I would like to say, first of all, that I do not take this lightly. It is just as serious a matter to me as my life. I know it is going to offend some of you, but hear me out. I am going to make the case for the Word of Christ without responding to any comments or criticisms until I am finished, and I have a lot to say over the next few days, so please bear with:
First, I thought it odd that Jesus would say to beware the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees. I thought it was odd that he chose ‘yeast’, but I was taught that it meant their teachings and ways.
Then I noticed that when He was talking to the Pharisees, he specifically mentioned “the blind leading the blind”. And of course, we all know what that means, right?
THEN I noticed that part of Saul’s conversion was… Jesus blinded him? But Jesus was a healer, not an afflicter! Why would Jesus blind him? The official story seems to be that it was to give him time to repent or was symbolic of the three days that Jesus was dead.
THEN I noticed that by Paul’s own admission, he was a Pharisee born of a Pharisee, and was trained in their ways and teachings before becoming a Roman persecutor.
Jesus was warning the apostles about Paul. He was warning that Paul’s false teachings would spread through, and completely overtake, the teachings of the true apostles commissioned by Christ.
And not only can it be proven using Paul’s own scriptures, God spoke warnings of it through the prophets. AND THAT’S HOW YOU KNOW IT’S TRUE!! Not by my word, but by the Word of the Lord.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
I would like to say, first of all, that I do not take this lightly. It is just as serious a matter to me as my life. I know it is going to offend some of you, but hear me out. I am going to make the case for the Word of Christ without responding to any comments or criticisms until I am finished, and I have a lot to say over the next few days, so please bear with:
First, I thought it odd that Jesus would say to beware the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees. I thought it was odd that he chose ‘yeast’, but I was taught that it meant their teachings and ways.
Then I noticed that when He was talking to the Pharisees, he specifically mentioned “the blind leading the blind”. And of course, we all know what that means, right?
THEN I noticed that part of Saul’s conversion was… Jesus blinded him? But Jesus was a healer, not an afflicter! Why would Jesus blind him? The official story seems to be that it was to give him time to repent or was symbolic of the three days that Jesus was dead.
THEN I noticed that by Paul’s own admission, he was a Pharisee born of a Pharisee, and was trained in their ways and teachings before becoming a Roman persecutor.
Jesus was warning the apostles about Paul. He was warning that Paul’s false teachings would spread through, and completely overtake, the teachings of the true apostles commissioned by Christ.
And not only can it be proven using Paul’s own scriptures, God spoke warnings of it through the prophets. AND THAT’S HOW YOU KNOW IT’S TRUE!! Not by my word, but by the Word of the Lord.[/quote]
Wow
Edit: what do you do with the words of Jesus in Luke, Acts and Paul’s letters; the reason I mention Luke and Acts is because Luke who is not an apostle was a companion of Paul and got a lot of material from him when composing Luke and Acts. Also it seems that some of Paul’s letters were composed before the gospels were written as we know them now.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:<<< I would like to say, first of all, that I do not take this lightly. It is just as serious a matter to me as my life. I know it is going to offend some of you, but hear me out. I am going to make the case for the Word of Christ without responding to any comments or criticisms until I am finished, and I have a lot to say over the next few days, so please bear with: >>>[/quote]OK, I’m just not going to be able to do this. Forgive me.[quote]JayPierce wrote:<<< First, I thought it odd that Jesus would say to beware the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees. I thought it was odd that he chose ‘yeast’, but I was taught that it meant their teachings and ways. >>>[/quote]The metaphor of leaven or yeast is used many times in the new testament to signify a growing entity or influence. Both of good and evil. In the case of the pharisees it was their private interpretations and hypocrisy that Jesus was warning of. In short. In the 23rd chapter of Matthew he spelled it out pretty clearly.[quote]JayPierce wrote:<<< Then I noticed that when He was talking to the Pharisees, he specifically mentioned “the blind leading the blind”. And of course, we all know what that means, right?
THEN I noticed that part of Saul’s conversion was… Jesus blinded him? But Jesus was a healer, not an afflicter! Why would Jesus blind him? The official story seems to be that it was to give him time to repent or was symbolic of the three days that Jesus was dead. >>>[/quote]There is no “official story” that I’m aware of. It appears the Lord blinded him in an overpowering demonstration of sovereign authority. “I am Jesus who you are persecuting and right now I’m showing you that I’m also God and you WILL do what I say”.[quote]JayPierce wrote:<<< THEN I noticed that by Paul’s own admission, he was a Pharisee born of a Pharisee, and was trained in their ways and teachings before becoming a Roman persecutor. >>>[/quote]Paul was persecuted BY the Romans and though a citizen of Rome was sent by the Jews to persecute the church. Not Rome.[quote]JayPierce wrote:<<< Jesus was warning the apostles about Paul. He was warning that Paul’s false teachings would spread through, and completely overtake, the teachings of the true apostles commissioned by Christ. And not only can it be proven using Paul’s own scriptures, God spoke warnings of it through the prophets. AND THAT’S HOW YOU KNOW IT’S TRUE!! Not by my word, but by the Word of the Lord.[/quote]You simply MUST start listening to yourself man. You also MUST believe that I am not making fun of you, but this is so far out as to make most private interpretations look orthodox.
Kingkai25
There isn’t a Church I know of that teaches this deeply, WTF is goin’ on here?
Where ARE The Churches that teach what you teach? I’ll bet they don’t even exist,
OHHHH but your secret school does…I’m suspicious of this, it’s too masterfully written
not to be mostly plagerized from another author, you apparently learned it from some mystery teacher
from some mystery school you don’t want to disclose, and you absolutely refuse to voluteer any
info on the books you read for further study and comfirmation, I just can’t take you at your
words like some here, your tongue is extremely slick, but it COULD be Forked as well…IJDKY,
You did NOT learn this by yourself…you had some big time help.
At LEAST the Angels having Sex “Theory” had considerable weight with RESPECTED VERY EARLY Church Leaders,
(I DON’T Call them “Fathers”), but if you think THAT’S Weird or Heretic, You don’t wanna know
what the possible next Leader of This Country’s Religion believes, but I bet you do anyway.
Independece MO. Anyone?
I attacked this young man rather stridently when he first showed up here for entirely different reasons than you have. I have since publicly repented for having done so after getting to know him and I have. Through numerous long PM conversations. Suffice it to say that I KNOW for an undeniable fact that he is who and what he says he is. I know details. And not just from him telling me and that’s all I’ll say.
Also, no. Churches don’t generally teach exactly this way from the pulpit, but this is not a church and these are not sermons. Sound scholarship makes sound sermons possible which explains why relatively few churches hear sound sermons these days. He and I will disagree on some stuff. Maybe major stuff, but I must vouch for him being that I am in a position to do so.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
I would like to say, first of all, that I do not take this lightly. It is just as serious a matter to me as my life. I know it is going to offend some of you, but hear me out. I am going to make the case for the Word of Christ without responding to any comments or criticisms until I am finished, and I have a lot to say over the next few days, so please bear with:
First, I thought it odd that Jesus would say to beware the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees. I thought it was odd that he chose ‘yeast’, but I was taught that it meant their teachings and ways.
Then I noticed that when He was talking to the Pharisees, he specifically mentioned “the blind leading the blind”. And of course, we all know what that means, right?
THEN I noticed that part of Saul’s conversion was… Jesus blinded him? But Jesus was a healer, not an afflicter! Why would Jesus blind him? The official story seems to be that it was to give him time to repent or was symbolic of the three days that Jesus was dead.
THEN I noticed that by Paul’s own admission, he was a Pharisee born of a Pharisee, and was trained in their ways and teachings before becoming a Roman persecutor.
Jesus was warning the apostles about Paul. He was warning that Paul’s false teachings would spread through, and completely overtake, the teachings of the true apostles commissioned by Christ.
And not only can it be proven using Paul’s own scriptures, God spoke warnings of it through the prophets. AND THAT’S HOW YOU KNOW IT’S TRUE!! Not by my word, but by the Word of the Lord.[/quote]
I know you’re going to wait to respond to comments, but I just have a clarification question. Why bring up the subject of “yeast” (and not to be a jerk, but you are showing what a poor translation you are once again using by referring to yeast; it was “leaven,” not yeast)? What does this have to do with anything? I just want to make sure I am following your argument.
And for the record (I can’t help myself), what you were “taught” about the leaven referring to the Pharisees’ “teachings” actually comes from the same passage you cited, just a few verses later (Matthew 18:12). It wasn’t some arbitrary meaning that your teacher’s made up. It comes from the very same passage.
[quote]Karado wrote:
Kingkai25
There isn’t a Church I know of that teaches this deeply, WTF is goin’ on here?
Where ARE The Churches that teach what you teach? I’ll bet they don’t even exist,
OHHHH but your secret school does…I’m suspicious of this, it’s too masterfully written
not to be mostly plagerized from another author, you apparently learned it from some mystery teacher
from some mystery school you don’t want to disclose, and you absolutely refuse to voluteer any
info on the books you read for further study and comfirmation, I just can’t take you at your
words like some here, your tongue is extremely slick, but it COULD be Forked as well…IJDKY,
You did NOT learn this by yourself…you had some big time help.
[/quote]
My reasons for withholding information about my school and credentials are fundamentally related to my desire to engage in thoughtful, reasonable discussions with as many people as possible. In order to have such discussions, people have to interact with my arguments, not my credentials or background. I DON’T WANT PEOPLE TO DEFER TO ME OR TAKE ME AT MY WORD. I want to offer arguments, provide supporting evidence, and either convince or fail to convince people based on the cogency or incoherence of my arguments.
At the same time, I have NEVER “refused to volunteer any info on the books I read.” That is ridiculous! I routinely draw attention to specific books and authors as relevant sources, and when I employ arguments taken from specific sources, I cite those sources. I honestly think you would know this if you had spent more time in threads other than this one.
For now, I’ll say I grew up the son of a self-taught scholar, having free access to my father’s library of over 10,000 volumes on the subjects of theology, philosophy, biblical studies, and English literature, as well as fitness and nutrition. I have read through the Scriptures more times than I can count, and my extracurricular reading almost invariably focuses on texts that will better enable me to understand God’s word. As I believe I said before, I did both my undergraduate and graduate work in the field of biblical studies, and I spend my free time reading in the fields of biblical studies, theology, history, philosophy, literary theory, or linguistics each month. I’m not bragging - such fanaticism is not really something boast-worthy - and I am FAR from an expert. Nevertheless, I do try to provide cogent arguments for others with supporting evidence.
Trust me - I do not think that Mormonism teachers anything other than falsehood. Romney’s flip-flopping shows the fundamental moral bankruptcy of Mormonism.
And I don’t really have a problem with the Angels having sex theory. I am not convinced by it myself, but I still consider it a possibility.
What I have a problem with is (1) your unbridled, wide-eyed speculations about antediluvian monsters, and (2) your misinterpretations of various Scriptural passages in the service of a noble, but ultimately unconvincing, attempt to “defend” God’s condemnation of the Canaanites and their neighbors. I understand your concern and honestly respect your desire to “stand up” for God, but the ethical dilemma presented by Israel’s purging of the promised land isn’t going to be solved by flights of fancy. That’s a tension that, at least for now, we have to live with, and I don’t think we should allow ourselves to be satisfied with truly innovative, yet truly anachronistic, readings, no matter how much better they make us feel.
Finally, I have said this several times in the Catholic Q&A thread - I do not consider the majority of the church fathers’ arguments convincing, and I do not consider them authoritative. In my reading of their writings, I consistently find them using anachronistic, ad hoc arguments to support their claims. Aside from a few notable exceptions (like Theodore of Mopsuestia and John Chrysostom), the majority of the church fathers showed minimal historical or contextual sensitivity. Consequently, while I recognize their importance in preserving the Christian movement and their contributions to the faith, I do not consider the majority of their arguments viable for our use. What does someone like Origen have to contribute to a discussion of the meaning of Genesis 1-3 in its original cultural context, when Origen actually believed that God included stories about the serpent, the garden, and the trees of knowledge and life to make the reader say, “what the heck” and look for “deeper truths” about “the soul’s ascent to heaven?”
Now let’s take a look at the despicable teachings of Paul that contradicted the teachings of Christ. I want to pay special attention to salvation, in this post:
The most obvious, and the most important is that Paul says you only have to believe that Jesus Christ is the Saviour, and call on the name of the Lord to be saved.
[quote]ACTS 2:21 And it shall be that whoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
ROM 10:9 because if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead you will be saved.
ROM 10:13 For, “every one who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved.”
EPH 2:8 For by faith you are saved through faith; and this is not your own doing. It is a gift of God
ACTS 13:39 and by him every one that believes is freed from everything from which you could not be freed by the law of Moses.
ACTS 16:31 And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.”
ROM 4:24 but for ours also. It will be reckoned to us who believe in him that raised from the dead Jesus our Lord, who was put to death for our trespasses and raised for our justification.
ROM 10:9 because if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead you will be saved.
ROM 10:10-11 For man believes with his heart and so is justified, and he confesses with his lips and so is saved. The scripture says, “No one who believes in him will be put to shame.”
HEB 11:6 And without faith it is impossible to please him. For whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.
[/quote]
What does Christ the Lord say?:
So by Paul’s teaching, all you have to do is believe and call on Him when you need Him, and you will be saved. But by the teachings of Christ, it is not enough to simply believe. [b]You must do His work.[/b]
And there is a reason for Paul’s ‘doctrine’ that belief alone will save you; he is a sinful, carnal man who does what he wants and then blames sin itself for residing within him:
[quote]
Romans 7
14 We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16 And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18 For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature.[c] For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do?this I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it. [/quote]
Remember the Publican and the Pharisee?: You know the one… where the Pharisee thanked God that he was made better than everyone else, and the publican beat his chest with anguish and asked God’s mercy for being a sinner?
Paul says:
[quote]I Corinthians 14:18 I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all.
I Corinthians 15:10 But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.
II Corinthians 10:8 For though I should boast somewhat more of our authority, which the Lord hath given us for edification, and not for your destruction, I should not be ashamed:
II Corinthians 11:23 Are they ministers (i.e., the 12 apostles) of Christ? (I speak as a fool) I am more; in labours more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons more frequent, in deaths oft.[/quote]
Pay special attention to that last one. See how he raises himself above the real Apostles? Do you see how he is absolutely unapologetic and unashamed of being so proud and boastful?
Robbed? Crafty? Guile? Lie? Paul’s shaping up to be a swell guy. By his own words, he admits deception “to give God more glory”, and can’t figure out why the end doesn’t justify the means!
II Corinthians 11:12
He doesn’t want to save them. He doesn’t want to help them. He doesn’t want to cast them out for false teachings. He hates them because he’s jealous that they want to be considered equal to him!!
proud
boastful
haughty
unable to do right, even though he knew it and could admit it.
trying to cut the feet out from under other churches
drew a parallel between himself and the Lord Jesus Christ.
I want you to read a translation I found of the Dead Sea Scrolls from ~250BC. The bracketed text is from post-Paul manuscript evidence for the OT (I don’t pretend to know what that means)
Habakkuk 2 (DSS Bible (1999) at 460.)
quote And the Lord answered me, and said, "Write the vision and make it plain [on tablets] [that he may run] that reads it.
(3) For the vision is yet [for the ap]pointed time, and it hastens [toward the end, and] shall not fail. Though [it] tarries [wait for it] because it will surely come; [it will not delay]
(4) Behold the proud one, his soul is not right [within him], but the righteous shall live by his faith.
(5) [Yea, moreover, wine betrays] a haughty man so that he does not stay at home. He enlarges his desire as SHL [and he is as dea]th; he cannot be satisfied [but gathers to him]self all nations and collect[s] to himself all peoples. …
[/quote]
Interesting note: apparently, in Hebrew, Saul and Sheol are spelled exactly the same (Sh’l).
The thirteen epistles are to the Pauline assemblies, not to the congregations of the real Apostles. He did not seek to gather the scattered flock of all Christians, only those loyal to him.
Paul was rescued from the Jews by the Romans in Acts 23, and kept under house arrest in Herod’s palace. Poor fella. Must’ve been tough on him because later he complains that he was ‘delivered as a prisoner into the hands of the Romans’. His flock (who were not rescued) were subsequently persecuted, abandoned.
Paul reinstated tithing among the churches, calling it a ‘collection for the saints’ in I Corinthians 16:1.
Now check this out. It’s from Zechariah 11, after the very explicit description of the betrayal of Christ:
[quote]16 I am about to raise up a shepherd in the land how will not care for those who are going astray, and he will not seek the lost or heal the broken. He will not sustain the healthy, but he will devour the flesh of the fat sheep and tear off their hooves.
17 Woe to the worthless shepherd who deserts the flock!
May a sword strike his arm and his right eye!
May his arm wither away and his right eye go completely blind![/quote]
Paul abandoned his flock
he did not try to correct those going astray. See I Corinthians 5:5, where his response to fornication within the church was
he did not feed his flock, his flock fed him (will not sustain the healthy)
he devoured the fatness of the sheep by demanding a ‘collection’ and stealing money from other churches (to do God’s work, of course).
he did indeed tear off the hooves (cut the ground from under those who want an opportunity to be considered equal with us in the things they boast about. From a previous post). He completely destroyed all of the non-Pauline churches!!
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
A few notes before I post the next Prophecy;
The thirteen epistles are to the Pauline assemblies, not to the congregations of the real Apostles. He did not seek to gather the scattered flock of all Christians, only those loyal to him.
Paul was rescued from the Jews by the Romans in Acts 23, and kept under house arrest in Herod’s palace. Poor fella. Must’ve been tough on him because later he complains that he was ‘delivered as a prisoner into the hands of the Romans’. His flock (who were not rescued) were subsequently persecuted, abandoned.
Paul reinstated tithing among the churches, calling it a ‘collection for the saints’ in I Corinthians 16:1.
Now check this out. It’s from Zechariah 11, after the very explicit description of the betrayal of Christ:
[quote]16 I am about to raise up a shepherd in the land how will not care for those who are going astray, and he will not seek the lost or heal the broken. He will not sustain the healthy, but he will devour the flesh of the fat sheep and tear off their hooves.
17 Woe to the worthless shepherd who deserts the flock!
May a sword strike his arm and his right eye!
May his arm wither away and his right eye go completely blind![/quote]
Paul abandoned his flock
he did not try to correct those going astray. See I Corinthians 5:5, where his response to fornication within the church was
he did not feed his flock, his flock fed him (will not sustain the healthy)
he devoured the fatness of the sheep by demanding a ‘collection’ and stealing money from other churches (to do God’s work, of course).
he did indeed tear off the hooves (cut the ground from under those who want an opportunity to be considered equal with us in the things they boast about. From a previous post). He completely destroyed all of the non-Pauline churches!!
More to come. That’s all I have time for today.[/quote]
That’s like the sixth or seventh post I have read through. How about you take a breather and give people a chance to respond? That way, in case you don’t like the responses you get, you won’t have to waste more of your time writing this stuff down? Take a breather and give people a chance to respond. Please. It’s only fair. You have stated a lot and your interpretive methods are clear - we get the gist of your argument - so it’s time to let someone else have the floor. We’ve been patient. Would you take a breather and let us respond now?
Hey King Kai, Thx for your response, I work 10-12 hour days and I’m too
tired to respond here to your specific issues at the moment, AT LEAST You’re
open to point that Angels COULD have Sex, and I’m open just as much as you are
in the other direction…'always learning here.
Truth is, we DON’T KNOW much about what Angels can or can’t do, not much is written
about 'em.
Do I have questions about it only VERY FEW have raised? Sure!
Like, how can Angels just sprout Penii at will here on Earth?
Who is to say the “Tower Of Babel” was NOT possibly a High tech portal,
and not a Literal Tower.
Think about that one, these people were NOT stupid, they SAW the night sky too.
The Moon, The Stars…They MUST have known it was utterly IMPOSSIBLE to build
a literal tower to heaven.
So ok, MAYBE there we were not monsters in Noah’s Day, but who is to say Noah’s
Day wasn’t as high tech as ours?
And maybe even MORE high tech than today?
India’s Rama Empire ended in a Nuclear Type destruction, and some places in India
still can’t build houses and building because they are still “hot”
could the same destrution happen to us? I pray not, then again America is not in the Bible
AT ALL, yeah I know SOME think America is ‘hinted’ at in the Bible, but I say HOOEY
until further proof of that one.
Be well.