Paul's words are not confusing. They are wrong.

[Im_A]

But when we repent and are forgiven, that's grace, isn't it?

it's either grace, or doing what human beings are required to do, so the effect is forgiveness. (i think it's both actually.)

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

2 Corinthians 7:10 (New International Version)

10Godly sorrow brings repentance that leads to salvation and leaves no regret, but worldly sorrow brings death.

If you read the entire chapter, then you will see that he is speaking to the corinthians about causing them sorrow previously, in which he wasn't regretful for, because it led them to repentance.

oops, I forgot that Paul doesn't preach repentance. Whats with the Paul bashing anyway? At least have some knowledge or do some studying of your intended target. I personally take into account his life before his conversion and ministry, which gives me a good basis to the tone of his writings.

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

Foon says:

You must be hearing from bad sources. What documents are you talking about?

The texts that comprise the NT were living, changing documents for several centuries.

I'm not even going to google this one, you should try it though. Try not typing Da Vinci Code or conspiracy in the search box this time, it might help.

GL

 

[Foon Nerfdahl]

But when we repent and are forgiven, that's grace, isn't it?

No, it is repentence and forgiveness and includes a turning away from sin.

Grace is not forgiveness, but POWER to lead a Godly life.

Two entirely different things.

Paul's bizarre Radical Grace Theology portrayed people as weak sinners who would continue in their sin and be constantly forgiven by "Grace."

This became popular because it allowed the people to continue in sin yet feel they were ok.

Jesus, in stark contrast to Paul, said, "Go and do not do this sin again."

In the teaching about the Good Samaritan Jesus said to go and do like that Good Samaritan in order to get to heaven.

Two totally different Gospels......Paul's was wrong.

 

[BillR]

No. Jesus and Paul taught far different things.

Jesus preached salvation by good works, repentence and the forgiveness of God.

Paul preached salvation by some weird Radical Grace Theology that he had dreamed up to keep people confused and dependent.

Foon were in the bible does Jesus preach salvation by good works is it not a gift and no man can work for it.

Bill

God Bless

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

salvation is a gift, it cannot be earned, unless you are pushing a totally different religion all together (gnosticism etc)

 

[elman]

No, it is repentence and forgiveness and includes a turning away from sin.

Grace is not forgiveness, but POWER to lead a Godly life.

Two entirely different things.

Paul's bizarre Radical Grace Theology portrayed people as weak sinners who would continue in their sin and be constantly forgiven by "Grace."

This became popular because it allowed the people to continue in sin yet feel they were ok.

Jesus, in stark contrast to Paul, said, "Go and do not do this sin again."

In the teaching about the Good Samaritan Jesus said to go and do like that Good Samaritan in order to get to heaven.

Two totally different Gospels......Paul's was wrong.

Grace is forgiveness. Paul never taught it was ok to keep on sinning. He taught the opposite of that. What is wrong is not Paul but your characterization of him..

 

[Foon Nerfdahl]

Sorry, I know that what I've said shakes up your comfortable world.

I didn't say that Paul taught that it was ok to sin......I said Paul taught that we are slaves to a body of death like him and need "Grace" (his Radical Grace Theology that he invented) to save us.

Jesus simply told people to quit sinning.

Again, two totally different Gospels, and Paul's is wrong.

 

[Foon Nerfdahl]

Foon, where in the bible does Jesus preach salvation by good works is it not a gift and no man can work for it.

If you don't read the posts you'll never learn anything. I gave you two examples earlier.

 

[Im_A]

2 Corinthians 7:10 (New International Version)

10Godly sorrow brings repentance that leads to salvation and leaves no regret, but worldly sorrow brings death.

If you read the entire chapter, then you will see that he is speaking to the corinthians about causing them sorrow previously, in which he wasn't regretful for, because it led them to repentance.

oops, I forgot that Paul doesn't preach repentance. Whats with the Paul bashing anyway? At least have some knowledge or do some studying of your intended target. I personally take into account his life before his conversion and ministry, which gives me a good basis to the tone of his writings.

i think Foon is bringing up a very important issue between Jesus and Paul. you bring up this verse of Paul about how godly sorrow will lead to salvation. then let's add (in our memory band of scriptures) the many verses that Paul talks about how we are born dead to sin and that Christ sets us free and that we need grace.

but Jesus actually said something that i don't think anyone can/has ever quoted of Paul..."go and sin no more!" which would mean...repentance was once and final, and there's no more confessions, alter call confessionals or whatever stereotypical/churchy tradition that we do in the name of begging for God's grace because we are still a sinner...after all that Christ has done. and this would mean that our nature as a human beings, must not be really dead after all. it seems even in the Old Testament, there seems to be this sense that people are to turn away from their sins...FOR GOOD, and not rely on grace all the time to just "get by."

i'm not going to bash Paul. i think Paul has some great things to say for Christianity. but you mentioned Paul's past life, and i believe that is a very pivatol reason to critically examine Paul. a man guitly of murder. even Paul mentioned about his thorn in his side, than to coincide all his teachings of grace, and i'm this being dead to sin because i was born but set free cause of grace, it just makes some be a little skeptical of some things that Paul says. now that i think about it, let's look at Paul's prior life, wouldn't you think Paul would be blunt and talk more about, not sinning anymore, instead of requiring grace for a dead human nature in sin that needs to basically do what...get rid of a guilty conscience?

i would like to think that Paul's use of "being born-again" would be kind of the note of /climatic/redemptive part in his teachings in the Epistles that would forever bring the it all together. but then, in my opinion, he kind of screws himself over, when he mentions the battles between the old and new man. what "born-again" experience is that?

the born-experience from Jesus tho? go and sin no more. something actually plausible, something actually hopeful. something to long for. no more of this saved sinner nonsense, that seems to directly come from Paul's teachings. as Foon said, the grace is the power to live a godly life. and in my opinion, God's grace is firmly seen in the fact that there is a heavy responsibility put on us...to go and sin no more...that's grace, to be allowed to be made able to accomplish such an act or at least to leave in a life that its goal is to that...with God all is possible.

what born again experience do we see from Paul? grace because i'm a sinner, do not take forgranted the saving power of Christ because of God's grace, but yet, no sense of hope that we can actually overcome our supposed nature, because, again, Paul mentions that we struggle with the old and new man, again which is the utmost downfall, in my opinion, of Paul's teachings. Christ's teachings offer a new life.

but, i think Paul made some wise words for us to help us in this. i can't think it neccessary to just take all of Paul's writings out. there are many wise things to be taught.

it's just this issue we're talking about here...i'll have to stay on the side of Christ's and not Paul's and the standard i think that we can all see what are very wise words of Paul's is when they don't break the 2 greatest commandments that Christ what they were, and when they don't go against the idea of "go and sin no more."

God Bless Jet_A_Jockey! <><

 

[FadingWhispers3]

Paul's bizarre Radical Grace Theology portrayed people as weak sinners who would continue in their sin and be constantly forgiven by "Grace."

This became popular because it allowed the people to continue in sin yet feel they were ok.

Paul is that last person to come to mind with regards to the weak sinner always stuck in sin.

Weak?

"For God did not give us a spirit of timidity, but a spirit of power, of love and of self-discipline." 2 Timothy 1:7

"No, in all these things we are more than conquerors though him who loved us." Romans 8:37

Continue in sin?

"What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?" Romans 6:1

"But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature; rather, serve one another in love." Galatians 5:15

You say this bizzare Radical Grace Theology comes from the man who wrote:

"Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things, God's wrath comes on those who are disobediant" Ephesians 5:6

"Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and gree, which is idolatry." Colossians 3:5

?

 

[Foon Nerfdahl]

That's the same Paul who said......

I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do.

Right?

And Martin Luther was reading that contradictory letter to the Romans when he had his great epiphany, right?

And Paul's Gospel evolved into a theology where his followers accept AS NORMAL the fact that they all sin every day.......which is pathetic.....but they say, "Pah-RAISE GAWD, ah kin sin and the blood of JAY-SUS will cleanse me!!!!"

So they sin and they accept it as normal. They can have their dirty little affairs and internet pornography and inflict horrific suffering on the people of Iraq and destroy the environment and wallow in materialism and neglect the poor........yes, it's bad, but they know that it's all covered and they're actually on their way to heaven anyhow. Pah-Raise-uh Gawd Hallelujah!

Meanwhile, "Jay-sus" is scratching his head and saying, "Hey.....I told them to go and sin no more.....what the hell is Paul talking about? He's got everybody sinning."

So that's the problem with Paul. He's weak. He's strong. He's a sinner. He's a winner. He's a loser. He's a conquerer. A babbling, weak conqueror who can't stop sinning but trusts in "Grace" to save him.

He's popular, though.......because his Radical Grace Theology lets his followers sin and repent ad nauseum.....and that's the perfect religion for sinners.

Popular, but wrong.

 

[micknick]

That's the same Paul who said......



Right?

And Martin Luther was reading that contradictory letter to the Romans when he had his great epiphany, right?

And Paul's Gospel evolved into a theology where his followers accept AS NORMAL the fact that they all sin every day.......which is pathetic.....but they say, "Pah-RAISE GAWD, ah kin sin and the blood of JAY-SUS will cleanse me!!!!"

So they sin and they accept it as normal. They can have their dirty little affairs and internet pornography and inflict horrific suffering on the people of Iraq and destroy the environment and wallow in materialism and neglect the poor........yes, it's bad, but they know that it's all covered and they're actually on their way to heaven anyhow. Pah-Raise-uh Gawd Hallelujah!

Meanwhile, "Jay-sus" is scratching his head and saying, "Hey.....I told them to go and sin no more.....what the hell is Paul talking about? He's got everybody sinning."

So that's the problem with Paul. He's weak. He's strong. He's a sinner. He's a winner. He's a loser. He's a conquerer. A babbling, weak conqueror who can't stop sinning but trusts in "Grace" to save him.

He's popular, though.......because his Radical Grace Theology lets his followers sin and repent ad nauseum.....and that's the perfect religion for sinners.

Popular, but wrong.

paul does not say, or ever imply that we can do whatever we want, because we are covered by grace. he calls all to repent, which requires genuine remorse and the desire and attempt to stop sinning. he does however acknowledge that the christian is still human, and will still fall. if we take the standpoint that after accepting christ we MUST live flawless lives, and can't be forgiven for any new sins, how many of us would reach heaven?
paul correctly teaches tha we must try to live as Christ would, but also recognises that we are not Jesus and can never attain that standard. the important thing is to try to. if this is our attitude we won't say in advance "its ok i can ask forgiveness later because this demonstrates an casual attitude toward sin, which paul does not condone. you cannot condemn paul because people take his writings out of context and misinterpret them, because people have done this to every writer in the Bible, not just Paul.

 

[elman]

Sorry, I know that what I've said shakes up your comfortable world.

I didn't say that Paul taught that it was ok to sin......I said Paul taught that we are slaves to a body of death like him and need "Grace" (his Radical Grace Theology that he invented) to save us.

Jesus simply told people to quit sinning.

Again, two totally different Gospels, and Paul's is wrong.

You are not shaking up my comfortable world. You have said nothing close to being knowledgeable of what Paul teaches and you have to do that before you shake my world. Jesus taught we connect to God by love. Paul taught we connect to God by love. Same gospel, Paul is not wrong. Both Jesus and Paul recognized we are sinners and in need of grace. Same grace, same gospel, Paul was not wrong.

 

[elman]

i think Foon is bringing up a very important issue between Jesus and Paul. you bring up this verse of Paul about how godly sorrow will lead to salvation. then let's add (in our memory band of scriptures) the many verses that Paul talks about how we are born dead to sin and that Christ sets us free and that we need grace.

but Jesus actually said something that i don't think anyone can/has ever quoted of Paul..."go and sin no more!" which would mean...repentance was once and final, and there's no more confessions, alter call confessionals or whatever stereotypical/churchy tradition that we do in the name of begging for God's grace because we are still a sinner...after all that Christ has done. and this would mean that our nature as a human beings, must not be really dead after all. it seems even in the Old Testament, there seems to be this sense that people are to turn away from their sins...FOR GOOD, and not rely on grace all the time to just "get by."

i'm not going to bash Paul. i think Paul has some great things to say for Christianity. but you mentioned Paul's past life, and i believe that is a very pivatol reason to critically examine Paul. a man guitly of murder. even Paul mentioned about his thorn in his side, than to coincide all his teachings of grace, and i'm this being dead to sin because i was born but set free cause of grace, it just makes some be a little skeptical of some things that Paul says. now that i think about it, let's look at Paul's prior life, wouldn't you think Paul would be blunt and talk more about, not sinning anymore, instead of requiring grace for a dead human nature in sin that needs to basically do what...get rid of a guilty conscience?

i would like to think that Paul's use of "being born-again" would be kind of the note of /climatic/redemptive part in his teachings in the Epistles that would forever bring the it all together. but then, in my opinion, he kind of screws himself over, when he mentions the battles between the old and new man. what "born-again" experience is that?

the born-experience from Jesus tho? go and sin no more. something actually plausible, something actually hopeful. something to long for. no more of this saved sinner nonsense, that seems to directly come from Paul's teachings. as Foon said, the grace is the power to live a godly life. and in my opinion, God's grace is firmly seen in the fact that there is a heavy responsibility put on us...to go and sin no more...that's grace, to be allowed to be made able to accomplish such an act or at least to leave in a life that its goal is to that...with God all is possible.

what born again experience do we see from Paul? grace because i'm a sinner, do not take forgranted the saving power of Christ because of God's grace, but yet, no sense of hope that we can actually overcome our supposed nature, because, again, Paul mentions that we struggle with the old and new man, again which is the utmost downfall, in my opinion, of Paul's teachings. Christ's teachings offer a new life.

but, i think Paul made some wise words for us to help us in this. i can't think it neccessary to just take all of Paul's writings out. there are many wise things to be taught.

it's just this issue we're talking about here...i'll have to stay on the side of Christ's and not Paul's and the standard i think that we can all see what are very wise words of Paul's is when they don't break the 2 greatest commandments that Christ what they were, and when they don't go against the idea of "go and sin no more."

God Bless Jet_A_Jockey! <><

Both Paul and Jesus would tell a sinner to go and sin no more after repentance. Neither of them would have expected the person to be completely sinless for the rest of his life. Both recognized humans are frail and unable to be as God would have them be and need the forgiveness of their failures. Go and sin no more is a goal to achieve just as love your neighbor is a goal that cannot be flawlessly executed, and in each case Jesus knew no one would be without sin. That is why He knew that He could say that the one without sin should throw the first rock. He knew there was no one to throw a rock.

 

[Foon Nerfdahl]

Go and sin no more is a goal to achieve just as love your neighbor is a goal that cannot be flawlessly executed, and in each case Jesus knew no one would be without sin.

Foon Opines:

There is no proof that the man you refer to as Jesus ever lived.

Yet you make bold statements that you know what Jesus "knew?"

Like you've been inside the mind of a man that may have lived 2000 years ago.

How could you know what Jesus "knew?"

Just trying to understand what you are claiming here.

 

[Foon Nerfdahl]

Jesus taught we connect to God by love. Paul taught we connect to God by love.

Foon Opines:

Your defense is a bit simplistic. You could say that about almost every religious teacher.

Paul taught a Radical Grace Theology that Jesus never taught at all.

Fairly serious difference, I would say.

 

[micknick]

Jesus, like Paul, taught that everyone was sinful. Jesus, like Paul, taught that only through believing in him and repenting could men be saved from Hell. How are the two teachings different?

And there is plenty of evidence for Jesus existing. Roman and Jewish records back up much of what the Bible tells us. The upspringing of the church in the first century is also evidence- it was centred in Jerusalem where people would have known whether or not the last few days of Jesus' life happened as the apostles taught- Jesus' execution and the triumphal entry were not quiet or discreet, the whole city knew about them.

 

[Foon Nerfdahl]

Mick said:

Jesus, like Paul, taught that everyone was sinful. Jesus, like Paul, taught that only through believing in him and repenting could men be saved from Hell. How are the two teachings different?

Foon Opines:

No.

First of all, Jesus taught that we could be righteous enough to merit heaven. (See his interaction with Zachaeus the tax collector for one example.)

And......Jesus taught that believing his words and living as he required....not believing IN him--were essential to entering the Kingdom of God. (See the parable of the Good Samaritan for an example.)

This is far, far different from Paul--who invented Radical Grace and said that for innately sinful wretches like human beings........his invention was the ONLY way to get to heaven.

These two teachings absolutely oppose each other.

These two teachings directly contradict each other.

And Mick said:

And there is plenty of evidence for Jesus existing. Roman and Jewish records back up much of what the Bible tells us. The upspringing of the church in the first century is also evidence- it was centred in Jerusalem where people would have known whether or not the last few days of Jesus' life happened as the apostles taught- Jesus' execution and the triumphal entry were not quiet or discreet, the whole city knew about them.

Foon Opines:

I'm surprised that you say all that. You are simply repeating Christian teaching that has no basis in fact.

Roman and Jewish records actually DISprove much of what is recorded in the Christian NT. Early Christian writings (such as the gospels and those letters attributed to Paul) were heavily edited to match up with evolving Christian dogma.

If the "whole city" knew about Jesus and his triumphful entry and his execution.....it's amazing that nobody wrote it down except Christians with a vested interest in writing it down.

If, upon his death, the sun was darkened and graves were opened and the dead walked the streets.....yes, it would certainly be recorded in history books other than the NT.

However, these "stories" are simply not recorded in any history except the NT.

They are fiction.

 

[micknick]

"I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. No-one comes to the Father except through me"
"For so loved the world that He gave his one and only Son, so that whoever believes in Him will not die but will have eternal life"
Seems to me Jesus is saying quite clearly that He, and not "clean living" or whatever is the only way to Heaven.

Have you actually read the gospels? Or are you spouting nonsense someone else has fed you?


Roman and Jewish records show evidence of Jesus crucifixion, and of His body disappearing from the tomb.
And the gospels and epistles were not heavily editted to fit the dogma of the early church. They were written far apart in time and in place, yet the earliest copies of all of them, made across europe and the middle east still match up. The Bible as a whole is rightly considered by historians, Christian and otherwise as one of the most reliable historical texts in existence, because its reliability has been tried and tested across the ages by those seeking to disprove it. Guess what? They all failed.