You pick and choose words out of context and ignore the meaning that does not suit you. Paul and Christ contradict each other. The fact that you ignore it is denial. Christians, born again or otherwise, do not speak for God .. they do not have "the mind" of Christ. What makes no sense .. justify what you say.
No, I was completely in context. If I was out of context, show me. I gave the correct meaning. The Bible is the Word of God. Whether its the Gospels or the letters of Paul or the Old Testament. It is all the Word of God. Im not worried about it making sense to you. Im just telling you what it says. Quantrill
1) you have given no vible verses that validate your position. 2) you have not refuted the Bible verses I quoted. 3) If you claim my use of Matt 23 makes no sense then the onus is on you to state why. I can sit here all day and say to every claim that I do not like .. "that does not make senese" but this is worthless banter. As it sits you have given no justification for your claim that my use of Matt 23makes sense. Belief or lack thereof in the Bible is completely irrelevent to the topic.
If I gave no Bible verses how can you acuse me of being out of context? If you have the Bible verses then prove how I am out of context. Quantrill
You did give Bible verses and they just did not validate your premise. When this was pointed out to you for every verse you presented all you did keep repeating the same premise and cite the same verses. What you did not do is address the points that were made showing that the verses you presented did not validate your premise. Willfull denial ? I am not sure but you have not supported your premise with "valid" arguments. This means stating something more than " Your use of Matt 23 makes no sense". How can one even respond if you do not say why you think my use of it did not make sense. I told you "why" I thought your Bible passages were not valid and you had no response other than to repeat the same premise over and over.
I cite the same verses because they prove what I am saying. If you ask again I will use the same verses. Im not concerned with what you call 'valid'. Your use of Matt.23 makes no sense. You use it against Paul, and Paul was not guilty of any of these things. Paul served in the position God gave him. No, you couldn't explain by the Scriptures what I said was wrong. Which is why you must claim Pauls writings are just ramblings and not Scripture. That is your explanation. If you ask me similar questions I will use similar answers and verses. Thats the way it is when you have the right answer. Quantrill
I showed you how that Pauls vision has a number of different variations that conflict with each other. This means that one of them is wrong and that Paul did not write at least one version. We talked about how Paul never met Christ and how he was at odds with the other diciples. I showed you how Pauls doctrine is in conflict with the words of Christ in the sermon on the mount. Paul had a different version of Christianity than Jesus and I did indeed show, by scripture how Pauls version conflicts with what Jesus said. Matt 23 had not been written when Paul was writing so perhaps he did not know. Paul is in conflict with not only Matt 23 but the Sermon on the mount.
And I showed you there was no disagreement with those revelations. And I showed you that Paul did meet Christ. I don't recall any thing from you about the Sermon on the Mount. I may have forgot. You don't know anything about Christianity to be able to compare to. The Church didn't start till Acts 2. Surely that tells you something. Again, you don't know what your talking about. You know how I know. Because you always want me to give you the expalaination first before you answer. You get your supposed 'contridictions' from a list somewhere. But you don't know what your talking about and all you can do is produce what the list says. Then when I or others give explanation you add you make ready arguments of unbelief. Paul is not in conflict with anything in the Word of God. He is in conflict with you. But, then so is the Word of God. Funny how that works out. Quantrill
No you did not. You did not even respond to my refutation of your points using relevent Bible verses. All you did was restate your premise as if the refutation did not exist. Paul did not meet Christ while Christ walked the earth. Paul had a vision and all we have is a few words of the supposed conversation. The three accounts of Pauls vision have contradictions and so all, if any, can not be written by Paul. Peter and James did not agree with Pauls beliefs and these dudes actually knew Jesus as a man. At best Paul is second account of the acts of Jesus. This idea is further supported by the fact that there is almost nothing about the life of Jesus Pauls writing. Paul did not know Jesus. I have quoted this many times, perhaps not to you but to others in relation to Paul. There are other places where Jesus talks about getting into heaven by keeping the commands. Jesus does not say that one gets into heaven by believing in the Trinity or believing that Jesus died and was resurrected. One gets into heaven by believing the Teachings of Jesus and the Bible, according to Jesus. Paul has a different message and this is why he was at odds with the Church of Jerusalem led by James and Peter. http://www.churchhistory101.com/century1-p6.php http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/paul/12james.htm
Go back and reread my post #60,63,64, and 68. You don't know that Paul did not meet Christ while Christ was on the earth. He may well have. Im inclined to think he did since he was a Pharisee with so much zeal to silence heresy. Its hard to imagine him a Pharisee with Jesus in the Jerusalem area and he not being there. I think he may well have been some of the Pharisees Jesus argued with. But, we can't know for sure. Pauls statements and vision are the Word of God. Thus Paul met the resurrected Christ. You don't believe it. Ok. I don't care. That is what it says, and that is Scripture. When did the Church start? I mentioned it before. Doesn't that tell you something? Of course not. You don't believe the Bible. Quantrill
It was a "few words" kind of conversation. lol What we have was a persecutor that was blinded and being healed by another with a related vision of the same man.
