It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Paul taught that the whole function of Jesus centred on his death which released the faithful from the burden of their sins, their misery and the power of Satan. In fact not a single word Paul wrote in the Epistles gives the actual teaching of Jesus, nor does he mention even one of his parables; instead he spreads his own philosophy and his own ideas.
Paul tends to characterise all people as children of anger, ie. as subject to the wrath of God (see Eph. 2,3). All are (without exception) quite lost (eg. Romans 5,18; Cor. 15,18), without hope and without God (Eph. 2,12), for Satan has power over everyone (without exception) (eg. Rom. 3,9; Gal. 3,22; Col 2,14). A sentence of damnation hangs like a sword of Damocles over all people (eg. Rom. 5,16).
Thus Paul as a human teacher made out of the joyous tidings his threatening tidings and implied that only he could show the path to salvation. Of course with such an attitude one can hardly arrive at a natural view of death, for it makes death a solution to sin.
In no other religion do we find such cultivation of the fear of death as in the Pauline Christianity. With Paul Christianity became a religion in which Christians, beset by fears, would bow docilely under the yoke of threats. The religion was already veering away from the concept of the kind and loving, all-forgiving God of Jesus, and reverting to the crudities of the wrathful Old Testament God, as borne out by Paul's words.
The point comes home best when one considers Paul's explicit statement that the human individual can do nothing himself to secure salvation, "Š(cf. Rom. 3,24; 3,28; 9,11; 9,16; 1.Cor. 1,29; Gal. 2,16). For according to Paul salvation depends solely on the Grace of GodŠ" (Eph. 2, 8-9).
Thus the Pauline doctrine makes salvation a one-sided matter for God; people on earth have their hands bound (cf. Rom. 3,24; 4,16; Eph. 2,5; 2,8-9; 2. Tim. 1,9; Tit. 3,5-7). What Paul says here is of course quite attractive, because it is comfortable. By joining the fold, salvation ensues "automatically". No effort on one's own part is then necessary to arrive at the goal of life, for every Christian is saved once and for all by the sacrificial death of Jesus on the cross at Golgotha.
It means that one has only to sign up with this "institution", pay the "membership fee", and (lo and behold!) everything is settled for securing a seat in paradise for all eternity. Naturally such a teaching attracted many supporters and spread rapidly. After all it is easier to believe in something that can be had safely and comfortably.
Simply by the simple act of conversion a person is then redeemed, saved, made a child of God, and becomes a completely new person. According to this teaching, every attempt on one's own part to work towards salvation plays down Jesus' role, is even a deadly sin. And conversely, every person, however exemplary and good his or her life may have been, is declared by his teaching to be lost if he or she does not gratefully acknowledge the sacrifice of the cross as constituting their entire personal salvation.
Most Christians think the greatness and uniqueness of Christianity stands and falls with the truth of his teaching. On closer inspection, however, it is found to be a fabrication, far removed from the real ideas of Jesus. There is no hint of the so called Christian doctrine of salvation in the gospels, either in the sermon on the mount - the quintessence of Jesus' message - or in the Our Father, or the traditional parables of Jesus!
Jesus did not supply theories to be ground in the mills of academia, about his path and message -- he just lived his teaching!
Originally posted by Theophorus
reply to post by Akragon
Could you be so kind as to provide a link to the source quoted. Thanks, theo-
Originally posted by adjensen
I noticed that you ignored my reply to your previous effort, but I would once again ask you to cite specific examples where Paul's teaching contradicts Jesus. This time, I would prefer YOUR examples, ones that you have noted in reading Paul's letters, not the poorly thought out previous ones.
That aside, three questions:
1) Is your mother a semite? Is she a practicing Jew?
2) If you are a male, have you been circumcised by a mohel?
3) Do you adhere to all the Law in the Torah and Talmud, including dietary, cultural and ritualistic laws? Do you perform the required sacrifices (doves, goats, etc) annually in the Temple?
If your answer to any of those is "no", then Jesus did not come for you, by his own words (Matthew 15:24) and your rejection of Paul and the Universal Christianity that he was charged with teaching means that you are condemned, because your "no" answer means that you are not one of the chosen people.
Since you wish to be saved by the Law, if you are Jewish, knock yourself out. If you are not Jewish, you're out of luck.
If your answer to any of those is "no", then Jesus did not come for you, by his own words (Matthew 15:24) and your rejection of Paul and the Universal Christianity that he was charged with teaching means that you are condemned, because your "no" answer means that you are not one of the chosen people.
The writer of this article takes a very narrow view of the Pauline epistles and draws much of his scripture reference out of context. I simply don't feel like going into scripture references right now but maybe later as this thread progresses.
Originally posted by Akragon
Well first off that link had nothing to do with me, so i don't know what "previous effort' you're refering to...
Im not jewish or any other title or label you like to use, i am myself.
And one more thing, in the future when you reply to me or ask a question... try being a little nicer instead of using the old "my version is the only correct one" bullsh!t... Your words don't condem me, nor does what you preach.
Originally posted by adjensen
Originally posted by Akragon
Well first off that link had nothing to do with me, so i don't know what "previous effort' you're refering to...
Yes, apologies. I thought that you were the poster that I'd been replying to, but it was someone else who didn't really understand what Paul brought to the table and who made very similar statements.
Im not jewish or any other title or label you like to use, i am myself.
What people don't seem to understand about Paul is that he was specifically charged with bringing the message of Christ to the Gentiles. He was, without question, not a "heretic", unless one believes that only a Jew can be a Christian (which was a common belief in the early church,) and if Paul's teaching is wrong, there is no salvation in Christ for anyone other than those I listed.
And one more thing, in the future when you reply to me or ask a question... try being a little nicer instead of using the old "my version is the only correct one" bullsh!t... Your words don't condem me, nor does what you preach.
There is little point to just randomly quoting someone else's work without providing your own input or perspective, since no one can question or debate an author who is not here. If you don't believe that Paul is a heretic, then why take offence, and if you do, then the questions I raise are valid ones that you should consider, rather than swearing and complaining that people don't agree with you.
I am an orthodox Christian apologist, and I believe that posts such are yours are intentionally attempting to mislead people about what Christianity is. If you intend to continue to misrepresent Christianity, your misstatements will continue to be pointed out -- and you are welcome to respond, of course.
What people don't seem to understand about Paul is that he was specifically charged with bringing the message of Christ to the Gentiles. He was, without question, not a "heretic", unless one believes that only a Jew can be a Christian (which was a common belief in the early church,) and if Paul's teaching is wrong, there is no salvation in Christ for anyone other than those I listed.
There is little point to just randomly quoting someone else's work without providing your own input or perspective, since no one can question or debate an author who is not here. If you don't believe that Paul is a heretic, then why take offence, and if you do, then the questions I raise are valid ones that you should consider, rather than swearing and complaining that people don't agree with you.
Originally posted by seeashrink
reply to post by Akragon
LOL, welcome to ATS. If you think you get a hard time trying being a cop on here. Tough crowd.
Seeashrink