Paul, a false prophet?

LOL .. To join Christian persecution ? Doubtful.

 

Or maybe, just maybe we can take it at face value and how it is written, that he went from a persecutor to the persecuted.

 

I accept what the Bible says. And Jesus said the Father is greater than the Son. And the Bible says there is One God. And the Bible says there are Father Son and Holy Spirit who are God.

The Bible is not God, true. It is the Word of God. Jesus Christ is God. The Father is God. The Holy Spirit is God.

Quantrill

 

With this many pages between - please add the verse and number next time, or the last page. Thanks.

We already discussed what vision means.

A nightmare is an occurrence, and vision, and not real.

Let's not forget he CLAIMS - while alone - to have had this vision.

 

The problem is that the Bible doesn't actually say that.

It is a "trained" assumption - not fact.

 

LOL! There obviously IS variation.

We ARE going back to the Hebrew and Greek -

and you just keep saying we are wrong -WITHOUT CHECKING - the Hebrew or Greek for YOURSELF!

 

We do not know whether John is the word of God or not. John was not even written by John.

As for the rest of the Bible, even if some parts were inspired we do not know which parts these are and what has been changed.

Human choice was involved in selecting which scripture made it into the Bible and which did not. Then they changed their mind numerous times over the years and changed which books made it and which did not. There were decisions made by humans, not by God.

Even today some Bibles have different books.

Then there is the problem of content in the books that did make it. This content has been changed over time. The long ending of Mark is one example but there are many "interpolations", things that have been added or deleted over time.

I am not sure how many times we need to go through this but "I AM" is not the name of God.

I gave you a link giving the meaning of the Hebrew language. You have presented no evidence for your claim.

To the contrary, I think my understanding of God is more advanced than yours.

You seem to think God would say illogical things .. claiming that the Father is greater than the son

If God and Son are the same this is illogical.

I believe in a God that makes sence .. not one that makes nonsense.

Logic as opposed to illogic.

The Trinity is a concept that is not scriptural. Turtullians "Trinity" was considered heresy by the vast majority of the Church in the 3rd Century.

It was not until the 4th century that the Trinity was accepted by the Church and this was due to Constantine and done for political reasons.

The Trinity is a man made concept that was not even Church doctrine until 300 years after Christ.

300 years is a heck of a long time for a concept to not be accepted and then to suddenly be considered doctrine. Especially given the date that we are talking about.

 

Paul did not seem to have good relations with the deciples. Whatever vision he had, and what his purposes were are unknown.

One thing that does seem clear to me is that his teachings are different than the teachings of Jesus.

In reading texts that were not included in the Bible one gets the sense that there were many competing ideologies.

 

I disagree. His purpose is very clear in his writings and he seemed to know the Gospel as the disciples spread the good news. Very little need to speculate or fill in the blanks with "magic mushrooms" and what not. One can always deceive themselves if they want to.

I haven't seen anything in this thread or in the OP that shows these "competing" ideologies.

 

We have had this discussion already. In the sermon on the mount Jesus explains must live a good life in order to enter the kingdom of heaven.

This is not what Paul teaches.

 

It's the verse from acts that you gave to me.

Not alone. His friends "led him by the hand into Damascus."

Very basic if you are to read the story, Paul clearly wasn't blinded by a nightmare but something real.

 

Yes, we have and yet you missed my point which was very clear. 'Grace and truth' saves,as well as equals righteousness. It isn't an either or ... it's both.

 

Based on Paul's teaching it is often taught that salvation is only by faith and not by works or deeds

Jesus explicitly rejects this standard

 

You are right I missed the friends - however - it says they saw nothing - so definitely just a vision - and to him alone.

And blindness by our own beliefs is well know in the medical field.

 

And it also said that the friends heard the voice of a man which was not to be seen. So, I suppose the hearing of that voice was also just a 'vision'?

 

Could be - mass hallucination is also known. LOL!

However - far more likely they made it up. And that is assuming it has any reality at all - as it is written later.

As you know - my belief is that he made the vision up - to infiltrate the new religion - and change its course.

 

Paul does not even give names to these friends. Later when Paul is defending himself against King Agrippa's accusations he tells the King of his vision but never mentions that others saw it even though the King doubts him.

Then there are two different and conflicting versions of the story.

The men hear a voice but see nothing.

the men see a light but hear nothing.


Perhaps Paul just made the story up to defend himself against the Kings accusations ?

Regardless, someone does not have their story strait.

 

How nice.

How nice again.

Yes! Those that have read the scripture already know that segment.

That must be your version.

Perhaps Giftedone just made up the story that he relates?

Yes! I concur, and further stipulate that you should get yours in tune with what is being stated.

 

Paul does indeed teach repentance which stops your argument dead in it's tracks.

 

There are different accounts that they heard but didn't see, another account that they saw but didn't hear. (I think) So we will take a neutral stance on that and agree that it was just a vision for Paul.

"Blinded by our beliefs" is too far of a reach for me to accept. For 3 days, he was blind and was also healed by a man that Jesus also came to in a dream and told him to heal Paul...

There is no way to mistake the story, only accept it or reject it. If you are reading it like a fiction then it would be silly to reject it for what it is. It is only when you enter into non-fiction that you begin to bend the 'testimony' to ridiculous proportions.

 

First - by blinded by belief - I didn't mean religious belief - I meant psychological blindness as we know it today.

I also am not bending anything - just suggesting possibilities.

The most likely of which is - it didn't happen.

By the way it seems to be saying he was unconscious for three days - perhaps a fit of some kind? It says he didn't perceive/see, eat, or drink, for three days.

 

The theme here is Salvation, what it takes to get into the Kingdom of Heaven.

Paul teaches that it is not dependent on works but focuses on faith.

Jesus focuses on works and deeds.

 

I know you meant psychological blindness but that is the doing the limbo with the story . (lol) Here is the story and I didn't read "unconscious." No fits or baby rattles, By all means, read the whole story for yourself,please.

 

Good, Im glad that they see the contradiction of Pauls vision story in Acts.

Nope .. these are the versions given in the Bible.

In one version of the story Paul's companions hear a voice, in the other they do not hear a voice.

Which story is correct .. did these companions hear a voice or did they not ?

One of us is making things up .. that is clear.

Im glad that you concur. What can we take from two different versions of the story ?

Obviously only one version of the story can be correct. Perhaps both versions are incorrect.

After all, Paul did not write Acts. The stories in Acts rely on oral tradition penned many years after the fact so the accuracy is debatable. Stories based on oral tradition passed along by uneducated folk can change with time.

 

...and repentance only comes from the heart which is what Paul and Jesus both taught. Thus the two sides of salvation that I have been explaining are not mutually exclusive.

i.e Righteousness comes with salvation.