that we are judged by the commandments; Paul said we are free of them, if we are in Christ.



3. Christ said that we should not judge, Paul said that the spiritual may judge and should not be judged.


4. Christ said that God is the judge, Paul said Christ is.



5. Christ said that the inheritance is from God and they killed him to try and steal it, as in the parable of the vine dresser; Paul said that we have an inheritance because of Christ’s death.



6. Christ said not to sacrifice the innocent, Paul praised the fact that Christ died.



7. Christ said that God is the lord of the living; Paul said that we should remain with Christ in death.



8. Christ showed that reincarnation happens, as he said John was Elijah, Paul said we only live once.



9. Christ said God is spirit, Paul said Christ is the image of God; breaking the second commandment.



10. Christ said he was sent and was a servant and a son, Paul said Christ is equal to God and even said he was God.



11. Christ said to worship God, Paul said to worship Christ.



12. Christ said to be one in God, Paul said to be one body in Christ.



13. Christ said that faith in God is powerful; Paul said that faith is ‘the faith’ and so turning its meaning in to church attendance.



14. Christ showed and said to have faith in God; Paul said have faith in Christ.



15. Christ said have one father, Paul said he had begotten people in Christ so making him a father to them.



16. Christ said that we should want of nothing and trust in God, giving up wealth and helping the poor after his death, 3 thousand people were practicing this. Paul ended this and then said if we don’t work we don’t eat, and even went back to work while preaching him self.



17. Christ said it will be hard for a rich man to enter heaven; Paul aspired to have wealth and for two years he rented his own house.



18. Christ said we have forgiveness for forgiving others; Paul said we have forgiveness in Christ.



19. Christ said we are justified by our words, Paul said we are justified by Christ.



20. Christ said God would show mercy to the merciful, Paul said we have mercy in Christ.



21. Christ said to be like children to enter heaven; Paul said not to be like children.



22. Christ said to be the light of the world and to show the bad through love how to be good, Paul said to have nothing to do with bad people and push them out.



23. Christ and the Bible said wisdom will make you shine in heaven, and he said that we should increase the talents we are born with; Paul said to be simple in Christ.



24. Christ said, if you help collect in the harvest (works) you will receive your reward, Paul said it is not by works but by faith in Christ alone.



25. Christ said don’t make vain repetition in prayers; Paul established it as a way to pray, through the wording he used and the Pharisee ways he showed.



26. Christ said hate self and love through God’s love, then this is unconditional, Paul said who doesn’t love them self’s.



27. Christ said women can be sisters (equal), Paul said they should remain lower.



28. Christ said we should remember him through the sharing of bread (start of acts, only bread); Paul said to remember him through wine.



29. Christ said that his disciples should only drink water; Paul made the drinking of wine (communion) a religious Ritual.



30. Christ clearly showed and said do not worry about being accepted by man, Paul said to be accepted by many.



31. Christ said take up your cross and follow me, as the cross was a symbol in many cultures for God. Paul turned the cross into only a symbol of Christ’s death, and caused it to become idolatry.

32. Christ said he came to bring division, meaning that we all follow God; Paul said Christ came to bring peace.



33. Christ said God is the teacher, Paul said him self is a teacher.



34. Christ said God and the kingdom of heaven is within you, Paul said that a fake prophet would say that God is within you.



35. Christ warned of those who say the time is near, Paul preached the time is near.



36. Christ said invite the poor to your house and feed the hungry, Paul said let the hungry eat at home, and showed to only invite friends for food.



There may be more, yet this is a start to many of things that are contradictory between Paul and Yeshua.

 

[wizanda]

Here is a list of some of the people who have seen this, there maybe more:


In the excellent book Christ or Paul?, the Rev. V.A. Holmes-Gore wrote:

"Let the reader contrast the true Christian standard with that of Paul and he will see the terrible betrayal of all that the Master taught....For the surest way to betray a great Teacher is to misrepresent his message....That is what Paul and his followers did, and because the Church has followed Paul in his error it has failed lamentably to redeem the world....The teachings given by the blessed Master Christ, which the disciples John and Peter and James, the brother of the Master, tried in vain to defend and preserve intact were as utterly opposed to the Pauline Gospel as the light is opposed to the darkness."

The great theologian Soren Kierkegaard, writing in The Journals, echoes the above sentiment:

"In the teachings of Christ, religion is completely present tense: Jesus is the prototype and our task is to imitate him, become a disciple. But then through Paul came a basic alteration. Paul draws attention away from imitating Christ and fixes attention on the death of Christ The Atoner. What Martin Luther. in his reformation, failed to realize is that even before Catholicism, Christianity had become degenerate at the hands of Paul. Paul made Christianity the religion of Paul, not of Christ Paul threw the Christianity of Christ away, completely turning it upside down. making it just the opposite of the original proclamation of Christ"

The brilliant theologian Ernest Renan, in his book Saint Paul, wrote:

"True Christianity, which will last forever, comes from the gospel words of Christ not from the epistles of Paul. The writings of Paul have been a danger and a hidden rock. the causes of the principal defects of Christian theology."

Albert Schweitzer, winner of the 1952 Nobel Peace Prize, has been called "one of the greatest Christians of his time." He was a philosopher, physician, musician, clergyman, missionary, and theologian. In his The Quest for the Historical Jesus and his Mysticism of Paul he writes:

"Paul....did not desire to know Christ....Paul shows us with what complete indifference the earthly life of Jesus was regarded....What is the significance for our faith and for our religious life, the fact that the Gospel of Paul is different from the Gospel of Jesus?....The attitude which Paul himself takes up towards the Gospel of Jesus is that he does not repeat it in the words of Jesus, and does not appeal to its authority....The fateful thing is that the Greek, the Catholic, and the Protestant theologies all contain the Gospel of Paul in a form which does not continue the Gospel of Jesus, but displaces it."

William Wrede, in his excellent book Paul, informs us:

"The oblivious contradictions in the three accounts given by Paul in regard to his conversion are enough to arouse distrust....The moral majesty of Jesus, his purity and piety, his ministry among his people, his manner as a prophet, the whole concrete ethical-religious content of his earthly life, signifies for Paul's Christology nothing whatever....The name 'disciple of Jesus' has little applicability to Paul....Jesus or Paul: this alternative characterizes, at least in part, the religious and theological warfare of the present day"

Rudolf Bultman, one of the most respected theologians of this century, wrote in his Significance of the Historical Jesus for the Theology of Paul:

"It is most obvious that Paul does not appeal to the words of the Lord in support of his....views. when the essentially Pauline conceptions are considered, it is clear that Paul is not dependent on Jesus. Jesus' teaching is -- to all intents and purposes -- irrelevant for Paul."

Walter Bauer, another eminent theologian, wrote in his Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity:

"If one may be allowed to speak rather pointedly the Apostle Paul was the only Arch-Heretic known to the apostolic age."

George Bernard Shaw, winner of the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1925; in his Androcles and the Lion, we read:

"There is not one word of Pauline Christianity in the characteristic utterances of Jesus....There has really never been a more monstrous imposition perpetrated than the imposition of Paul's soul upon the soul of Jesus....It is now easy to understand how the Christianity of Jesus....was suppressed by the police and the Church, while Paulinism overran the whole western civilized world, which was at that time the Roman Empire, and was adopted by it as its official faith."

Will Durant; in his Caesar and Christ, he wrote:

"Paul created a theology of which none but the vaguest warrants can be found in the words of Christ....Through these interpretations Paul could neglect the actual life and sayings of Jesus, which he had not directly known....Paul replaced conduct with creed as the test of virtue. It was a tragic change."

Martin Buber, the most respected Jewish philosopher of this century, wrote in Two Types of Faith:

"The Jesus of the Sermon on the Mount is completely opposed to Paul"

In one of the best books on early Christianity, Those Incredible Christians, Dr. High Schonfield reports:

"It was not only the teaching and activities of Paul which made him obnoxious to the Christian leaders: but their awareness that he set his revelations above their authority and claimed an intimacy with the mind of Jesus, greater than that of those who had companied with him on earth and had been chosen by him....It was an abomination, especially as his ideas were so contrary to what they knew of Jesus, that he should pose as the embodiment of the Messiah 's will....Paul was seen as the demon-driven enemy of the Messiah....For the legitimate Church, Paul was a dangerous and disruptive influence, bent on enlisting a large following among the Gentiles in order to provide himself with a numerical superiority with the support of which he could set at defiance the Elders at Jerusalem. Paul had been the enemy from the beginning. and because he failed in his former open hostility he had craftily insinuated himself into the fold to destroy it from within."

 

[wizanda]

The next part to all of this is that, as I have been finding when I have been going around Christian forums; they always quote John back at me and say yet John says. Now many of us have been taught to believe that John was the disciple, yet while I was re-reading over the gospels I realise within the book of John how many references there are, that would be only known by the Pharisees. So I made a careful examination of the book of John again, looking for Pharisee points that only a member of the Pharisee high council would have known. Here is a list of them and an explanation:

John 1:19 and this is the witness of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, who are you?



How would John Mark the disciple, know where they were sent from? Only someone who was there, when they were sent, would know. Also no other disciple mentioned that they were Levites.



John 1:24 and they who were sent were from the Pharisees.



Again knowing who was sent and where from, these are small points, yet all will become apparent as you read on and see the bigger picture.



John 2:18-22 Then the Jews answered and said to Him, What sign do you show us, since you do these things? (19) Yeshua answered and said to them, destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up. (20) Then the Jews said, this temple was forty-six years building, and will you rear it up in three days?(21) But He spoke of the temple of His body. (22) Therefore when He had risen from the dead, His disciples remembered that He had said this to them, and they believed the Scripture and the word which Yeshua had said.



This is blatantly obvious that it is made up by the Jewish council, as we are told this in Mark who was one of Yeshua’s disciples that it was false.



Mar 14:55-59 and the chief priests and all the Sanhedrin sought for witness against Yeshua, to put Him to death. And they found none. (56) For many testified falsely against Him, but the testimonies were not identical. (57) And certain ones rose up and bore false witness against Him, saying, and (58) we heard Him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands. (59) But neither was their testimony identical.



This by Mark makes it clear that the destroying of the temple is made up, by the Jewish council; this is also repeated in Matthew, yet not in as much detail. This is probably the most obvious point that the books of John can’t be trusted. If this is clearly made up to disgrace Yeshua and have it believed that he was killed for this, what else is made up?



Mat 26:59-61 And the chief priests and the elders and all the Sanhedrin sought false witness against Yeshua, in order to put Him to death. (60) But they found none; yea, though many false witnesses came, they found none. But at last two false witnesses came up (61) and said, this one said, I am able to destroy the temple of God and to build it in three days.



Now as you see in both Mathew and Mark (disciples) they tell us that it was false witness, to try and discredit him, so how then could John later say, “that then the disciples knew he meant the body”? If the disciples say it was false witness, meaning made up.



John 3:1 and there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews.



This is the first mention of what is presumably, the second name of the author of John, as the disciples wouldn’t have known his name unless told. There are many points mentioned with in this book, which only someone of that rank within the Jewish council or Pharisee chief priest would have known.



John 3:9 Nicodemus answered and said to Him, How can these things be?



Again clear of who was saying things from a Pharisee perspective, not as an account of a disciple, that it simply, was a Pharisee. This whole account John 3:1-21, is the private conversation, Nicodemus is said to have had with Yeshua in the night. There are many points within this conversation, which are contrary to what Yeshua taught the disciples. If the disciples had been there during this conversation, they would have surely included these things, as they are important to salvation according to the book of John. Yet in the other three books, there is not a mention of any of these things, in fact the points that are contained, are contrary to the rest of the Bible and the gospel of Yeshua, according to Mathew, Mark and Luke.



John 7:32 The Pharisees heard that the crowd murmured such things concerning Him. And the Pharisees and the chief priests sent officers to seize Him.



This is clear that it is only a Pharisee, who would have been present, when these thing where discussed and acted on by them.



John 7:35 Then the Jews said among themselves, where is he about to go that we shall not find him? Is he about to go to the Dispersion of the Greeks, and to teach the Greeks?



Here this is even saying that it was a private conversation between the Jews.



John 7:45-52 then the officers came to the chief priests and Pharisees. And they said to them, why have you not brought him? (46) The officers answered, never did any man speak as does this Man. (47) Then the Pharisees answered them, Also, have you not been deceived? (48) Is it not true that not any of the rulers or of the Pharisees have believed into him? (49) But this crowd, not knowing the Law, is cursed. (50) Nicodemus said to them, (he who came to Yeshua by night, being one of them), (51) Does our law judge the Man before it hears Him and knows what He does? (52) They answered and said to him, Are you also from Galilee? Search the scriptures and see that a prophet has not been raised out of Galilee.



There is no disciple present here and this is a discussion between the Pharisee, again with Nicodemus prominent in what is being said, almost defending him self after the event that he tried to help.



John 9:13-34 they brought him who once was blind to the Pharisees. (14) And it was a Sabbath when Yeshua made the clay and opened his eyes. (15) Then again the Pharisees also asked him how he had received his sight. He said to them, He put clay upon my eyes, and I washed, and I see. (16) Therefore some of the Pharisees said, this man is not from God, because he does not keep the Sabbath. Others said, how can a man, a sinner, do such miracles? And there was a division among them. (17) They said to the blind man again, what do you say about him, for he has opened your eyes? He said, He is a prophet. (18) But the Jews did not believe concerning him, that he had been blind and had received his sight, until they called the parents of him having received sight. (19) And they asked them, saying, is this your son, whom you say was born blind? How then does he now see? (20) His parents answered them and said, we know that this is our son, and that he was born blind. (21) But by what means he now sees, we do not know. Or who has opened his eyes, we do not know. He is of age, ask him. He will speak for himself. (22) His parents spoke these things because they feared the Jews, for the Jews had already agreed that if anyone confessed that He was Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue. (23) Therefore his parents said, He is of age, ask him. (24) Then a second time they called the man who was blind and said to him, Give glory to God. We know that this man is a sinner. (25) He answered and said, whether He is a sinner, I do not know; one thing I do know, that being blind, now I see. (26) Then they said to him again, what did he do to you? How did he open your eyes? (27) He answered them, I have told you already, and you did not hear. Why do you want to hear it again? Do you also desire to be His disciples? (28) Then they reviled him and said, you are his disciple, but we are Moses' disciples. (29) We know that God spoke to Moses, but we do not know from where this man is. (30) The man answered and said to them, why, this is a marvelous thing, that you do not know from where He is, and He has opened my eyes. (31) But we know that God does not hear sinners, but if anyone is God-fearing and does His will, He hears him. (32) From everlasting it was not heard that anyone opened the eyes of one who was born blind. (33) If this One were not of God, He could do nothing. (34) They answered and said to him, you were altogether born in sins, and do you teach us? And they cast him out.



This whole account here is by the Pharisee and again clear that it is written by someone who was present when this account happened.

 

[wizanda]

John 10:19-21 then a division occurred again among the Jews because of these words. (20) And many of them said, He has a demon and is insane. Why do you hear him? (21) Others said, these are not words of one who has been possessed by a demon. A demon is not able to open the eyes of blind ones.



I pray by now, you can see that these accounts are starting too added up, as many of these are private conversations between the Jewish council and Pharisee. Meaning that the author of John is indeed one of them and the next bit shows in some ways they chooses for his death.



John 11:45-53 then many of the Jews who came to Mary, and had seen the things which Yeshua did, believed on Him. (46) But some of them went to the Pharisees and told them what Yeshua had done. (47) Then the chief priests and Pharisees gathered a Sanhedrin, and said, what can we do? For this man does many miracles. (48) If we let him alone this way, all will believe on him. And the Romans will come and take away both our place and nation. (49) And one of them, Caiaphas, being the high priest of that year, said to them, You do not know anything at all, (50) nor do you consider that it is expedient for us that one man should die for the people, and not that the whole nation perish. (51) And he did not speak this of himself, but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Yeshua should die for the nation; (52) and not for that nation only, but also that He should gather together in one the children of God who were scattered abroad. (53) Then from that day they took counsel together that they might kill Him.



This is the most important, as this was discussed when the author of John was present and this clearly shows that it was the Jewish councils idea to kill Yeshua. Does this sound like a follower of Yeshua, to not say something at this point, if he could see that he is and was the Christ? This indeed fulfils prophecy as spoke in Isaiah 53 and makes it apparent why he grieves, that they make his soul a sin offering, as this is a Pharisee version of the events.



John 12:9-11 then a great crowd of the Jews learned that he was there. And they did not come for Yeshua' sake only, but also that they might see Lazarus, whom he had raised from the dead. (10) But the chief priests consulted that they might put Lazarus to death also, (11) because many of the Jews went away and believed on Yeshua because of him.



This is clear that the author of John was among the chief priests as who would have known that they wanted to put Lazarus to death. This definitely wouldn’t be made public knowledge as many people would be appalled, to hear such things. That a man brought back to life, is killed to cover up the fact, he was brought back to life. How can we trust someone, who has even the slightest part in this? Then in other books talks about love, is this someone who understands what love is?



John 12:19 Then the Pharisees said among themselves, Do you see how you gain nothing? Behold, the world has gone after Him.



Again a private conversation between the Pharisee, so unless you were apart of them, it would not be known.



John 12:42 Still, however, even out of the rulers, many did believe on Him. But because of the Pharisees they did not confess, lest they should be put out of the synagogue;



The writer knows the feelings of many of the council, unless you were friends of them how could you know how they felt about Yeshua?



John 18:10 Then Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it and struck the high priest's servant and cut off his right ear. And the servant's name was Malchus.



The writer knows whose servant it was and even their name.



John 18:13-14 and they led Him away to Annas first, for he was father-in-law to Caiaphas, who was the high priest that year. (14) And Caiaphas was he who gave counsel to the Jews, that it was expedient that one man should die for the people.



Clearly showing that the writer not only knew who everybody was, yet the connections within there families as well.



John 18:24 Then Annas had sent Him bound to Caiaphas the high priest.



This makes it apparent that who ever wrote this, knew what happened to Yeshua in between him leaving the disciples. Where and who he was sent to with their names.



John 18:26 One of the servants of the high priest, being kinsman to him whose ear Peter cut off, said, Did I not see you in the garden with him?



This is a clear statement that only a Pharisee or someone within the Jews would know, that the servant was related to the person, who had their ear cut off.



John 19:39 and Nicodemus also came, who at the first came to Yeshua by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pounds.



This again shows that Nicodemus was trying to help, after the event and clearly showing that this may have been written by him. Else why would you include detail such as these with measurements and ingredients?



Act 4:6 And Annas the high priest, and Caiaphas, and John, and Alexander, and as many as were of the kindred of the high priest, were gathered together at Jerusalem.



This when included with all the points shown, makes it clear that John, was indeed one of the names of the Pharisee high priests.

There is alone within this, points that make the books of John not trust worthy. With this as a foundation though, we can begin to see that what is taught to today, is untrue when compared with the gospels of Mathew, Mark and Luke and what Yeshua actually said.

A big factor as well, to say that John is not the disciple, is the fact the disciple went up the mountain with Yeshua and met Elijah and Moses; this is not included in the gospel of John. Instead we have all points that only a Pharisee would have known, making it quite clear that this is not the disciple.

 

[Curios Mike]

this topic is already being discussed in http://www.comparative-religion.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2582 (Christianity minus Pual in the Christian section of this forum) if you care to discuss it with those who might pose a challenge. I think you may enjoy the debate.

 

[wizanda]

Now within the book of John there are many points that not only contradict Yeshua from what we see in the other gospels written by the disciples, yet also the rest of the Bible. Unlike the other gospels where Yeshua is shown to know the Bible and use it as it was meant; reiterating a lot of the principles. The book of John makes him sound like he has a huge ego and portrays him self as God, when in fact if he had done, this would be in the other gospels; which it is not. Here is a list of some of the points that contradict Yeshua and the Old Testament:

1. John said that Yeshua said he is the true vine, now Ezekiel said that the vine is used for burning. The vine within much of the Old Testament is the house of Israel; Yeshua referred to it the same when he said the parable of the vine dresser. In which he said the vine dressers are the teachers of the Jewish people; John said that God is the vine dresser; Yeshua said he is the owner of the vineyard.



2. John said that Yeshua is the good shepherd, yet all the way through the Old Testament God is the shepherd. This is one reason many sheep have gone astray.



3. John said that the Holy Spirit was sent by Yeshua, yet all the way through the Old Testament; the Holy Spirit is referred to and is sent by God.



4. John says that Yeshua said unless you eat his blood and flesh you have no life in you. Yet the Old Testament says that if you eat blood or flesh, God will cut you off from him.



5. John says that if you believe in the name of Yeshua then you will be saved. Yet Yeshua said to preach the gospel in his name, and repentance for the remission of sins; not sin is forgiven in his name. Also he said that those who will say, didn’t we do things in your name; Yeshua says it is the ones of the father who will be saved.



6. John says that all judgement is given to the son, yet Yeshua told his disciples that to sit on his right hand or left is not his to give. Yeshua said that he judges no one, yet leaves all judgement to the father.



7. John says that those who hate Yeshua also hate God, yet many love God without knowing Yeshua.



8. John says that Yeshua said, those who came before him were thieves and robbers, yet Yeshua said they spoke of him and referred to them as friends.



9. John says that Yeshua told Philip that he is the father, yet on many occasions he says he learns from the father and the father is more then he.



10. John says that all things were made through Yeshua, yet the Old Testament tells us all things were made by God.



11. John says Yeshua said he is the light of the world, Yet the Old Testament tell us God is the light of the world.



12. John said that Yeshua is the only begotten son, yet Yeshua said those who do the work of the father, are his brothers and sisters.



13. John said that Yeshua came to bring judgement, yet Yeshua said he came to call the sinners to repentance.



14. John said to believe in Yeshua to receive ever lasting life, Yeshua said to follow the commandments and give up wealth to receive ever lasting life.



15. John said that God sent his only son to die; Yeshua said that he came to bring in the harvest. It was the Pharisees idea to kill him to steal the inheritance. Other wise this would mean that God committed murder which is not possible.



16. John says that Yeshua said he is the way truth and the life and the only way to the father, yet Yeshua said those who are pure of heart and keep the commandments will see God.



17. John tells the story of doubting Thomas, and says that Thomas calls Yeshua God, yet this is not recorded by anyone else who was there. Also Yeshua said that there is none good but God.



18. John says that Yeshua said you are not of the world, yet we were made of soil from the world.



19. John says Yeshua said he is the living water, yet the Old Testament tells us God is the living water.

 

[iBrian]

I've moved this to the comparative studies board, as it's effectively asking for a critical analysis.

However, one BIG problem with the entire topic of this thread is that there are no references - where are the Biblical verses to compare with one another?

Really, context is such an easily overlooked part of understanding that it would be unfair to make compairson of statements without examining further the context through which they were raised.

 

[wizanda]

I will be happy to do so. There is a lot to add though if you can imagine as this is a big court case.

Thank you for moving it to the appropriate forum, at first I thought you had deleted it and almost cried o0(oh not here as well)

 

[Curios Mike]

Being that at the moment time doesnt present itself I will challenge your 1st one about Paul:

wizanda says:

1. Christ said he came to fulfill the law and not to end it. Paul said he came to end the Law, and if we are in Christ we are free of the Law.

Matt 22:37-40
37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.38 This is the first and great commandment.39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
KJV

Rom 8:2
2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death.
NKJV

I dont see a contradiction.... If you Love as Christ said; you will have no sin? Maybe you misunderstand the scripture. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding your point....

Maybe if time presents itself I can look at afew more perhaps next weekend:

 

[wizanda]

Mat 5:17 Do not think that I have come to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to destroy but to fulfill.

Rom 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness for everyone who believes.

Paul believed as the Pharisees had, that by Christ’s death, he could be made a sin offering for the world. To understand Paul’s statement about the end of the law, you have to have a look at the Jewish customs, that if you had sinned you made a sin offering and then you would be free of sin. So to sacrifice Gods son would be a huge sin offering. Yet all the way through the Bible there have been prophets, which have come along and asked that people have knowledge of God more then offerings.
This was foretold in Isaiah that it makes Christ grief as they made him a sin offering, also Christ statement I require mercy and not sacrifice. Is clear of what he was referring to and his purpose, if checked up.

Mat 12:7 But if you had known what this is, "I desire mercy and not sacrifice," you would not have condemned those who are not guilty.

Hos 6:6 For I desired mercy and not sacrifice, and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.

With this and also the parable of the vine dresser, of how they killed the vine dressers son to claim the inheritance; is Paul’s main ideology through much of his teaching. That people have an inheritance due to Christ death.

Mat 21:33-41 Hear another parable. There was a certain housemaster who planted a vineyard and hedged it round about, and dug a winepress in it, and built a tower, and rented it to vinedressers, and went into a far country. (34) And when the season of the fruits drew near, he sent his servants to the vinedressers to receive its fruits. (35) And the vinedressers took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another. (36) Again he sent other servants, more than the first, and they did the same to them. (37) But last of all he sent his son to them, saying, They will respect my son. (38) But when the vinedressers saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir. Come, let us kill him, and get hold of his inheritance. (39) And taking him, they threw him out of the vineyard and killed him. (40) Therefore when the lord of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those vinedressers? (41) They said to Him, Bad men! He will miserably destroy them and will rent out his vineyard to other vinedressers who will give him the fruits in their seasons.

This is basically, what has been preached by both John and Paul as if truth, that people have an inheritance as they killed the vine dressers son.
Yet according to Christ him self this is wrong and so fulfils this he spoke.

Mat 23:29-32 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! Because you build the tombs of the prophets, and decorate the tombs of the righteous, (30) and say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. (31) Therefore you are witnesses to yourselves, that you are the sons of those who killed the prophets; (32) and you fill up the measure of your fathers.

 

[Curios Mike]

Jesus is the knowledge and the sacrifice:

*John 14:5-7
6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.
7 "If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; and from now on you know Him and have seen Him."
NKJV
*Rom 10:5-11
5 For Moses writes about the righteousness which is of the law, "The man who does those things shall live by them." 6 But the righteousness of faith speaks in this way, "Do not say in your heart, 'Who will ascend into heaven?' " (that is, to bring Christ down from above) 7 or, " 'Who will descend into the abyss?' " (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). 8 But what does it say? "The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart" (that is, the word of faith which we preach): 9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. 11 For the Scripture says, "Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame."
NKJV

*Matt 12:1-7
12:1 At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. And His disciples were hungry, and began to pluck heads of grain and to eat. 2 And when the Pharisees saw it, they said to Him, "Look, Your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath!" 3 But He said to them, "Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, he and those who were with him: 4 how he entered the house of God and ate the showbread which was not lawful for him to eat, nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests? 5 Or have you not read in the law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath, and are blameless? 6 Yet I say to you that in this place there is One greater than the temple.
NKJV

Jesus is pointing out to the pharasees it is beter to be merciful to your neighbor, than to sacrifice for your own sins. observe:
Matt 5:22-24
22 But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, 'Raca!' shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, 'You fool!' shall be in danger of hell fire. 23 Therefore if you bring your gift to the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24 leave your gift there before the altar, and go your way. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift.
NKJV



In verse 6 he is refering to himself.... becuase he is the sacrifice.

*Matt 21:41-45
42 Jesus said to them, "Have you never read in the Scriptures:
'The stone which the builders rejected
Has become the chief cornerstone.
This was the LORD's doing,
And it is marvelous in our eyes'?

43 "Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it. 44 And whoever falls on this stone will be broken; but on whomever it falls, it will grind him to powder."
NKJV

Jesus knew they where going to kill him, this is why he came:

John 6:38-39
38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day
KJV
Matt 16:21
21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.
KJV
Mark 8:31
31 And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.
KJV
Matt 26:1-2
26:1 Now it came to pass, when Jesus had finished all these sayings, that He said to His disciples, 2 You know that after two days is the Passover, and the Son of Man will be delivered up to be crucified.
NKJV
Matt 26:39
39 He went a little farther and fell on His face, and prayed, saying, "O My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will."
NKJV
Mark 14:35-36
35 He went a little farther, and fell on the ground, and prayed that if it were possible, the hour might pass from Him. 36 And He said, "Abba, Father, all things are possible for You. Take this cup away from Me; nevertheless, not what I will, but what You will."
NKJV
Luke 22:42-43
42 saying, "Father, if it is Your will, take this cup away from Me; nevertheless not My will, but Yours, be done."
NKJV

 

[wizanda]

I see you are trying and I appreciate that, yet we can not if this is to be a true court case, take the words of the defendants as such and use them on the side of the prosecution. If that makes sense; using words and scripture taken from John and Paul can not be used as Christ said them.



If you post up direct, Christ said this and Paul or John said that, then it can be a fair trial.



You are correct in saying that Christ knew he would be killed; yet a sacrifice was stated by the Pharisees, this is also foretold in Isaiah.

Isa 53:10 yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he has put him to grief: when you shall make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see [his] seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.

This is taken from the Hebrew names version for once, as the wording is more correct in context of its meaning.

So to believe he was a sacrifice for sin is already foretold that it makes him grief then added to the fact of some of the stuff you have just posted, would you like to be killed so people can say you are a sin offering?

Do you see why he pleads to take this cup from him?

The correct terminology is an intercessor, as that means he passes on the message to the judge (God). So can explain things to God of whom and what you are, not that he takes the sin as the Pharisees have told people to believe. This was originally made up by Caiaphas the chief of the Pharisees and then continued by both John and Paul.

One major point of this trial that it is untrue and puts a lot of people of ever follow Yeshua when in fact his yoke is light.

Peace N love B with U

 

[Curios Mike]

The stated that I have put on the last post was the agreence between Christ, Pual andJohn, rather then the disagreence that you claim. And being that their words are on Trial it is important to understand that they agree rather than disagree. And next point you yourself have used their words in Comparison, so I will also. If u want a fair trail you have to here all sides, other wise the conversation will be useless. And a witch hunt.

 

[Curios Mike]

P.S. If we are to continue this let us take this one point at a time rather then. And if possible lets try to make it short and simple being that time is not a luxery. thanx

 

[wizanda]

Well if John is mostly made up, then what Christ says must be repeated in more then one gospel, as other wise he never said it.

Especial some of the important things, as the disciple would not have missed them.

Peace N love B with U

 

[Saltmeister]

Christianity world wide at present doesn’t follow Christ, it follows the Pharisees, let me explain.

As many intelligent scholars have noticed, Paul contradicts most of Christ’s teachings.

So changing the meaning of what he taught, it is almost impossible to follow both if they contradict each other; this is why there is so many different Christian denominations.

Many Muslims do already know this and this is one of the things Mohammed was told the Bible had been changed for.

I don't think it's a matter of "following Paul" or "following Jesus" -- that would be missing the point.

Who is Paul? Who is Apollos? . . . I did the work of an expert builder and laid the foundation and another man is building on it . . . 1 Corinthians 3:5-11

We are the living stones of God's temple and Christ is the foundation.

That's the basic idea for now. I intend to post some replies to your points.

 

[Saltmeister]

Classification of Topic Areas

I think it is important for us to classify our discussion under topic headings.

It is sometimes frustrating when people present their views about what they don't agree with in the Christian Gospel, but you never know when they have actually read your comments.

Ok, sorry for being so harsh, I might be wrong about this, but it seems that comments made by Christians (and by me) to explain Christian concepts fall on death ears. It could also be the same for those trying to present their views on what they disagree with on Christianity.

Therefore I recommend that we classify what we are talking about so that we know the other party has actually addressed our arguments.

On the other hand, because we are forbidden to convert at CR, we won't go any further than making our views understood. The aim is not to persuade or convince, but enlighten the other party. That involves letting them know exactly why we think the way we do. As soon as that's done, we can move on to another topic area.

The Law, Human Nature, Right and Wrong

1. Christ said he came to fulfill the law and not to end it. Paul said he came to end the Law, and if we are in Christ we are free of the Law.
2. Christ said that we are judged by the commandments; Paul said we are free of them, if we are in Christ.
5. Christ said that the inheritance is from God and they killed him to try and steal it, as in the parable of the vine dresser; Paul said that we have an inheritance because of Christ’s death.

Adam ate the fruit from the Forbidden Tree. By doing so, knowledge of evil was introduced into the human nature. Adam opened a path to evil and wickedness by exposing human beings to knowledge of evil and thereby making it possible for them to sin.

Christ came to perform the cleansing ritual that we call the "atoning sacrifice" of the Lamb of God. By doing so, Christ opened a path to holiness whereby whoever dies before the Second Coming or lives until the Second Coming while believing in Him is spiritually cleansed of the evil in human nature, losing the ability to sin.

Christ was the Second Adam, and did by instinct what was right without following rules and regulations.

When evil is removed from the human nature, we no longer need to follow rules and regulations because we will then be able to do what is right by instinct without need for ideology, dogma or doctrine.

This was how Christ fulfilled the Law: by eliminating the need for dogma, doctrine, ideology, rules and regulations. Christ did only what was right because he didn't inherit the dark side of human nature from Adam.

If we follow only the bright side of human nature then we will never sin and will not need to follow rules and regulations and this was how Christ fulfilled the Law. Love is one example of the bright side of human nature, and if we follow our love, we have obeyed the whole Law.

That doesn't mean we will never sin. We can never sin as long as we are following the bright side of our human nature. Sin is a result of us "turning to the dark side."

If you love someone, you will never do him wrong. To love, then, is to obey the whole Law. Romans 13:10

God and His Word

4. Christ said that God is the judge, Paul said Christ is.

Jesus was the Word of God. The human being itself was not God, but the character and personality revealed through that human being came from God and was God. The character and personality belonged to God not to the human being. The human being was like a medium of transmission. God used him to convey Himself to human beings.

It is much like the way the physical pages of the Quran is used to convey God's wisdom. Is it right to say that the Word of God can be made physical? We are talking about the incarnation of God's wisdom in a Holy Book.

Before the world existed, the Word already existed; he was with God, and he was the same as God. John 1:1

Rising with Christ

7.Christ said that God is the lord of the living; Paul said that we should remain with Christ in death.

We shall be raised with Christ from death.

God and His Word (2)

10.

Christ said he was sent and was a servant and a son, Paul said Christ is equal to God and even said he was God.

11. Christ said to worship God, Paul said to worship Christ.

Jesus said, "Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father."

1 John 2:23, "Whoever has the Son has the Father also."

Whoever has the Word of God also has God.

Living Stones of God's Temple

12.

Christ said to be one in God, Paul said to be one body in Christ.

Perhaps you should look at these passages.

I pray that they may all be one. Father! May they be in us, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they be one, so that the world will believe that you sent me. John 17:21

In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. Ephesians 2:21

You also, live living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood offering spiritual sacrifices to God through Jesus Christ. 1 Peter 2:5

I also recall somewhere that Jesus said, "if you do not remain in me, I will not remain in you."

We are living stones that form God's temple and we are His home. On the other hand, God is also our temple because He is our home.

We are His home because we have chosen to be His people.

He is our home because He is our Source. Our righteousness comes from Him.

If we follow rules and regulations, dogmas, doctrines and ideologies, then ideology is our home and our temple because the ideology is our source of righteousness. However, if we decide not to follow ideology, but to make God our source of righteousness, then God is our temple.

Understand?

My Personal Experience of Paul's Epistles

I first started looking at Paul's epistles a year ago, my second year at university. A lot of what Paul said at first seemed either confusing or contradictory of what Jesus said, but I have spent enough time reflecting and meditating on my life and spiritual journey to realise it isn't. A lot of the interpretation of the epistles comes from understanding yourself, human nature and your place in the cosmic structure of the universe.

Once you settle these three things: yourself, human nature and your place in the cosmos, things start to make sense.

That's at least my experience. Your's may be different.

Responding to the Points

Please respond to each topic individually and discuss my points for each one. I must know if you have understood what I have said, so please confirm it by discussing it.

Otherwise we will go round and round in circles where the problem is that we haven't checked if we understand each other. Then we might never learn anything because we are too busy trying to keep ahead of the other guy.

Let's do this step by step.

That's all for now, I'm looking forward to your comments!!!!

 

[Bandit]

If we follow rules and regulations, dogmas, doctrines and ideologies, then ideology is our home and our temple because the ideology is our source of righteousness. However, if we decide not to follow ideology, but to make God our source of righteousness, then God is our temple.

Understand?



That's all for now, I'm looking forward to your comments!!!!

i understand all that you have said Saltmeister and we see eye to eye on every point. just letting you know

 

[wizanda]

Classification of Topic Areas

I think it is important for us to classify our discussion under topic headings.

It is sometimes frustrating when people present their views about what they don't agree with in the Christian Gospel, but you never know when they have actually read your comments.

Sorry I will answer briefly to let you know I have read them in future.

A Classification is: it is hard to say Paul is Anti-Christ and leave out John as then people use Johns wording as if Yeshua said it him self. Which I now believe he didn't as there are to many things that Contradict his teachings and the way he puts him self across in the other gospels. The reason some bits fell on death ears is that, when the use of John was used as if Christ said it, I don't feel he did as it isn't even the way Christ phrases things. Yet we will go over it and I will explain. Yet for now anything used by John and Paul can't be taken as witness of Yeshua, as they are on trial and so the evidence must come from the key witnesses i.e. the disciples and the Old Testament to confirm things. I hope that make sense, it is just if John and Paul are Anti-Christ, in their wording they have already tried to cover their backs. Yet there is many flaws which is why I have noticed this and other top theologians.

Adam ate the fruit from the Forbidden Tree. By doing so, knowledge of evil was introduced into the human nature. Adam opened a path to evil and wickedness by exposing human beings to knowledge of evil and thereby making it possible for them to sin.

According to Ezekiel, sin isn’t passed down, yet the way you have phrased this is true in some senses. As yes; man is fallen, yet Christ said aim to be perfect and be as he is.

Eze 18:19-20 Yet you say, Why? Does not the son bear the iniquity of the father? When the son has done justice and right, has kept all my statutes, and has done them, he shall surely live. (20) The soul that sins, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, nor shall the father bear the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be on him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be on him.

Christ came to perform the cleansing ritual that we call the "atoning sacrifice" of the Lamb of God. By doing so, Christ opened a path to holiness whereby whoever dies before the Second Coming or lives until the Second Coming while believing in Him is spiritually cleansed of the evil in human nature, losing the ability to sin.

If this were the case the world would be perfect, yet it isn’t sin remains and people who say they are Christian’s normal are like:

Mat 23:26-27 Blind Pharisee! First cleanse the inside of the cup and of the dish, so that the outside of them may be clean also. (27) Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which indeed appear beautiful outside, but inside they are full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.

In other words they proclaim to be a changed person in Christ, when in fact they have not over come the previous troubles and simple just clean the outside with out forgiving others fully, yet giving it to Christ. So not in keeping with Christ’s teachings yet the Pharisees of making an offering for sin.

Christ was the Second Adam, and did by instinct what was right without following rules and regulations.

Mat 11:19 The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man who is a glutton and a winebibber, a friend of tax-collectors and sinners. But wisdom was justified by her children.

Hab 2:4-5 Behold, the soul of him is lifted up, and is not upright; but the just shall live by his faith. (5) And also wine indeed betrays a proud man, and he is not content. He widens his soul like Sheol, and he is like death, and is not satisfied, but gathers all nations to himself, and heaps to himself all the peoples.

Not to say that Christ said it wrong, as I do love him and have known he didn’t, since birth.

Yet a Nazarite should not drink!

This was how Christ fulfilled the Law: by eliminating the need for dogma, doctrine, ideology, rules and regulations. Christ did only what was right because he didn't inherit the dark side of human nature from Adam.

Mat 5:18-20 For truly I say to you, Till the heaven and the earth pass away, not one jot or one tittle shall in any way pass from the Law until all is fulfilled. (19) Therefore whoever shall relax one of these commandments, the least, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of Heaven. But whoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of Heaven. (20) For I say to you that unless your righteousness shall exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall in no case enter into the kingdom of Heaven.

I like some of your ideology in the next part as it doesn’t come from the Pharisees so much, yet is your own way of thinking.

The parts stated by John when you see me you see the father, are Anti-Judaic and so Anti-Christ; as away to put the Jewish off following him. There are tons of occasions in the other gospels of Christ referring to the father being in heaven.

I also recall somewhere that Jesus said, "if you do not remain in me, I will not remain in you."

Yes this is again by John and is referring to the vine, yet according to Ezekiel the vine is to be burnt.

Eze 15:2-4 Son of man, how is the vine tree more than any other tree, or than a branch which is among the trees of the forest? (3) Shall wood be taken from it to do work? Or will men take from it for a peg to hang any vessel on it? (4) Behold, it is cast into the fire for fuel. The fire devours both its ends, and its middle is charred. Is it fit for any work?

So do you really think Yeshua would have said this knowing the scriptures so well; as to make a mistake like that? On the other hand to most Jews who know the scriptures, none would follow Yeshua after hearing he said that. So it looks like it was made up by John as to stop the Jewish following him.

We are living stones that form God's temple and we are His home. On the other hand, God is also our temple because He is our home.

We are His home because we have chosen to be His people.

I do sort of agree with what you are saying and the way you phrase it, yet God has repeatedly spoken through the prophets to build him a temple; a real one. There is even exact measurements given and where to build it.

Isa 66:1 So says Jehovah, Heaven is My throne, and earth My footstool. Where, then, is the house that you build for me? And where is the place of My rest?

I would discuss the end points about who I am, yet God said not to; as this is about Paul and John and it is probably better to keep it on the subject of them.

I like a lot of your own ideology you have included. Could you make your posts smaller and more itemised as this took ages to answer!



Nice to meet you



Peace N love B with U



God bless you

 

[Saltmeister]

The Inheritance of Sin

Originally Posted by Saltmeister
</FONT></FONT>
Adam ate the fruit from the Forbidden Tree. By doing so, knowledge of evil was introduced into the human nature. Adam opened a path to evil and wickedness by exposing human beings to knowledge of evil and thereby making it possible for them to sin.

According to Ezekiel, sin isn’t passed down, yet the way you have phrased this is true in some senses. As yes; man is fallen, yet Christ said aim to be perfect and be as he is.

Eze 18:19-20 Yet you say, Why? Does not the son bear the iniquity of the father? When the son has done justice and right, has kept all my statutes, and has done them, he shall surely live. (20) The soul that sins, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, nor shall the father bear the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be on him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be on him.

It's important to interpret this in the context of the situation it presents. From what I see in this verse, it refers to the following contexts.

(1) The son inherits the guilt or record of wrongdoing of the father.
(2) The son inherits the personality or character of the father and is therefore capable of the same sin.

I believe this verse is basically saying that the child cannot be guilty because of the parent's sin, and nor does he necessarily inherit the character or personality of the parent. Some will say that "sin" or a "sinful nature" is therefore "not inherited from the parent."

However, when you start talking about "sinful nature" you are also talking about "human nature." This introduces a third context with which the passage may be interpreted:

(1) Child inherits guilt of the parent
(2) Child inherits character and personality of the parent
(3) Child inherits human nature of the parent

Sin is a general concept that sums up the notion of "iniquity," and may be seen in different contexts. When Paul talks about the inheritance of sin, he doesn't talk about sin in the context of inheriting guilt or inheriting character or personality, but sin in the context of inheriting human nature.

Character and human nature are not the same thing. Character is specific and unique to a particular individual. Human nature is generic.

Human nature gives us the ability to love, to laugh, cry, to be happy or sad, selfish, greedy, humble or arrogant, etc. Character and personality refer to our tendency to love, laugh, cry, etc. Character and personality are basically how we use our human nature. Think of human nature as the soil on which character and personality grows and develops.

The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, nor shall the father bear the iniquity of the son.

This refers to the inheritance of guilt.

The righteousness of the righteous shall be on him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be on him.

This refers to the inheritance of character.

There is no reference to human nature. This poses a problem to those who argue that the Bible says that sin wasn't inherited. How do you know "what kind of sin" the prophets were talking about?

The mistake many people make is that they treat the Bible as a "book of science" rather than a book that describes our spiritual journey, our relationship with God and the sentiments we may encounter in life. Guilt, character and human nature are three elements of our sentimental existence that relate to sin, yet many Bible scholars treat them as if they were one.

Sin is multi-dimensional and is a general term referring to evil and wrong-doing.

While Ezekiel and Paul are both using the word "sin", ironically they aren't talking about the same thing. This confuses some people because the same word is used to explain completely different concepts. Here Ezekiel talks about the inheritance of guilt and character while Paul talks about inheritance of human nature.

Important Point:

Many people either confuse sin with guilt, or confuse human nature with character. Because character is not inherited by a child, they think they can say the same about human nature. Wrong!!!! Human nature and character are not the same thing!!!!

Jesus' human nature was the same as that of the original Adam in he was not capable of evil. He was never greedy, selfish, arrogance, hateful or lustful. Jesus' human nature was void of evil. Adam's original human nature was like that until he ate the fruit from the Forbidden Tree.

Human nature determines the kinds of character that can develop. If love or greed are missing from human nature, we have a person who is incapable of having love or greed in his character.

If there is any evidence in the Old Testament that human nature is inherited, it's in Genesis. It all goes back to the story of the serpent in the Garden of Eden.

The snake replied, "That's not true; you will not die. God said that because he knows that when you eat it, you will be like God and know what is good and evil." Genesis 3:4-5

If human nature is not inherited, then some of us would be living in Eden today without having to die and be born again!!!! Those who have evil in their human nature are forbidden to live in Eden.