Paul the heretic??

Colter · Aug 11, 2016

ToBeLoved said:
Actually, this is accounted for in the Bible. Jesus has not forgotten about His chosen people and it is somewhat about what they expected vs. what they recieved.

What about repentence? It's not too late for you Colter. Jesus loves you my man.

I'm already saved but thanks for your concern.

2PhiloVoid · Aug 12, 2016

Colter said:
Let the Bible be corrupted??? Get a clue, God let Satan mislead the entire world, he doesn't write Books, imperfect holy men do. But don't get me wrong, Paul was a great man committed to Christ, but I'm a disciple of the original Gospel. Jesus is my Lord, Paul was a human messenger of Jesus.

So, Colter, where do we find this "original Gospel" manifesting in history? Any Pre-Pauline documents you'd like to cite?

[Just wondering. I know you're an intelligent guy with a good disposition, but I'm either missing something here (which I admit isn't impossible, despite my wide swath of reading), or your Urantia driven framework is giving you some details from "left-field."

2PhiloVoid

Colter · Aug 12, 2016

2PhiloVoid said:
So, Colter, where do we find this "original Gospel" manifesting in history? Any Pre-Pauline documents you'd like to cite?

[Just wondering. I know you're an intelligent guy with a good disposition, but I'm either missing something here (which I admit isn't impossible, despite my wide swath of reading), or your Urantia driven framework is giving you some details from "left-field."

2PhiloVoid

Good question. The original "good news" gospel was that which Jesus preached and lived, it was the Gospel of The Kingdom of Heaven that he tried to reach the Jews with, the gospel that they would be preaching today from Jerusalem if they had accepted it. Some of the original foundations and traces of that gospel can be found in the 4 gospels in the Bible. It should be noted that the gospels were written long after Paul's interpretative, post-cross gospel became the norm. To be fair much of it is missing, some of what's left lead to speculations. Jesus has fostered the Christian church as the best exponent of his life's work but the original gospel and the kingdom ideal has yet to be preached and realized.

Strong in Him · Aug 12, 2016

Colter said:
It should be noted that the gospels were written long after Paul's interpretative, post-cross gospel became the norm.

Glancing over the fact, for now, that you call Paul's writings an interpretative Gospel; the synoptic Gospels were not written that long after Paul and at least one may have been written while he was still alive.
A number of commentaries that I looked at suggest that they were all written before AD 70, because Jesus had spoken about the destruction of the temple, Mark 13, and none of them mention the fulfilment of that prophecy. Mark's was written first, and some give his a date of 60-65 AD; a couple of people dated his as early as 55 AD. Paul was martyred around 63-64 AD.

Paul says he received the Gospel of Christ's death, resurrection and ascension from Jesus himself, 1 Corinthians 15:3-4. And he told the Galatians that there is only one Gospel.

Colter said:
but the original gospel and the kingdom ideal has yet to be preached and realized.

There is only one Gospel; the Gospel that Paul, and ministers, evangelists and preachers have preached ever since.

Colter · Aug 12, 2016

Strong in Him said:
Glancing over the fact, for now, that you call Paul's writings an interpretative Gospel; the synoptic Gospels were not written that long after Paul and at least one may have been written while he was still alive.
A number of commentaries that I looked at suggest that they were all written before AD 70, because Jesus had spoken about the destruction of the temple, Mark 13, and none of them mention the fulfilment of that prophecy. Mark's was written first, and some give his a date of 60-65 AD; a couple of people dated his as early as 55 AD. Paul was martyred around 63-64 AD.

Paul says he received the Gospel of Christ's death, resurrection and ascension from Jesus himself, 1 Corinthians 15:3-4. And he told the Galatians that there is only one Gospel.

There is only one Gospel; the Gospel that Paul, and ministers, evangelists and preachers have preached ever since.

Saul's conversion to Paul was in 0036. Let me say the same thing in a different way. The gospel writers remembered what Jesus had said years AFTER Paul's dominant preaching had established the cross and its interpretation as the central event in the rapidly evolving religion about Jesus. The Christian New Testament is for the most part Jesus according to Paul. The Gospel of the kingdom was based on the personal religious experience of the Jesus of Galilee; Christianity is based almost exclusively on the personal religious experience of the Apostle Paul.

Strong in Him · Aug 12, 2016

Colter said:
The gospel writers remembered what Jesus had said years AFTER Paul's dominant preaching had established the cross and its interpretation as the central event in the rapidly evolving religion about Jesus.

Peter and the apostles were preaching about Jesus and the cross from the day of Pentecost, before Saul was converted. If your date is right, it would have been about 2 1/2 years before.
Jesus spent 40 days on earth after his resurrection and before his ascension teaching them about the kingdom of God; Acts 1:3. How do you know what the disciples remembered and that they only remembered it after Paul had started preaching about the cross?

Colter said:
Christianity is based almost exclusively on the personal religious experience of the Apostle Paul.

Christianity is based on, and founded by, Jesus.

Jesus became incarnate and was born to die for our sins and reconcile us to God. This was prophesied in the OT, even back in the Garden of Eden and Peter later said that Jesus was the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, 1 Peter 1:19-20.
The angel told Joseph that he would save people from their sins, Matthew 1:21 and John the Baptist said that Jesus was the Lamb of God who would take away the sins of the world, John 1:29. Jesus himself said that he had come to seek and save the lost, Luke 19:1, to give his life as a ransom for many, Mark 10:45, that he was the Good Shepherd who would lay down his life for his sheep, John 10:11 and that his blood would be shed for the forgiveness of sins, Matthew 26:28. He taught that he is the Way, the Truth, the life and the only way to the Father, and that he had come to give fulness of life, John 10:10, and eternal life, John 3:16, John 3:36, John 6:40. He predicted his own betrayal, suffering, death and resurrection. The disciples saw the risen Christ and the empty tomb, and the couple on the road to Emmaus were taught, by Jesus himself, how all the OT Scriptures pointed to him. Peter gave a sermon about the OT pointing to Jesus, who was put to death and raised again, urged people to repent and said that there was no other name by which people could be saved.

The Gospel was being preached before Saul was converted and the church was tiny, but established. Had it not been so, he would have had no one to persecute.

Colter · Aug 12, 2016

Strong in Him said:
Peter and the apostles were preaching about Jesus and the cross from the day of Pentecost, before Saul was converted. If your date is right, it would have been about 2 1/2 years before.
Jesus spent 40 days on earth after his resurrection and before his ascension teaching them about the kingdom of God; Acts 1:3. How do you know what the disciples remembered and that they only remembered it after Paul had started preaching about the cross?

Christianity is based on, and founded by, Jesus.

Jesus became incarnate and was born to die for our sins and reconcile us to God. This was prophesied in the OT, even back in the Garden of Eden and Peter later said that Jesus was the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, 1 Peter 1:19-20.
The angel told Joseph that he would save people from their sins, Matthew 1:21 and John the Baptist said that Jesus was the Lamb of God who would take away the sins of the world, John 1:29. Jesus himself said that he had come to seek and save the lost, Luke 19:1, to give his life as a ransom for many, Mark 10:45, that he was the Good Shepherd who would lay down his life for his sheep, John 10:11 and that his blood would be shed for the forgiveness of sins, Matthew 26:28. He taught that he is the Way, the Truth, the life and the only way to the Father, and that he had come to give fulness of life, John 10:10, and eternal life, John 3:16, John 3:36, John 6:40. He predicted his own betrayal, suffering, death and resurrection. The disciples saw the risen Christ and the empty tomb, and the couple on the road to Emmaus were taught, by Jesus himself, how all the OT Scriptures pointed to him. Peter gave a sermon about the OT pointing to Jesus, who was put to death and raised again, urged people to repent and said that there was no other name by which people could be saved.

The Gospel was being preached before Saul was converted and the church was tiny, but established. Had it not been so, he would have had no one to persecute.

True, Peter began teaching the new gospel about the resurrected Christ on Pentacost. Paul, a sacrifice minded Jew and citizen of the Pagan, Roman world, expanded upon the new gospel received from Peter after Pauls conversion to the movement. . The original gospel, salvation by faith, was effectively overwritten and replaced by the theoretical gospel that Jesus was a human sacrifice to atone for sin. The religion of Jesus was replaced by a religion about Jesus as a ransom to a Satan God of this world.

2PhiloVoid · Aug 12, 2016

Colter said:
Saul's conversion to Paul was in 0036. Let me say the same thing in a different way. The gospel writers remembered what Jesus had said years AFTER Paul's dominant preaching had established the cross and its interpretation as the central event in the rapidly evolving religion about Jesus. The Christian New Testament is for the most part Jesus according to Paul. The Gospel of the kingdom was based on the personal religious experience of the Jesus of Galilee; Christianity is based almost exclusively on the personal religious experience of the Apostle Paul.

So, Colter, if we don't actually have the "original Gospel" as something by which we can identify and compare, then how can we compare Paul's views about Jesus with an "original Gospel" that we don't have? How can we know that Paul's teaching was in deed different than what Jesus taught?

Please help me out here; I'm afraid I'm missing something. From where do we get the missing data? From the Void? Where? Did someone along the way have an "extra revelation" that filled in the missing data?

2PhiloVoid

Colter · Aug 12, 2016

2PhiloVoid said:
So, Colter, if we don't actually have the "original Gospel" as something by which we can identify and compare, then how can we compare Paul's views about Jesus with an "original Gospel" that we don't have? How can we know that Paul's teaching was in deed different than what Jesus taught?

Please help me out here; I'm afraid I'm missing something. From where do we get the missing data? From the Void? Where? Did someone along the way have an "extra revelation" that filled in the missing data?

2PhiloVoid

Apparently it's so simple people miss it. Jesus didn't spend 3+ years preaching "Christ and him crucified" his message hadn't been rejected yet, he hadn't allowed them to kill his body yet! Sacrifice wasn't his message in the synagogues, atoning sacrifice wasn't his "good news", the cross couldn't possibly be his religion! It wasn't the gospel of the cross, it was the gospel of the Kingdom of Heaven; salvation by faith and the responsibility that comes with it. God was already forgiving, he never conceived of the crass injustice of requiring his Divine Son to be rejected and killed as a condition for forgiveness, HOWEVER, the Pagan world ALREADY had such a primitive religious philosophy. People cherry pick some things that he did say in justification for the new post-cross theory of atonement.

Did you think Jesus and the apostles went from town to town teaching people to kill Jesus as a sacrifice so that they could have salvation??? Nonsense!!! Is that what you think Jesus was teaching in the synagogues?

Before the cross people who believed in Jesus put their faith in a diffent gospel than "atoning sacrifice".

Matthew 4:23
Jesus went throughout Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every disease and sickness among the people. News about Him spread all over Syria, and people brought to Him all who were ill with various diseases, those suffering acute pain, the demon-possessed, those having seizures, and the paralyzed—and He healed them.…

ewq1938 · Aug 12, 2016

Colter said:
Apparently it's so simple people miss it. Jesus didn't spend 3+ years preaching "Christ and him crucified" his message hadn't been rejected yet, he hadn't allowed them to kill his body yet! Sacrifice wasn't his message in the synagogues, atoning sacrifice wasn't his "good news", the cross couldn't possibly be his religion! It wasn't the gospel of the cross, it was the gospel of the Kingdom of Heaven

Both were what he preached. Your understanding of what Christ and Paul taught is confusion no doubt the false gospel you believe in is in part blame.

Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
Mat 26:29 But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.
Mat 26:30 And when they had sung an hymn, they went out into the mount of Olives.
Mat 26:31 Then saith Jesus unto them, All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad.
Mat 26:32 But after I am risen again, I will go before you into Galilee.

Colter · Aug 12, 2016

ewq1938 said:
Both were what he preached. Your understanding of what Christ and Paul taught is confusion no doubt the false gospel you believe in is in part blame.

Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
Mat 26:29 But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.
Mat 26:30 And when they had sung an hymn, they went out into the mount of Olives.
Mat 26:31 Then saith Jesus unto them, All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad.
Mat 26:32 But after I am risen again, I will go before you into Galilee.

At least we are making progress in that you acknowledge that there were (2) gospels. People usually just bluff when this issue comes up which I'm sympathetic to, we were born into a ready made religion brought to us by Rome.

2PhiloVoid · Aug 12, 2016

Colter said:
Apparently it's so simple people miss it. Jesus didn't spend 3+ years preaching "Christ and him crucified" his message hadn't been rejected yet, he hadn't allowed them to kill his body yet! Sacrifice wasn't his message in the synagogues, atoning sacrifice wasn't his "good news", the cross couldn't possibly be his religion! It wasn't the gospel of the cross, it was the gospel of the Kingdom of Heaven; salvation by faith and the responsibility that comes with it. God was already forgiving, he never conceived of the crass injustice of requiring his Divine Son to be rejected and killed as a condition for forgiveness, HOWEVER, the Pagan world ALREADY had such a primitive religious philosophy. People cherry pick some things that he did say in justification for the new post-cross theory of atonement

So, just stating that there was some "original Gospel" makes it true?

Did you think Jesus and the apostles went from town to town teaching people to kill Jesus as a sacrifice so that they could have salvation??? Nonsense!!! Is that what you think Jesus was teaching in the synagogues?

Well, no. That is, if we can take the four Gospels as truthful, we find that Jesus said He came to die but He told His disciples to be "hush, hush" about it.

Before the cross people who believed in Jesus put their faith in a diffent gospel than "atoning sacrifice".

Matthew 4:23
Jesus went throughout Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every disease and sickness among the people. News about Him spread all over Syria, and people brought to Him all who were ill with various diseases, those suffering acute pain, the demon-possessed, those having seizures, and the paralyzed—and He healed them.…

This isn't what I asked previously. I asked what other pre-Pauline documents are out there out of which we can compare. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are definitely not pre-Pauline. Yet, you go to Matthew to prove something for which Skeptics will shoot down. I mean, this isn't simply Q we're talking about here as opposite of Paul. Is it?

And if you're willing to dig into the Gospels for what you qualify as legitimate data, then to be consistent, you need to all take the book of Acts as legitimate data, since it was written by one of the Gospel writers. Thus far, you're going in circles, Colter. Somehow, I think you're smarter than that, but you like your Urantia book too much...I guess.

2PhiloVoid

Colter · Aug 12, 2016

2PhiloVoid said:
So, just stating that there was some "original Gospel" makes it true?

Well, no. That is, if we can take the four Gospels as truthful, we find that Jesus said He came to die but He told His disciples to be "hush, hush" about it.

This isn't what I asked previously. I asked what other pre-Pauline documents are out there out of which we can compare. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are definitely not pre-Pauline. Yet, you go to Matthew to prove something for which Skeptics will shoot down. I mean, this isn't simply Q we're talking about here as opposite of Paul. Is it?

And if you're willing to dig into the Gospels for what you qualify as legi'timate data, then to be consistent, you need to all take the book of Acts as legitimate data, since it was written by one of the Gospel writers. Thus far, you're going in circles, Colter. Somehow, I think you're smarter than that, but you like your Urantia book too much...I guess.

2PhiloVoid

I don't take you for an idiot either, I think you are avoiding the obvious, there are (2)different gospels merged together in a sincere attempt to create a coherent theology. I'm useing parts of what's still there to show what was there before the atonement theory appeared. The facts of the spectacular death and resurrection overwhelmed the original message of Jesus.

Btw, I agree, Jesus did in fact tell the apostles to keep his true identity a secret until he left (which is even further evidence that his original teachings were different than Paul's focus on Jesus as the Christ) but the fact remains the apostles didn't even realize he was leaving in the days before the arrest.

2PhiloVoid · Aug 12, 2016

Colter said:
I don't take you for an idiot either, I think you are avoiding the obvious, there are (2)different gospels merged together in a sincere attempt to create a coherent theology. I'm useing parts of what's still there to show what was there before the atonement theory appeared. The facts of the spectacular death and resurrection overwhelmed the original message of Jesus.

Btw, I agree, Jesus did in fact tell the apostles to keep his true identity a secret until he left (which is even further evidence that his original teachings were different that Paul's focus on Jesus as the Christ) but the fact remains the apostles didn't even realize he was leaving in the days before the arrest.

You don't think Jesus came to fulfill the OT as the dying and sacrificial Messiah? If not, then shouldn't you toss away the Gospels, because that's what they state that Jesus knew He came to do. Paul came to realize this too...

ewq1938 · Aug 12, 2016

Colter said:
At least we are making progress in that you acknowledge that there were (2) gospels. People usually just bluff when this issue comes up which I'm sympathetic to, we were born into a ready made religion brought to us by Rome.

No we weren't. The false gospel is The Urantia Book and it's false Christ.

Colter · Aug 12, 2016

2PhiloVoid said:
You don't think Jesus came to fulfill the OT as the dying and sacrificial Messiah? If not, then shouldn't you toss away the Gospels, because that's what they state that Jesus knew He came to do. Paul came to realize this too...

Jesus is forced into some of the murky Old Testament prophecies. The Jews didn't have a "Son of God" or Trinity or sacrifice the Messiah as part of their religious worldview. Jews who converted to the Jesus movement attempted to justify their new faith by using the OT scriptures.

2PhiloVoid · Aug 12, 2016

Colter said:
Jesus is forced into some of the murky Old Testament prophecies. The Jews didn't have a "Son of God" or Trinity or sacrifice the Messiah as part of their religious worldview. Jews who converted to the Jesus movement attempted to justify their new faith by using the OT scriptures.

Y'know. I see you making a lot of statements, but providing no sources for your alternative views. Why would God entrust His full plan to the Israelite people before Christ. He wouldn't, and He didn't. And why was that, Colter?

The answer is in Isaiah 48:1-11. Since you like esoteric material, see how this strikes your fancy, Colter.

So, of course, when Jesus finally showed up, the Jewish People had a difficult time wrapping their minds around His divinity, similar to many of us today. And I'm sure that the Lord has many more surprises up His sleeve for the rest of humanity, but most likely those surprises won't be found in the Urantia book.

2PhiloVoid

sparow · Aug 12, 2016

Colter said:
Good question. The original "good news" gospel was that which Jesus preached and lived, it was the Gospel of The Kingdom of Heaven that he tried to reach the Jews with, the gospel that they would be preaching today from Jerusalem if they had accepted it. Some of the original foundations and traces of that gospel can be found in the 4 gospels in the Bible. It should be noted that the gospels were written long after Paul's interpretative, post-cross gospel became the norm. To be fair much of it is missing, some of what's left lead to speculations. Jesus has fostered the Christian church as the best exponent of his life's work but the original gospel and the kingdom ideal has yet to be preached and realized.

is this not the Gospel of the kingdom?

Revelation 14:6 (KJV)
6 And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,

Revelation 14:7 (NKJV)
7 saying with a loud voice, "Fear God and give glory to Him, for the hour of His judgment has come; and worship Him who made heaven and earth, the sea and springs of water."

Revelation 14:8 (NKJV)
8 And another angel followed, saying, "Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she has made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication."

Revelation 14:9-10 (NKJV)
9 Then a third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, "If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives his mark on his forehead or on his hand,
10 he himself shall also drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out full strength into the cup of His indignation. He shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb.

. Revelation 14:13 (NKJV)
13 Then I heard a voice from heaven saying to me, "Write: 'Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on.' " "Yes," says the Spirit, "that they may rest from their labors, and their works follow them."

Revelation 14:14 (NKJV)
14 Then I looked, and behold, a white cloud, and on the cloud sat One like the Son of Man, having on His head a golden crown, and in His hand a sharp sickle.

Revelation 14:15 (NKJV)
15 And another angel came out of the temple, crying with a loud voice to Him who sat on the cloud, "Thrust in Your sickle and reap, for the time has come for You to reap, for the harvest of the earth is ripe."

sparow · Aug 13, 2016

Colter said:
At least we are making progress in that you acknowledge that there were (2) gospels. People usually just bluff when this issue comes up which I'm sympathetic to, we were born into a ready made religion brought to us by Rome.

I feel guilty butting in here but I cannot help myself. I believe there is only one Gospel but it can be reported many ways; or one could photo copy it 50 times and say here are 50 Gospels.

You are hard to follow being so far removed from scripture; by two gospels do you mean two covenants? God's covenant is like most contracts, it has a stand form. When we buy a house we usually use a standard form with blank spaces filled in and occasionally amendments. God uses a standard form and not one dit or dot can be changed in it, no amendments; it can be made with different people, use different blood for the remission of sin and have a different administration.

When a house is sold a second time the new standard form contract can be called the New covenant; God has renewed His standard form covenant with Israel many times, each time it could be called a New Covenant; the Last New Covenant is made with the lost sheep of Israel; the good news Jesus brought was that the Kingdom of God was still available and near, later the Covenant was extended to the Gentiles.

sparow · Aug 13, 2016

Colter said:
Saul's conversion to Paul was in 0036. Let me say the same thing in a different way. The gospel writers remembered what Jesus had said years AFTER Paul's dominant preaching had established the cross and its interpretation as the central event in the rapidly evolving religion about Jesus. The Christian New Testament is for the most part Jesus according to Paul. The Gospel of the kingdom was based on the personal religious experience of the Jesus of Galilee; Christianity is based almost exclusively on the personal religious experience of the Apostle Paul.

I don't believe what you are saying is true; the New Testament as far as it is a Testament or a Will is the Will or Testament of Jesus with His Father as a second witness; it is not Paul's Testament, Paul is neither Jesus or His Father neither is Paul a Witness except to an angel of light.

It is claimed that Paul wrote most of the NT but counting the "I Paul" book pages, Paul writes less than a fifth of the NT but his is not the testament of Jesus it is the testament of Paul.

The following is relevant to the tread topic If not to this post;

Paul gets his concepts of the third heaven from some where; the dead sea scrolls are saturated with fragments of the books of Enoch;Jude 1:14-15, quotes from the first book of Enoch; if jude is valid scripture, that would make Enoch valid scripture at some point. Paul's use of the term "Third Heaven" may not be invalid but Paul has no one to testify for him but himself, he doesnt have the two witnesses testifying for him, he only testifies of himself; Jesus said a prophet may not testify of himself alone, he needs to witnesses. Some one who cold do away with circumcision and deliver the New Covneant would need a similar indoduction as Jesus and John the Baptist, introduced by prophesy; Jesus said he would not do anything without informing the disciples first; Jesus did not inform the disciples that He would transform Himself into an angel of light and confront Paul, before or after the event.

Paul the heretic??

Member

Other scholars got to me before you did!

Member

Great is thy faithfulness

Member

Great is thy faithfulness

Member

Other scholars got to me before you did!

Member

I love you three.

Member

Other scholars got to me before you did!

Member

Other scholars got to me before you did!

I love you three.

Member

Other scholars got to me before you did!

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads