LIES THAT PAUL MADE
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-01-2014, 04:33 PM
RE: LIES THAT PAUL MADE
Oh either you've been here before....or we're just bored with your type.

Time will tell.


God is a concept by which we measure our pain -- John Lennon

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-01-2014, 04:51 PM
RE: LIES THAT PAUL MADE
(14-01-2014 10:05 AM)WitchSabrina Wrote:  Let's eat kids.Sadcryface

I ate one the other day. I saved his brain in a jar for you.

Evil_monster

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-01-2014, 04:53 PM
RE: LIES THAT PAUL MADE
(14-01-2014 04:32 PM)WitchSabrina Wrote:  
(14-01-2014 04:26 PM)truthBtold Wrote:  Il take what is a cry baby? for $200.. alex


Dude....... no. LOL Just don't do it. I'd hate to watch you get your head handed to you.

Not like john the Baptist?? Oooooh...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-01-2014, 08:22 PM
RE: LIES THAT PAUL MADE
(14-01-2014 10:10 AM)Thinkerbelle Wrote:  I belieeeeeeeeve in the power of the paragraph, and in the holy trinity of grammar, punctuation, and spelling!

That wood have been funnier; if you had maid a mistake. Evil_monster

Manifest Insanity @ Amazon
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Diogenes of Mayberry's post
14-01-2014, 09:45 PM
RE: LIES THAT PAUL MADE
(14-01-2014 08:22 PM)Diogenes of Mayberry Wrote:  
(14-01-2014 10:10 AM)Thinkerbelle Wrote:  I belieeeeeeeeve in the power of the paragraph, and in the holy trinity of grammar, punctuation, and spelling!

That wood have been funnier; if you had maid a mistake. Evil_monster

Yeah, but the counter-corollary to the auto-correct postulate was in the third house of Saturn. That always blows it out of the water.

We have enough youth. How about looking for the Fountain of Smart?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Thinkerbelle's post
15-01-2014, 02:52 AM
RE: LIES THAT PAUL MADE
Ah...what the hell...I'll post my shit again....it is my favourite topic (hope I have enough paragraphs)...

Christ’s Sacrificial Death

Paul invented the curious concept that Christ was crucified to save souls from their sins. Why have plenty of people since accepted this peculiar idea?

Having the son of God become human, and free the faithful from the guilt and consequences of their sins, was an attractive story. It meant God was no longer a distant impersonal deity, like the character in the Old Testament, but someone more like them, with whom they could identify. Christ became an ally, a great guy, and everyone’s best friend. He would take on your punishment for you, provided you believed in him. Do that, and Paul promised a free pass to salvation. Churches have pushed this unusual plan to such an extent that Christians rarely question it. This is why some of them insist others believe in Jesus; so that sins can be forgiven and entry into heaven attained.

The whole argument is irrational. Why would the son of God need to sacrifice himself to appease his father, who was also himself, for the sins of the world? Is not sacrificing anyone a pointless, barbaric act that punishes a scapegoat? Why would faith in this sacrifice be a ticket for entry into heaven? Why would a hypothetical omniscient god buy into this balderdash? There has never been a good explanation for this nonsense despite countless contrived attempts by theologians, because no sensible explanation is possible. (http://atheistfoundation.org.au/article/...tonement/, http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pla...xyq3ltls).

God could simply say
“you’re genuinely sorry, so I forgive you.” Yet that would never do for Paul, as he’d been indoctrinated with scripture, so couldn’t imagine a benevolent God, but thought of him as a rigid demagogue who demanded a sacrifice.

Sin

Most modern people consider sin a deliberate act that results in harm, usually to another person. Yet Paul claimed sin can be something one’s born with, like a birth defect. (http://atheism.about.com/od/thebible/a/o...lsin.htm). This is a dim-witted idea, as a newborn can’t deliberately cause harm, so can’t sin. Paul is the only New Testament author to discuss this concept of “original sin,” as further articulated by Tertullian of Carthage (AD 150-225) and Augustine of Hippo (354–430 CE.) It’s a nasty notion. People are told they’re basically bad - because they were born. It makes susceptible people dislike themselves, which churches know is good for business.

I think Paul misunderstood sin. He thought it was about actions or thoughts that upset his God. Yet sin harms our fellows, or sometimes the perpetrator himself. It should be the victim who does the forgiving, because they are vindicated, maybe compensated, and the guilty party can promise not to repeat the offense. Wrong-doers learn from their mistakes, and society benefits. Paul bypassed this reparative process by saying that sin was forgiven by a fictional man in the sky who insisted on faith in Christ, an unrelated third party.

In turning Christ’s death into a sacrifice that saves souls, Paul sacrificed common sense. He devalued interpersonal relationships and compromised social harmony. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HA55jGyq2C8). (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gvv_UM7CYg).

Today’s churches, however, like the idea, as it brings them into the equation. They can cash in by claiming to be the conduit between the sinner and the man in the sky.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-01-2014, 03:07 PM
RE: LIES THAT PAUL MADE
(14-01-2014 04:26 PM)truthBtold Wrote:  
(14-01-2014 01:09 PM)Chas Wrote:  No, he's not. You will be ignored by many if you make no attempt to make your post readable. Drinking Beverage

Il take what is a cry baby? for $200.. alex

I suggest, instead, that you go fuck yourself. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
15-01-2014, 03:08 PM
RE: LIES THAT PAUL MADE
(14-01-2014 04:33 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  Oh either you've been here before....or we're just bored with your type.

Time will tell.

He is sounding familiar...Consider

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-01-2014, 03:16 PM
RE: LIES THAT PAUL MADE
Sorry, but I had to do this.

The OP, with paragraphs:

****

(Romans 10:4) (Galatians 3:24-26) (Ephesians 2:15) states there no longer is a sacrificial system. Jesus’ blood sacrifice paid the penalty for sins once and for all. The Levitical ceremonial laws do not apply today.

But in (Acts 21:17-26) Paul takes the Nazarite vow. Paul preached that Jesus was the sacrificial lamb and told people there is no need for animal sacrifice anymore.

We should expect to find examples in Paul’s life where he lives out the doctrines of salvation espoused in the book of Hebrews, especially the one concerning Jesus Christ’s death as the final atonement for sin. We find an example in the Apostle Paul’s life where he goes against the teachings of the book of Hebrews and brings a blood sacrifice for sin as an atonement after the cross.

Paul demonstrates through a Nazarite vow and its accompanying blood sacrifices (Num 6) that he was obedient to the rules and laws of the Pentateuch and the Mosaic Law. And since this offering occurs after the cross, the ramifications of such an offering if is “blood” has staggering consequences for traditional Christianity.

(Num 6), blood sacrifices had to be brought in fulfillment of the Nazarite vow, which Paul was obedient to over 30 years after the cross? Paul didn't believe, as seen in his actions, that Jesus was the last sacrifice once and for all?

The writer of the book of Hebrews 10:1-2 is correct when it states that blood sacrifices for sin had “ceased to be offered?” How about (Hebrews 9:12-14) (Hebrews 9:28) (Hebrews 10:1-2) (Hebrews 10:10-18). How can we believe Hebrews 10:14 where it says we are “perfected forever” by the sacrifice of Jesus when just 30 years later the Apostle Paul was still bringing sin offerings to the Temple (after the death of Jesus). Paul did not think that Jesus's death was a sacrifice to end all sacrifices. Paul still felt the need to obey the Law after the death of Jesus, even laws concerning sin offerings as an atonement for sin.

Christians haven't studied deeply enough to search out these truths buried beneath the pages of their Bibles. What does that do to the teachings people hear week after week in churches, preached by those who repeat what they have heard and not studied out for themselves? Can you now see that the Law had never passed away after the cross and people have severely misunderstood the message of the Bible?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TwoCultSurvivor's post
15-01-2014, 03:33 PM
RE: LIES THAT PAUL MADE
(15-01-2014 03:16 PM)TwoCultSurvivor Wrote:  Sorry, but I had to do this.

The OP, with paragraphs:

****

(Romans 10:4) (Galatians 3:24-26) (Ephesians 2:15) states there no longer is a sacrificial system. Jesus’ blood sacrifice paid the penalty for sins once and for all. The Levitical ceremonial laws do not apply today.

But in (Acts 21:17-26) Paul takes the Nazarite vow. Paul preached that Jesus was the sacrificial lamb and told people there is no need for animal sacrifice anymore.

We should expect to find examples in Paul’s life where he lives out the doctrines of salvation espoused in the book of Hebrews, especially the one concerning Jesus Christ’s death as the final atonement for sin. We find an example in the Apostle Paul’s life where he goes against the teachings of the book of Hebrews and brings a blood sacrifice for sin as an atonement after the cross.

Paul demonstrates through a Nazarite vow and its accompanying blood sacrifices (Num 6) that he was obedient to the rules and laws of the Pentateuch and the Mosaic Law. And since this offering occurs after the cross, the ramifications of such an offering if is “blood” has staggering consequences for traditional Christianity.

(Num 6), blood sacrifices had to be brought in fulfillment of the Nazarite vow, which Paul was obedient to over 30 years after the cross? Paul didn't believe, as seen in his actions, that Jesus was the last sacrifice once and for all?

The writer of the book of Hebrews 10:1-2 is correct when it states that blood sacrifices for sin had “ceased to be offered?” How about (Hebrews 9:12-14) (Hebrews 9:28) (Hebrews 10:1-2) (Hebrews 10:10-18). How can we believe Hebrews 10:14 where it says we are “perfected forever” by the sacrifice of Jesus when just 30 years later the Apostle Paul was still bringing sin offerings to the Temple (after the death of Jesus). Paul did not think that Jesus's death was a sacrifice to end all sacrifices. Paul still felt the need to obey the Law after the death of Jesus, even laws concerning sin offerings as an atonement for sin.

Christians haven't studied deeply enough to search out these truths buried beneath the pages of their Bibles. What does that do to the teachings people hear week after week in churches, preached by those who repeat what they have heard and not studied out for themselves? Can you now see that the Law had never passed away after the cross and people have severely misunderstood the message of the Bible?

Thanks.. do I owe u anything?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: