Did Paul invent or hijack Christianity?

Madison Ruppert ^ | 06/24/2014

[editor-surveyor]

LOL!

Leave it to a catholic to declare scripture ‘dysfunctional.’

Of course, worshiping Mary is soooo functional.

[mitch5501]

"Indeed, one can argue the whole point of God's redemtive plan was and is to restore us to the image of God that we lost when we fell into sin"

Amen.

One could also argue (I'm speaking as a madman)that what Jesus did for us was an insanely desperate last ditch effort at RESCUING us from His perfect justice!

We will all front up to the TERRIBLE,AWESOME ALL CONSUMING FIRE FROM WHICH NOTHING IS HID when this mortal coil is gone.The perfect sacrifice of His ONLY begotten Son is the ONLY hope of surviving the encounter! What kind of love is that!

Some appear to think we are vying for a place in an exclusive country club where only the very best might just make it in.God invites "whosoever" and has made a way for us,that,to say the very least, was incredibly expensive.

Mephibosheth sat at the King's table (on someone elses account) but I wouldn't mind betting he didn't sit himself down and start mouthing off the vilest accusations that pass for 'theology' in this here RF.

Rather he would have sat down,shut his yap,and listened to what the King and His court might discuss...all the time wondering..."what is thy servant,that my Lord should look upon a dead dog such as I?"

I so love and hate this RF.

Thankyou so much for writing SR.Your posts are always encouraging and uplifting and God knows we need it!

[narses]

So if Scripture is sufficient, you and ‘bums would be able to agree, you cannot.

Q.E.D.

[boatbums]

Excellent example of the abysmal ignorance of what sola Scriptura actually means. Thanks for playing!

[boatbums]

I agree. I praise the Lord for Freepers like y’all that strive to present the truth in gentleness and respect - even when it’s hard.

[mitch5501]

That most certainly includes you dear bb!

For years here you have steadfastly proclaimed the grace of God and the sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice.It's something no man gave you and no man will take.Hearing some of the things hurled at you and others here tells me way more about the ones hurling them than the intended targets.Potshot posts here and there are nothing compared to years of faithfull witness.

I'm sure you know these things already but sometimes we need to hear things from others.Nobody doesn't need encouragement!

[af_vet_1981]

Your gospel is hardly the same as what Paul preached as the Holy Spirit revealed it, but is the SAME accursed message that began back in Eden when Satan questioned the word of God and convinced man that he could be "like God".

That does not make sense. How could it be the SAME accursed message that began back in Eden when that message was to not obey God ? Do you deny God gave Moses the Torah and the Scripture we have is the same Torah ? Do you deny the LORD Jesus Christ kept that Torah completely and said this Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven. ?

A woman being deceived, wilfulling breaking God's command and convincing a man to do the same, would be exactly like the SAME accursed message that began back in Eden.

• And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
• Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
• And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons. And they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God amongst the trees of the garden. And the Lord God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou? And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself. And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat? And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat. And the Lord God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.

To me, a real test of what you just claimed about another Gospel with respect to Genesis 2 and 3, is what you say about these commandments, which definitely trace back to Genesis 2 and 3.

• 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. 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. What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only? If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord. But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.
• I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting. In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

[verga]

Excellent example of the abysmal ignorance of what sola Scriptura actually means. Thanks for playing!

Because Calvin were in complete agreement /Sarc

http://lexloiz.wordpress.com/2009/01/15/john-calvin-and-martin-luther-%E2%80%93-some-differences/

http://confessionalouthouse.wordpress.com/2014/04/28/luther-vs-calvin-on-images/

Let's not forget about that whole predestination vs. self determination thing either. And how about that Faith alone?

Lets not leave out ole Zwingli either:

Luther- the bread and the wine are really the Body and the Blood of Jesus Christ, given for the remission of sins.

Calvin- Christ is spiritually present in the bread and the wind.

Zwingli- the bread and the wine are only symbolic and consumed as a memorial for Jesus Christ.

Who is it that doesn't understand Sola Scriptura?

[af_vet_1981]

Who is it that doesn't understand Sola Scriptura?

All your points are well taken. I think what they mean by Sola Scriptura is not that they interpret the Scriptures correctly, or even consistently, but that it is theoretically possible. This definition: "Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, "by Scripture alone") is the doctrine that the Bible contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness" says nothing about rightly interpreting the Scripture. OTOH, one could end up with thousands of new heresies, denomination, sects, cults, and even religions as well from those trying to apply Sola Scriptura to their personal relationship or reforms.

[NKP_Vet]

Sola Scriptural is the biggest fraud ever perpetuated on Christianity.

[daniel1212]

I'm surprised your still going on about this. Didn't I write to you a very long and detailed post cleanly refuting all your claims? Y

Indeed. The church that was commanded to keep all the ritual washings and dietary laws and feasts is as invisible in the NT as that of Romanism, and requires a like manner of eisegesis.

I have been too fatigued is write another lengthy refutation of those who imagine they are obeying Christ by requiring submission to these, ignoring the "not according" changes of the New Covenant that the Lord instituted with His own sinless shed blood.

[Springfield Reformer]

Mostly its the RC folk who seem not to understand Sola Scriptura. We have had to sit here and listen to many misrepresentations. I am sure most of these are based on the lack of a studied understanding and not malicious. But erroneous nonetheless.

BTW, arguments from diversity of belief are largely irrelevant. We do not argue divine theology on consequentialist grounds. What is true is true regardless of how well or poorly we fallen sinners have interacted with it.

Nevertheless, given the choices you presented, I would take any of them over transubstatiation, which has no grounding in Scripture or reason, but tends rather to encourage idolatry. It is one of the principal reasons I could never become Catholic, even if I betrayed everything else the Lord has taught me from His word. By the grace of God, I will never give my adoration to a bloodless wafer that has no power to save. My prayer is that He would help me remain true to Him until the end of my days (not too long from now). So with His help, I will bend my knee to no created thing ever, but only to Him, in spirit and in truth.

[verga]

I understand that, but it basically means that Protestants religions are Que sera sera. God is not the God of confusion, but Protestantism has made Him that.

[verga]

Good luck with that.

[mdmathis6]

Christ was the Word made flesh.....not that I’m supporting Editor. Editor is influenced by notions derived from the priestly order of Aaron...Christ was of the order of Melchizidek(also mentioned in Hebrews).

Aaron casts stones at those who are accused of sin. Christ makes us all into living Stones. Under Aaron we are bent reeds and glowing coals with the expectation of being broken or snuffed out respectively! Under Christ bent reeds are not broken and glowing coals are not snuffed out. The reeds are allowed to mature into full fruitfulness and the coals are fanned again into everlasting flame!

Under Aaaron we are chained by ritual and made to feel guilty or to become angry at the manipulations of the wolves in sheeps’ clothing. Under the Spirit of Christ, we have our Liberty as we too are given “power to become the son’s of God” !

[Springfield Reformer]

Luck has nothing to do with it. It is entirely reasonable to hope that God will answer prayers that are in accordance with His will, and preservation from the sin of idolatry would be in keeping with the clearly revealed will of God for His people. So whatever God does, it has nothing to do with luck, but with the operation of His holiness, reason and will. My case is not in the hands of the gods of fortune, but the God of mercy. Him I can trust. The rest of you? Not so much. Nothing personal. :)

[verga]

From 1048: BTW, arguments from diversity of belief are largely irrelevant.

from reply from 1052: Good luck with that.

[dsc]

“But quite simply, as to the blinding light - Jesus didn’t work that way.”

Not only did He work that way then, He still works that way today, and did for all the centuries in between.

“The main difference between Jesus’s and Paul’s teaching - Paul, in bed with the Romans, helped set up the church with the power, pomp & circumstances”

Wow. You know, sometimes there is an excuse for getting something wrong, but there is *no* excuse for that one.

Libraries are full of history books. I would recommend you investigate that further.

[dsc]

“Nevertheless, given the choices you presented, I would take any of them over transubstatiation, which has no grounding in Scripture or reason, but tends rather to encourage idolatry.”

It is, nevertheless, quite true, as you could find out for yourself—albeit only with great effort.

Oh, and there is scriptural grounding for it; please spare me whatever mental contortions you go through to deny that.

[Springfield Reformer]

Thanks for the clarification.

But true is still true even if you don’t have universal agreement. Like Paul said, let God be true, and every man a liar. Romans 3:4. Consequentialist speculation, OTOH, is the methodology of relativism. Deciding what is ethically, morally, or theologically true based on earthly consequences. That’s really the opposite of the notion of divine truth, which was true even when only 7000 remained who had not bent the knee to Baal, true even when the Son of God was being nailed to a cross, and will still be true when He returns in glory, though faith has nearly died out altogether.

So truly, I have never understood why Catholic apologists use the consequentialist argument for Sola Ecclesia, though they avoid it studiously with respect, say, to abortion. If you don’t judge a human life disposable, regardless of pragmatic consequences, why use a different measure for the work of the Spirit of God, Who is Himself the builder of His Ecclesia, not fallible man.