If you claim to follow Jesus, but reject His disciples, you reject Jesus and His word.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

sorry, I misunderstood your first comment.

That's funny you got it, actually...

If (((disciple's stories are true))maybe or maybe not) = X% of truth

In other words, your attitude towards the NT epistles is the litmus test for your attitude towards Christ.

That's a hard row to hoe. I'm not down with that at all. The concept has no scope at all on history, or publishing.

a reply to: Akragon

Maybe you misunderstand God's definition of love. It's not the same as man's love. If it were, He would have no need to send His Son.

In the wake of empty threats by deceiving pastors and priests...

you and those of your religion are not allowed to use your God given intellect to "discern" what is right from what is wrong in the book... you can only accept

despite the obvious issue with the two entities, even knowing God is love... and the OT god shows NOTHING of the sort

I actually feel bad for Christians sometimes... mainly the ones that are brainwashed by their denomination

originally posted by: Akragon

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest

originally posted by: Akragon

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: Akragon

Sure. His name, Yehoshu'a, means "YHWH is salvation", and as Murgatoid's video so clearly delineates, Jesus had a habit of stating, 'I am that I am'.

that's called Christian dogma... means nothing...

the personality of the OT god is nothing like the one Jesus describes... that's quite simply because they are not the same entity...

the NT says God is Love... the OT god does not even know the word

Its called discernment.

Matt 13:"Therefore I speak to them in parables; because while seeing they do not see, and while hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.

No...

its called being oblivious to the obvious... which most IF not all of Christianity is guilty of

sadly enough

Well, then congratulations. You're the lucky winner.

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: Akragon

Maybe you misunderstand God's definition of love. It's not the same as man's love. If it were, He would have no need to send His Son.

Yeah... anyone who has read the OT knows this entity's idea of love...

Death... punishment... chastisement...

Wicked awesome and loving beyond measure

a reply to: Akragon

Well, as distraught as you are over mainstream Christianity's lack of discernment, I am equally disgusted at the growing trend of emotional thinking and self deception that is brainwashing the minds involved in your RELIGION.

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: Akragon

Well, as distraught as you are over mainstream Christianity's lack of discernment, I am just as equally disgusted at the growing trend of emotional thinking and self deception that is brainwashing the minds of your RELIGION.

Sorry brother I have no religion...

Figured you'd know that by now... so feel free to be disgusted by whatever your talking about... but it ain't me brother

it ain't me...

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

Funny you didn't mention Paul, even though you said you wouldn't be avoiding him... He rejected the apostles words and refused to follow what they said... "Those that would seem to be pillars" he said... as if his teaching had more importance

And Jesus did not confirm YHWH... revelation wasn't Jesus speaking

Nor did he claim to be "the first and the last" alpha and omega...

By his very words he came after the father... not at the same time... The Father came before the son, and IF he did not HE could not be a Father, just as Jesus could not be a son...

taking a page from Arius there...

What bit of Jesus message should we keep, then, what should we discard?

I'd argue that there is no disagreement between the works of the early missionaries of Jesus Christ and the words of Christ. If you do see a discrepancy, perhaps the error is in interpretation and you should delve into the true meaning of what vexes you.

It is obvious that there was initial dissension among the disciples over many things but, ultimately, they were in accord, even with Paul, having resolved those issues.

Remember that John lived longer than the other disciples, probably writing The Revelation after the death of Paul and yet did not make any mention of Paul being false. He definitely made specific mention of others, by name, who were leading the flock astray.

Additionally, the churches mentioned in the Revelation were all founded by Paul's missionary work. Surely that was the best time to 'lay into him' to assure that the churches 'got back on track'.

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: Akragon

Maybe you misunderstand God's definition of love. It's not the same as man's love. If it were, He would have no need to send His Son.

If it's not the same definition, then it is not love. Words already mean things. "Man's love" is the definition we use in dictionaries. Whoever thought of describing the feelings towards humanity of an entity who murders the planet as "love" was being very liberal with the definition when translating.

If I told you I would buy your jacket for 30 dollars and then handed you 30 rocks, you would protest. If I then said "but that's Abysha's definition of a dollar", would you accept that or would you insist on me using a different word for rocks other than "dollar"?

originally posted by: Akragon

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: Akragon

Well, as distraught as you are over mainstream Christianity's lack of discernment, I am just as equally disgusted at the growing trend of emotional thinking and self deception that is brainwashing the minds of your RELIGION.

Sorry brother I have no religion...

Figured you'd know that by now... so feel free to be disgusted by whatever your talking about... but it ain't me brother

it ain't me...

No, trust me, you do have a religion. Allow me to offer a name for it...Pseudo-Christological Contrarianism. More of a denomination than a religion.

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
So, if you reject the NT epistles written by Luke, Peter, John, James, and Jude, to name a few, you are essentially rejecting Jesus' message to the world.

So, if you reject the NT epistles, then you reject Jesus, and do not know His Father.

If a person has a personal relationship with your Jesus, their perspective is every bit as valid as any other adherent of his who claimed to speak in his name. Unless you are rejecting Jesus's message that he directly gave, you are only rejecting other Christians, nothing more.

That is the total opposite of what Jesus said. I'll post it for you again.

John 15:20“Remember the word that I said to you, ‘A slave is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you; if they kept My word, they will keep yours also

a reply to: chr0naut

Remember that John lived longer than the other disciples, probably writing The Revelation after the death of Paul and yet did not make any mention of Paul being false.

Funny you should say that... I have considered making a thread on this very subject...

John did mention Paul... but he did it in a way that would be hidden to most of those who read his writing

Keep in mind Paul was a VERY powerful and intelligent man... he used anything he could to gain converts...

he was fluent in a few languages and even used Ancient greek writing and philosophers and their writing in his own... even quoting a few of them directly... that's RIGHT, the beloved "apostle" quoted PAGAN material in his writing to gain converts... that is a fact


Oh yes... the apostles knew about Paul... but the man had too much power, being a Pharisee, and a roman citizen...

and I don't believe he was killed either...

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest

originally posted by: Akragon

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: Akragon

Well, as distraught as you are over mainstream Christianity's lack of discernment, I am just as equally disgusted at the growing trend of emotional thinking and self deception that is brainwashing the minds of your RELIGION.

Sorry brother I have no religion...

Figured you'd know that by now... so feel free to be disgusted by whatever your talking about... but it ain't me brother

it ain't me...

No, trust me, you do have a religion. Allow me to offer a name for it...Pseudo-Christological Contrarianism. More of a denomination than a religion.

So let me get this straight... I tell you I have no religion... and you're telling me im wrong...



Alright I can play that game too... You're actually not a Christian my brother...

you're a Paulian...

see how that works?

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

I wonder what the point of this is?

All scripture is useful, and I know of no believer who discounts the disciples. It is however, entirely right that some Christians deny them deity, by refusing to pray to them or wear their medalions. Polytheistic worship is something I leave to the Romans. I also refuse to pray to the Virgin Mary, but I respect her place in the overarching narrative that gave rise to the coming of Jesus.

I just happen to reserve deity for the trinity alone, as all Christ's followers ought to do.

a reply to: Akragon

Well, you could fool a few of your Gnostic buddies with that, but you see the difference is that I actually follow both Jesus and His appointed Apostles.

again:
John 15:20“Remember the word that I said to you, ‘A slave is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you; if they kept My word, they will keep yours also.

You on the other hand, have constructed your own Christ with the help of your emotions. Then you point the finger at Christians as though we are the perpetrators of some grand deception all the while you are cherry pick scriptures out of context for the purpose of causing further dissention and strife. Yeah, the Apostles warned against that too. So while we "Paulians" can at least stand together on the major issues, you've built your very own island of pseudo-truth, and the population there is 1.

a reply to: TrueBrit

I just happen to reserve deity for the trinity alone, as all Christ's followers ought to do.

Funny that none of the apostles recognise this trinity... nor does Jesus

I wonder why that is?

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: Akragon

Well, you could fool a few of your Gnostic buddies with that, but you see the difference is that I actually follow both Jesus and His appointed Apostles.

again:
John 15:20“Remember the word that I said to you, ‘A slave is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you; if they kept My word, they will keep yours also.

You on the other hand, have constructed your own Christ with the help of your emotions. Then you point the finger at Christians as though we are the perpetrators of some grand deception all the while you are cherry pick scriptures out of context for the purpose of causing further dissention and strife. Yeah, the Apostles warned against that too. So while we "Paulians" can at least stand together on the major issues, you've built your very own island of pseudo-truth, and the population there is 1.

Oh I an FAR from alone on said island...

Keep in mind yourself... the path is narrow and few find it

And you being a part of the largest religion on the planet speaks volumes brother

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest


Oh I an FAR from alone on said island...

Keep in mind yourself... the path is narrow and few find it

And you being a part of the largest religion on the planet speaks volumes brother

Oh... and which gnostic buddies would you be referring to?

Are you going to call me a gnostic now too... why not call me a Buddhist as well? Or maybe an Atheist?

You people and your labels

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

I wonder what the point of this is?

All scripture is useful, and I know of no believer who discounts the disciples. It is however, entirely right that some Christians deny them deity, by refusing to pray to them or wear their medalions. Polytheistic worship is something I leave to the Romans. I also refuse to pray to the Virgin Mary, but I respect her place in the overarching narrative that gave rise to the coming of Jesus.

I just happen to reserve deity for the trinity alone, as all Christ's followers ought to do.

I am Trinitarian too. I'm not advocating the deification of the disciples. I'm just showing that those who tend to reject the messages of the Apostles generally do so to deny the Divinity of Christ and reduce Jesus to the status of some wise philosopher.

Maybe you should re-read my op, because I didn't say anything about Roman Catholicism or the virgin Mary.

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: chr0naut

Remember that John lived longer than the other disciples, probably writing The Revelation after the death of Paul and yet did not make any mention of Paul being false.

Funny you should say that... I have considered making a thread on this very subject...

John did mention Paul... but he did it in a way that would be hidden to most of those who read his writing

Keep in mind Paul was a VERY powerful and intelligent man... he used anything he could to gain converts...

he was fluent in a few languages and even used Ancient greek writing and philosophers and their writing in his own... even quoting a few of them directly... that's RIGHT, the beloved "apostle" quoted PAGAN material in his writing to gain converts... that is a fact


Oh yes... the apostles knew about Paul... but the man had too much power, being a Pharisee, and a roman citizen...

and I don't believe he was killed either...

Jesus did suggest that John would outlive the other disciples.

But we have do have traditionally agreed suggestion that the apostle Peter and Paul were killed at the same time under Nero's rule just outside of Rome. Peter by crucifixion and Paul by beheading (because he was a Roman citizen).

According to Eusubius, a church historian, the details of their deaths were attested by Tertullian (Apol. V) and confirmed later by Caius the Bishop of Rome (who claimed to be a personal witness of Paul's death), and Dionysius, the Bishop of Corinth (Dionysius of Corinth, Bk. IV. chap. 230).

Also, no contemporary source has suggested any alternate truth. It seems to have been universally accepted.