Saul: true believer or spouter of lies?

[2dimes]

Right. That is Christ himself releasing us from the law. So will he now be called, "The least in heaven."? Or is it a bit more complicated than the pope understands?

[hahaha3hahaha]

-deleted-

[rishaed]

“For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” — Matthew 5:18-19

But now we have been released from the law, for we died to it and are no longer captive to its power. Now we can serve God, not in the old way of obeying the letter of the law, but in the new way of living in the Spirit. Romans 7: 6

Seems pretty clear.

Two points:
Galatians 5:14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Galatians 5:15 But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another.

Galatians 5:16 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.

Galatians 5:17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.

Galatians 5:18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
secondly:
Galatians 3:2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

Galatians 3:3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?

Galatians 3:4 Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain.

Galatians 3:5 He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
and also
Galatians 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

Galatians 2:17 But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.

Galatians 2:18 For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.

Galatians 2:19 For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.

Galatians 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

Galatians 2:21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

[2dimes]

Maybe I should stay out of this conversation, because I am so distant from God, I might as well be the pope these days. I'm with you that there have been some weird things credited to Paul. It seems typically to be confusion created by guys like me trying to remember what was written and only being kind of close.

If we take what Jesus actually said from the gospels in the New Testament and compare them with other works that were circulating at the time, they make a lot more sense than comparing the text incorporated in the Bible written by Paul/Saul. Paul was the one who said women could not preach, not Jesus and if we take the other works as credible, he made no distinction between men and women. Where did Paul's morbid fear of women come from? Certainly not from anything said or done by Jesus. Saul was an agent of the Pharisees who restricted priesthood to men, he was also a Roman. As the leading "Christian" scribe writing for the Romans, it was his ideas and the works that corresponded to them which later were accepted as gospel, and used to dispel unrest of what the Romans perceived to be a key problem of their day, the rising strength of women in civil affairs.

Are you suggesting there were Aaronic and Levitical priestesses? Woman Rabbis? There was no need to tell the Hebrews that women could not obtain a priesthood because that was well established by them.

The reason Paul brings it up is because the early gentile followers did allow women to participate in all parts of their gatherings. Then when they would attend "churches" where they were expected to be silent they were asking the Rabbis questions.

34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.

35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

If you have other examples of Saul writing restrictions on women preaching post the reference.

I will try to remember to look up some of the laws later if you're interested.

[mrswdk]

So you eat Kosher? That must have been tough in China.

When did I say I'm an Israelite?

[_sabotage_]

Maybe I should stay out of this conversation, because I am so distant from God, I might as well be the pope these days. I'm with you that there have been some weird things credited to Paul. It seems typically to be confusion created by guys like me trying to remember what was written and only being kind of close.

If we take what Jesus actually said from the gospels in the New Testament and compare them with other works that were circulating at the time, they make a lot more sense than comparing the text incorporated in the Bible written by Paul/Saul. Paul was the one who said women could not preach, not Jesus and if we take the other works as credible, he made no distinction between men and women. Where did Paul's morbid fear of women come from? Certainly not from anything said or done by Jesus. Saul was an agent of the Pharisees who restricted priesthood to men, he was also a Roman. As the leading "Christian" scribe writing for the Romans, it was his ideas and the works that corresponded to them which later were accepted as gospel, and used to dispel unrest of what the Romans perceived to be a key problem of their day, the rising strength of women in civil affairs.

Are you suggesting there were Aaronic and Levitical priestesses? Woman Rabbis? There was no need to tell the Hebrews that women could not obtain a priesthood because that was well established by them.

The reason Paul brings it up is because the early gentile followers did allow women to participate in all parts of their gatherings. Then when they would attend "churches" where they were expected to be silent they were asking the Rabbis questions.

34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.

35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

If you have other examples of Saul writing restrictions on women preaching post the reference.

I will try to remember to look up some of the laws later if you're interested.

“For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” — Matthew 5:18-19

But now we have been released from the law, for we died to it and are no longer captive to its power. Now we can serve God, not in the old way of obeying the letter of the law, but in the new way of living in the Spirit. Romans 7: 6

Seems pretty clear.

Two points:
Galatians 5:14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Galatians 5:15 But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another.

Galatians 5:16 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.

Galatians 5:17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.

Galatians 5:18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
secondly:
Galatians 3:2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

Galatians 3:3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?

Galatians 3:4 Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain.

Galatians 3:5 He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
and also
Galatians 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

Galatians 2:17 But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.

Galatians 2:18 For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.

Galatians 2:19 For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.

Galatians 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

Galatians 2:21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

‘Here are My mother and My brothers! For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother’” (Matthew 12).

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (John 3:16)

Whereas Saul maintained that there was only salvation through Jesus, Jesus himself said that those who follow the will of My Father is His brother and sister.

In this, jesus allows for the elevation of both man and woman to an equal footing with him. Also, this allows for those who did not know of him and therefore were not able to believe or disbelieve in him to have everlasting life. In this instance, if Buddha was deemed to have followed the will of God, then he too could receive eternal life. In Saul's interpretation, this is not available. This also opens the way for Muslims as they must confess that Jesus was a prophet of God.

In the example 2dimes provides we see that Saul is setting out rules for women in Church. By taking Jesus's words that no part of the law will pass, this suggests a reasonable possibility. On the other hand, the quote: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one title shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Jesus did not come to do away with the laws, as Saul repeated a couple times but to fulfill them. And though Saul states that the laws no longer apply, he keeps the one regarding women not being allowed to become preists. So he eliminates the laws so that he can establish his own.

Jesus on the other hand fulfilled the laws. He brought the possibility to reach God through him or were the person able to carry out the will of God, through that. This interpretation assumes that anyone intent on carrying out the laws post-Jesus would believe that he was the son of God and know equally that he could obey the laws to become his near peer (sibling). But were they a righteous aborigine in the 14th century, he too, unknowing and therefore unable to believe would reach heaven through his righteousness. This he made available to both men and women, which the quote shows. If we extend the Gospels to include Thomas, then this fulfullment of the laws is more explicit, 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." If we look to the Gospel of Mary, it goes even further, elevating Mary above the other disciples.

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.

But here I am suggesting that the only work potentially composed in his lifetime be accepted as a source. The Saul's influence has been long felt and lead the direction of the Roman Catholic Church to the point that we are willing to ignore writings regarding Jesus in favor of Saul's religion. My question back to you, how would religion be changed through following the words of jesus without those of Saul?

[2dimes]

So you eat Kosher? That must have been tough in China.

When did I say I'm an Israelite?

This is a mix up. Sabotage used to live in China and I was writing to him. You just managed to post in between us and I was doing some other things. It was lazy of me not to mention a name. Sorry.

[2dimes]

The Catholic Church claims Paul as the first pope but he couldn't be. I may have heard this wrong but they claim, the pope is infallible, free from sin and the closest living human to god. Yet Paul says this about himself.

14 And the grace of our Lord was exceeding abundant with faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.

15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.

16 Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting.

I'm kind of surprised they don't try to distance the church from him now there are too many translations into common languages. Must be because it's easy to say he was a pope and ignore the dirt. Kind of like any pope now that I write it that way.

My question back to you, how would religion be changed through following the words of jesus without those of Saul?

It would be tricky and you would be at serious risk of losing your marbles and shooting an abortion clinic doctor. Or maybe that was just me. I used to struggle with legalism. Still do but not as bad. I went to a messianic Jewish Church for a while. I was I officially off pork for years. People both Jewish and Muslim that talked about avoiding unclean meats made sense.

It's ok though, I am a hypocrite so I kept eating shrimp. That is the problem with the law, it's impossible for humans to keep. Who wrote Hebrews? It is about this very thing. The law given by Moses is described as perfection but we're not. I'm a filthy uncircumcised heathen.

Christ rarely spoke with anyone that was not a Jew. Yet they sought him out in some cases and in others were moved to accept him as Lord and saviour.

Think about the high ranking Roman Soldier who wanted him to come over to heal his daughter.
( bear with me ha3, I'm going by memory here.)
first he snubs the guy and says, "Look pal, I'm pure and my laws won't even allow me to go to your house. There's probably pork on everything!" ; no copyright dimes distorted edition.
After that the guy basically says, "Look I know you're God and like me you can just give orders to make her better." He agrees and heals her without even physically going there. Next he tells his disciples, "That guy has more faith that anyone of Israel." ; no copyright dimes distorted edition.

This gets very deep into the questions of "What is literal, what is a parable, what laws can be ignored and most importantly why?"

I really struggled with, "what my lord has made clean." And "God's the same today, tomorrow and for ever." Why would he say, "not a dot of the law will change..." If the law did change? Why can't I get a divorce? That was ok according to the law. That one went backwards, now you can eat bacon but you're stuck with your old lady.

When he spoke of being his brothers and sisters that was to explain why he came to pay for everyone's sin, yet taught mostly in the temples where only the Israelites were allowed.

[rishaed]

Jesus also said that: I am the Way the Truth and the Life; NO man cometh to the Father but by me. John 14:6
John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

John 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

You seem to have omitted the next few relevant verses which i quoted earlier. I also find interesting that you put forth the claim where Muslims can believe he is a prophet and go to heaven where it states:
Matthew 11:27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.
Jesus explictly claims that he is the SON of God. Which allowed him to live a perfect life without sin. You cannot have a sinful man die for sinful people and expect redemption from said sin to happen. Pharisees also acknowledged Jesus as a Prophet, but not the Messiah, and also not as the Son of God.

[2dimes]

Matthew 11:27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.
Jesus explictly claims that he is the SON of God. Which allowed him to live a perfect life without sin. You cannot have a sinful man die for sinful people and expect redemption from said sin to happen. Pharisees also acknowledged Jesus as a Prophet, but not the Messiah, and also not as the Son of God.

The Pharisees get a bad rap for flipping out and forcing Pontius to kill Jesus but they were just tying to be religious and prevent a guy that was right from completely ruining their church. Having to submit while waiting for the Messiah to come smite the Romans.

Sorry I digress. That verse is the problem I have with people using the king James translation. The language gets tricky. Wherefore wouldst thou most desire to read like unto that, verily we no longer speaketh in such manner?

[_sabotage_]

Sorry Rishaed, i did reply but wasn't explicit in that it was to you.

"Here are My mother and My brothers! For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother’” (Matthew 12).

Matthew 11:27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.

For me, the answer lies in that Jesus said all who do the will of the father is his sister and brother. I don't want to point to the obvious, but as a sister or brother of Jesus, they would share the same parentage. I think there are very few people in history who we could put on peerage with Jesus, but he allowed for the event. Was Buddha? Would he acknowledge Jesus? How about Krishna? Paul/Saul is a definite no, and yet he has managed to usurp Christiandom to a large extent and his followers adhered more to his words than those of Jesus. Therein lies my objection.

Got to go replace my water pump.

[2dimes]

How do you feel about the epistle to the Romans? I may be wrong but think some believe it was written by the same author as Galations which was credited to Paul. I think you'd be fine rejecting the books credited to Saul. Romans is loaded with great stuff, it's pretty on topic to much of what we're discussing here actually.

Part of what I like about Paul was his tenacity for Christ in Acts, he gets put in Jail and he would be set free until he demands a trial in Rome. They're like, "Are you nuts? You'll get killed!" "As you wish, good luck." Then he heads off to Rome and a bunch of people hear the good news. It changed Rome completely. You're right in the Roman Catholic church was born of that also. I think you're giving him too much credit or blame for that though.

I think if you consider who they are written for and what they actually say instead of what the pope, a doofus like myself or even someone that you respect says we should think they say. They're pretty good and still can apply well to our lives today.

For example I can't see how celibacy for priests is biblical. Paul wrote, "I wish you could be like me." Gets blown out of proportion into that rule. Weird thing is there should be no human Priesthood, the temples were destroyed. How could priests do their work?

Let me leave you with that excerpt from his letter to Timothy in another translation.

12-14 I’m so grateful to Christ Jesus for making me adequate to do this work. He went out on a limb, you know, in trusting me with this ministry. The only credentials I brought to it were invective and witch hunts and arrogance. But I was treated mercifully because I didn’t know what I was doing—didn’t know Who I was doing it against! Grace mixed with faith and love poured over me and into me. And all because of Jesus.

15-19 Here’s a word you can take to heart and depend on: Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners. I’m proof—Public Sinner Number One—of someone who could never have made it apart from sheer mercy. And now he shows me off—evidence of his endless patience—to those who are right on the edge of trusting him forever.

Deep honor and bright glory
to the King of All Time—
One God, Immortal, Invisible,
ever and always. Oh, yes!
I’m passing this work on to you, my son Timothy. The prophetic word that was directed to you prepared us for this. All those prayers are coming together now so you will do this well, fearless in your struggle, keeping a firm grip on your faith and on yourself. After all, this is a fight we’re in.

The Message (MSG)
Copyright © 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 2000, 2001, 2002 by Eugene H. Peterson

[_sabotage_]

There have been many great Christians and more than a billion Muslims would suggest other great spiritual leaders, and some millions of Mormons have a different story to tell. But I don't think the works of Paul should be canonical and that the works and sayings of Jesus should be focused on.

Were we to accept that another could come to represent Jesus, then why not accept Mohamed as he claimed to speak from the Holy Ghost, whereas Paul through the Spirit, and though I'm not familiar with Mormons, their guy also claims authority through Jesus. As it is, Paul set a precedent which lead the Church to do many of its most horrid acts. Justifying this as the bearers of the Jesus to the modern world does not hold water, as the works that they so fervently suppressed made it here as well.

[hahaha3hahaha]

-deleted-

[2dimes]

I'm not sure I will. It's way more fun to misquote them, then have to look it up after you correct me.

I seem to have got it backwards. Luke said the centurion sent a messenger. "Hey tell him not to come here we're roasting a pig, but ask him if he could still do me a favour." And the guy with the daughter was someone else.

Should I quit the bible, does it totally like contradict it's self here?

5 And when Jesus was entered into Capernaum, there came unto him a centurion, beseeching him,
6 And saying, Lord, my servant lieth at home sick of the palsy, grievously tormented.
7 And Jesus saith unto him, I will come and heal him.
8 The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof: but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed.
9 For I am a man under authority, having soldiers under me: and I say to this man, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it.
10 When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.

7 Now when he had ended all his sayings in the audience of the people, he entered into Capernaum.
2 And a certain centurion's servant, who was dear unto him, was sick, and ready to die.
3 And when he heard of Jesus, he sent unto him the elders of the Jews, beseeching him that he would come and heal his servant.
4 And when they came to Jesus, they besought him instantly, saying, That he was worthy for whom he should do this:
5 For he loveth our nation, and he hath built us a synagogue.
6 Then Jesus went with them. And when he was now not far from the house, the centurion sent friends to him, saying unto him, Lord, trouble not thyself: for I am not worthy that thou shouldest enter under my roof:
7 Wherefore neither thought I myself worthy to come unto thee: but say in a word, and my servant shall be healed.
8 For I also am a man set under authority, having under me soldiers, and I say unto one, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it.
9 When Jesus heard these things, he marvelled at him, and turned him about, and said unto the people that followed him, I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.
10 And they that were sent, returning to the house, found the servant whole that had been sick.

I actually think it's impressive that they are even vaguely close, when two guys possibly hundreds of years apart wrote that down from stories people used to tell.

My points were. Christ spent most of his time with Israelites and yet he helped this guy who was obviously not following their laws.

[2dimes]

Sab

How do you feel about the epistle to the Romans?

What about this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:P46.jpg

[_sabotage_]

You shall know them by their fruits. What are the fruits of the Roman Catholic Church with Saint Paul as it's founder? In his work he directly went against the words of Jesus and taught others to do likewise. You yourself provide more examples than I'm willing to look up and state, it's confusing at first but if you read a lengthy passage he explains himself. Why do I require the explanation of Paul as to what Jesus said and what it meant? Thousands of people have explained Jesus to their liking and then used long passages to justify it.

12:38 In his teaching Jesus also said, “Watch out for the experts in the law. They like walking around in long robes and elaborate greetings in the marketplaces, 39 and the best seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at banquets. 40 They devour widows’ property, and as a show make long prayers. These men will receive a more severe punishment.”

Is there any difference between what he is describing from his day and what we see in ours? Paul was an expert in the law and fervent about it.

But again, and this will be the last time I post this, kind of funny how you refer to me ignoring your Pauline quotes as you ignore the words of Jesus: "Here are My mother and My brothers! For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother’” (Matthew 12).

I will ask you for your opinion on it, and should it not be forthcoming will ignore your future posts.

Take up my cross and follow me. Where does it say except women? I'm not saying that Jesus condemned women, I'm saying Paul has. The law is gone, but here is a new law, and I refer you to 2dimes quote, but here is another to add to it: "To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion" (7:8-9).

In 2dimes quote, there is no suggestion of single women, it refers to all women, and all women should only ask their husbands. Is this allowing them to take up the cross and follow Jesus? No, they are to follow those who cannot exercise self control. Whereas priests can follow Jesus, "The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. " Married men would be less able to follow and their wives enforced upon their poorer understanding of God.

The Gospel of Thomas is of unverified age, and I will repeat, is the only Gospel with the potential to have been written during his work. You can refer to it as gnostic all you like, I will refer to it as the one of the gospels suppressed by the Church because it doesn't correspond with Paul, not because it doesn't correspond with Jesus.

[_sabotage_]

17 On hearing this, Jesus said to them, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”

Yes, the man didn't follow the law, but can receive forgiveness through Jesus. The point I contend is not that we can be saved through Jesus, and that the vast majority of us will be, but that Paul directly contradicts Jesus on the point of the law.

Were the priests to arrive in the New World and see a group adhering to the laws he would condemn them as sinners following the guidance of Paul, yet under the guidance of Jesus, he would rejoice at those doing the will of God and might look at the act as an accomplishment. Doesn't mean he wouldn't tell them the good news.

Again if we take this to extend to women, what if your husband is not Christian? According to Jesus, you could follow him anyway, and yet according to Paul you would be unable to.

The Parable of the Talents

14 “For it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants[a] and entrusted to them his property. 15 To one he gave five talents,[b] to another two, to another one, to each according to his ability. Then he went away. 16 He who had received the five talents went at once and traded with them, and he made five talents more. 17 So also he who had the two talents made two talents more. 18 But he who had received the one talent went and dug in the ground and hid his master's money. 19 Now after a long time the master of those servants came and settled accounts with them. 20 And he who had received the five talents came forward, bringing five talents more, saying, ‘Master, you delivered to me five talents; here I have made five talents more.’ 21 His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant.[c] You have been faithful over a little; I will set you over much. Enter into the joy of your master.’ 22 And he also who had the two talents came forward, saying, ‘Master, you delivered to me two talents; here I have made two talents more.’ 23 His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant. You have been faithful over a little; I will set you over much. Enter into the joy of your master.’ 24 He also who had received the one talent came forward, saying, ‘Master, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you did not sow, and gathering where you scattered no seed, 25 so I was afraid, and I went and hid your talent in the ground. Here you have what is yours.’ 26 But his master answered him, ‘You wicked and slothful servant! You knew that I reap where I have not sown and gather where I scattered no seed? 27 Then you ought to have invested my money with the bankers, and at my coming I should have received what was my own with interest. 28 So take the talent from him and give it to him who has the ten talents. 29 For to everyone who has will more be given, and he will have an abundance. But from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. 30 And cast the worthless servant into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’

According to the doctrine of Paul, all these women will be gnashing their teeth for even if a lot were given to them, and they could use it to increase their abundance, they are required to hide it in the field, that is keep silent.

Again celibacy in the priesthood is credited to Paul and the fruits of this are seen to this day and throughout the history of the Church. Unfortunately, though he might have portrayed himself as subservient to the Lord, his words and actions weren't and if they were, why include them alongside the gospels? Saint Thomas didn't make it into the Bible, nor any of the saints.

Whatever good acts of Paul may have done, there are a few major problems. It is known that he was working for the Pharisees against Christianity. If he managed to corrupt a disciple, it would not have been the first time. He then goes on to directly contradict the words of Jesus in favor of upholding a hierarchical structure that he was used to.

Well, he was converted, right? The conversion of Saul is in itself strange. He was blinded by Jesus. Jesus gave sight to many blind and healed many other infirmities, but he never hurt anyone. Why did he blind Saul? Is this characteristic of Jesus? It would appear to be antithetical of Jesus and leads me to suspect it.

[universalchiro]

Sabotage,
You are way off base. There is no contradiction between what Paul wrote and Jesus spoke. For Paul affirmed the deity of Jesus as God in the flesh. Which means all the O.T. appearing of God was Jesus not the Father (Colossians 1:15-18) & all of Paul's writings was inspired by God (2 Timothy 3:16-17). Peter affirmed Paul as writing the Word of God and affirmed all of pauls writings as scripture just like all the O.T. . Peter also calls Paul our beloved brother who is spotless and blameless. AND PETER REBUKES HARSHLY THE UNTAUGHT AND UNSTABLE WHO DISTORT PAUL'S WRITTEN WORD(2Peter 3:14-16)

Be careful sabotage, you are in grave error with your public thread.

[_sabotage_]

And I again I would not turn to Peter to interpret or speak for Jesus when he may do so through his own words. He denies Jesus and yet affirms Paul.

Did Jesus affirm himself as God in the flesh? If not, it would appear that you are only confirming my point; that Paul went beyond his authority, which was none.

[2dimes]

I'm kind of lost here. I can't tell what direction I a supposed to take.

I certainly don't put any of the authors of the bible as being on the level of John the Baptist, and he was not fit to tie Christ's sandals. I can't connect Saul with the Roman Catholic Church other than the fact both are responsible for killing followers of Christ but in completely separate events.

If it were not for Paul I'm pretty sure the Christ would only be known by Israelites. My people would probably be some sort of pagans. Not sure of what your question is regarding "my brothers and sisters" or if it is directed to me under penalty of being ignored but I'm curious.

I'm kind of tired too, been a long day maybe I'm just confused right now.

[_sabotage_]

No, it was for another.

[rishaed]

I'm kind of lost here. I can't tell what direction I a supposed to take.

I certainly don't put any of the authors of the bible as being on the level of John the Baptist, and he was not fit to tie Christ's sandals. I can't connect Saul with the Roman Catholic Church other than the fact both are responsible for killing followers of Christ but in completely separate events.

If it were not for Paul I'm pretty sure the Christ would only be known by Israelites. My people would probably be some sort of pagans. Not sure of what your question is regarding "my brothers and sisters" or if it is directed to me under penalty of being ignored but I'm curious.

I'm kind of tired too, been a long day maybe I'm just confused right now.

Somewhat in the same boat as 2dimes. You've pretty much blatantly ignored my last coupla posts, some of which are out of the gospels, OT, and others. Also if you reject Peter, who Jesus affirmed in the Gospels, then you also reject pretty much the beginning of Acts, as well as Luke (since its the same writer). As well as 1st/2nd Peter. What am I supposed to quote out of... Lets try Revelation next, but I bet you'll ignore me when I do that next as well.

[2dimes]

Ok sabotage. I can be a good candidate for needing to be ignored sometimes. So I wasn't sure.

Those posts are pretty big and have lots of stuff for discussion. They look like too much to try to just get into. I'm going to try to chat with you about parts if I can though.