Comments
1 - 20 of 63 Comments Last updated Thursday
First Prev
of 4
Next Last
Dave P

Morehead, KY

#1 Sep 3, 2013
Reissuing the New Testament?

Hence, if one agrees Paul blasphemed, not only is Paul clearly not inspired, but also his writings without any insulating material is a highly toxic agent inside our modern bound New Testament. This is a further clear ground to support considering whether it is imperative to now issue future New Testaments which recognize this reality. I suggest we place Paul's epistles in a separate section or volume solely to demonstrate the prophetic prowess of Jesus about the false Christ duping with signs and wonders (Matt 24) and the ravening wolf in sheep's clothing which Jeuss mentioned in Matthew 5. At the same time, we must footnote clear warnings about Paul's false and potentially blasphemous statements to insulate the reader from ingesting the toxic aspect of Paul's writings.

It might be preferable to black out apparently blasphemous statements in the main text. But then it is possible that the clarity of Jesus' prophecies' accuracy to aim at Paul might be lessened. If the consensus concurs that is an important reason to continue such blasphemous statements, then at least these verses identified above should be footnoted.
How To Reissue The NT To Protect Readers From Blasphemy

Thus, in a reissue of the NT, here are the following verses which we must as a community insulate believers from falling prey to -either by black-outs or by footnotes, as God's wisdom may show us:

1. "by the law is the knowledge of sin." (Romans 3:20).

2. Romans 7:7, Paul says: "I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, "You shall not covet."

3. Romans 7:13, "But sin, that it might be shown to be sin, by working death to me through that which is good; --that through the commandment sin might become exceeding sinful."

4. Paul says in 1 Cor. xv. 56, "the strength of sin is the law i.e. it is the law, that gives sin the strength and power to kill men.(Works of John Locke (1823) Vol. 8 at 316.)

5. Romans 7:5 and 7:7 speak of the "sinful passions through the Law."

7. To prove occupants of temples are mere idols, Paul once falsely generalized (which has no exception for Jerusalem's Temple): "God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands." (Acts 17:24).

8. Paul says: "11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie,12 that they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.(2 Thess. 2:10-13 KJV-21st)

9. Paul speaks of Jesus' return as with lying wonders - which the KJV tries to obscure by adding the 2 words in bold italic in this quote: "8 And then shall that wicked one be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of His mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of His coming—9 even him, whose coming is according to the working of Satan, with all power and signs and lying wonders (2 Thess 2:8-9 KJV) 10 and with all deceivableness and delusion."

10. All Paul's predestination verses are apparent blasphemy.

Since a couple of us take issue with BW's theology and the HRM, lets bring it to light for all to see. This comes from the JWO site. Any thoughts?
Dave P

Morehead, KY

#2 Sep 3, 2013

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#3 Sep 3, 2013
If we throw out Paul, it leads to questioning the legitimacy of Luke, Peter, and the Bible as a whole.

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#4 Sep 3, 2013
Alexander Campbell, founder of the Church of Christ, also issued his own New Testament and changed or left out words he didn't like.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#5 Sep 3, 2013
MarkEden wrote:
Alexander Campbell, founder of the Church of Christ, also issued his own New Testament and changed or left out words he didn't like.
Yeah, I think we crossed this bridge already.
Dave P

Morehead, KY

#6 Sep 3, 2013
JesusCreed wrote:
If we throw out Paul, it leads to questioning the legitimacy of Luke, Peter, and the Bible as a whole.
Agree. There's a lot more to the HRM story than this. More to come tonight.

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#7 Sep 3, 2013
JesusCreed wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, I think we crossed this bridge already.
I never grow tired of exposing the phony Church of Christ denomination.
Barnsweb

Louisville, OH

#8 Sep 3, 2013
MarkEden wrote:
<quoted text>
I never grow tired of exposing the phony Church of Christ denomination.
No do they tire of exposing all the other Churches;-)
Barnsweb

Louisville, OH

#9 Sep 3, 2013
Here's the rub that I see:

Even Balaam gave true prophecy that is still quoted in Synagogues today. So if Paul is said by Yeshua to be a 'Balaam' in Revelation, is that also an indicator to not reject all he taught, but to distinguish what was against or not in total accord with the teachings of the Messiah and prophets/Psalms/Torah as quoted?

For now I've put Paul on a side-bar and it seems easier to exclude him until I have time to see which things Paul taught that are true... but to see if what he taught was true, it has to be compared to what was taught by the other approved words - and if it can be proved by the others approved words, then nothing Paul said would really add anything - would it?

Does that make 'hypothetical' sense?
Barnsweb

Louisville, OH

#10 Sep 3, 2013
JesusCreed wrote:
If we throw out Paul, it leads to questioning the legitimacy of Luke, Peter, and the Bible as a whole.
Not really. The approved twelve wrote Matthew, John, I Peter, I,II,III John and Revelation.

Based on the care exhibited by Luke to be accurate, even when inconvenient, I'd take Luke as it is except where not in agreement with Matthew. A couple of examples are the 'hate father and mother' vs 'love father or mother more than Me'; or, the need to do whatever Jesus taught in the sermon on the mount, VS 'do nothing' with His word as recorded in Luke. Stuff like that, but it could easily be footnoted to Matthew or John for corrections if needed. And Acts, also written by Luke, could still be considered for historical matters, particularly chapters 1-9.

Other traditions organize Scripture by grouping them into different sections that have to do with keeping the more important separated from the lessor. The AENT is organized like that - always was from 167, so far as I know, but we should defer to the historical scholarship of the Eastern Church authorities as my familiarity with the topic is rather new-found.
Barnsweb

Louisville, OH

#11 Sep 3, 2013
I also think we should re-review and investigate other books taken out of circulation about 350, such as the gospel of Thomas, Shepherd of Hermes, Enoch, and see if any of them should still be considered. The early Church records show accepted books that aren't in our Bibles today. I'm sure some were excluded for good reason, but given the situation, they should be reviewed with a pointed discernment based on who God said spoke for Him and the testimony of the book and those who were for or against it - but most importantly, if they meet the standards God gave. If Jesus quoted Enoch, why do we exclude it? That He said they erred in not knowing the Scripture and then brought up something that may only be in Enoch, well, if He said it's Scripture, maybe it is, especially if it was in Matthew or John's account.
Barnsweb

Louisville, OH

#12 Sep 3, 2013
Much is in the approved books by reference, like when Jesus quoted a passage, we need to go back to that passage with the perspective Jesus put on it and I'll bet there is MUCH to gain thereby.
Dave P

Morehead, KY

#13 Sep 3, 2013
How about the deity of Christ issue?
Barnsweb

Louisville, OH

#14 Sep 4, 2013
That's the issue I noted with one of the more recent 'Hebrew-Matthew' works of reconstruction of the Hebrew text. Are you at all familiar with 'The Gospel of the Stars' by Seiss? or D. James Kennedy's 'The Real Meaning of the Zodiac'?

The heavens declare the glory of God. The figures and names in the Zodiac come from antiquity - perhaps Adam or Enoch, and foretell the gospel of Jesus Christ quite effectively, even to the detail of the cross, hell and heaven. But the most important detail that is shown repeatedly is that the Messiah has both Devine and human nature. As such He was rejected and scorned of mankind, but redeemed us and will take us home with Him on Argo.

So the Zodiac - the heavens themselves - testify to all the nations of the earth that the 'Desired One'(Messiah) would be both God and man at the same time.

Scripture also says the same thing and even uses much of the same symbols that come from the Zodiac and one supports the other... Jesus claimed to be 'I am', and some judged this as blasphemy enough to crucify Him. He claimed to be in heaven the same time He was on earth. And if the Aramaic Acts is correct, we find Peters' first sermon the 'name' to be immersed into is 'Master YHWH Y'shua'.

It is for these basic reasons that I'm not accepting the Hebrew Matthew in the account recently read. I'd like to double check some things in the AENT, but it's still at the book binder getting a hard cover....
Bobby

Fort Worth, TX

#15 Sep 4, 2013
I don't like the direction of this thread, all it does is create doubt in every basic concept found in the scripture.

There are two ways of seeing God, one is a God who is powerful and scary and unknowable.

The other is seeing a loving God who in his righteousness has made a path for us to know him personally.

We tend to admire those who are bright, intelligent, and knowledgeable or those who are physically gifted in strength, talent, or beauty or those who have amassed great wealth.

However Jesus even though he had all of those things, he came as a humble servant.

Paul accurately describes the situation. Phil 3:10 “I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection”

So the fact of the resurrection is central to true Christianity. The resurrection must be true if we are to know, to have a relationship with our Savior, the resurrection must be true if we are to have access to the power which raised Jesus from the dead.

Jesus is knowable and approachable unlike statues or man made gods. Paul is a master of opening up our understanding of serving a loveable powerful God who even a child can approach without fear.
Dave P

Dahlonega, GA

#16 Sep 4, 2013
Bobby- I don't like the direction of this thread, all it does is create doubt in every basic concept found in the scripture.

Dave- I completely agree Bobby. That's been my main point with lots that BW has been saying. To believe it, almost every orthodox Christian teaching from the earliest times are compromised, the integrity of scripture is called into question. Even the diety of Christ and the virgin birth are denied.
Mike Peterson

Birmingham, AL

#17 Sep 4, 2013
BW wants his own "Bible." Just like the Mormons or JH's. If this is true, a Messianic Jew is not a Christian.

The written Word of God was determined by the Church in AD 392.

Other than Luther who took out the Books he did not like in the OT and his attempt to remove James, the canon has been and will continue to be the same as it has the last 1600 years.

The Catholic Bible is the complete written word of God.

There are no contradictions. It is That/And.

You are saved by Faith
Baptism now saves you.
You will be judged by your deeds.
Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you will
not inherit eternal life.
You have to persevere to the end.
I am working at my salvation with 'fear and trembling'
Dave P

Morehead, KY

#18 Sep 5, 2013
Paul's words are easily and commonly construed to support the following blasphemies:

1. The Law of God stirs and causes sin (Romans 3:20; Romans 7:5; Romans 7:7; 1 Cor. 15:56);

2. God causes morally evil behavior (Romans 11:8, 32; Ephesians 1:11);

3. God does not live in temples made of human hands, implying that the God in the Temple at Jerusalem at that time was as invalid a god as a pagan god (Acts 17:24);

4. God will send a "delusion" on all people to believe a lie so they are damned (2 Thess. 2:10-13); and

5. Jesus's brightness at His coming will be "according to the working of Satan," with "all power, signs and delusions" (2 Thess 2:8-9)-- to accomplish the delusions God will bring which are spoken about in #4.

One does not have to agree Paul actually blasphemed to reject Paul as an inspired voice. The fact Paul's words perilously lead many to blaspheme -- unaware what is the definition of blasphemy (i.e., an insult on God's goodness, including equating Him to a pagan god), should put us all on guard whether to trust Paul as inspired. That's enough wisdom to take away from this topic.

However, I would not dispute with anyone who claims they see that Paul indeed blasphemed. I think, sadly, it is unquestionable. It is sad because Paul I believe was a devout person (although misguided to trust the 'blinding light' he met on the Road to Damascus. For more on that, see our link). But blasphemy does not require any maliscious intent to commit. Jesus told this to the Pharisees whom He accused of blasphemy by attributing His miracles to Satan. The Pharisees were not malisciously insulting God; instead they were simply wrong in their statement but it had the unwitting affect of insulting the Holy Spirit. Thus mere words that have the affect of insulting God's goodness / or equating Him to a pagan idol, whether spoken malisciously or unwittingly, are blasphemy.

Let's start tackling some of the so called blasphemies and inconsistencies of Paul.

http://www.jesuswordsonly.com/topicindex/188-...
Dave P

Morehead, KY

#19 Sep 5, 2013
http://www.jesuswordsonly.com/topicindex/175-...

This page is too big to post all here. Must be broken down into segments.
Barnsweb

Louisville, OH

#20 Sep 5, 2013
Dave P wrote:
Bobby- I don't like the direction of this thread, all it does is create doubt in every basic concept found in the scripture.
Dave- I completely agree Bobby. That's been my main point with lots that BW has been saying. To believe it, almost every orthodox Christian teaching from the earliest times are compromised, the integrity of scripture is called into question. Even the diety of Christ and the virgin birth are denied.
Half lies, half truth. At least you're consistently inconsistent!

Jesus is true, and He didn't give Paul a new gospel. In fact, Paul was not the 'apostle to the gentiles', Peter already claimed to have this from Jesus.

How about opening your eyes once in a while?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 4
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Chatmoss Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Is baptism essential to salvation (Nov '10) 49 min Mike_Peterson 236
The Origin of the Roman Catholic Church 3 hr Mike_Peterson 144
Catholics (Feb '14) 9 hr William 853
Signing off ... for now Aug 26 Barnsweb 512
Where did the CoC cowards go? Aug 23 Jimmy Crack Corn 2
Debate: Ferguson - Martinsville, VA Aug 22 Barnsweb 8
what are the differences between orthodoxy and ... Aug 18 Jimmy-Crack-Corn 1
•••
•••
•••

Chatmoss Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Chatmoss People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Chatmoss News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Chatmoss
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••