The biggest blunder in the church for years!! The Paul Deception!

4Q529, Who do you say that Jesus Christ is?

Massacre at Montsegur--have you ever read it?--is a legitimate source when investigating the history of the Albigensian Crusade. And one of the things said in that book is that the Albigensians were considered the "Western Buddhists". (And what do Buddhists teach? A doctrine of 'Rebirth'. But was there any EVIDENCE of Buddhist documents with the Albigensians? NONE. So where did this Doctrine come from?)

All of that is permitted, as far as I remember, on Wikipedia.

What is NOT permitted is saying that the Doctrine of "resurrection" is a Doctrine of 'Rebirth'.

At that statement, all of Judaism, Christianity and Islam raises holy hell...

Because it threatens their economic interests.

At that point, Massacre at Montsegur is no longer a "legitimate" source, 'legitimate' sources being considered ONLY those that do not contradict the monotheistic DISinterpretation of the Doctrine of "resurrection".

Meanwhile, after the the Roman church exterminated tens of thousands of Albigensians (because it could NOT defeat them in debate--read the literature), it then made haste to DESTROY all of the legitimate sources for what the Albigensians believed; completely rewriting the history of those beliefs in the escalation of the totalitarian war against the Truth.

Michael

NOW NOW NOW we are getting some place.

You're on the right track.

WHY is the question asked by the Sadducees WRONG?

And WHERE in the Torah is that to be found?

Michael

Later that day the Sadducees, who don't believe in the resurrection, came to him. They said, "Teacher, Moses said that if someone died childless, his brother was obligated to marry the widow and produce offspring for him...."

This was Jesus' response: "You are misled, because you understand neither that scripture nor the power of God."

There is no reasoning with you. You will hear nothing, yield nothing, admit nothing, change nothing, because you know everything and you are perfect.

4Q529, Who do you say that Jesus Christ is?

Most excellent response. Thorough and Biblically-sound. The benefit will be for someone else however, because 4q529 will have none of it. There is no point in answering his questions. They are not questions. They are self-assertions.

You should pay closer attention.

This question was already answered a few replies above.

Michael

If you have a problem with wiki, don't go whining to me about it. Show proof that they only rejected your nonsense for financial reasons. But really, I don't care about your spat with wiki; that's between you and them.

As for your argument about why you believe 'rebirth' should be allowed, you're ignoring the fact that Christianity never taught such a thing as that 'rebirth' has anything at all to do with resurrection. YOU, not the Bible in any corner of it, are making that false connection. THIS IS ABOUT THE BIBLE, remember? You will NOT find any such teaching as 'rebirth' equated with 'resurrection'. The ONLY thing about 'being born again' is the conversation with Nicodemas where Jesus explained that it meant BORN OF THE SPIRIT, NOT BORN MULTIPLE TIMES TO RID ONESELF OF KARMA. I don't know how else to explain this to you.


Getting some place? Please. Here, I'll paste the passage for you:


See exactly what they say Moses said? It is that if someone died without heirs, his brother had to marry the widow. It is first mentioned in Genesis 38:6-11, but codified in the Mosaic law in Deut. 25:5-10.

I SINCERELY hope that you understand this now, and stop this ridiculous attempt to shoehorn 'rebirth' into the Bible.

I already understand all of that.

More than you do.

But that is not RELEVANT as to WHY the Sadducees are WRONG for asking the question.

And don't be disappointed because you can't find that in the Torah.

In more than 37 years, I have been unable to find one Ph.D. Jewish or Christian theologian that can find that either.

Do me a favor.

Read both replies of Jesus to the Sadducees once, twice, three and four times in a row in about 15 minutes and just TRY to impose the Christian interpretation on what he says.

What happens?

Do things become clearer?

Then try just READING them without turning IMMEDIATELY to the Christian interpretation of what he says.

What happens?

Michael

NOT according to Chapter 12, verses 9-10 of the Book of Daniel.

But, of course, you know more than Daniel ever did.

Yeah. Sure.

Michael

Coming from the person who states

"10) That the prophet Mohammed was Elijah and John the Baptist ‘raised from the dead’; and, thus, that Mohammed taught the Doctrine of “resurrection” as a Doctrine of ‘Rebirth’."

And yet, you deem Paul the one who is satanic.

Yeah, sure you do, oh conceited one.



If you spent less time insulting others in order to keep pumping up your ego, you would be much better off and able to grasp what we're saying.


Read it more times than you know. Understand it too. Know why? Because I read it IN CONTEXT and don't try to impose ridiculous, self-defeating philosophies on it.



What happens? You look even sillier and more egotistical, that's what happens.

You are now on my ignore list for being so dense and such a colossal jerk. May God have mercy on your soul.

Now go run around boasting that I couldn't stand up to you or something.

NOT according to Chapter 12, verses 9-10 of the Book of Daniel.

But, of course, you know more than Daniel ever did.

Yeah. Sure.

Michael

As I said. LOVE is the universal truth.

This was your question
"How did Paul's sufferings make up for what Christ's sufferings lacked, for me?"

He did not say that Christ's sufferings lacked.

He lacked them, in his flesh.

It's like kryptonite or something...

Those like you who constantly criticize, attack and condemn Christians and Christianity while claiming to know the real truths of Christ are never willing or able to answer about Christ directly. Nor do they ever advocate for Christ.

Deuteronomy 10:17
For the LORD your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality and accepts no bribes.

2 Chronicles 19:7
Now let the fear of the LORD be on you. Judge carefully, for with the LORD our God there is no injustice or partiality or bribery."

Job 34:19
who shows no partiality to princes and does not favor the rich over the poor, for they are all the work of his hands?

Partly a figure of speech , but if you are one of Christ's brothers?:

Luke 22:28 “However, YOU are the ones that have stuck+ with me in my trials;+Did their suffering Jesus' trials with him have a purpose? And is that purpose connected with what he says next? :
29 and I make a covenant with YOU, just as my Father has made a covenant+ with me, for a kingdom,+ 30 that YOU may eat+ and drink at my table in my kingdom,+ and sit on thrones+ to judge the twelve tribes of Israel.
Wouldn't they be more empathetic judges,observing and experiencing some of how much humans can suffer and endure?
31 “Simon, Simon, look! Satan+ has demanded to have YOU men to sift YOU as wheat.+ 32 But I have made supplication+ for you that your faith may not give out; and you, when once you have returned, strengthen+ your brothers.”

Isn't Jesus indicating that Peter's endurance will help him strengthen his brothers? Down to this day? His suffering will not be in vain.

Why is there to be "a body of Christ"? Is Christ "the head" and the "savior of this body" not sufficient?

Valid points, but I wouldn't throw Paul to the lions for it.

The sufferings of Christ alone and in and of themselves are our salvation. Paul did also write (not sure where?), 'I protest your rejoicing in Christ Jesus, I die daily.' I think what he was getting at was the mindset of people who accept Jesus without re-directing themselves to a genuine repentance and accept Him without proper introspection.

As for the 'apostle to the Gentiles,' admittedly that is a bit hyped, but 2000 years ago their was quite a bit of difference between Jews and Gentiles and since the Law had been given to the Israelites thru Moses, Gentile converts were not subjected to the entirety of Jewish law but admonished from eating flesh sacrificed to idols and the sin of fornication.

Again, I'm not a huge Paul fan as he had his flaws like we all do, but I place a much higher emphasis on the Gospel over everything else in the Bible, Paul's letters included and often especially given the Evangelical preference to them.

In my pre-Catholic Christian days, I had many of the suspicions about Paul and could prove the '666' aspect concerning him thru counting the number of verses in the Letters. I had suspected that as the apostles were to receive judgment over the 12 tribes, perhaps Paul was after judgment over the Gentiles in Kingdom come. Don't think that is gonna happen, but I do agree with Paul on this:

"It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God."

Headshot? You've got to be kidding. This giant twisted knot you've tied by lifting everything out of context and only including the parts that you can use is nothing close to a headshot. What an ego you have!

First of all, Paul REALLY WAS AN APOSTLE, as he (a) was accepted as such by no less than Peter and James, (b) performed miracles, and (c) did indeed suffer much as Jesus promised he would for his former life. WHO DO YOU THINK STARTED THE EPHESIAN CHURCH?

Speaking of his former life, he LOATHED the man he had been before. He counted all his accomplishments as a Pharisee a "steaming pile" as we'd say today (the Greek means exactly that, a pile of manure). So for you to say "He's still a Pharisee" is DELIBERATELY DISINGENUOUS and ignores that critical about-face he did when JESUS HAND-PICKED HIM.

You are exactly what the unrepentant Pharisees were: arrogant, scripture-twisting, lying, slandering, and filled with hate.

Agree. Except they seem to be lovers of the law, just like the Pharisees, since they keep calling Paul an antinomian.

And now I'm-a go sleep.

Wow, OP I looked into this a little further. I am still up in the air. Some of what Paul says seems good...but a lot of the stuff I like seems to be lifted from Gospel.

Regardless look at this:

Galatians 2:11

11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

11 When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.

By Paul's own admission he is opposing Peter...the person that actually knew Jesus and the person he had asked to build his Church. Then we have Paul who never even freaking met Jesus!

I am going to study this more thanks OP.

What an ignorant, flame-baiting, red herring.

I could start teaching you what Paul said about all that, but at this point it's obvious that it would be a waste of time. You can look up my thread about women if you're desperate, but I'm not chasing that here.

No, it's a legitimate observation. You claim to follow Paul and defend him, yet Paul says that women should not speak in the company of other believers.

You are not even following your own master's standards. How should I believe your defense of him then?

Or anybody else's. In fact, there's a deafening silence from any and all the Twelve and other apostles criticizing Paul. Go find evidence that any of them said a word of warning about Paul.