Saul: true believer or spouter of lies?

_sabotage_ · Post by **_sabotage_** » Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:40 am

And again I ask you for a straightforward answer without reverting to Paul or anyone but Jesus to support your answer. If you provide one, perhaps we can move forward, and if you don't I will assume you have your reasons.

What did the quote mean?

hahaha3hahaha · Post by **hahaha3hahaha** » Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:52 am

-deleted-

_sabotage_ · Post by **_sabotage_** » Fri Oct 25, 2013 7:01 am

The truth would be you answering the question, and I do seek your answer, but you hide behind the words of others and refuse to answer based on the words of Jesus.

I will repeat my interpretation: Jesus elevated women to a spiritual equivalency with man and this is repeated in the Gospel of Thomas. This is denied by Paul and the denial of Jesus is the rock upon which He built his Church.

If my answer seems unclear, please feel free to ask for a clarification as I did with your unclear answer.

hahaha3hahaha · Post by **hahaha3hahaha** » Fri Oct 25, 2013 7:07 am

-deleted-

hahaha3hahaha · Post by **hahaha3hahaha** » Fri Oct 25, 2013 7:14 am

-deleted-

_sabotage_ · Post by **_sabotage_** » Fri Oct 25, 2013 7:28 am

Again I am sorry if you feel that I have not answered your question, as I feel you have not answered mine.

I have tried. Jesus said: "No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money."
This is in regards to money, but does this enable someone to follow two masters in other regards?

My initial response was:

But Saul relegates women to the obedience of their husband. This is strange since Saul also believes in the celibacy of the priesthood. If he assumes that the priests are those most familar with the word of God, and yet relegates the women to follow their husbands, who due to their practice of fornication are inferior to the priests, he is actually closing the gates of heaven to women.

So Paul in insisting that the women follow their husbands is providing them with two masters, and limiting their ability to follow Jesus to the extent of their husbands righteousness, which is unequal to that of Jesus.

In this, man has only ones master, but women two, according to Paul.

According to Jesus, “And so I tell you, keep on asking, and you will receive what you ask for. Keep on seeking, and you will find. Keep on knocking, and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks, receives. Everyone who seeks, finds. And to everyone who knocks, the door will be opened.

But again Paul does not allow women to knock except on the door of their husband.

And finally the law from which all others derive, “Do to others whatever you would like them to do to you. This is the essence of all that is taught in the law and the prophets. (Matthew 7:12)

Would Paul be happy to have the ability to take up the cross and follow Jesus taken from him? I don't believe so and yet he insists that women give it up and merely follow their husbands.

I realize that this is a difficult question for you to answer, especially if you cannot use the words of Paul and even more especially if you need to use the words of Jesus. The reason for this is simple, your point and Paul's are not validated by the words of Jesus.

And I now see your next question, I do not believe that the words of Jesus have been tainted by Luke as they are mostly indistinguishable from those found elsewhere. I highly question the assertion that Saul was blinded by Jesus, as this is inconsistent with the work of Jesus.

2dimes · Post by **2dimes** » Fri Oct 25, 2013 4:26 pm

chang50 wrote:
mrswdk wrote:The point remains that different Christians use different teachings to justify different moral stances, hence 'a la carte morality'.
Who'd of thought it?It's almost like it's all man-made

Morality is too complicated to be static anyway. I honestly think I should never physically harm anyone but I know luck and or God has made is possible that I have come so close to that goal.

hahaha3hahaha · Post by **hahaha3hahaha** » Fri Oct 25, 2013 9:29 pm

-deleted-

_sabotage_ · Post by **_sabotage_** » Fri Oct 25, 2013 9:34 pm

If they are not to get married, keep silent in Church and only ask questions of their husbands, then they are not to ask questions? Sounds like Paul didn't make a lot of sense and spoke directly against the words of Jesus.

I would suggest to anyone who has trouble with this doctrine, to seek the truth through what Jesus spoke and ignore the words of Paul.

hahaha3hahaha · Post by **hahaha3hahaha** » Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:53 pm

-deleted-

_sabotage_ · Post by **_sabotage_** » Sat Oct 26, 2013 6:35 am

1. I have answered, yes. I have answered several times and do not see how you have failed to see the answer.
2. If the passage is unclear to you, I don't know how to clarify as it seems pretty obvious.

"Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life." This is followers saying that women are not equal to men.

Jesus said, "I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven."
I myself shall lead her. Not their husbands or the priests will lead hear, but Jesus will lead her. So that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. Not resembling all males, but the followers of Jesus and not physically but spiritually. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven. Again they have the option to follow Jesus and they choose to do so may enter heaven.

Jesus does not say all males will enter heaven nor will women be denied entering, for he came to fulfill the law, and free all the people so that anyone may enter.

This is not much different from the quotes regarding women found in the canonical Bible. In essence, it provides the same ability of women to be elevated through following the will of God.

By the way, you have refused to answer my question, reminds me of:

24Jesus said to them, "I will also ask you one thing, which if you tell Me, I will also tell you by what authority I do these things. 25"The baptism of John was from what source, from heaven or from men?" And they began reasoning among themselves, saying, "If we say, 'From heaven,' He will say to us, 'Then why did you not believe him?' 26"But if we say, 'From men,' we fear the people; for they all regard John as a prophet."

But I am not Jesus and will happily answer that I have no authority but am merely referring to the authority in Jesus's words to answer your questions. You can feel free to disagree, but if you wish to proceed in discussion, you have to make your disagreement clear and not hide it behind twist and turns of Pauline writings.

So for the final time, and please let your yes be yes and no be no, did the passage where Jesus say that "Who are my mother and my brothers?" 34 And looking around on those who sat about him, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers! 35 Whoever does the will of God is my brother, and sister, and mother." elevate women to the same status of men?

2dimes · Post by **2dimes** » Sat Oct 26, 2013 10:47 pm

What about this?

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

Baron Von PWN · Post by **Baron Von PWN** » Sun Oct 27, 2013 2:35 am

I was hoping this would be about this guy.

I am disappointed.

mrswdk · Post by **mrswdk** » Sun Oct 27, 2013 5:32 am

That's Saul you have to contribute to this thread ?

LOLLLLlLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL

_sabotage_ · Post by **_sabotage_** » Sun Oct 27, 2013 7:38 am

2dimes wrote:What about this?
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

2dimes, this seems to only verify what Jesus said in other places, that the restrictions on women were lifted through the fulfillment of the laws in Jesus, and being that the laws are impossible to meet without Jesus, that through him or through the will of the Father we have the opportunity to be equal.

Why then does Paul go against this, that is his own, interpretation? With Jesus, we are unable to find a work or saying where he restricted the women from the Church. In all sayings, he puts them as equals. Why then does the Church not take them as equals? In Paul's writings we can find a reason. But his writings are both self contradictory and contradictory to those of Jesus. If as Christians, we adhere to the things of Christ, why then would we adhere to the things not of Christ? For those that say that there is no connection with Paul and the traditions of the Church, why is it that Paul's words are upheld there and not those of Jesus, or of Paul? How can Paul contradict himself and then be seen as infallible?

Throughout the life of Jesus, he continually highlights the mistakes, shortcomings and tendency to error of his disciples. Acts shows the disciples failing to follow his words in almost all things. And yet, some would have these actions supersede the words and acts of Jesus. Throughout my life, I have talked to many people who have been turned away from Jesus not by his words or actions, but by the words of Paul and the Church. Others have claimed to be Christian and follow the Church's traditions rather than the words of Jesus. Da Vinci was a great painter, but I don't know of any works by his students. Let alone saying that his students somehow supplanted him, I haven't even heard of him. I know that Alexander the Great was a good tactician, but this did not pass to his generals. Paul had nothing to add to the words of Jesus, and can only take from them. If his teachings were in all ways the same as those off Jesus, we wouldn't need them. If they are in any way different, they do not follow from Jesus and therefore we are being lead down the wrong path and don't need them. Either way, we don't need them.

Jesus gave us both a warning and a test of those who are to come in his name. I find it strange that when attempting to corroborate the acts of Paul, most people will refuse to look at the words of Jesus and instead use the words of Paul as corroboration. Isn't that putting the words of Paul above those of Jesus? Why not use the warning and test Jesus provided and see if Paul's writing stand the test.

In Acts, we see the disciples following the wrong path. And to understand how we fail as humans, even those granted the highest authority, it is a useful book. But as the proper way to follow Jesus, we must test it against his words and actions. The writings of Paul are no different. They help us to see how easily it is to manipulate the words of Jesus in order to put forth your own agenda, and should serve as a warning to closely follow what Jesus said instead of those who have contradicted his words, and yet instead it is taken as law by those who find in it a chance to maintain power and seek earthly rewards. These works have merit in showing us the fallibility of man and highlight the infallibility of Jesus, but not in helping us follow him. They should be regarded as they are and never given prominence over the true words of Jesus.

2dimes · Post by **2dimes** » Sun Oct 27, 2013 2:28 pm

This is partially why I want to discuss this with you. There is only one Christ. Look at the things the poor guys that he hung out with did while he stood with them.

One guy who was with him during his arrest, got so scarred he tried to start a bloody sword fight that could easily have got almost everyone present killed.

One guy offered to ride dragons into hell with him to fight satan, less than a day later he curses at a girl who simply asked if he was one of his friends.

Paul fit in there just like a dirty person.

I simply am not interested in gaining the extensive knowledge of the Roman Catholic Church required to discuss why they use Paul's writing and not the words of Jesus. I would guess if your accusations are correct, it's possible that it's what makes the gospel "the gospel," instead of merely a letter between a follower of Christ and whom ever. You can twist and distort another human's idea even if it was actually a good one to begin with.

The truth on the other hand is just the truth.

_sabotage_ · Post by **_sabotage_** » Sun Oct 27, 2013 4:46 pm

The truth is sad. I won't speak about Paul again, I need more positive subjects.

mrswdk · Post by **mrswdk** » Mon Oct 28, 2013 1:10 am

Some of the things coming to light in this thread are aPAULing!!!!!!!!

mrswdk · Post by **mrswdk** » Mon Oct 28, 2013 1:16 am

Hot. Like. Lava.

BoganGod · Post by **BoganGod** » Mon Oct 28, 2013 2:00 am

Paul was a bored rich kid wannabe revolutionary, at the time Christianity was a revolutionary religion. He grew a pair and used his education and forceful personality to change a movement in its infancy. I doubt Christianity would have had such an impact without his changes. Like him or hate him, we know he actually lived and are still talking about him 2000yrs later. I think he was a bit of a cunt and up himself big time. That doesn't mean I can't acknowledge his successes.

chang50 · Post by **chang50** » Mon Oct 28, 2013 7:28 am

BoganGod wrote:Paul was a bored rich kid wannabe revolutionary, at the time Christianity was a revolutionary religion. He grew a pair and used his education and forceful personality to change a movement in its infancy. I doubt Christianity would have had such an impact without his changes. Like him or hate him, we know he actually lived and are still talking about him 2000yrs later. I think he was a bit of a cunt and up himself big time. That doesn't mean I can't acknowledge his successes.

Indeed Christianity might have quietly fizzled out like so many religions have done but for Paul sticking his big nose in..

BoganGod · Post by **BoganGod** » Mon Oct 28, 2013 8:24 am

chang50 wrote:
BoganGod wrote:Paul was a bored rich kid wannabe revolutionary, at the time Christianity was a revolutionary religion. He grew a pair and used his education and forceful personality to change a movement in its infancy. I doubt Christianity would have had such an impact without his changes. Like him or hate him, we know he actually lived and are still talking about him 2000yrs later. I think he was a bit of a cunt and up himself big time. That doesn't mean I can't acknowledge his successes.
Indeed Christianity might have quietly fizzled out like so many religions have done but for Paul sticking his big nose in..

Reported for anti Semitic bigotry and racial profiling!!!!! <not>

Just think if christianity had fizzled out we may not have gotten a religion so amiable to playing nicely with economies and often being a market force in its own right. In the early days of New Zealand's history post white invasion the anglican diocese of New South Wales(an Australia colony) was the biggest land owner in New Zealand. Just one example of religion and money. Follow the money and in the past has never been too far from a christian cleric with very sticky fingers.

john9blue · Post by **john9blue** » Mon Oct 28, 2013 3:35 pm

yeah you guys are right, the world would be much better if islam were the dominant religion instead

hahaha3hahaha · Post by **hahaha3hahaha** » Tue Oct 29, 2013 6:09 am

-deleted-

chang50 · Post by **chang50** » Tue Oct 29, 2013 6:20 am

john9blue wrote:yeah you guys are right, the world would be much better if islam were the dominant religion instead

I guess I missed those posts..no checked again,no-one even remotely has suggested that in this thread