Thus Saith Paul

[waysider]

Did I say "Paul is wrong."?

I don't think I did. People keep throwing this strawman argument into the discussion, in one form or another, despite what I have posted. Go back and re-read this thread. Though I did say, "What if Paul was a con-man?", I never said that he WAS a con-man, a liar, someone with ulterior motives, etc.

You said this:

"No one is saying it was not Paul who said these things. . . . it WAS Paul . . . who I believe was INSPIRED by God."

AND, I have pointed out to you that you are most likely basing this conclusion on something Paul, himself, stated.

("Holy men of God spoke----etc.")

That's circular reasoning.

[geisha779]

Did I say "Paul is wrong."?

I don't think I did. People keep throwing this strawman argument into the discussion, in one form or another, despite what I have posted. Go back and re-read this thread. Though I did say, "What if Paul was a con-man?", I never said that he WAS a con-man, a liar, someone with ulterior motives, etc.

You said this:

"No one is saying it was not Paul who said these things. . . . it WAS Paul . . . who I believe was INSPIRED by God."

AND, I have pointed out to you that you are most likely basing this conclusion on something Paul, himself, stated.

("Holy men of God spoke----etc.")

That's circular reasoning.

I believe the message Waysider. . . . it could have been written in crayon on the back of a donkey . . . I would believe it . . . it is the message not the means of transport of the message.

[waysider]

I believe the message Waysider. . . . it could have been written in crayon on the back of a donkey . . . I would believe it . . . it is the message not the means of transport of the message.

And, as I said before, I'm cool with that.

It's perfectly OK to say "I believe, just because."

But, when you start resorting to twisted logic to justify your belief, you enter a whole different kind of realm.

[roberterasmus]

I haven't forgotten your question in doctrinal Robert, its a big topic, I need to find you a couple of good links. But, for me, I will explain.

There is a phrase God uses a lot: Foundation of the World. It his dividing line so to speak, like bc/ad is for us on earth - before Christ, after Christ. Foundation of the World literally means "overthrow of the cosmos (Kosmos in greek). It is his dividing line for things that happened before, and things that happened later.

For God, Gen. 1:1 and before - here creation had not fallen, angels hadn't fallen, all is still perfect. This is "before the Foundation of the World." From Gen 1:2 forward, after destruction, things have fallen, the earth is restored again and made habitable for man, that is "from" or "since" the Foundation of the World.

Now, we can see certain groups of believers called in the Bible, from which period God purposed them, when they were called and where their eternal life will be.

There are only 2 groups, or beings called from "before" the Foundation of the World. Christ, and us - those of us living in the age of Grace. God purposed us in eternity - Gen. 1:1 and before.

Israel was called "from" or since the Foundation of the World - from Gen. 1:2 on. They will inherit the earth someday.

Then you have the faithful "remnant" of Israel, like Abraham who looked for a heavenly city, whose builder and maker is God. Hebrews talks about these people and there are others. This Heavenly Jerusalem will descend to earth from heaven someday and it will be the abode of the Jews who really believed - they didn't just rest on their laurels because they were God's chosen. I consider this group, the "Bride" - some will disagree and say the church today is the "Bride."

Anyway. We see:

3 groups called in the Bible: Jew, Bride, Church which is the one body, the new man in the age of grace.

2 different time callings: Christ and Church of age of Grace - before the Foundation of the World. Israel and remnant - since or From the foundation of the World.

3 different spheres for eternity for each group: Jew - land, earth. Bride (faithful remant) - heavenly Jerusalem. One body - Heavenly places.

So, each group has a different calling in time, a different hope, and a different abode for eternity. Its an interesting study.

Ex-cath. I would never, ever put Paul above Christ - just sayin' :) All I'm saying is Israel rejected their Messiah. God reveals "Plan B" to Paul (thank God, that God had one - that's why its grace - he didn't have to - he could have let mankind stew in their own juices as they and the world "lies in the arms of the wicked one"). Its like God took a bunch of mangy mutts, bathed them and washed them (with Christ's blood), fluffed us up, clothed us, and said - "Come In" Welcome to my home. Whoa! That's grace. Its like, have you ever taken in a stray animal? You open the door for them to come in and they are like, really? I can come in? I can hasz cookie? (just kidding on that one). But, they are so grateful, someone allowed them in. Someone took them in. Grace. I believe in this day and age, one of the Holy Spirits functions is to give each individual the opportunity to believe. I believe every human is gently called, but not all respond. You responded :)

Irish, it is about community! The One Body, the Unity of the Spirit (note its regarding spirit - I don't think God expects unity of politics, sports, liking the same things - we are all individuals). TWI failed in this aspect - we were all expected to think in lockstep. "Renewed mind" was what was used to beat this into us.

Thanks Sunesis,

I’ll wait for the links, but I’m happy to hear directly from you. I’m not following all you say here, though I’m familiar with Bullinger’s “foundation (overthrow) of the kosmos” theory (inclusive of the prepositions “before” and “from”). And while I may not track everything you post (yet), you still haven’t shown why we (believers in the “dispensation of the grace of God”) won’t be on earth with God and Jesus in the end. If God is there and Jesus is there, why won’t the “church, which is his body” be there? Just askin’.

The Church/ Bride thing is unprovable (as you intimate), but the “bride” as separate from other believing groups will take a fair amount of Scripture to prove (at least to me). Your three (3) different “spheres for eternity” thing will need some proofs too, but I’m a patient man.

I wasn’t dissing you on the Paul/ Christ thing (“first citizen” bit). I realize you know “whom (you) have believed”. It’s just that Paul isnt’ “up” there yet. He’s dead.

Interesting comments on the “plan B” thing, but I’m not sure I agree that the “dispensation of the Secret” was a “plan B”. I hear a lot of people talk about how the “restitution of all things” (Acts 3: 21 and look at Matthew 17: 11) might have happened if the Jews believed this or if the Jews believed that… I’m not convinced of the “ifs”. Speculation is one thing I shy away from.

I read that God had a secret (not a mystery, that’s not what the Greek word musterion means) and he revealed it. It must have been in His mind and He was a good judge of things, by all counts. I’m pretty sure He knew that this “plan” was just that, a bonifide arrangement, set in His mind.

And it had to be a plan that was in the works “before the ages to our glory” because He had something to show the “rulers of this age”. It’s all about spiritual matters when it comes to God, eh? And now, the “charge” for the “church, which is his body” is even greater than that so-called “great commission” given to Jesus’ Jewish disciples.

In Ephesians 3:10 we see the ultimate commission for the Christian:

“His (God’s) intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms, according to his eternal purpose which he accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord.”

RE

[geisha779]

And, as I said before, I'm cool with that.

It's perfectly OK to say "I believe, just because."

But, when you start resorting to twisted logic to justify your belief, you enter a whole different kind of realm.

Does what has been communicated to us through the Apostle Paul have any authority . . . . not just what is the Apostle Paul's authority.

If you look at who, how, and when yet fail to include what is said. . . . I think you are shaky ground when speaking of twisted logic.

[Broken Arrow]

Did I say "Paul is wrong."?

I don't think I did. People keep throwing this strawman argument into the discussion, in one form or another, despite what I have posted. Go back and re-read this thread. Though I did say, "What if Paul was a con-man?", I never said that he WAS a con-man, a liar, someone with ulterior motives, etc.

You said this:

"No one is saying it was not Paul who said these things. . . . it WAS Paul . . . who I believe was INSPIRED by God."

AND, I have pointed out to you that you are most likely basing this conclusion on something Paul, himself, stated.

("Holy men of God spoke----etc.")

That's circular reasoning.

Huh? Strawman? This thread's proposition is "what if Paul were a con man, VPWOHDT, flim-flam man, etc etc." so some people are answering as to why that is not the case. How is that concocting a strawman argument?

You accuse people of refuting your statements with circular logic. Namely, you claim that people are saying, "Paul's words are God's words. Why? Because it says so in the Bible." That's not what's been happening at all. Reasons have been stated as to the authenticity of Paul and Paul's writings. I would write the whole argument out again but you're not reading it in any of the other posts that have stated it rather clearly. The reasoning is far from circular. There have been historical points offered as well as evidence outside that of the scriptures. Are you actually reading and considering what other people are saying?

Edited February 22, 2010 by erkjohn

[Ham]

But, the bottom line is. . . . if Paul lied. . . . . we got nothing.

did you ever think of the alternative..

if Paul lied, we still.. have everything..

Edited February 22, 2010 by Ham

[Ham]

:)

Edited February 22, 2010 by Ham

[waysider]

"But, the bottom line is. . . . if Paul lied. . . . . we got nothing."

Suppose the epistles had been lost or destroyed or not even written. Would you have nothing? What about the psalms and proverbs, the ten commandments, the parables of Jesus, The Beatitudes? Could you "love your neighbor as yourself" without the epistles? Could a person still believe in the resurrection without the epistles?

[roberterasmus]

"But, the bottom line is. . . . if Paul lied. . . . . we got nothing."

Suppose the epistles had been lost or destroyed or not even written. Would you have nothing? What about the psalms and proverbs, the ten commandments, the parables of Jesus, The Beatitudes? Could you "love your neighbor as yourself" without the epistles? Could a person still believe in the resurrection without the epistles?

Great point Waysider,

There were early Christian groups (early ones) that did not have the Pauline epistles and others that had parts of them (or decided to "accept" only parts of them) and there are groups today (in seminaries and divinity schools) that reject much of the Pauline corpus. Sure, they can believe in the resurrection without the epistles. The gospels record the event. And the rest of the stuff is, of course, available...if they are Scripture.

The overreaching data in the fourteen church epistles is about the "secret of God" and that's what people would be missing. All the stuff "in Christ" that is available or not...if they are fake or spurious.

RE

[geisha779]

"But, the bottom line is. . . . if Paul lied. . . . . we got nothing."

Suppose the epistles had been lost or destroyed or not even written. Would you have nothing? What about the psalms and proverbs, the ten commandments, the parables of Jesus, The Beatitudes? Could you "love your neighbor as yourself" without the epistles? Could a person still believe in the resurrection without the epistles?

This is where considering what they and the gospels say. . . . comes in handy. Sunesis laid it out beautifully for you. Grace for the believing Jew and who?

I don't know Waysider, do people love their neighbors? Was that love when they crucified Jesus after He told them that? Didn't they see the miracles? Didn't they already have the ten commandments . . . .psalms and proverbs and can anyone keep the law?

What was the whole point of the resurrection? Do all sin and come short of the glory of God?

According to the Paul(Corrected) over 500 witnesses saw the resurrected Christ. . . . were any of those hostile witnesses? What about Herod himself? He paid off the guards so they would not say anything. . . . he knew what happened.

Sure a person could believe the resurrection . . . . or simply look at a waterfall . . . what did Jesus say would be sent so we could believe it? But, again . . . . Jesus came for who? The gentile? What did Jesus Himself say? "I come for the gentile??"

How did it work before Paul's revelation? What was Peter's issue? Why was Peter still withdrawing himself from the gentiles? Why did the Judiazers oppose Paul. On what grounds?

What was changing after the resurrection?

But, we do have Paul's epistles . . . it did unfold like it did . . . . and they do lay out the plan for the church. . . . and all that Robert mentioned . . . . . the same church Jesus said He would build. So, "what if" is just a game.

I knew when I wrote that line. . . . that would be the one honed in on, . . . . did you read the rest of my post? It lays out exactly what I meant by it. I am now just repeating myself.

Edited February 22, 2010 by geisha779

[geisha779]

Yes. There's always an element of credibility. Paul said we should all speak in tongues so we all spoke in tongues. Why? Because we trusted his perceived credibility. And why have we concluded Paul was a credible source? Because we have accepted that "holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit"/ "All scripture is God-breathed"/ "The epistle were written directly to us as The Church of God"/ etc. And who was it who introduced us to Paul's criteria for scripture valuation? Well, what do you know? It was Paul. Of course, he must have been credible because the epistles depict him as a "holy man of God" who spoke to "The Church of God".

Waysider,

In all sincerity. . . . what if . . . you are simply reading Paul's words wrong here. . . . . you are saying Paul said we should all speak in tongues . . . . because that is what VP told you Paul meant.

What if, Paul is saying to the Corinthians. . . . who were coveting gifts . . . especially tongues . . . . Yeah, sure it would be great if everyone spoke in tongues, but even better if everyone could prophesy . . . . . but, I don't want you coveting gifts . . . . .not everyone has the same gift. . . . hey, it would be great if we all had miracles and healing too. . . . but, the better thing for you to be coveting is love.

Seems to me that here you are still taking VP's word that Paul meant we SHOULD all SIT. Seems it is VP's credibility you are still relying on for your understanding . . . .and a jumping off point for questioning Paul's words.

What if Paul never meant it the way it was taught to us. Put's Paul's credibility in a new light on this issue. Especially if Paul was being sarcastic in reproving a covetous church.

[soul searcher]

According to the gospels over 500 witnesses saw the resurrected Christ

Acutally (and please correct me if I'm wrong), it only adds up to over 500 people if you take into account 1 Corinthians 15:6 ("After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time...)

I don't believe that any of the four synoptic gospels mention "hundreds" who saw the resurrected Jesus.

So then it seems that Jesus appeared to over 500, but only according to Paul ("thus saith Paul" ha-ha!)

Anyway, it's not important. I didn't bring this up to take sides with anyone.

Carry on!

[geisha779]

Acutally (and please correct me if I'm wrong), it only adds up to over 500 people if you take into account 1 Corinthians 15:6 ("After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time...)

I don't believe that any of the four synoptic gospels mention "hundreds" who saw the resurrected Jesus.

So then it seems that Jesus appeared to over 500, but only according to Paul ("thus saith Paul" ha-ha!)

Anyway, it's not important. I didn't bring this up to take sides with anyone.

Carry on!

LOL True. . . . good point! I should actually look at my bible sometimes. . . . . and of course. . . . . Paul and his credibility problem just blows that out of the water. :) Made me laugh out loud. . . . thanks. . . . I corrected it.

I am done here. . . . . it is way too contentious for me. . . . . and I am fairly contentious.

Edited February 22, 2010 by geisha779

[soul searcher]

Nice that you have a sense of humor, geisha!

[JeffSjo]

Even Paul had the sense to admit something along the lines of that if Christ wasn't raised from the dead that he was to be a most pitiable man in terms of suffering for a worthless cause, right? (1 Co 15)

Now if Paul lived in an RV even while parked a few yards from his and his wife's bed and had a steady flow of vulnerable women brought to him; or ruthlessly crushed many whose only sin was not giving the supposed MOG all the glory that would have been a big clue that Paul wasn't all that he made himself out to be.

I am glad that Paul sized up his situation honestly, IMO. And in Paul's case there has never been any credible accusers, let alone a Way Ministry abundance of victims, lawyers, and lawsuit cover-ups.

And hypothetically speaking I can not imagine the histories of Paul's immense good will and personal sacrifice in the face of tremendous odds to have been fabricated since at the time Christianity had zero weight in terms of official political power. Heck when Christianity had political power all the stories of it's abuses has survived the centuries when virtually all records in Western Europe were controlled by the church.

Edited February 22, 2010 by JeffSjo

[irisheyes]

Sunesis: You seem to have left out a whole group of people and I realize you may have done that purposely, but what about the unbelievers? What about the goats? Matt. 25:32 talks about all the nations being gathered before him so he can separate the sheep from the goats. That is a pretty simple thing to do, even for us; goats and sheep are pretty easy to tell apart. They will judge themselves! I don't get too hung up on all the judgments, as there are so many scenarios and the one that matters most is those of us who belong to the Body of Christ and we should strive to that end. It has taken me a full 30 years to realize I am never going to understand it all.

All through though this thread we have people saying, "God said this." or, " God said that.".

Did He? Or did Paul say "this" or "that"? Then, it all comes back around to, "Well, the scriptures are God-breathed." How do we know? "God said so." No, He didn't. Paul did. "Well, holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." Did God say that?----or was it Paul who made that statement?

Does that make Paul a con-man? Does it make him a liar? No. But it doesn't make those statements the "absolute truth" either.

Edited February 22, 2010 by irisheyes

[irisheyes]

Sunesis: You seem to have left out a whole group of people and I realize you may have done that purposely, but what about the unbelievers? What about the goats? Matt. 25:32 talks about all the nations being gathered before him so he can separate the sheep from the goats. That is a pretty simple thing to do, even for us; goats and sheep are pretty easy to tell apart. They will judge themselves! I don't get too hung up on all the judgments, as there are so many scenarios and the one that matters most is those of us who belong to the Body of Christ and we should strive to that end. It has taken me a full 30 years to realize I am never going to understand it all.

I obviously don't have how to reply correct, but this is for Waysider. And, I imagine, I might ruffle some feathers:

Luke 1:1-4 "Since many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, I too decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very first, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the truth concerning the things about which you have been instructed."

I almost fell over reading this a few weeks ago. Luke's gospel starts with an affirmation claiming he decided to write this account after studying the eyewitness accounts, etc. Luke goes on to set forth his own claim. "In the Greek text, these first four verses comprise a single sentence, the purpose of which is to impress, to underscore the trustworthiness of the ensuing narrative, and thus to gain a favorable hearing." This type of narrative is to provide a faithful accounting of the significance of what has happened not to prove that these things actually happened. (NIB p. 1851)

Whether what is quoted here is accurate or not, the fact still remains that Luke makes it clear he decided to research the facts and he decided to write them down. He was not an apostle. He was not even an eyewitness. Was he inspired? I certainly hope so, but that is not what he has stated. Even in Acts 1:1 he says "I wrote about all that Jesus did..." Me, myself and I: Luke. So, bottom line, you have something there in wondering if all of what Paul wrote was actually "revelation." Sure I can hear the argument now that if I can throw out Luke, so and so can throw out Acts, or whatever. But, honestly, what on earth is Luke saying if he isn't saying this was inspiration???

[Gen-2]

Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

So how much of "thine own understanding" is required? Is it such that if you do not know every detail,... you're just screwed?

In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths. Be not wise in thine own eyes....

So He can direct you paths,... or uh,... or you can? ...or we can let Paul do it... <grin>

It would seem we have optionsI went over this with a friend of mine who smirked and smiled and squirmed a bit and said,.... "Well in the *CHURCH* you don't have to think for yourself; Other people will conveniently do that for you." he continued, "God's advice in proverbs three is for the individual, and sits there to help level the playing field. See Katie," he said, "If the Brtain trust at the church goes Whacky Nu-Noo, ...You have to rely on God and common sense and a does of wisdom to keep your feet from getting you where you shouldn't be. If you have to choose between God and Man, always pick God, even if you lose a friend in the process."

It sounds rather harsh, but has an overriding ring of sense, since ultimately we'll have to stand there and see what gets burned and what gets rewards, and it won't matter then what those "Church" people said back in the day,... just what you did with it all.

[irisheyes]

Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

So how much of "thine own understanding" is required? Is it such that if you do not know every detail,... you're just screwed?

In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths. Be not wise in thine own eyes....

So He can direct you paths,... or uh,... or you can? ...or we can let Paul do it... <grin>

It would seem we have optionsI went over this with a friend of mine who smirked and smiled and squirmed a bit and said,.... "Well in the *CHURCH* you don't have to think for yourself; Other people will conveniently do that for you." he continued, "God's advice in proverbs three is for the individual, and sits there to help level the playing field. See Katie," he said, "If the Brtain trust at the church goes Whacky Nu-Noo, ...You have to rely on God and common sense and a does of wisdom to keep your feet from getting you where you shouldn't be. If you have to choose between God and Man, always pick God, even if you lose a friend in the process."

It sounds rather harsh, but has an overriding ring of sense, since ultimately we'll have to stand there and see what gets burned and what gets rewards, and it won't matter then what those "Church" people said back in the day,... just what you did with it all.

Gen-2: If we needed to know every single detail don't you think it would be a whole lot clearer? I often wonder that myself. I do think, however, that the church was meant to operate efficiently within the realm of human error. There are checks and balances. There should be ways to get along even if we don't agree on every little thing. I kinda think that just like there are Republicans and Democrats in these here United States, there were and are democrats and republicans within the church. Like in Jesus' time. There were the Pharisees (liberal) versus the Saduccees (hardcore). Maybe that's a pretty lame example, but if you consider how the Old Testament books are written from different points of view at times, you could almost think that is what has been happening since the get-go. Regardless, although TWI didn't have the right intentions they might have been right with the small group theory. No one can handle all the needs in the church. No way anyone could keep track. Like when Moses had to DELEGATE. Acts is a great example of how the church learned to delegate and keep tabs on everyone so no one was missed, so the widows got fed, etc. If we know we are supposed to take care of each other, the how isn't really so important. It's the doing it that counts. And, I am not assuming you don't already know this. Or even agree. But, will we all ever agree?

[Sunesis]

Well, we do have over 30,000 Christian denominations, so I don't think you're going to see all Christians agreeing. I imagine that's why it is more important to God that we keep the unity of the Spirit - not the flesh. Sometimes I gotta admire the Catholic Church - they may not agree but after 1800 years or so - its still one church plugging along.

Irish eyes, basically, the Bible has three divisions of people - Jew, Gentile, One Body (Church - age of grace). I was talking about "believers." Paul was sent to the Gentiles. The Gentiles of the world were blessed through Abraham.

That's why Romans is so amazing. The Jews said - we are God's chosen and righteous under the law. They had been under the law for so long, they had forgotten that Abraham was called, made righteous and justified by faith a few hundred years before the law - i.e., when he was a gentile. So Paul in Romans says, I know this is hard for my fellow Jews to believe, but the Gentiles are now "grafted in." They can share fully in your Hope. Remember Abe? All is takes is simple faith - he was made righteous because he believed - not by the Law. Gentiles do not have to do the law to be righteous.

Concerning "unbelievers" - here's the bottom line for me. We know, there is coming one day, a NEW Heaven and a New earth. It will be a brand new habitat. Maybe the laws of physics will be different - who knows, but it will be different. That's been the whole message of the Bible - a new Kingdom is coming, that's what Jesus preached and the Apostles. Those who live then will need a new body designed for this new place. When someone is born again he is sealed with spirit - he will have that eternal, immortal, different, changed, glorious new body. There will be no sin. God is Holy. He sent his Son to make us worthy. An "unbeliever", like a vegetarian who is repulsed by meat, is repulsed by God.

For all people, eventually, a choice needs to be made - spend eternity with God - or no. Many will choose - no. Is that unfair of God? No. Why? because it would be unfair of Him to force that person to believe and love him. To force one to believe is coercion and grossly unfair and oversteps a man's free will. Will God "torture" them? No, God does not torture. But, all will see his glory. Every knee shall bow (whether they like Him or not).

The only remorse one will have, who freely choose not to be with God for eternity, will be gnashing of teeth after they have seen glory - despair for what could have been, for what was rejected, for what was deliberately missed out on.

Edited February 23, 2010 by Sunesis

[irisheyes]

Well, we do have over 30,000 Christian denominations, so I don't think you're going to see all Christians agreeing. I imagine that's why it is more important to God that we keep the unity of the Spirit - not the flesh. Sometimes I gotta admire the Catholic Church - they may not agree but after 1800 years or so - its still one church plugging along.

Irish eyes, basically, the Bible has three divisions of people - Jew, Gentile, One Body (Church - age of grace). I was talking about "believers." Paul was sent to the Gentiles. The Gentiles of the world were blessed through Abraham.

That's why Romans is so amazing. The Jews said - we are God's chosen and righteous under the law. They had been under the law for so long, they had forgotten that Abraham was called, made righteous and justified by faith a few hundred years before the law - i.e., when he was a gentile. So Paul in Romans says, I know this is hard for my fellow Jews to believe, but the Gentiles are now "grafted in." They can share fully in your Hope. Remember Abe? All is takes is simple faith - he was made righteous because he believed - not by the Law. Gentiles do not have to do the law to be righteous.

Concerning "unbelievers" - here's the bottom line for me. We know, there is coming one day, a NEW Heaven and a New earth. It will be a brand new habitat. Maybe the laws of physics will be different - who knows, but it will be different. That's been the whole message of the Bible - a new Kingdom is coming, that's what Jesus preached and the Apostles. Those who live then will need a new body designed for this new place. When someone is born again he is sealed with spirit - he will have that eternal, immortal, different, changed, glorious new body. There will be no sin. God is Holy. He sent his Son to make us worthy. An "unbeliever", like a vegetarian who is repulsed by meat, is repulsed by God.

For all people, eventually, a choice needs to be made - spend eternity with God - or no. Many will choose - no. Is that unfair of God? No. Why? because it would be unfair of Him to force that person to believe and love him. To force one to believe is coercion and grossly unfair and oversteps a man's free will. Will God "torture" them? No, God does not torture. But, all will see his glory. Every knee shall bow (whether they like Him or not).

The only remorse one will have, who freely choose not to be with God for eternity, will be gnashing of teeth after they have seen glory - despair for what could have been, for what was rejected, for what was deliberately missed out on.

U R preaching to the choir.

[Sunesis]

You asked, I thought it was a serious question. Ok, no more preaching.

[geisha779]

You asked, I thought it was a serious question. Ok, no more preaching.

Amazing posts Sunesis. . . . I truly appreciate you dealing with the content of the message. Please continue! I am really enjoying it.

Other than a few cartoons of dogs chasing their tails and the argument that Paul said all scripture was inspired and he wrote scripture "so" . . .. . . .also an assumption that is why we believe it .. . . . . . and our shared relationship to an actual con-man. . . . I am still confused by the premise of the thread.

Dealing in terms of culture, with the reaction to Paul's message, both positive(which is evidenced by the church today) and negative. . . . which is laid out in some detail by Luke and by Paul's defense of his apostleship . . . . . the gravity of Paul's conversion in light of culture . . . . the content of the message. . . . . the result if he were a conman . . . meaning if he was not sent directly to the gentiles.. . . you and I will have to convert to convert. . . . . . and explored theology. . . . I think your insight is awesome.

I get that we had an unhealthy relationship with scripture in TWI . . . . could not agree more. . . . but, dismissing huge parts of the cannonized text as not authoritative based on simplistic reasoning doesn't seem all that sound to me either. At the very least, consider the merit of the message. . .. in light of all contributing factors and THEN dismiss it. . . . . no?

Dismissing all or most scripture seems short-sighted too . . . . it is a reality. . . . we have a bible . . . . and we are confronted with many options in dealing with it.

Edited February 23, 2010 by geisha779

[soul searcher]

...dismissing huge parts of the cannonized text as not authoritative based on simplistic reasoning doesn't seem all that sound to me either.

I'm interested in the canonization process. I don't know too much about it but...

...wouldn't the set of books that ultimately comprised the canon of the Christian bible reflect the theology of those who put it together? (i.e., King James and the people he commissioned)

@Sunesis: great post.

Edited February 23, 2010 by soul searcher