Did Paul Teach Heresy?

[Lifesaver]

I'm surprised that those of you who are Catholic are so quick to jump to Pauls defence. You claim Peter as the first Pope, yet paul in Galatians 2:11 - 14 publicly rebukes Peter. theres the nonsensical firstfruits of denominationalism there.

It shows how little you know of Catholicism.

St. Peter was the first pope, but he was not a flawless person, and neither was St. Paul.
It was St. Peter who denied Christ three times.

However, do either St. Peter or St. Paul defend false doctrine in the Bible? Not at all.

What happens is that the error one of them made was recorded in the Scriptures.

When St. Peter denied Christ, it was recorded in the Bible, but not defended or taught by the Bible.

Maybe we should put aside these confusing and contradicting issues and just get along in Spirit. But yet some still will defend error and in doing so cause harm to those who just desire to walk in the spirit.[/B]

I want all Christians indeed to walk together.
But if we disagree, are we really walking together?
Pretend to agree for ecumenism's sake leads us nowhere (at best!).

The truth is only one, and we must find it out.

 

[Starcrystal]

Peaceful soul,
That is ludicrous, Ravenwolf! You are telling me that now I can not even make comparisons. You are not even rational if you are trying to disallow me that choice. When you say that obedience to Jesus Christ is not the only way to salvation, you are making a judgement too, for example. By your analysis: making a judgement and not telling someone is OK. Your intent is a component of a judgement too according to the Bible.

If I judge you by scripture, there is no recourse for you except to accept it. You have no grounds to get mad. If you do, then it is your own problem. No one here has any intent to harm you. Of course, there are always exceptions, but they should be obvious. We are trying to hold a conversation based upon a Biblical perspective.

Eye opener:

1) You are going to hell.
2) You are going to hell if you do not accept Christ as your saviour.

I'll be nice. Actually you should leave her alone. That was flamey, really...
Your comment doesn't reflect your screen name "peaceful soul"
And the last 2 comments don't really win anyone to Christ... they only turn folks off.
Besides, she does know Jesus from what I've seen, more than many Christians....

 

[ravenwolf]

That is ludicrous, Ravenwolf! You are telling me that now I can not even make comparisons. You are not even rational if you are trying to disallow me that choice. When you say that obedience to Jesus Christ is not the only way to salvation, you are making a judgement too, for example. By your analysis: making a judgement and not telling someone is OK. Your intent is a component of a judgement too according to the Bible.

I never said you could not make comparisons.
I was not disallowing you anything by stating my opinion and by defending starcrystal, whom i consider a friend.
when i say i dont agree with Jesus being the only way, i am making a judgement on theology not a persons soul.
And no, that is not my analysis. I beleive you took my post in the entirely wrong way.
and i have no clue what u are trying to say with that last statement.

If I judge you by scripture, there is no recourse for you except to accept it. You have no grounds to get mad. If you do, then it is your own problem. No one here has any intent to harm you. Of course, there are always exceptions, but they should be obvious. We are trying to hold a conversation based upon a Biblical perspective.

no, i dont have to accept it. I do not follow the bible therefor any judgment you make upon me according to scripture is nothing to me.
I was not mad, i was simply defending someone and saying my opinion of the whole thing. Yes i realise this is about a biblical perspective, but the thing you said about starcrystal was about his inner state of being, his soul, which you cant know from a biblical perspective.

Eye opener:

1) You are going to hell.
2) You are going to hell if you do not accept Christ as your saviour.

1st sentence is without warrant unless the person making the statement knows adequate information about the other person. If the other person makes statements denying Jesus Christ and His glory, he or she is going to be separated from God. He or she would be going to hell. If this information is not available to make such a judgement, then the judgement is made in error. That type of judgement is forbidden in scripture unless it is an honest mistake.

And again even statement 2 is making a judgment that you cant really know.
key word: know
you can assume that scripture is infallable and anyone who is not a christian will go to hell, but you dont know my soul and my relation to Spirit. You simply just dont know.

I should not have to explain this to you either. What can not you understand?

i understand quite clearly.....i simply dont agree.

There is no Biblical basis for what you say, Ravenwolf. Judgements are just that - judgements. Without a standard set aside by God, we can not discern morality or anything else with any certainty. How are you going to be conscious of everything you do in order to implement what you say? You can't. You are not God. We are all prone to false judgements if we do not depend opon the wisdom that our Heavenly Father teaches us.

and once again, i dont base my beleifs on the bible.
And yes i am perfectly aware that we all do this. hell, i do it too, in fact im doing it right now. But I think you severely missed my point....i was defending starcrystal...why? becuase i consider him a friend and it really upset me when i read what you posted about him, so i defended him and I put my two sense in about the whole subject of judging other people and what i see too commonly here on these boards...why?? because I can.
I think you took it as a personal attack when it was not.

The inner-soul argument is too often abused. If that is the case, you can not judge me on what I said to Starcrystal. Do you know my inner soul? Do you know whether I am being truthful or not if it is so vital to probe my inner self? We make judgements based upon what comes out of the person's mouth and his or her actions, from their beliefs, etc. I am making judments on Biblical terms. When I go out of context of scripture, you have permission to confront me.

what do you mean the inner-soul argument?? I didnt even know it was a common "argument". I was simply speaking my mind. Yes, your right i shouldnt have judged you on what you said about starcrystal but i did. And no i dont know your inner soul, but i do know what you said about starcrystal and it did bother me. And you do realise that not everyone does things biblically because not everyone is a Christian.

If you judge the Bible, you are still using your criteria as the standard instead of the scripture as the standard since you do not believe in it. You are then guilty as we are if we are judging. Do you know the inner workings of those who wrote down the scriptures? Do you know if they were lying as you imply by not accepting what they say? Are you considering how offensive they may be if they could sit down and talk to you right now?

And again you missed my point. The bible is not even comparable to a person. It just is not. It is a book, perhaps inspired by God, yes, but it does not equate with judging a person. And by the way I never made any judgemnts on those who wrote scripture here, i was only speaking about Starcrystal. what u are saying here is totally irrelevent to what i had posted.
I have not said, hey Jesus was a lier, or Moses was not godly...did I? No i did not. Nor do i think those things. i do not beleive that a God can be contained in a book, and yes that is a judgemnt...not on anyone, but on a book.

Ravenwolf, you can not justify what you believe - at least on Biblical grounds. Your own standards may warrant it, but do not try to prevent me from being sincere and honest in my using my Bible to make discernment of myself and others. That is one of the reasons my Heavenly Father gave me the Book as a guideline in the 1st place.

And where did i ever say i could or wanted to justify anything??
So thats what you use to judge others...the Bible?? In other words a book. You use a book to decide soemeones heart before God. And you were saying I am ludicrouse???? So your Heavenly Father came down personally and gave it to you? I dont think so, it was written by men. They may have been inspired by God, and they may have been very godly people, but they were still men. And i am sorry if I offeneded you but that is what i honostly think.

Any way, enough of this. If you do not agree with making judgements. Let us just disagree and continue with dissing OP. That is more than fair.

agreed. Lets just disagree and be on with this.
Blessings
~ravenwolf

 

[Starcrystal]

Lifesaver,
It shows how little you know of Catholicism.

St. Peter was the first pope, but he was not a flawless person, and neither was St. Paul.
It was St. Peter who denied Christ three times.

However, do either St. Peter or St. Paul defend false doctrine in the Bible? Not at all.

What happens is that the error one of them made was recorded in the Scriptures.

When St. Peter denied Christ, it was recorded in the Bible, but not defended or taught by the Bible.

Actually the first recognised Pope wasn't until after Constantine, 325 AD. Peter was an elder and Apostle, nothing more, nothing less. You should study some religious history apart from the teachings of churches, and that includes Protestant churches. I wont get into the Catholic church argument because its unfruitful, and there are other threads on Christians only for that one.

Fact is that the Bible itself exposes the heresy of those recorded in it, when there is heresy. Jobs 3 friends are one example, and God exposes them in Job 42. Pauls heresy is a bit more subtle because no one comes right out and rebukes him, but its certainly implied and the false teachings are evident as clear as day. I'm going to post the rest tomorrow when I have time.

Its actually the Scriptures themselves that expose Paul, especially in his treatment of women, and legalism. I'll get into that next time.

As far as ecumenicalism, there is a good side & a bad side to it. Actually I think (and this is my opinion, not revelation) that all churches should tear down their walls, strip off the thousands of names, dismantle their organised political governments, fall on their faces and cry out to God for forgiveness for departing from Christs original teachings....

 

[ravenwolf]

As far as ecumenicalism, there is a good side & a bad side to it. Actually I think (and this is my opinion, not revelation) that all churches should tear down their walls, strip off the thousands of names, dismantle their organised political governments, fall on their faces and cry out to God for forgiveness for departing from Christs original teachings....

Hey, reading that made me think of the song "Close to it all" by Melanie. So I thought i'd post the lyrics:


While walking through life I would never fall
If I could be close to it all and all,
If I could be close to it all.

If I had my dream it would not fall down
If I could live high on the ground,
The sound of high is a good one to many around
When they wanna be close to it all,
And I wanna be close to it all and all,
I wanna be close to it all.

The village sugar takers,
Madison Avenue pink dream makers,
They try to escape from it all,
But instead they build walls, that's all
But they wanna be close to it all.

If I had my dream I would fill a hall
And tell all the people tear down the wall
That keeps them from being a part of it all
'Cause they gotta get close to it all.

The village sugar takers,
Madison Avenue pink dream makers,
They try to escape from it all,
But instead they build walls, that's all
But they wanna be close to it all.

There's just one more thing that I wanna say:
Everyone has got their own special way
That keeps them from getting too close to the day,
Accept and be part of it all and all;
Everyone tear down your own little wall
That keeps you from being a part of it all
'Cause you gotta be one with the one and all,
And everyone tear down your own little wall
That keeps you from being a part of it all
'Cause you gotta be one with the one and all,
You gotta be close to it all.

 

[Starcrystal]

^Cool!

 

[Starcrystal]

The bulk of Pauls letters were written between 48 - 65 AD. Marks gospel may have been written towards the end of that same period, but Matthew, Luke and John wrote after Paul. Since all 4 writers were contemporaries of Paul, and thus were aware of the content of the pauline doctrine, we can conclude they wrote their historical accounts of Christs life and ministry, not only with accuracy, but addressing the more important issues as well. The fact that Jesus did and taught much more than is recorded of him is evident from John 20:30 - 31 and 21:25.

While Paul preaches Christ, he seems to preach a far stricter Christ than Jesus as portrayed in the gospels. While he refers often to "living in the Spirit" he also enforces rules, introduces traditions, as well as establishing a church hierarchy, ond church ordinances.

Its interesting to note Matthew, mark and Luke emphasise "Christian" false prophets who come in Christs name but deceive many. Matthew 7 speaks of people who do many wonderful works in Christs name, but who are not truly known by Jesus. The book of Acts records Paul performed many wonderful works and miraculous signs. Paul says so himself, boasting about these things in Romans 15:19 and 2 Corinthians 12:11 - 12.

John, who wrote well after Pauls death, emphasises the Holy Spirit, and in 1 John 2:27 he says that you have no need for any man to teach you because the annointing received from God will teach you. Does John possibly write in order to refute some of what Paul had been teaching? Pauls teachings and instructions were extensive, and we have already seen that Paul taught things which conflict with Christs teachings.

Remember Paul wrote, "Be followers of ME, as I also am of Christ." (1 Corinthians 11:1) In Romans 1:11 Paul even boasts that HE can impart a spiritual gift! Isn't it GOD who imparts spiritual gifts? (Luke 24:39, John 14:26, 15:26, 16:13 - 14, Acts 2:16 - 18) Christ on the other hand said "follow me." Apostles and prophets were called to testify about Jesus, and let the Holy Spirit do the rest. Paul went way beyond this and established his own form of Christ worship.

John is also careful to write that people need to hold to what they heard in the beginning (1 John 2:24 - 26) refering to Christs original teachings, and that they abide in the doctrine of CHRIST (2 John 9) Yet Paul writes things like, "Withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly and not after the traditions which he received of US." (2 Thessalonians 3:6) "And if any man obey not OUR WORD by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him." (2 Thessalonians 3:14)

Jesus emphasised a relationship with the Father by the Spirit. He denounced those who taught traditions of men. He taught about having abundant life. Paul on the other hand taught some traditions of men, and placed what could be considered an unhealthy emphasis on Christs crucifixion, death, and suffering. Christ mentions suffering and persecution a little, but also suggests ways of escape, even in Revelation 12 as well as the gospels. Paul instructs to endure it, although he himself fled persecution a few times.

Paul teaches additional doctrines NOT TAUGHT OR ENDORSED BY CHRIST. Another perfect example is 1 Corinthians 11:2 - 16. Paul instructs them to keep ordinances he delivered to the church, then introduces new rules about hair length on men and women. At the end of this in verse 16 he says if anyone is contentious (disagrees with it) "we have no such custom, neither the churches of God!" Then why did he write it? Some churches have used these very passages to enforce rules on hair length, causing distress and division in the body of Christ. And its not even Scriptural doctrine! In the Old Testement Samson lost his annointing when he allowed his hair to be cut. Again Paul is shown to have introduced a teaching inconsistant with both the law and Christ.

I choose to follow Jesus. I will not follow Paul, except where his teaching agrees with Jesus' teaching. Where Pauls writings teach heresy I renounce it and have no part of it, for it is of man and not from God.

I pray that people will objectively look at these things. Open your Bible, make comparisons, and above all ask Gods Spirit to show the truth. Its interesting that while writing passages where Paul boasted of his abilities, that the ones I looked for just happened to be 1 Cor. 11:1 and Romans 1:11. The numbers 11 and 1111 have had great spiritual significance lately, and have been confirmed by a man with a prophetic gift who I know. Usually 11's come up as confirmation... mainly because its the 11th hour and we need to be aware of whats happening. All these 11's in the exposure of Pauls erroneous teachings only helps to confirm it on a spiritual level.

 

[UMP]

I think this would go in this forum... if not it will be moved to the appropriate forum

When Paul speaks of "another gospel" in Galatians 1:6 - 12, is he perhaps exposing himself? First off, I don't mean to say every teaching of Paul is a lie, for much of it is true, but there are many parts of pauls letters in the New Testement which are filled with confusion, opinion, and heresy.
Romans 7 reveals Pauls confusion, and his own confession in verses 15 - 25 that he does evil things he doesn't want to do, and the good things he wants to do he doesn't do! Prior to this in the same chapter he introduces his heresy regarding marraige ~ claiming the "law" binds a woman to her husband as long as he lives. What law? According to the law of God written by Moses, a divorce was permitted, the woman could then go be another mans wife, and it was even considered "abomination" for her to return to her first husband after she'd been married to another man. (Deuteronomy 24:1 - 4)
Paul continues his heretical tirade in 1 corinthians 7 where he instructs on various rules of marraige, while making claims like, "I speak this of permission, not of commandment," (verse 6) "But to the rest speak I, not the Lord." (verse 12) "I have no commandment of the Lord, yet I give myjudgement." (verse 25) These comments should raise a spiritual red flag for anyone who reads them!
Paul again contradicts the law in 1 Corinthians 7:39 saying a woman is bound by the law as long as her husband lives" then in verse 40 he makes the outrageous and rather funny remark, "After MY judgement, and I think also that I have the spirit of God." He THINKS??
Maybe Paul should have considered what he wrote later in 1 Corinthians 14:33: "God is not the author of CONFUSION, but of peace!" 1 Corinthians 7 is FILLED with confusion, personal opinion, and contradiction of the law (heresy) - and ironically Paul himself in numerous places speaks ill of the law (Romans 7:4 -6, Galatians 3:10 - 13) while elsewhere he praises the law as good! (Romans 7:12) 1 Corinthians 7 has been used by Preachers and churches to teach 4 completely different doctrines on divorce and remarraige, dividing the church and causing great discord and suffering among people who are trusting Christ for salvation and guidance!
Paul also introduces heresy in 1 Timothy 2:11 - 15, which he also briefly alludes to in 1 Corinthians 14:34 - 35. Again he proclaims personal opinion which is inconsistant with Christs teachings in the 4 gospel books. He claims "I suffer not a woman to teach or to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." (verse 12) He speaks of Eve being the one who was deceived and in transgression, not Adam, thus contradicting his own words in Romans 5:12 - 19 where he repeats 8 TIMES that it was by Adam, ONE MAN who sinned (verses 12, 14, 16) who committed the offence (verses 15, 17, 18) and who was in TRANSGRESSION (verse 14)
No one told the woman at the well in John 4 to be silent, and she spoke of Jesus to her community and many of her people beleived because of her testimony! I wonder how Deborrah the judge, the ancient spiritual leader of Israel would have reacted to Pauls obvious chauvanism?
Peter makes an interesting remark in 2 Peter 3:16 saying that Paul wrote some things that were hard to understood, and that unlearned and unstable men twist his words as also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. Most preachers are convinced Peters comment endorses Pauls letters AS SCRIPTURE - but could it be Peter was WARNING people that Pauls writings could easily be misunderstood and twisted, being compared to the scriptures as well? Could Peter be saying that Paul writes about some of the same things he does, but in a confusing manor? Are Peters words actually a subtle warning about Pauls confusing and opinionated writing?
To conclude: Much of Pauls writing does appear to be knowledgeable and even inspired at times, although he tends to place more emphasis on Christs crucifixion than on worshipping the Father in Spirit and in Truth, being born again, and learning spirituality by practical observation of life, as Jesus described in his parables. When reading anything by Paul we need to ask the Holy Spirit to help us discern whether what we read is from God or from the man himself.
We shouldn't discount all of Pauls writings. There are many gems and some garbage. By the Holy Spirits wisdom we can pluck the gems from the garbage, and disregard the confusion and heresy that appears in some of Pauls letters. We need to focus on things revealed by Spirit and separate ourselves from erroneous teachings formulated by mens minds. This includes the heretecal portions of pauls letters, some of which I have exposed here.

No, Paul did NOT teach heresy.
However, suggesting that Paul is not a fully inspired writer of God's word is.

 

[Starcrystal]

UMP,
No, Paul did NOT teach heresy.
However, suggesting that Paul is not a fully inspired writer of God's word is.

If you would please set aside what religion or church or christian authors have taught you and search all the evidence I have presented, you may reach a different conclusion.
For centuries Pauls every word has been considered infalible. This is dangerous. While Paul was inspired in many cases, he himself admits some of what he writes are not Gods commands nor church customs. If he even admits it, who are we to come along and say it was inspired?
Explain to me then how you would reconcile Pauls own admissions, and his contradictions of Scripture? Explain his treatment of women (and I know about the history of the disorderly women in the Corinthian church - then it shouldn't be considered law for all churches, and besides Paul went beyond just that church with his rule.) Explain the silly hair laws. Explain what he meant in Romans 7.

I probably shouldn't ask because I've probably heard the redundant arguments for years. Please just examine the scriptures unbiasedly and try to set aside what church tradition says about Pauls writings.

 

[UMP]

If you would please set aside what religion or church or christian authors have taught you and search all the evidence I have presented, you may reach a different conclusion.
For centuries Pauls every word has been considered infalible. This is dangerous. While Paul was inspired in many cases, he himself admits some of what he writes are not Gods commands nor church customs. If he even admits it, who are we to come along and say it was inspired?
Explain to me then how you would reconcile Pauls own admissions, and his contradictions of Scripture? Explain his treatment of women (and I know about the history of the disorderly women in the Corinthian church - then it shouldn't be considered law for all churches, and besides Paul went beyond just that church with his rule.) Explain the silly hair laws. Explain what he meant in Romans 7.

I probably shouldn't ask because I've probably heard the redundant arguments for years. Please just examine the scriptures unbiasedly and try to set aside what church tradition says about Pauls writings.

I have and I have no problem with anything Paul wrote. IT'S ALL THE INSPIRED WORD OF GOD. You can't just throw out something you have a problem with and embrace what you like.
Let's take one subject at a time, if you want to, and I will address it as well as I can, if you want to. Please don't type 20 paragraphs at a time. Let's try short and simple.

 

[Starcrystal]

Peaceful soul,
2) You are going to hell if you do not accept Christ as your saviour.

Actually "accepting" Christ as saviour is not found anywhere in the Bible, as Christian author A.W. Tozer so eloquently pointed out nemerous times in his literature.

Receiving Christ is found in John 1 and Acts 4:12. Receiving implies the Spirit coming to reside within us, and is tied in to being born again of spirit.

Anyone can "accept" Christ but that is a superficial mental acknowledgement. Millions "accept" Christ, but do not truly know christ because they haven't received Christ. Its like saying "just accept it." But to receive Christ you are letting the Spirit actually dwell within.

 

[Starcrystal]

UMP,
Let's take one subject at a time, if you want to, and I will address it as well as I can, if you want to. Please don't type 20 paragraphs at a time. Let's try short and simple.

And????? Most of the points are out there. Do you wish to address any one in particular?

Perhaps instead everyone has taken the time to examine these issues, (surely finding them disturbing and faith-shattering at first as they were to me) ~ and now must ponder the TRUTH of these matters and decide how best to apply these truths in their life....

BTW, these truths never shattered my faith, but strengthened it because it showed all the more I must trust Jesus ALONE and live in the Spirit!

 

[peaceful soul]

And????? Most of the points are out there. Do you wish to address any one in particular?

Perhaps instead everyone has taken the time to examine these issues, (surely finding them disturbing and faith-shattering at first as they were to me) ~ and now must ponder the TRUTH of these matters and decide how best to apply these truths in their life....

BTW, these truths never shattered my faith, but strengthened it because it showed all the more I must trust Jesus ALONE and live in the Spirit!

There is nothing earth shattering. The only shattering is when you find out that you are not bearing the truth in Christ by your claims. Your theology is warped to the point that you can not see your error. If the Bible is God's word, all of it has to be true and be accepted or it is not worth a dime. There are no partial truths in Bible. God does not deal dishonestly. He has integrity and sovereignty above all. He has accountability to what He allowed to be preserved for us to read and to understand. Your disagreements do not change that.

The best way to face any problem that you see (key words: that you see) is to read the passages many times and pray for understanding - not yours. Totally submit yourself to Christ and you will come to know and understand the passages. Because God will take you through the trials to teach you the meaning of what He wrote or He will point you to other passages, people,etc that will clarify things. That is the way it has been for me. I never assume that I know the answer. Even if I do, I always check with the almighty for confirmation. That is my safeguard.

Humility and patience is part of growing with Christ. If you read something and let your flesh give the answer, you will be lead away from sound doctrine 100% of the time. And, if you do not allow the Holy Spirit to deal with you, at some point, God will withdraw from you and you will not even know or care. You will be delusioned. We are to examine ourselves to see if we are in the faith. This is to be done daily and perhaps several times per day in certain situations.

The scripture has no private interpretation; so that excludes yours. If what you say is true, then the "Word" and the "Spirit" would be in perfect agreement, now would not they? They can not contradict each other. My spirit witnesses something far different than yours; so something is not on the level.

I am writing this in the hope that you will soften your view of what you think is right and truly try to see that you may be wrong. You can not learn if your mind is set one way and there is no discernment of truth other than what you independently call truth - private interpretation.

So let us start to examine the issues. You choose them in any order - preferably one at a time; then I and others will start to discuss. Be sure to make your claims and give your references. It may take a while, but it will keep things orderly.

 

[A Messiahite]

The Anointed Yehoshua paid the price for the curse of the Law. The curse of the Law is death to those who sin. Sin offering is only for sins done unintentionally. Guilt offering is for sins done willfully. There has to be by some means to cover up either sins; thus you either offer a certain sacrifice depending on what kind sin was commit or you repent and be forgive if the Most High choses to be merciful upon you. However, those who commit sins willfully, have a tiny percent to none (and majority of the time none) of being fogiven without offering a certain sacrifice. The temple is destroyed, how can sacrifices be offered? They cannot. The Anointed Yehoshua, however, offered a guilt offering that did not need to be offered again and again. Now he mediates between his God and humanity as being the High Preist. Thus, the importance of believing and trusting upon him.

So, are some of the mitzvot (commandments) not kept anymore? Yes, all of those surrounding the temple and its services. Further, is the curse of the Law still active that you should put to death certain people for committing certain sins? No, the sadhendrin is not active anymore, thus the curse of the Law has been deactivated.

The righteous shall live by faith, it has always been this way. True faith produces good works, not sinful works.

Are you cursed if you keep the Law? By no means. It is the Law that shows you what sin is in the first place. So, now that you are under grace should you keep sinning (breaking the Law)? By no means. The Gentiles who are led by the Spirit already keep what the Law requires of them.

I have a question for the christians: Since christianity teaches all things are lawful to eat, can you take a human, drain his/her blood, cook him/her, say a blessing over the cooked human, and enjoy?

 

[UMP]

And????? Most of the points are out there. Do you wish to address any one in particular?

Perhaps instead everyone has taken the time to examine these issues, (surely finding them disturbing and faith-shattering at first as they were to me) ~ and now must ponder the TRUTH of these matters and decide how best to apply these truths in their life....

BTW, these truths never shattered my faith, but strengthened it because it showed all the more I must trust Jesus ALONE and live in the Spirit!

You're are the one that brought heresy with Paul not me. Therefore, the ball is in your court to "address one in particular"

Like I said earlier, you can't cut and paste the Bible on a personal whim. It's ALL God's word. It's not a contest in (let's see who can figure out which part of the Bible is false teaching)

 

[Starcrystal]

Peaceful soul, I HAVe read and prayed and sought the Holy Spirit. What I have said is what was revealed. And can you honestly tell me Jobs 3 friends words are inspired? God said they were not! Yes, the Scripture is inspired, but it explains itself line upon line & precept upon precept.... where something is wrong, it says so.

Messiahite,
I too question the dietary "change" in the law. Peters vision in Acts of unclean beast "arise, kill & eat" was a vision addressing bringing the gospel to gentiles, not eating foods...

 

[Lifesaver]

Happy Birthday, Starcrystal.

Now, for the unpleasant part.

I will be straight with you:
you are creating a new sect and a new religion. You are erecting your own opinion to the standard of absolute truth and using it as the evidence for whatever else you feel inclined to believe in.
This is, besides of spiritually destructive, even extremely dangerous temporally. If you continue going down this road, you'll soon be the self-appointed messiah/apostle/prophet of some underground cult.
I don't speak this to cause spite, or to make you angry, but I indeed think you are engaging in the mentally unhealthy practice of personally interpreting the Bible and taking your opinions for God's Word.

 

[Lifesaver]

I have a question for the christians: Since christianity teaches all things are lawful to eat, can you take a human, drain his/her blood, cook him/her, say a blessing over the cooked human, and enjoy?

Of course not.
First, we are forbiddened to kill anyone.
And even if the person is already dead, we are to respect the human body, given our belief in the ressurection of the flesh.

So no, it is not right to ever eat another human body. We ought to bury it.

 

[A Messiahite]

Of course not.
First, we are forbiddened to kill anyone.
And even if the person is already dead, we are to respect the human body, given our belief in the ressurection of the flesh.

So no, it is not right to ever eat another human body. We ought to bury it.

Okay, how about this: When you see a roadkill, pick it up and bring it to your house, then drain its blood, cook it, say the christian blessing, and enjoy?

 

[Lifesaver]

Okay, how about this: When you see a roadkill, pick it up and bring it to your house, then drain its blood, cook it, say the christian blessing, and enjoy?

Unless the individual in question is very hungry and has not much resources, I don't see why anyone would ever do that...

But no, it is not immoral to eat it.