Apostle Paul says it's better to be celibate.

Originally posted by daggyz
reply to post by IlluminatusOculus33

 

There are Christians, there are religious nutters. You can pick which one this is. If you have no sexual feelings that wou;ld be ok, but then you'd be a special person, or a weird one. You can pick which one this is.

But to tickle the ears of this poster, it also says to sell everything.... done that yet???
It aslo says to pick up poisnakes...done that yet

"Tempt not the Lord thy God"

biblenotes.homestead.com...

These churches that handle snakes apparently never read these passages of the bible and they are more cult than church.

When Jesus said to sell your posessions and take up your cross it was a metaphor, for believing in him and doing his work. You give over your own will to his will, because your will is the only thing that you "posess", he didn't mean that you go and make yourself poor and become a hindrance to other people, he wants you to take what you have and use it to benefit others and help the needy and the poor, the sick and the dying, to learn to give and to learn to love giving.

Ofcourse you would know this if you actually studied his word and teachings. Why is it christians are always labelled solely as "religious nutjobs"? No one ever says this of any other faith. Hm, maybe there's something to that? like maybe because everyone is against it, that it must be right because Satan is out to prevent the truth from spreading?

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
Why is it christians are always labelled solely as "religious nutjobs"? No one ever says this of any other faith. Hm, maybe there's something to that? like maybe because everyone is against it, that it must be right because Satan is out to prevent the truth from spreading?

It could be that the answer is much more prosaic.

It could be, that secular, materialistic people don't like to be told that there is a completely alien way of looking at the world, a completely different value-system, without "you almighty" at the center of it all.

Or it could be Satan. (same thing?)

reply to post by IlluminatusOculus33


That might be going on if the mass media actually gave us the truth but
man's problems are more news worthy. Perhaps too idealistic but can
save you from a lot of problems.

reply to post by IlluminatusOculus33

Your not aware that Paul wrote the whole New Testament.

Originally posted by Warpthal
reply to post by IlluminatusOculus33

 

Your not aware that Paul wrote the whole New Testament.

He didn't. suffix-frequency studies indicate multiple writers for the new testament. Likewise, the theology of the various gospels is not identical; much more so for the rest of the books

reply to post by IlluminatusOculus33


Apostle Paul never met Jesus in the first place.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Maybe you havent heard, but the wicked can also masquerade as the messengers of light. And did you not read the story of Moses and Pharoah and his magicians? Do you not remember the magicians did nearly every same mirace that Moses was showing them? Dont you think demons cant heal too? What do you think demons and Satan were before they fell from Heaven? They had the power to heal the sick, and perform miracles too, so dont try use spectacles performed by men to justify that the false name is true.

Originally posted by Warpthal
reply to post by IlluminatusOculus33

 

Your not aware that Paul wrote the whole New Testament.

no.

NT writers:

Matthew
John Mark
Apostle John
Luke
James
Jude
Paul
Peter

Originally posted by Seektruthalways1
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Maybe you havent heard, but the wicked can also masquerade as the messengers of light. And did you not read the story of Moses and Pharoah and his magicians? Do you not remember the magicians did nearly every same mirace that Moses was showing them? Dont you think demons cant heal too? What do you think demons and Satan were before they fell from Heaven? They had the power to heal the sick, and perform miracles too, so dont try use spectacles performed by men to justify that the false name is true.

Maybe you didn't know, but Christ already shredded the notion that satan and his cohorts would work against themselves. "A divided house cannot stand". But humor me, please explain how the enemy persuades the Holy Spirit to raise the dead, heal the sick, or cast out themselves?

Originally posted by IlluminatusOculus33
1 Corinthians 7:1b; 7-8; 29; 32

It is good for a man not to touch a woman. For I wish that all men were even as I myself. But each one has his own gift from God, one in this manner and another in that. But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they remain even as I am. But this I say, brethren, the time is short, so that from now on even those who have wives should be as though they had none. But I want you to be without care. He who is unmarried cares for the things of the Lord—how he may please the Lord.

The Apostle Paul recommended that leading the life of celibacy is ideal because you focus on the Lord while being married distracts you from doing the Lords work. Paul also said we should be self controlled "But I discipline my body and bring it into subjection, lest, when I have preached to others, I myself should become disqualified." -1 Corinthians 9:27

Since we are living in the last days we should be celibate so we can serve the Lord to our fullest. Christ shall return riding on clouds of glory. The trumpet will sound and the believers caught up in Heaven. Do you want to be responsible for not spreading the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ?

Slow down my friend and read the passage a bit slower. Each man has his own unique gift from God and should listen to God in the proper use of that gift, not Paul.

Paul is merely saying that if you choose to be celibate, it is a good thing, if not, it is a good thing.

" But each one has his own gift from God, one in this manner and another in that."

If a man has the gift of love in his heart and it be for a woman, should that man then turn on his own gifts to marvel at the gifts of another? Who then would he be following, his own heart and God or Paul? And, if Paul takes the role of God in a man, what does that make Paul?

Be celebate if that is your choosing. I will serve God by loving my woman.

With Love,

Your Brother

Yes, correct IAM, and also remember Peter had a wife, and Christ entrusted His church to Peter.

If you're called to be celibate, God will affirm it to you and will surely give the grace to succeed in plan in accordance to His will.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by MagoSA

 

You also have to remember that Paul of Tarsus was included in the canonical bible because of his influence in the Christian sects that were brought together to make the Bible as we know it today. (Council of Nicea)

Dear Lord Jesus, if I read this internet myth another time I'm going to gouge my eyes out with my toothbrush. The cannon of scripture was never discussed at Nicea, the council was convened to discuss the Arian controversy. How do people still believe this nonsense?

Here is what Peter said of Paul in 2 Peter 3:15-16:

And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as the other scriptures also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

You sure do like to repeat this again and again. Possibly because it's the only support you have for your doctrinal orientation.

Read from outside your perspective and interpretation the meaning comes out different.

reply to post by bogomil

You sure do like to repeat this again and again.

It comes up here "again and again". Not my wish, but what can you do?

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by bogomil

 

You sure do like to repeat this again and again.

It comes up here "again and again". Not my wish, but what can you do?

The thread-OP contains the initial citation from the bible, which hardly can be disputed as BEING a bible-citation.

Then the next paragraph on Paulus' 'authority' and/or 'recommendation', which is the origin of the present Paulus-dispute.

The last OP could possibly lead to the value of celibacy as such.

But for now the direction is Paulus' 'authenticity' about which a lot already has been said, for or against, and in a functional dialogue on a forum like this, it's unnecessary to start from square one EVERY time one of such evergreens is brough up.

The contributor you answered to at the start of this direction seems well aware of the implications of the early christian dissentions, as do I and several other regular contributors to this sub-forum, and your effort to tone this down, and at the same time further your own christian interpretation through such a simplistic answer as Peter II, points either to, that this is your sole place of support or to some reason not directly visible.

If the last is the case, it could be relevant to take it up.

reply to post by bogomil


Shall I just send you my posts via U2U so you can forum-approve them before I post them?

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by bogomil

 

Shall I just send you my posts via U2U so you can forum-approve them before I post them?

The idea of a public forum is, that it's public.

The idea of a liberal public forum is, that it's liberal and public.

Which means, that what's posted can be opposed.

Are the semantics and tactics done with now, so we can return to Paulus etc.?

reply to post by dr_strangecraft

Like I stated, the New testamanet was directly or indirectly influenced by Paul. I do agree that all bibles are the same. I never recalled there to be an original bible that was studied by scientists.

reply to post by IlluminatusOculus33
But he say this in a time there where no cars, busses, planes.. and possible drive on a horse of a donky.. so can u imagine how much time he went from home to go to for example Greece or Italy. If he than should be married, it drives him crazy not to see his wife.

Originally posted by Warpthal
reply to post by dr_strangecraft

 

Like I stated, the New testamanet was directly or indirectly influenced by Paul. I do agree that all bibles are the same. I never recalled there to be an original bible that was studied by scientists.

Well, several books, like James, are at odds with some of Paul's key goals (James points to salvation by works instead of salvation by faith, and even argues against Paul's letter to the Romans!)

Revelation seems completely outside of Paul's influence; like it doesn't even know he exists.
Likewise the Gospel of John; Paul says that Jesus gave up his power to come to earth, while the gospel of John shows Jesus as completely in command of the cosmos, even during the crucifixion (though unwilling to use his power to alter history)

I didn't say all Bibles are the same. Indeed; no two Bibles are the same before the printing press. But that's my point--as different as many of them are, they all show a theology of celibacy at work, from Marseilles to Mesopotamia, before it was even legal to be a Christian. So it's not like the desirability of celibacy is some kind of foreign doctrine that was inserted into Christianity by some outside influence.

Within the majority of churches that recognized each other as "Christian," you cannot find any that was anti-celibacy, or who argued that Paul was not an authentic source of doctrine. Thats true of the coptic church, the Assyrian Church, Russian orthodox, Ethiopian, and even the Monasteries along the Irish sea. Indeed, the people now called Kathars and Gnostics were even more "pro-celibacy" than Paul was.