Mercy

a reply to: Akragon

do you believe that there is sin?

originally posted by: backcase
a reply to: Akragon

do you believe that there is sin?

Absolutely... but I don't believe in the Christian version of it...

Sin is what goes against love...

a reply to: Akragon

why do you add contempt to your answer?

a reply to: arpgme

a reply to: Akragon

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: backcase
a reply to: Akragon

why do you add contempt to your answer?

Just being honest my friend...

You see... to Christians Sin means going against what the God of the bible says...

And since I don't agree with the god of the OT, and believe beyond any doubt that this entity is NOT God (if it is actually an entity and not just a fabrication of man)

So I don't really care what this so called god says

This entity has a lot of ridiculous rules... filled with hatred, or just plain nonsense

its not that im trying to be contemptuous so don't get me wrong here... Im just telling it like it is

a reply to: Akragon

so you believe as follows:

We are all the sons of God, we are as Jesus.

The witnesses of the bible are unreliable and erroneous, seeing as man is capable to discern for himself right and wrong. This is a gift from God that everyone has. the totalitarian man has tried to corrupt this gift using scripture as means to do so.

Am I correct? I am not stating my beliefs here btw.

a reply to: backcase

We are all the sons of God, we are as Jesus.

Sort of... Children of the highest would be the "biblical way" to say it I suppose... but not like Jesus...

There is a certain hierarchy... Jesus being at the top of that... All of which is confirmed by Jesus of course...

The witnesses of the bible are unreliable and erroneous,

As he said... thieves and robbers... at least those that came before him fall into that category

seeing as man is capable to discern for himself right and wrong.

Written in the hearts of man... yes

This is a gift from God that everyone has.

Correct... yet most choose to deny that gift

the totalitarian man has tried to corrupt this gift using scripture as means to do so.

More or less... that is right...

The church or religious leaders all throughout history struggle to maintain their power through fear and deceit... burning and destroying those that don't conform... and destroying any writing that poses a threat to their positions

And again, we're finding out this has been true though out history... and even today

What could be considered "the true church" started with Jesus, and ended when he passed...

What little we have now of what he said is enough to show people the way... but few find it because of the churches of today... few actually read for themselves... They listen and follow blindly

a reply to: Akragon

You say you trust Jesus yet you deny His apostles whom he has chosen as vessels to carry His word.

That doesn't make sense to me. When He says that the others are thieves and robbers, He calls Himself the door. He calls us to Himself, to His Life, that we may have the life that is in Him. Yet if you think that those He chose to point the sheep to the Door, do not point to the Door, how can you say you believe Him?

Furthermore, why do you not believe upon the Most High spoken of by Jesus? You know, the God of Abraham, the God of Jacob, etc. Jesus quotes Isaias so often and Isaias speaks of His life and death so lucidly, how do you deny both Jesus and Isaias?

You hold the cup but you swear off the drink, it makes no sense.

a reply to: backcase

You say you trust Jesus yet you deny His apostles whom he has chosen as vessels to carry His word.

When did I deny his apostles? Paul isn't an apostle.... He was a self appointed false apostle... read the last book John wrote... It says there are 12... not 13

And Pseudo-Peter does not confirm Paul as one of them... Im talking about 2nd peter if you didn't know what I am referring to

That doesn't make sense to me. When He says that the others are thieves and robbers, He calls Himself the door. He calls us to Himself, to His Life, that we may have the life that is in Him. Yet if you think that those He chose to point the sheep to the Door, do not point to the Door, how can you say you believe Him?

I have little to no issue with the rest of the apostles writing... Though I may prefer the gospels at least the others are on the same page... they don't try to put their own spin on things or add to his teaching like Paul

Furthermore, why do you not believe upon the Most High spoken of by Jesus? You know, the God of Abraham, the God of Jacob, etc. Jesus quotes Isaias so often and Isaias speaks of His life and death so lucidly, how do you deny both Jesus and Isaias?

Saying I deny Jesus is just nonsense... Just because I disagree with Christian theology and dogma does not mean I deny his words... I just deny that religion and any other religion for that matter.... and IF Jesus was actually here... HE would too without a doubt

When Jesus quotes the OT he uses little bits and pieces to make his point to his audience... He used the OT to relate to the people he was talking to because it was the scripture they knew, and what he was brought up with as well...

When I talk to Christians I use their book... the words of Jesus for the most part...

It wouldn't make any sense for me to start quoting Pistis Sophia... or other gnostic texts, or Buddhist, or Hindu or any other "holy book" while talking to a Christian now would it?

You hold the cup but you swear off the drink, it makes no sense.

IF Christianity held to "the drink" I would proudly proclaim the faith... but they dance around the gospels and prefer Paul to Jesus... which I will never accept

THAT my friend, makes NO sense...

a reply to: Akragon

When did I deny his apostles? Paul isn't an apostle.... He was a self appointed false apostle... read the last book John wrote... It says there are 12... not 13

And Pseudo-Peter does not confirm Paul as one of them... Im talking about 2nd peter if you didn't know what I am referring to

Re-read Acts, and 2 Peter isn't a false Petrine letter. It's Peter writing himself without his amanuensis which wrote 1st Peter as dictated by the apostle. That's why it is EXTREMELY rough Greek and not the polished Koine Greek of 1st Peter or Mark. He utilized John Mark for his gospel account and Silvanus as his amanuensis for 1st Peter.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

That is an awful lot of assumptions all things considered...

a reply to: Akragon

No, Peter talks about his ready writer. In that time it was a professional trade. Most people were illiterate. They dictated to an "amanuensis" and they wrote the letter for them for a fee. John Mark wrote Peter's gospel, the Gospel of Mark. 1st Peter was much earlier than 2 Peter and was written by Silvanus. Peter says this at the end of the letter:

"By Silvanus, our faithful brother, as I account him , I have written unto you briefly, exhorting, and testifying that this is the true grace of God. Stand ye fast therein." 1 Peter 5:12

2 Peter was his last letter and was written by himself, the Greek is extremely rough Koine and reflects him and being barely literate by that point in his life. 2 Peter was written on the eve of his execution, and was basically his last words to his faithful brothers and friends.


Petrine Souce of Mark


No assumptions at all.

a reply to: Akragon

IF Christianity held to "the drink" I would proudly proclaim the faith... but they dance around the gospels and prefer Paul to Jesus...

That's nonsense. There is quite a strong effort to apply faulty hermeneutics and misapply the Law and the old covenant to Christian gentiles under the new covenant. Look man, even the apostles held a conference in Jerusalem to come to an agreement on what role and function non-Jew gentiles had in the new Messianic faith which we know today as Christianity. (See Acts 15) And this was after the resurrection and ascension of Jesus and after the birth of the church and gift of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost. Likewise, Christ Himself declared that the entire Law and prophets was summed up in two great commands, to love God with all one's heart, mind, and spirit and to love one's neighbors as themselves.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Akragon

No, Peter talks about his ready writer. In that time it was a professional trade. Most people were illiterate. They dictated to an "amanuensis" and they wrote the letter for them for a fee. John Mark wrote Peter's gospel, the Gospel of Mark. 1st Peter was much earlier than 2 Peter and was written by Silvanus. Peter says this at the end of the letter:

"By Silvanus, our faithful brother, as I account him , I have written unto you briefly, exhorting, and testifying that this is the true grace of God. Stand ye fast therein." 1 Peter 5:12

2 Peter was his last letter and was written by himself, the Greek is extremely rough Koine and reflects him and being barely literate by that point in his life. 2 Peter was written on the eve of his execution, and was basically his last words to his faithful brothers and friends.


Petrine Souce of Mark


No assumptions at all.

Fair enough... IF you believe it was him that wrote it, so be it...

I still don't accept what it says about Paul, and that was the point when I brought it up... so we shall agree to disagree on this

That's nonsense. There is quite a strong effort to apply faulty hermeneutics and misapply the Law and the old covenant to Christian gentiles under the new covenant. Look man, even the apostles held a conference in Jerusalem to come to an agreement on what role and function non-Jew gentiles had in the new Messianic faith which we know today as Christianity. (See Acts 15) And this was after the resurrection and ascension of Jesus and after the birth of the church and gift of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost. Likewise, Christ Himself declared that the entire Law and prophets was summed up in two great commands, to love God with all one's heart, mind, and spirit and to love one's neighbors as themselves.

What does that have to do with Christians preferring Paul over Jesus?

a reply to: Akragon

What does that have to do with Christians preferring Paul over Jesus?

We don't prefer Paul to Jesus. We just don't as Gentiles under the new covenant, misapply what He said to Jews under the old covenant. That's where people often get confused. And not just non-Christians, the apostles themselves had to convene a council in Jerusalem in Acts 15 to decide the same issue.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

Well, perhaps not all Christians, but it certainly seems the majority do... at least from what I've experienced...

Some will attempt to counter Jesus' words with Paul

Most sermons revolve around Paul... and as you can see by some of the posters around here lately, they don't even know the gospels... but they sure know Paul

And I know why... As I've stated in the other thread... Pauls way is easy... Just believe...

Jesus wanted more then just belief... His way isn't a walk in the park like Paul

a reply to: Akragon

I don't see that. Jesus is Lord, Paul like the other apostles were just servants.

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: NOTurTypical

Well, perhaps not all Christians, but it certainly seems the majority do... at least from what I've experienced...

Some will attempt to counter Jesus' words with Paul

Most sermons revolve around Paul... and as you can see by some of the posters around here lately, they don't even know the gospels... but they sure know Paul

And I know why... As I've stated in the other thread... Pauls way is easy... Just believe...

Jesus wanted more then just belief... His way isn't a walk in the park like Paul

That is a ridiculous statement. I find most are having this hard debate of the nature of Christ, the same debate that the pharasees had with the Christ.

St. Thomas Aquinas was one of the most intelligent people to walk the earth. He based all of his views on lucid logic and rational philosophy, so they were less views and more factual.He calls Paul: THE Apostle. I trust his words more than I trust the wavering voice of one who says 'at least from what I experienced'. Such a thought is that of one who is not sure of his argument, but one who just argues.

Also, Paul's way is not easy. I read Paul and feel that I am being reproached for my sinful ways, by one who is truly in the presence of Christ.

a reply to: backcase

That is a ridiculous statement. I find most are having this hard debate of the nature of Christ, the same debate that the pharisees had with the Christ.

I wish It wasn't true... I personally thought such things were not possible... Until I came to ATS

When a so called Christian attempts to counter the words of Jesus with Paul, there is a serious problem

St. Thomas Aquinas was one of the most intelligent people to walk the earth. He based all of his views on lucid logic and rational philosophy, so they were less views and more factual.He calls Paul: THE Apostle. I trust his words more than I trust the wavering voice of one who says 'at least from what I experienced'. Such a thought is that of one who is not sure of his argument, but one who just argues.

I've never asked you or anyone else to trust me... believe what you will...

By the way Marcion had the same thoughts on Paul... he thought Paul was the man, so much so that he ripped out most of the NT and only wanted Paul/Luke's writing in it... something to think on

Also, Paul's way is not easy. I read Paul and feel that I am being reproached for my sinful ways, by one who is truly in the presence of Christ.

Pauls way is soooo easy... that's why its attractive to most Christians

Just believe that's all it takes with him...

Justified by Faith without anything to back it...

a reply to: Akragon

Marcion..

He was quite the heretic, but Paul wasn't why. It's because he rejected the OT God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob. And he edited any scripture references and epistles he didn't approve of. When Jesus Himself referenced the OT in over 100 places and affirms God as His Father, and Him the Son.

Marcionism