The Conspiracy of the Religious Elite

a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

There was NO "grace era"...that was all Paul's made up BS. Jesus HIMSELF never taught that. You ALL lean on Paul. Tell you what...quote your "Savior"...just Him. Not Paul. See what you come up with.

Grace is mercy; clemency; pardon in both secular and theological references.

The Apostle John spoke of this new covenant [era] first.

John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

John 1:17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

According to the scriptures Jesus spoke this to the same Saul/Paul that you so despise. Red lettered, by the way.

Acts 26:14-18
(26:14) And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
(15) And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest. (16) But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee; (17) Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee, (18) To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.

Your hatred for the servant of the Christ Jesus is hatred for the Christ Jesus.

And for God's sake....please answer the questions without parroting Paul or "rightly dividing the word of truth"...OR, "god has preserved his word".
Try...just try for 20 dang seconds, to use the "Son of Man" to answer.

a reply to: Seede

John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Do you not realize that "grace" when used here, means "favor"?
It does not have the same meaning that Paul used the word "grace" for.


Jesus uses this Greek version of the word for FAVOR -- Charis -- in the Gospel of Luke four times, but you would never know this by reading any standard translation in English:



Luke 6:32-34 in verse 32 uses "charis" (Greek tab at this link); then again "charis" appears in verse 33 (Greek tab at this link); and finally again in verse 34 (Greek tab at this link). Now let's read this passage in the ESV translation of CHARIS highlighted in red:

32 “If you love those who love you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them.33 And if you do good to those who do good to you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners do the same.34 And if you lend to those from whom you expect to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to get back the same amount. (Luke 6:32-34 ESV.)

Luke 17:8-9 also uses CHARIS, and is rendered to obscure this fact by the red highlighted translation that follows: ""Prepare supper for me, and dress properly, and serve me while I eat and drink, and afterward you will eat and drink.’Does he thank the servant because he did what was commanded?" Other translations say 'is the master "thankful" - (give grace) - because the servant did what was commanded?'

Now let's redo this using the "grace" translation, and see what it sounds like:

Luke 6:32-34 reads -- with CHARIS' translation rendered in Red but this time as GRACE:

32 “If you love those who love you, what grace is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them.33 And if you do good to those who do good to you, what grace is that to you? For even sinners do the same.34 And if you lend to those from whom you expect to receive, what grace is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to get back the same amount. (Luke 6:32-34 ESV.)

Luke 17:8-9 reads: "Prepare supper for me, and dress properly, and serve me while I eat and drink, and afterward you will eat and drink’? Does he give grace to the servant because he did what was commanded?"

Jesus means God does not give you any favor (grace) for simply loving others who love you, for sinners do the same. (Luke 6:32.) God does not give you grace (favor) for doing good to those who do good for you. (Luke 6:33.) For sinners do the same. God does not give you grace / favor for loaning to receive back what you loaned. (Luke 6:34.) For sinners lend to sinners.

Nor does a servant receive grace / favor for merely bringing food and drink to his master (Luke 17:9.) However, Jesus elsewhere promises God's favor if you do the very same thing for the poor. Jesus promises you will enter the kingdom of heaven. In contrast, Jesus says He will reject entry into heaven for those who called Him Lord but did not provide food and drink to the poor. This is in the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats at Matthew 25:31-45.

Jesus therefore means that obedience that is unexceptional and is ordinarily done by sinners earns no favor / grace to make you acceptable for heaven. This is because a sinner would do the very same thing. It involves no unusual strain or effort.

This is similarly reflected in Jesus' remark about loving enemies, and not merely those who love you. This takes more effort, doesn't it? Jesus means this will merit favor / grace from God. Jesus spoke likewise about making an exceptional offer to obey a request when Jesus said if a soldier asks you to "carry his gear 1 mile, carry it two." (Matt 5:21 NLT.)

Hence, Jesus uses GRACE aka FAVOR as something you merit. But only if it is obedience that goes the extra mile or beyond what sinners find easy to do as well.

a reply to: Seede

According to the scriptures Jesus spoke this to the same Saul/Paul that you so despise. Red lettered, by the way. Acts 26:14-18
(26:14) And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
(15) And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest. (16) But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee; (17) Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee, (18) To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.

Hey....I have a stupendous idea! Why don't you post all THREE of Paul's stories on his conversion experience. They should all match up and sound the same, right? Go on....

a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

Do you not realize that "grace" when used here, means "favor"? It does not have the same meaning that Paul used the word "grace" for.

John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Yes It does mean Favor. It also means acceptable, benefit, gift, Graceious, joy liberality, pleasure, thank, (worthy) and a host of others in many languages. [Strongs G5485] --

In your example of Luke 6:32-34 -- the word "Thank" comes into play as G5485 by the translators and interpreters of the KJV --

In your examples of Luke 17:8-9 -- the word "Thank" comes into play as G5485, G3192, and G3361 also by the translators and interpreters of the KJV -- You can concordance G3192 and G3361 and see the vastness of interpretations of scholars. You have not understood yet.
I

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

Do you not realize that "grace" when used here, means "favor"? It does not have the same meaning that Paul used the word "grace" for.

John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Yes It does mean Favor. It also means acceptable, benefit, gift, Graceious, joy liberality, pleasure, thank, (worthy) and a host of others in many languages. [Strongs G5485] --

In your example of Luke 6:32-34 -- the word "Thank" comes into play as G5485 by the translators and interpreters of the KJV --

In your examples of Luke 17:8-9 -- the word "Thank" comes into play as G5485, G3192, and G3361 also by the translators and interpreters of the KJV -- You can concordance G3192 and G3361 and see the vastness of interpretations of scholars. You have not understood yet.
I

You avoided my question.... put all three of Paul's conversion stories up....let's see if they match.

You avoided my question.... put all three of Paul's conversion stories up....let's see if they match.
a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

You have still not understood as yet. Debate does not favor diversion. Let us resume your rant on one subject at a time. Explain to me me your lack of fairness in translation and what you have so cleverly left out of word play. Firstly you use Luke as an example of being in error of what he gathered in Sauls/ Pauls conversion in three accounts from several people and several different spaces of time. You have no autographs to boast your belief and yet you parrot those who also have nothing other than the same. Absolutely nothing can be resolved when nothing exists to resolve. Luke was not present as we have discussed before and not being present has written that which was given to him to record. That which he wrote has been translated from Hebrew and Aramaic to Greek to English and you have nothing to boast otherwise. Those accounts are believed by serious and well defined scholars as to be accepted accounts with varying word play without the autographs.

Now until ones such as yourself can produce those autographs, then you have not the qualifications of critical judgement. You have shown this in your last rant of the very same author, Luke, whom you tried to use in addressing the Greek "Kahr'-ece" of which you are totally wrong. You have used the very same Luke to try to disprove his authenticity and then use the very same Luke to prove his honesty in his literature. That is as double minded as one can get. You are not a qualified linguist nor understand rightly dividing the words of truth. You do not understand.

I give you the last word with the hope that one day you will understand.

originally posted by: Seede
You avoided my question.... put all three of Paul's conversion stories up....let's see if they match.
a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

You have still not understood as yet. Debate does not favor diversion. Let us resume your rant on one subject at a time. Explain to me me your lack of fairness in translation and what you have so cleverly left out of word play. Firstly you use Luke as an example of being in error of what he gathered in Sauls/ Pauls conversion in three accounts from several people and several different spaces of time. You have no autographs to boast your belief and yet you parrot those who also have nothing other than the same. Absolutely nothing can be resolved when nothing exists to resolve. Luke was not present as we have discussed before and not being present has written that which was given to him to record. That which he wrote has been translated from Hebrew and Aramaic to Greek to English and you have nothing to boast otherwise. Those accounts are believed by serious and well defined scholars as to be accepted accounts with varying word play without the autographs.

Now until ones such as yourself can produce those autographs, then you have not the qualifications of critical judgement. You have shown this in your last rant of the very same author, Luke, whom you tried to use in addressing the Greek "Kahr'-ece" of which you are totally wrong. You have used the very same Luke to try to disprove his authenticity and then use the very same Luke to prove his honesty in his literature. That is as double minded as one can get. You are not a qualified linguist nor understand rightly dividing the words of truth. You do not understand.

I give you the last word with the hope that one day you will understand.

OR....instead of saying a whole lot of nothing in a few paragraphs, except "you are wrong"....just answer my question. Post the three conversion stories Paul gave. Either Luke got them wrong (which would mean the Bible isn't "inerrant") OR Paul embellished the story each time he told it (also changing major parts), which Luke recorded. You can't have it both ways.
I asked a simple question. You avoided it and tried to make me look stupid. I'm not stupid, nor am I confused. If anyone causes confusion, it would be Paul.
Do you trust the Holy Spirit to lead you into all truths and remind you of what Jesus taught? Cause that's what Jesus told us the Holy Spirit would do....not what PAUL taught, but what JESUS Himself taught.
I find it pertinent that none of the fundamentalists on here, seek to point out the teachings of Jesus. They can't...because Paul trumps Jesus, all the time....as does, the Bible itself. Even if there is a false apostle in the book, you can't hear Jesus because Paul is IN THE BOOK...and his epistles take up "2/3 of the NT". So what?
Jesus warned His OWN disciples of "wolves in sheep's clothing" and one who would "come in his own name"...yet, none of you heed that warning. It was important enough for Jesus to even warn the one's whom HE CHOSE. Do you believe you are smarter and more astute than they? They broke bread with Him, spent 3 1/2 years with him, they KNEW HIM...yet, you and the other's on here have chosen to listen to Paul over the Savior you profess to follow.
And I'm the one confused?

originally posted by: Seede
You avoided my question.... put all three of Paul's conversion stories up....let's see if they match.
a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

You have still not understood as yet. Debate does not favor diversion. Let us resume your rant on one subject at a time. Explain to me me your lack of fairness in translation and what you have so cleverly left out of word play. Firstly you use Luke as an example of being in error of what he gathered in Sauls/ Pauls conversion in three accounts from several people and several different spaces of time. You have no autographs to boast your belief and yet you parrot those who also have nothing other than the same. Absolutely nothing can be resolved when nothing exists to resolve. Luke was not present as we have discussed before and not being present has written that which was given to him to record. That which he wrote has been translated from Hebrew and Aramaic to Greek to English and you have nothing to boast otherwise. Those accounts are believed by serious and well defined scholars as to be accepted accounts with varying word play without the autographs.

What are the various "word plays"?? You are using semantics as a diversion. I am saying this (as simply as possible)....IF we are going to believe Luke's account, then what he recorded of Paul's conversion(s) stories, are not even remotely similar. They have glaring differences. You can go to all the "scholarly" explanations you want, but what one is left with is, either Luke wrote them down wrong, or Paul LIED. I'm betting on the latter. I actually think Luke saw through Paul, and did the best he could to out him....without coming right out and saying Paul was a shyster. THat, or Luke just wrote it all down as he saw and heard it. Either way, Paul looks like the lying wolf he is.

Now until ones such as yourself can produce those autographs, then you have not the qualifications of critical judgement.

Well, I do have critical judgment, but the thing I trust the most in is the HOLY SPIRIT who I know leads us into ALL TRUTH.
I don't give a flying flip about all the "scholarly judgment" in the world. Most of them can't pull their heads out of their rears long enough to even HEAR the HS....they trust in all their "scholarly learning"...LOL.

You have shown this in your last rant of the very same author, Luke, whom you tried to use in addressing the Greek "Kahr'-ece" of which you are totally wrong. You have used the very same Luke to try to disprove his authenticity and then use the very same Luke to prove his honesty in his literature. That is as double minded as one can get. You are not a qualified linguist nor understand rightly dividing the words of truth. You do not understand.

Once again, you misunderstand me...much. I think Luke is a good resource to see through Paul's shenanigans. I also think that Paul's use of the word "grace" and Jesus' use of the word "grace" are diametrically opposed. Paul abrogated the LAW...you know, the same one Jesus taught we were to keep, and that "heaven and earth would pass away before one jot or tittle wasn't fulfilled"....guess what? Last I checked, we're all still standing on this blue rock and it hasn't passed away.
Why do you keep saying I'm "ranting", other than to undermine whatever I say? Why is what I say "ranting"? Mind you, this topic does bring out emotion in me. That doesn't mean I'm out of control and don't have anything pertinent to say.

I give you the last word with the hope that one day you will understand.

What's with the condescension?? ONE DAY I will understand? I guess when I'm 80 and lived as many years as you, and read as many books and "scholarly" articles....then I'll "understand". OR, I can just trust the Holy Spirit to guide me into all truth. Yea, I think I'll stick with the Holy Spirit.

Now until ones such as yourself can produce those autographs, then you have not the qualifications of critical judgement.

Well, I do have critical judgment, but the thing I trust the most in is the HOLY SPIRIT who I know leads us into ALL TRUTH.
I don't give a flying flip about all the "scholarly judgment" in the world. Most of them can't pull their heads out of their rears long enough to even HEAR the HS....they trust in all their "scholarly learning"...LOL.

You have shown this in your last rant of the very same author, Luke, whom you tried to use in addressing the Greek "Kahr'-ece" of which you are totally wrong. You have used the very same Luke to try to disprove his authenticity and then use the very same Luke to prove his honesty in his literature. That is as double minded as one can get. You are not a qualified linguist nor understand rightly dividing the words of truth. You do not understand.

Once again, you misunderstand me...much. I think Luke is a good resource to see through Paul's shenanigans. I also think that Paul's use of the word "grace" and Jesus' use of the word "grace" are diametrically opposed. Paul abrogated the LAW...you know, the same one Jesus taught we were to keep, and that "heaven and earth would pass away before one jot or tittle wasn't fulfilled"....guess what? Last I checked, we're all still standing on this blue rock and it hasn't passed away.
Why do you keep saying I'm "ranting", other than to undermine whatever I say? Why is what I say "ranting"? Mind you, this topic does bring out emotion in me. That doesn't mean I'm out of control and don't have anything pertinent to say.

I give you the last word with the hope that one day you will understand.

What's with the condescension?? ONE DAY I will understand? I guess when I'm 80 and lived as many years as you, and read as many books and "scholarly" articles....then I'll "understand". OR, I can just trust the Holy Spirit to guide me into all truth. Yea, I think I'll stick with the Holy Spirit.

edit on 13-10-2016 by Matrixsurvivor because: (no reason given)

(Seede wrote)
"Now until ones such as yourself can produce those autographs, then you have not the qualifications of critical judgement."


Once again, you misunderstand me...much. I think Luke is a good resource to see through Paul's shenanigans. I also think that Paul's use of the word "grace" and Jesus' use of the word "grace" are diametrically opposed. Paul abrogated the LAW...you know, the same one Jesus taught we were to keep, and that "heaven and earth would pass away before one jot or tittle wasn't fulfilled"....guess what? Last I checked, we're all still standing on this blue rock and it hasn't passed away.
Why do you keep saying I'm "ranting", other than to undermine whatever I say? Why is what I say "ranting"? Mind you, this topic does bring out emotion in me. That doesn't mean I'm out of control and don't have anything pertinent to say.

I give you the last word with the hope that one day you will understand.

What's with the condescension?? ONE DAY I will understand? I guess when I'm 80 and lived as many years as you, and read as many books and "scholarly" articles....then I'll "understand". OR, I can just trust the Holy Spirit to guide me into all truth. Yea, I think I'll stick with the Holy Spirit.

a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

I also think that Paul's use of the word "grace" and Jesus' use of the word "grace" are diametrically opposed.

I would say so... considering HE never used the word at all

John did in his narration though... but the word was used properly in that case

Grace being the way Jesus carried himself... and the ease in which he answered people

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

I also think that Paul's use of the word "grace" and Jesus' use of the word "grace" are diametrically opposed.

I would say so... considering HE never used the word at all

John did in his narration though... but the word was used properly in that case

Grace being the way Jesus carried himself... and the ease in which he answered people

THANK you, Akragon.....it's the way I see it, as well.

a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

just answer my question. Post the three conversion stories Paul gave. Either Luke got them wrong (which would mean the Bible isn't "inerrant") OR Paul embellished the story each time he told it (also changing major parts), which Luke recorded. You can't have it both ways.

To answer your question would be quite lengthy because of the many translators who are involved in the many translations of the same literature. You would have to be a qualified linguist to translate your own rendition and along with that thought you should unbiased. That would be very difficult indeed.

Almost all translations of literature has some conflicting understandings and without the autographs there is no one alive who can determine the authors true intent. You can see this in the conversion of the Roman Centurion of the accounts of both Luke and Peter. Same thing in almost all historical events including American history.

ESV
Act 9:7 The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one.
KJV
Act 9:7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.

ESV
Act 22:9 Now those who were with me saw the light but did not understand the voice of the one who was speaking to me.
KJV
Act 22:9 And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.

ESV
Act 26:14 And when we had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew language, 'Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.'
KJV
Act 26:14 And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

When you understand these translators you must realize that none of them can be word certain. If they could be word certain then all would be word for word from the same MSS. along with the autographs as the master.

Compare Acts 22:9 between ESV and KJV. The KJV is the older but is it the most accurate? Older does not mean best in all circumstances simply because you also have motive of the interpreter. An interpreter can be of the Catholic faith and take his or her belief into the understanding of that translation. You know this as well as anyone knows it. You chose your bible by either what you could understand or what others have taught you. In other words what pleased you.

As you have written from the onset that you despise and even loath Saul/Paul, that is the very same motive that I speak about. Regardless of what others have written in praising Paul. your motive would be to destroy Paul. Why? Because you simply do not understand.

Paul did not pen the three accounts of Acts but it does appear that the last account was more in line of Paul's testimony. The first two accounts could have been related by one who was with Saul in that event while the third account could have been related by Paul to Luke. We simply cannot be certain without the autographs. Nevertheless, for one to insist that lying or misinformation was intended is total nonsense. Most certainly Luke would not have perjured himself. That is not even considered in this debate and it is almost certain that Saul/Paul being a scholar and scribe would not perjure himself with three accounts of the same events. What does that leave? We will never know till we can produce the autographs.

I do hope that you could set aside your hate which has destroyed your understanding and that you realize that hate will consume your salvation without you overcoming that hate. It does not appear that you have the desire to learn but only to destroy that of which you do not understand. LOL---------------------------

a reply to: Seede

When Christian's argue about what they believe to be true
are they ignoring the teachings

hasn't this already happened for hundreds of years
we are still arguing over
who wrote what where

ESV Act 9:7 The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one. KJV Act 9:7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man. ESV Act 22:9 Now those who were with me saw the light but did not understand the voice of the one who was speaking to me. KJV Act 22:9 And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.

where did this happen ?
mountain ?
a cave...

a reply to: kibric

When Christian's argue about what they believe to be true are they ignoring the teachings

True Christians do not debate with hate. Jesus debated throughout His ministry without hate and arguing [debating] should not detract from the message or teachings. Christianity as well as any religion can be debated within their own doctrines simply because most all religions have no autographs as the master. No, it should not ignore the message of the author unless it is the purpose of the aggressor to destroy and not correct. In this case I am afraid that the aggressors wish to destroy and not contribute.

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

just answer my question. Post the three conversion stories Paul gave. Either Luke got them wrong (which would mean the Bible isn't "inerrant") OR Paul embellished the story each time he told it (also changing major parts), which Luke recorded. You can't have it both ways.

To answer your question would be quite lengthy because of the many translators who are involved in the many translations of the same literature. You would have to be a qualified linguist to translate your own rendition and along with that thought you should unbiased. That would be very difficult indeed.

Almost all translations of literature has some conflicting understandings and without the autographs there is no one alive who can determine the authors true intent. You can see this in the conversion of the Roman Centurion of the accounts of both Luke and Peter. Same thing in almost all historical events including American history.

ESV
Act 9:7 The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one.
KJV
Act 9:7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.

ESV
Act 22:9 Now those who were with me saw the light but did not understand the voice of the one who was speaking to me.
KJV
Act 22:9 And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.

ESV
Act 26:14 And when we had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew language, 'Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.'
KJV
Act 26:14 And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

When you understand these translators you must realize that none of them can be word certain. If they could be word certain then all would be word for word from the same MSS. along with the autographs as the master.

Compare Acts 22:9 between ESV and KJV. The KJV is the older but is it the most accurate? Older does not mean best in all circumstances simply because you also have motive of the interpreter. An interpreter can be of the Catholic faith and take his or her belief into the understanding of that translation. You know this as well as anyone knows it. You chose your bible by either what you could understand or what others have taught you. In other words what pleased you.

As you have written from the onset that you despise and even loath Saul/Paul, that is the very same motive that I speak about. Regardless of what others have written in praising Paul. your motive would be to destroy Paul. Why? Because you simply do not understand.

Paul did not pen the three accounts of Acts but it does appear that the last account was more in line of Paul's testimony. The first two accounts could have been related by one who was with Saul in that event while the third account could have been related by Paul to Luke. We simply cannot be certain without the autographs. Nevertheless, for one to insist that lying or misinformation was intended is total nonsense. Most certainly Luke would not have perjured himself. That is not even considered in this debate and it is almost certain that Saul/Paul being a scholar and scribe would not perjure himself with three accounts of the same events. What does that leave? We will never know till we can produce the autographs.

I do hope that you could set aside your hate which has destroyed your understanding and that you realize that hate will consume your salvation without you overcoming that hate. It does not appear that you have the desire to learn but only to destroy that of which you do not understand. LOL---------------------------

here....I'll put them out there without all the "I don't understand" included in it. (I DO understand basic 6th grade English, lol...so, whoever put these accounts in the Bible, must not have understood "basic 6th grade English")







Paul himself makes no mention of a conversion on the road to Damascus, whereas Acts of the Apostles has not one, but three accounts:
•At Acts 9:3-8, Paul was blinded by a light and fell down, then heard Jesus, who told Paul that he would be told what to do when he was in the city. His men did not see the light, but heard the voice. They remained standing•

At Acts 22:6-11, Paul told the people he was blinded by a light and fell down, then heard Jesus, who again told Paul that he would be told what to do when he was in Damascus. This time, his men saw the light but, unlike Paul, were not blinded, and did not hear the voice.


•At Acts 26.13-19, Paul told Agrippa that he saw a brilliant light and heard Jesus, who gave him his mission, but did not command him to go to Damascus. He fell down, but there is no mention of blindness, nor is there any mention of the men seeing or hearing anything, although for some reason they also fell down. He told those at Damascus and Jerusalem about his conversion experience.


So, according to you Mr. Seede...the ONLY way to interpret the plain meaning of these contradictory passages, is to do massive research into the MSS or the Septuagint, and somehow try to determine just WHO is correct. Never mind, just taking these passages as word value and meaning. Oh no, since they CONTRADICT, there must be some other sublime reason...like the one's who put the Bible together somehow misconstrued the translations...right?
NO wonder Christians argue ad nausea about the Bible. IT'S DIVISIVE AND CONTRADICTORY. Ha.
But, I'm the one who's confused....because I SEE THE CONFUSION in it. Gotcha, lol.

originally posted by: kibric
a reply to: Seede

When Christian's argue about what they believe to be true
are they ignoring the teachings

hasn't this already happened for hundreds of years
we are still arguing over
who wrote what where

ESV Act 9:7 The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one. KJV Act 9:7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man. ESV Act 22:9 Now those who were with me saw the light but did not understand the voice of the one who was speaking to me. KJV Act 22:9 And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.

where did this happen ?
mountain ?
a cave...

(grin).....you see it too, don't ya? Right on, bro. I am so tired of the "semantics" to try and gloss over the contradictions. My definition of "Apologetics" when it comes to Christianity...."jump through a bunch of poodle hoops, make it sound like you are making sense, when you really aren't, to deflect from the obvious." (cracking up over here)

a reply to: Seede

True Christians do not debate with hate. Jesus debated throughout His ministry without hate and arguing [debating] should not detract from the message or teachings.

Ohhhh, yes they do, lol. You know where they learn it from? Paul.
There are Christians who emulate Jesus' character...but, they are few and far between. Not only that, but some may APPEAR to emulate Jesus, until you poke them with the "Paul is a false apostle" or "the Bible isn't inerrant" stick. Oh....then, you see their true colors. It's "fight or flight".