52 replies to this topic

[Toadie]

Give an example of christ being an example of living? What do you based your life on, what is God based life? Give me an example of slipping into the world and following God?

Or you simply don't know

[WoIverine]

Maybe Paul's "thorn in the flesh" was a combination of "eye issues", and a sinful nature. Lust. Remember:

"And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire."

This doesn't mean that Paul acted on his desires whatever those might have been, but simply seeing and then entertaining those ideas could've been considered sinful in their own right.

[B Jenkins]

Toadie, on 17 May 2012 - 01:50 PM, said:

Give an example of christ being an example of living? What do you based your life on, what is God based life? Give me an example of slipping into the world and following God?

Or you simply don't know

Following Christ's examples.

Building a relationship with God and uphold Biblical values.

Backsliding and willfully sinning, being negligent towards Christ and paying more mind to the world and its pursuits, its pleasures, its boastful prides. Placing anything or object before Christ in your life.

[Ben Masada]

J. K., on 16 May 2012 - 04:10 PM, said:

At what point in time were the "little things" no longer needed?  How was that change communicated to humanity?

At what point in time were blood sacrifices no longer required for forgiveness of sin?  How was that change communicated to humanity?

The "little things" were no longer needed with the development of thechnology. Since then, we no longer need to have with us any device to dig holes in the sand to release ourselves because we enjoy the possession of restrooms. And about the animal sacrifices, they were never necessary for the forgiveness of sins. Evidence of what I am saying is in Daniel 9:24. After 70 years of exile in Babylon, the transgression and sin that had caused the People to be exiled stopped and ended, without a single blood sacrifice to be offered.
Ben

Edited by Ben Masada, 22 May 2012 - 07:25 PM.

[J. K.]

Ben Masada, on 22 May 2012 - 07:23 PM, said:

The "little things" were no longer needed with the development of thechnology. Since then, we no longer need to have with us any device to dig holes in the sand to release ourselves because we enjoy the possession of restrooms.

I enjoy your esoteric interpretations.  Please correct me if I am wrong; were not the "little things" communicated to the Hebrews by God through Moses?  How then did God express that the benefits of technology would supersede His word?

[Ben Masada]

Paranoid Android, on 17 May 2012 - 03:10 AM, said:

1- How do you suppose Paul was a Hellenist Jew?  According to his own words, he was a Pharisee.  Oh, let me guess - it disagrees with your Jewish sensibilities and therefore must be inaccurate.  But other parts that support your argument, you are happy to quote as authoritative   Good fun.

2- You mentioned that you have read Romans 8, but I have a hard time believing that, unless you totally ignored it.  In that chapter, Paul extends on what he means by living according to the flesh and to the spirit.  There is NO INDICATION that you can serve God in the spirit while serving sin in the flesh.  Chapter 8 goes into detail as to how one must strive to follow the spirit and turn away from following the flesh.  For following the spirit is to follow God, and turning away from the flesh is turning away from sin.  At no point is Paul advocating that we can follow our minds/Spirit while allowing our bodies to follow flesh/sin and thus serve two masters.  Only one master can be served - will it be the flesh or the spirit that is to be served though?

3- I wonder why you chose to take a totally unfounded assertion that the sin of the flesh that Paul is struggling with was homosexuality (along with the equally unfounded assertion that Paul was a Hellenistic Jew, mentioned in point 1 above).  You are free to your own unfounded opinions, but it seems strange then that Paul would introduce the book of Romans with a passage such as 1:26-28.

Well, let me prove to you that my assertion about Paul is not unfounded: First of all, according to the thread, the exception to the rule that one cannot serve two masters applied to Paul only and to no other, according to Romans 7:25. Chapter 8 makes that clear that, no one else could serve God and flesh at the same time.

Second, how do I suppose that Paul was a Hellenist Jew and never a Pharisee? According to Pharisaic policy, a Hellenist Jew would never be accepted into the Sect  due to their moral looseness as it was blatant among Hellenists, including the Jewish ones. And then, because of Paul's gospel about Jesus as being too akin to the Greek myth of the demigod, which is the son of a god with an earthly woman. Let along the doctrine of life after death and consciousness in the Hades or world of the dead; you know, things of the realm of the Iliad of Homer.

Do not let youself be misled by his declaration that he was a Pharisee. He declared himself that he could be any thing according to the circumstances; a Jew among the Jews, a Gentile among the Gentiles, anything anywhere among all things. Then, he had a habit to lie too often. Given the evidences, we are safe to discard that he was a Pharisee.

You mention above that "there is no indication that one can serve God in the spirit and sin in the flesh." It means that you either do not understand Rom. 7:25 or refuse to, perhaps, due to the apparent contradiction.

Regarding my assertion that Paul's thorn in the flesh was his struggle against repressed homosexual feelings is based on the fact that it was a sinful condition which he could not get rid of, and anything else you can think of, cannot be taken as sinful. It is due also to his attitude against women, as he would advise single men not to take a woman in marriage and stay as he was, free of women. This is  absolutely an un-Jewish attitude, when marriage is rather a commandment. (I Cor. 7:8) This is, for lack of a better judgment, a homosexual attitude. So much so that, once, in the synagogue of Antioch, a group of women raised such a bitter persecution against him and Banabas that Paul got so upset that he decided that from then on, he would finally go to the Gentiles. (Acts 13:50,51) But then, he reconsidered his rash decision and went to the synagogue of Iconium. (Acts 14:1)

There is something I am still researching about Barnabas that the women didn't like him either. After 14 years - Gal. 2:1 -  that Paul had been chased away from Jerusalem and back to Tarsus, the synagogue of Antioch had grown our of propotions and the headquarters in Jerusalem sent Barnabas, a Nazarene VIP, to take charge of the synagogue. Instead of doing his work as he was bid, he went to Tarsus looking for Paul to come to work with him. (Acts 11:22,25)  After a whole year that Paul was in the synagogue of Antioch, the disciples  started being called Christians for the first time. (Acts 11:26) Then, the women got fed up with them both and expelled them out. (Acts 13:50) I have been under the impression that they were living together as boy-friends to each other. Just still a thought.
Ben

Edited by Ben Masada, 22 May 2012 - 08:45 PM.

[Ben Masada]

J. K., on 22 May 2012 - 08:09 PM, said:

I enjoy your esoteric interpretations.  Please correct me if I am wrong; were not the "little things" communicated to the Hebrews by God through Moses?  How then did God express that the benefits of technology would supersede His word?

Please, J. K., you are not helping me! All these little things were right out of Moses' mind. To think of God being that involved with human affairs is to anthropomorphize Him down to the level of the gods of the Olympian Pantheon of Greek Mythology. Have you ever read the Iliad of Homer? They are all there. Moses was dealing with a people who had just come out of a 430 years slavery in Egypt. Hence, he would attribute every thing to God to borrow Divine authority to his way to govern the people. After all, they were sure that God Himself had sent Moses with that mission.
Ben

Edited by Ben Masada, 22 May 2012 - 08:57 PM.

[Paranoid Android]

Ben Masada, on 22 May 2012 - 08:33 PM, said:

Well, let me prove to you that my assertion about Paul is not unfounded: First of all, according to the thread, the exception to the rule that one cannot serve two masters applied to Paul only and to no other, according to Romans 7:25. Chapter 8 makes that clear that, no one else could serve God and flesh at the same time.

I'm sorry, but when I read 7:25 that is not at all the impression I get.  Paul is making a statement that by following the mind he follows Christ and by following the flesh he follows sin.  Chapter 8 then expands on this concept by explaining how there is no condemnation for those found in Jesus Christ (8:1).  You are treating the end of chapter 7 and the start of chapter 8 as if Paul is ending one thought and beginning a new (though related) thought.  Remember that there were originally no chapter/verse breakdowns in the text, this was put in for us as a reference tool.  There is no logical reason to view 7:25 as a reference only to Paul and chapter 8 a reference to the rest of us.

Ben Masada, on 22 May 2012 - 08:33 PM, said:

Second, how do I suppose that Paul was a Hellenist Jew and never a Pharisee? According to Pharisaic policy, a Hellenist Jew would never be accepted into the Sect  due to their moral looseness as it was blatant among Hellenists, including the Jewish ones. And then, because of Paul's gospel about Jesus as being too akin to the Greek myth of the demigod, which is the son of a god with an earthly woman. Let along the doctrine of life after death and consciousness in the Hades or world of the dead; you know, things of the realm of the Iliad of Homer.

Do not let youself be misled by his declaration that he was a Pharisee. He declared himself that he could be any thing according to the circumstances; a Jew among the Jews, a Gentile among the Gentiles, anything anywhere among all things. Then, he had a habit to lie too often. Given the evidences, we are safe to discard that he was a Pharisee.

First, the Greek idea of a demigod is that the product is a half-man/half-god creature, neither fully human or fully God.  Jesus is not a half-breed.  He was fully 100% human, and he was fully and 100% divine.  Jesus' birth is not like any Greek idea, but finds its roots in Judaism.  For the rest, it depends on whether you believe Paul when he says he was a Pharisee.  You are misquoting Paul if you wish to cast aspersions on his "to the Jew I became a Jew, to the Gentile I became a Gentile" speech.  This is not an indication that we can dismiss his claims of being a Pharisee.  That you even use this argument shows you are willing to stretch way beyond the text, or you simply don't understand the text.  As of this moment, I'm not sure which it is.

Ben Masada, on 22 May 2012 - 08:33 PM, said:

You mention above that "there is no indication that one can serve God in the spirit and sin in the flesh." It means that you either do not understand Rom. 7:25 or refuse to, perhaps, due to the apparent contradiction.

Or perhaps YOU don't understand Romans 7:25???

Ben Masada, on 22 May 2012 - 08:33 PM, said:

Regarding my assertion that Paul's thorn in the flesh was his struggle against repressed homosexual feelings is based on the fact that it was a sinful condition which he could not get rid of, and anything else you can think of, cannot be taken as sinful. It is due also to his attitude against women, as he would advise single men not to take a woman in marriage and stay as he was, free of women. This is  absolutely an un-Jewish attitude, when marriage is rather a commandment. (I Cor. 7:8) This is, for lack of a better judgment, a homosexual attitude. So much so that, once, in the synagogue of Antioch, a group of women raised such a bitter persecution against him and Banabas that Paul got so upset that he decided that from then on, he would finally go to the Gentiles. (Acts 13:50,51) But then, he reconsidered his rash decision and went to the synagogue of Iconium. (Acts 14:1)

Paul suggests that men remain unmarried, but he also says that if a man wishes to marry then they are free to do so, they are not acting wrong.  For the record, Paul's comments equally apply to women, not just men. You are stretching if you think this is a reference to Paul being homosexual.  Tell me, if Paul was gay and sinned in the flesh, why would he begin the book of Romans with the following statement:

For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.  And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.  They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.  Though they know God's decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

~ Romans 1:26-32

~ Regards, PA

[Karlis]

Paranoid Android, on 23 May 2012 - 02:49 AM, said:

~~~ ...





Paul suggests that men remain unmarried, ...  You are stretching if you think this is a reference to Paul being homosexual. ...




~ Regards, PA

Ben, just another thought as to why Paul strongly suggested "that men remain unmarried". It was generally accepted that "the end of the age" was just about to come, and that Jesus was about to return to establish his Kingdom on the Earth. Paul and the early church were convinced that when that happened, they would be turned into immortal spirit beings -- a new type of entity -- who would then not be married.

Another point that Paul taught, was that single, committed Christians, in those tumultuous times were incomparably more capable of committing themselves to spreading the news about the coming Kingdom, than married people who had responsibility for a wife and possibly children.

With those thoughts in mind, think about the implication of the following Scriptures:

1Co 1:7  So that ye ... waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ:

1Co 1:8  ... unto the end, that ye may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.

(Above) = "Waiting for the coming." Paul and the church expected Jesus to return within a very short time.

(And they expected "the end" of the existing world rule):
1Co 4:5  Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, ...
1Co 7:29  But this I say, brethren, the time is short:
1Co 10:11  ... written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.


Hope this sheds some more light on the reasons why Paul suggested that remaining single was an advantage to them.

Karlis

[Paranoid Android]

Karlis, on 23 May 2012 - 04:15 AM, said:

Ben, just another thought as to why Paul strongly suggested "that men remain unmarried"....

Thanks Karlis, I considered bringing up some of the other reasons why Paul said what he said, but I thought it might just overly complicate what is really a very simple issue.  What you wrote is quite true, and offers a more reasonable approach for why Paul would suggest remaining single.

[Realm]

Mammon is a term, derived from the Christian Bible, used to describe material wealth or greed

Mat_6:24
No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other.
Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

Jesus was simply saying you cannot serve God, and money. You see how some people are materialistic.

Same thing your God said, yet you bash Jesus for it.

Psa 52:7
Lo, this is the man that made not God his strength; but trusted in the abundance of his riches, and strengthened himself in his wickedness.

[J. K.]

Ben Masada, on 22 May 2012 - 08:56 PM, said:

Please, J. K., you are not helping me!

If I have caused you stress in some way, I do apologize; that was not my intention.  All I'm trying to do is understand your theological position.  (I'm not helping you, in what way?)

Quote

All these little things were right out of Moses' mind. To think of God being that involved with human affairs is to anthropomorphize Him down to the level of the gods of the Olympian Pantheon of Greek Mythology. Have you ever read the Iliad of Homer? They are all there. Moses was dealing with a people who had just come out of a 430 years slavery in Egypt. Hence, he would attribute every thing to God to borrow Divine authority to his way to govern the people. After all, they were sure that God Himself had sent Moses with that mission.

Do you also deny that God interacted with Abraham and Jacob in a personal way?  Is there any part of the Bible that you accept as coming from God?

[Ben Masada]

Paranoid Android, on 23 May 2012 - 02:49 AM, said:

Quote

I'm sorry, but when I read 7:25 that is not at all the impression I get.  Paul is making a statement that by following the mind he follows Christ and by following the flesh he follows sin.

And, of course, your conclusion is that Paul would follow Christ by following the mind, and not sin by following the flesh.  Let us take an extra look at the text to clarify this problem. His statement goes thus: "So, with my mind I serve the Law of God, but with my flesh the law of sin." (Rom. 7:25) And why would he praise God for that possibility? Because he was in Christ, which waved for him the condenation of his behavior. IMHO, there is no explanation of his here that by following the mind, he would follow Christ and by following the flesh, he would follow sin. The message is quite clear that he was actually in the performance of both conditions.

  

Quote

Chapter 8 then expands on this concept by explaining how there is no condemnation for those found in Jesus Christ (8:1).  You are treating the end of chapter 7 and the start of chapter 8 as if Paul is ending one thought and beginning a new (though related) thought.  Remember that there were originally no chapter/verse breakdowns in the text, this was put in for us as a reference tool.  There is no logical reason to view 7:25 as a reference only to Paul and chapter 8 a reference to the rest of us.

Really! So, why would he condemn homosexuality in such strong terms as he did in Romans 1:26-32? Unless the man was the personification of contradiction.

Quote

First, the Greek idea of a demigod is that the product is a half-man/half-god creature, neither fully human or fully God.  Jesus is not a half-breed.  He was fully 100% human, and he was fully and 100% divine.

A 100% fully god could never be born of flesh, even according to Greek Mythology; let alone according to Jesus' Faith, which was Judaism. You are complicating further what is already so complex that only by faith is possible to be accommodated.

  

Quote

Jesus' birth is not like any Greek idea, but finds its roots in Judaism.

Please, PA, don't do that to me! Would you be so kind, in that case, as to show me the Jewish roots for such idea? Can you quote anything of the sort in the Tanach?

Quote

For the rest, it depends on whether you believe Paul when he says he was a Pharisee.  You are misquoting Paul if you wish to cast aspersions on his "to the Jew I became a Jew, to the Gentile I became a Gentile" speech.  This is not an indication that we can dismiss his claims of being a Pharisee.  That you even use this argument shows you are willing to stretch way beyond the text, or you simply don't understand the text.  As of this moment, I'm not sure which it is.

PA, I repeat: A religious Jew could never join the Sect of the Pharisees. That's as simple as that.

Quote

Paul suggests that men remain unmarried, but he also says that if a man wishes to marry then they are free to do so, they are not acting wrong.  For the record, Paul's comments equally apply to women, not just men. You are stretching if you think this is a reference to Paul being homosexual.  Tell me, if Paul was gay and sinned in the flesh, why would he begin the book of Romans with the following statement:

What did I say in my post? He advised that men remained as he was: Unmarried. Of course he suggested. He could not command. The women would have killed him, as they indeed almost did it in Antioch. (Acts 13:50)

Quote

For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.  And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.  They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.  Though they know God's decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

~ Romans 1:26-32

I have commented above on this. It only spells contradiction of one's opinion about himself.

Ben

Edited by Ben Masada, 23 May 2012 - 08:26 PM.

[Ben Masada]

Karlis, on 23 May 2012 - 04:15 AM, said:

Ben, just another thought as to why Paul strongly suggested "that men remain unmarried". It was generally accepted that "the end of the age" was just about to come, and that Jesus was about to return to establish his Kingdom on the Earth. Paul and the early church were convinced that when that happened, they would be turned into immortal spirit beings -- a new type of entity -- who would then not be married.

Another point that Paul taught, was that single, committed Christians, in those tumultuous times were incomparably more capable of committing themselves to spreading the news about the coming Kingdom, than married people who had responsibility for a wife and possibly children.

With those thoughts in mind, think about the implication of the following Scriptures:

1Co 1:7  So that ye ... waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ:

1Co 1:8  ... unto the end, that ye may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.

(Above) = "Waiting for the coming." Paul and the church expected Jesus to return within a very short time.

(And they expected "the end" of the existing world rule):
1Co 4:5  Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, ...
1Co 7:29  But this I say, brethren, the time is short:
1Co 10:11  ... written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.


Hope this sheds some more light on the reasons why Paul suggested that remaining single was an advantage to them.

Karlis

According to your point of view, that could be true. But, was that Paul's reason to suggest that men remained without women as he was?
I strongly don't think so, especially considering that he lived with Barnabas, who had a strange fixation on him.
Ben

Edited by Ben Masada, 23 May 2012 - 08:37 PM.

[Ben Masada]

J. K., on 23 May 2012 - 12:49 PM, said:

If I have caused you stress in some way, I do apologize; that was not my intention.  All I'm trying to do is understand your theological position.  (I'm not helping you, in what way?)



Do you also deny that God interacted with Abraham and Jacob in a personal way?  Is there any part of the Bible that you accept as coming from God?

Yes, J.K., I do deny that God would ever interacts with any one on a personal basis. If you read Numbers 12:6, it says in there that, "Should there be a prophet among you, in visions will I reveal Myself to him; in dreams will I speak to him." That's how God interacts with man. In the case, a prophet. When Albert Einstein was asked if he was an atheist, he answered and said: "Never! But I cannot refer to God on a personal basis." And that was the same attitude of Baruch de spinoza.
Ben