Paul The First Heretic

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Of course hacking off a small piece of your member has nothing to do with anything...

Precisely why I said you don't sometimes understand Paul. He says the exact same thing. He's talking to Galatia Christians who were being misled by the Judaizers that now since being saved they now had to become circumcised and follow the laws of Moses. Paul's telling them, "If you cut that skin off Jesus means nothing to you."

"if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you."


And then goes on to warn them, "Btw, if you follow that point of the law to become righteous, you're obligated to keep the entire thing without failing a single law."

"And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law"

reply to post by NOTurTypical

The burden of proof must always be met by the side making the claim. It's a universal truth.

Perfect. Prove your case.

I can pull up Nicene history propaganda all day.

You claim you know the truth is that 'saying Jesus is my savior is all I have to do.'

Now, PROVE IT.
You are making the claim.

This is just silly. I don't care how long you've been apologizing (what a ridiculous term to use, imo) or what KIND of apologetics you engage in, but you have not PROVEN anything, NotUr, except that you think you know more than everyone else.

So, what SORT of apologetics is it you practice?

3 Varieties
3.1 Historical and legal evidentialism
3.2 Defense of miracles
3.3 Prophetic fulfillment
3.4 Biblical apologetics
3.5 Philosophical apologetics
3.5.1 Presuppositional apologetics
3.6 Moral apologetics
3.7 Scientific apologetics
3.8 Creationist apologetics
3.9 Experiential apologetics

Pick one, and then prove your claim. Period.
So far, in months of reading your posts, you have failed to prove anything to me.

Your rebuttal regarding the un-included gospels does not in any way prove anything. They were omitted. Fact.
WHICH ......Bible version do you tout?
.....type of 'apologist' do you proclaim yourself to be?
.....scholars and historical documents do you consider to be correct?
.....on what grounds?

To simply say 'you can't prove that is true', while you are not proving anything at all, is empty rhetoric that you have no argument and no facts to back up.
I came here asking questions. You claim to have answers.
Answer the questions, and prove that your answers are the truth. The Universal Truth.

And btw, if you'd stop speaking in such a condescending manner to people, you might get better results. You're not God. Nor are you Jesus, or Paul. You're a person who has a faith in a bunch of theories that NO ONE can prove.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


As i've said, anyone can say i love you... or even i love my neighbours... but without showing that love it means nothing...

Many proclaim love and yet turn their backs to those in need.... many of those i speak of also proclaim christianity as well...

IF one has "Faith" and shows not love.... what is that faith?

Im also still waiting on a reply from Scagamer or whatever his name is on the on this issue... Jesus regularly kept the company of sinners... yet paul seems to tell his church not to keep the company of these people...

Perhaps you might help his case... Where did paul keep the company of sinners?

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Of course hacking off a small piece of your member has nothing to do with anything...

Precisely why I said you don't sometimes understand Paul. He says the exact same thing. He's talking to Galatia Christians who were being misled by the Judaizers that now since being saved they now had to become circumcised and follow the laws of Moses. Paul's telling them, "If you cut that skin off Jesus means nothing to you."

"if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you."


And then goes on to warn them, "Btw, if you follow that point of the law to become righteous, you're obligated to keep the entire thing without failing a single law."

"And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law"

edit on 8-2-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)

So you're saying anyone who is circumsized does not understand christ?

Just to be clear...as you said.... If you cut that skin off Jesus means nothing to you...

Is that correct.... careful with your answer

reply to post by wildtimes

Perfect. Prove your case.

I didn't make the positive claims! You did. You said Paul was a spy of Rome. You said the books of the Bible were codified at Nicea.

Therefore you have the burden of proof, not me. It's virtually impossible to prove a negative. It's illogical. There are no quotes from Paul saying, "Hey, It's been said I'm a spy of Rome, but that's poppycock yo.", there are no quotes from early church fathers saying, "Hey peeps, we never discussed the books of the Bible at Nicea."

You claim you know the truth is that 'saying Jesus is my savior is all I have to do.'

I just noticed this line. I've NEVER said that nonsense, that's a straw man. Jesus saves, we don't save ourselves. He said all that are chosen are called by God. And all that God calls will come. And all who come will never be cast out. It's not about what we do or what we don't do, it's about what He has done.

reply to post by Akragon

So you're saying anyone who is circumsized does not understand christ?

Just to be clear...as you said.... If you cut that skin off Jesus means nothing to you...

Is that correct.... careful with your answer

I don't think you read what I said. Paul was writing to the Galatians who were "bewitched" into listening to the heresies of the Judaizers who claimed that after conversion, they had to get circumcised and follow the laws of Moses. Paul is mocking that idea, and telling them, "Go ahead, if you do cut it off mind you that you must keep the entire law to be justified on your own works of righteousness. And Christ's death is meaningless to you."

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Akragon

 

So you're saying anyone who is circumsized does not understand christ?

Just to be clear...as you said.... If you cut that skin off Jesus means nothing to you...

Is that correct.... careful with your answer

I don't think you read what I said. Paul was writing to the Galatians who were "bewitched" into listening to the heresies of the Judaizers who claimed that after conversion, they had to get circumcised and follow the laws of Moses. Paul is mocking that idea, and telling them, "Go ahead, if you do cut it off mind you that you must keep the entire law to be justified on your own works of righteousness. And Christ's death is meaningless to you."

edit on 8-2-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)

i read exactly what you said... and that explaination isn't what you said... but now i understand what you're saying... Though you didn't answer my question.

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

As i've said, anyone can say i love you... or even i love my neighbours... but without showing that love it means nothing...

It's simple, you treat them as you'd wish to be treated.

Many proclaim love and yet turn their backs to those in need.... many of those i speak of also proclaim christianity as well...

So what? We're sinners. Sometimes I make mistakes and treat others differently than I want to be treated, and I repent of that. We all make mistakes, and there are also tares amongst the wheat, wolves in sheep's clothing.

IF one has "Faith" and shows not love.... what is that faith?

Most likely dead.

Im also still waiting on a reply from Scagamer or whatever his name is on the on this issue... Jesus regularly kept the company of sinners... yet paul seems to tell his church not to keep the company of these people...

I don't think Jesus partied with them nor joined them in their sin, He met them where they were, but loved them too much to leave them there, and called them out of it. Paul is speaking more in the sense of fraternizing and participating with them in their sins. But in the sense of Christ, Paul took the gospel to all gentile ends of the Earth, so he dealt with unrepentant sinners on a daily basis.

Perhaps you might help his case... Where did paul keep the company of sinners?

As if Paul himself wasn't a sinner? We all are except for Christ Jesus. But he took the gospel to the Hellenized Roman world, he was teaching and preaching and serving the heathen unconverted his entire ministry.

Originally posted by Akragon

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Akragon

 

So you're saying anyone who is circumsized does not understand christ?

Just to be clear...as you said.... If you cut that skin off Jesus means nothing to you...

Is that correct.... careful with your answer

I don't think you read what I said. Paul was writing to the Galatians who were "bewitched" into listening to the heresies of the Judaizers who claimed that after conversion, they had to get circumcised and follow the laws of Moses. Paul is mocking that idea, and telling them, "Go ahead, if you do cut it off mind you that you must keep the entire law to be justified on your own works of righteousness. And Christ's death is meaningless to you."

i read exactly what you said... and that explaination isn't what you said... but now i understand what you're saying... Though you didn't answer my question.

I said this before the above:

He's talking to Galatia Christians who were being misled by the Judaizers that now since being saved they now had to become circumcised and follow the laws of Moses. Paul's telling them, "If you cut that skin off Jesus means nothing to you."

And I did answer your question. It has nothing to do with cutting skin off, but the reason behind cutting skin off. There are people today who say we need to follow the laws after converting to Christ. The same deceitful spirit is alive today.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

It's simple, you treat them as you'd wish to be treated.

True enough... but what of those that do not treat you as you wish to be treated... will you turn your back to them?

So what? We're sinners. Sometimes I make mistakes and treat others differently than I want to be treated, and I repent of that. We all make mistakes, and there are also tares amongst the wheat, wolves in sheep's clothing.

So what?!?! Hardly the answer i was expecting... but so be it...

Yes we all make mistakes, but those who don't learn from their mistakes are doomed to repeat them... Remember he said GO AND SIN NO MORE... not... You are forgiven... and by all means do it again if you wish...

I don't think Jesus partied with them nor joined them in their sin, He met them where they were, but loved them too much to leave them there, and called them out of it. Paul is speaking more in the sense of fraternizing and participating with them in their sins. But in the sense of Christ, Paul took the gospel to all gentile ends of the Earth, so he dealt with unrepentant sinners on a daily basis.

Yes i know he loved to pass his own judgement on others... Considering he claimed himself to be the "chief of all sinners"... yet considered himself the example to be followered. Why do christians follower the words of an admitted sinner, yet you have the words of one without sin?

As if Paul himself wasn't a sinner? We all are except for Christ Jesus. But he took the gospel to the Hellenized Roman world, he was teaching and preaching and serving the heathen unconverted his entire ministry.

Like i said above... why waste your time with his words... a liar, a hypocrite...

Again i don't know who he was in life, but his words expose a bit of what he was like.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

And I did answer your question. It has nothing to do with cutting skin off, but the reason behind cutting skin off. There are people today who say we need to follow the laws after converting to Christ. The same deceitful spirit is alive today

A simple yes or no will be sufficient...

IF you are circumsized... does that mean you do not understand Christ?

I know the act means nothing... that isn't the question i asked you...

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

And I did answer your question. It has nothing to do with cutting skin off, but the reason behind cutting skin off. There are people today who say we need to follow the laws after converting to Christ. The same deceitful spirit is alive today

A simple yes or no will be sufficient...

IF you are circumsized... does that mean you do not understand Christ?

I know the act means nothing... that isn't the question i asked you...

No of course not, the question is absurd. I'm circumcised.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

And I did answer your question. It has nothing to do with cutting skin off, but the reason behind cutting skin off. There are people today who say we need to follow the laws after converting to Christ. The same deceitful spirit is alive today

A simple yes or no will be sufficient...

IF you are circumsized... does that mean you do not understand Christ?

I know the act means nothing... that isn't the question i asked you...

No of course not, the question is absurd. I'm circumcised.

As am i... which is why i asked the question.

I've run into a few people who make this claim... though i always get a good laugh from the idea..

reply to post by NOTurTypical

You said Paul was a spy of Rome. You said the books of the Bible were codified at Nicea.

Paul was commissioned to persecute the Christians...he was on the payroll to go to Damascus and rout them out.
I also provided you a Christian link or two that say so.

I did not say the books of the Bible were codified. I said they decided which books would, and would not be included when they decided on the compilation. During the council, there was no "Bible." The 1800+ bishops were to come to an agreement on their differences, and discuss the canon (laws), and came up with the creed (which I know by heart and repeated 100s of times.)

Constantine had an agenda, and you cannot deny that.
It was the truth. The Christian sects were at odds, just like they are now, and have always been. Inasmuch, they failed. There WERE decisions made to omit certain early gospels.

You can say those gospels are tosh all you want, but it does not change the fact that they discussed which books they would 'promote' and which to 'discount.' Those early gospels were known of, and the decision to discount them, leave them out, was made conciously. That is why the early Christian(s) hid them in the jar and when they were discovered, they PREDATED the 'Gospels' you say are eyewitness accounts.

And you still have not addressed the issues of translation, and revision, and new understandings of the metaphors.

But, apparently you being an 'apologist means those requests are beneath you. I understand, NotUr. Was really hoping for some firm evidence that backs up everything you claim to be the truth, when there is plenty that discounts it, and more is discovered every day. But, oh well.
Thanks for trying!

So, what would it take for you to say, "Huh! Really? Well, I guess that changes everything! Wow!"
Just, hypothetically, of course.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

It's not about what we do or what we don't do,

Yes, it is. It's ALL ABOUT what we do, how we behave, our inner selves, whether or not we show mercy, and compassion, and tolerance, and acceptance, and share what we have with those who need it.

And you can use 'works' as a negative thing all you like (you seem fond of those 'negative' approaches), but if one is a loving person, filled with the Holy Spirit, and does good things NOT to prove to other humans he is pious, NOR to impress God, but simply because it's the right thing to do....
and they know it....

It doesn't matter one WHIT if they even know who Jesus was!
If a person lives in a moral and conscientious, unselfish way, and is open to all, transparent and benevolent, kind and generous, just because that is their nature, then they get it.

And btw, my son is NOT circumcised, and the only diff that makes is that I refused to subject a newborn to irrelevant and painful mutilation. Twenty-one years ago. Just, for what it's worth. Is he supposed to pass on to the afterlife and "prove" it, and that makes it all good for him?

I'm quite frustrated with your dancing around the questions, the hard questions, and hiding behind your 'burden of proof debate rules', and failure to present your case with hard history. Saying 'just because it doesn't say they did, doesn't mean they didn't; and conversely, just because someone else said they did makes it so,' just doesn't cut it.

Sorry. I guess we've reached the end of our debate.
Until next time, respectfully,
wildtimes

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

You said Paul was a spy of Rome. You said the books of the Bible were codified at Nicea.

Paul was commissioned to persecute the Christians...he was on the payroll to go to Damascus and rout them out.
I also provided you a Christian link or two that say so.

And immediately changed his theology when he met the risen Lord.

I did not say the books of the Bible were codified. I said they decided which books would, and would not be included when they decided on the compilation. During the council, there was no "Bible." The 1800+ bishops were to come to an agreement on their differences, and discuss the canon (laws), and came up with the creed (which I know by heart and repeated 100s of times.)

Codified is my verbage. And you were shown that's a "misconception":

A number of erroneous views have been stated regarding the council's role in establishing the biblical canon. In fact, there is no record of any discussion of the biblical canon at the council at all.

First Council of Nicea ~ Wiki

Constantine had an agenda, and you cannot deny that.

What was his "agenda", you tell me, what was it?

It was the truth. The Christian sects were at odds, just like they are now, and have always been. Inasmuch, they failed.

Yes, and the vote was 2 in favor of Arius and 300+ against.

There WERE decisions made to omit certain early gospels.

NOT at the Council of Nicea THOUGH.

You can say those gospels are tosh all you want, but it does not change the fact that they discussed which books they would 'promote' and which to 'discount.' Those early gospels were known of, and the decision to discount them, leave them out, was made conciously. That is why the early Christian(s) hid them in the jar and when they were discovered, they PREDATED the 'Gospels' you say are eyewitness accounts.

Do you have any clue as to why that is? Other than some cooked up nonsense about Constantine? It's because most are pseudo-graphical, the early church rejected any words written pseudo-graphically. And these "gospels" date to a time well after the alleged authors lived. And they make no pretense of being historical documents, them make no mention of historical events. They are just sayings, and not only are they mostly unbibical, many are anti-bibical.

But, apparently you being an 'apologist means those requests are beneath you. I understand, NotUr. Was really hoping for some firm evidence that backs up everything you claim to be the truth, when there is plenty that discounts it, and more is discovered every day. But, oh well.
Thanks for trying!

So you're presenting nothing that Paul was a spy of Rome other than your hunches? And no evidence at all that the book of the Bible was on the agenda at Nicea?

So, what would it take for you to say, "Huh! Really? Well, I guess that changes everything! Wow!"
Just, hypothetically, of course.

Because it's nothing new.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

And they make no pretense of being historical documents, them make no mention of historical events. They are just sayings, and not only are they mostly unbibical, many are anti-bibical.

That is incorrect actually... There is many "historical" references in what the church rejected...

Keep in mind Thomas wasn't the only rejected gospel...

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

It's not about what we do or what we don't do,

Yes, it is. It's ALL ABOUT what we do, how we behave, our inner selves, whether or not we show mercy, and compassion, and tolerance, and acceptance, and share what we have with those who need it.

Sure, that's what our lives should be marked by, but those things don't make God love us. He does love us, and has loved us by sending His Son to die for us while we were yet sinners, yet His enemy.

And you can use 'works' as a negative thing all you like (you seem fond of those 'negative' approaches),

Works AREN'T a negative thing. You've completely missed what I said. In fact, I said they were very important above.

but if one is a loving person, filled with the Holy Spirit, and does good things NOT to prove to other humans he is pious, NOR to impress God, but simply because it's the right thing to do....
and they know it....

Works done in that manner don't mean anything anyways. Works should be the natural result of having humble joy for who God is and what He has done for us in His Son Jesus Christ.

It doesn't matter one WHIT if they even know who Jesus was!
If a person lives in a moral and conscientious, unselfish way, and is open to all, transparent and benevolent, kind and generous, just because that is their nature, then they get it.

They are following the law of love God has written on all men's hearts. He promised to do this in Jeremiah in the OT.

And btw, my son is NOT circumcised, and the only diff that makes is that I refused to subject a newborn to irrelevant and painful mutilation. Twenty-one years ago. Just, for what it's worth. Is he supposed to pass on to the afterlife and "prove" it, and that makes it all good for him?

Well, I feel sorry for his future wife. She's 80% more likely to suffer from cervical cancer at some time in her life. And btw, did you know that according to doctors a newborn babies' white blood cell count and coagulating agents are spiked to 110-115% normal levels on the 8th day of a babies life and after that day go back to normal levels. I wonder how Moses knew that? Trial and error perhaps?

I'm quite frustrated with your dancing around the questions, the hard questions, and hiding behind your 'burden of proof debate rules',

You've got to be kidding me. It's not "debate rules", it's logical reasoning. If you make a claim you need to be the one to prove it true. Common sense.

and failure to present your case with hard history.

Again, you seemed to have missed it, it's nearly impossible to prove the negative, that something never happened.

Saying 'just because it doesn't say they did, doesn't mean they didn't; and conversely, just because someone else said they did makes it so,' just doesn't cut it.

If something never happened how do you prove that something never happened? O the contrary, to claim something DID happen there would need to be evidence to support that.

Where is it?

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

And they make no pretense of being historical documents, them make no mention of historical events. They are just sayings, and not only are they mostly unbibical, many are anti-bibical.

That is incorrect actually... There is many "historical" references in what the church rejected...

Okay, show some.

Keep in mind Thomas wasn't the only rejected gospel...

I know, the guys at Alexandria made dozens and dozens. And eventually, 3 different Greek NT manuscripts.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Works done in that manner don't mean anything anyways

Again with the dancing.
You seem (SEEM) to be saying that anyone who is a good person, yet has never heard of Jesus, is a lost cause.
Is that right, as in -- is that your stance?

What do you mean those works don't mean anything anyways?? What nonsense is that????
Of COURSE they do!

You may not be familiar with the story of the person on the beach, surrounded by stranded starfish...who is throwing them one by one back into the water. Someone approaches that person and says, "Why do you bother? There are too many to make a difference."
The first person picks up another and tosses it back into the surf and says, "It mattered to that one."

How can you so casually dismiss the good deeds of those who do good deeds just because it comes from their nature? How can you be so sure that if they don't know who Jesus is, they are sunk?

You are correct that I have totally missed what you are saying. And I've tried, God knows I've tried.