BALDUCCI

Thanks Chris. I have just responded to another post in which he says Jesus was not a Jew otherwise he would have been a sinner like all the rest. I was wondering at that moment whether he is a satirist. Some of the opaque stuff sounds so much like our local Catholic priest, and yet even weirder, that I concluded that he must be giving us a camp version of religious no-speak. Its good to have a heads-up.

Chili

When it comes across to you as gibberish it is probably a jewel.

Doug Shaver

You're not the only one.

Mr. Logic

Interesting that grace is seen as a marketing tool. What is so interesting is that Oprah is viewed in our society as some kind of Savior, while she lives in a house more expensive than the most expensive house ever sold in California.

She is a Sales Person, and she caters to a target audience, and tells them what they want to hear. Yet not long ago, Rosie O, beat her in the ratings, and was known then as, get this, "The Queen of Nice"! Now that My Friend is a marketing tool. She is the Queen of nice, and Cronkite (The Dogmatic Atheist, unlike most Americans) was the most trusted Man in America. Michael Jackson was the King of Pop, and on and on it goes. All of these titles were given by the People themselves or their Corporate Leaders.

Now, back to Paul. Where was his Mansion? His "marketing tool of grace by faith almost got him left for dead time and time again.

No one understands grace by faith at first. We are born into a carnal world and rely on our outward senses. If you honestly and objectively look at what Paul taught about grace by faith (IOW come to realize what that means) then you will understand that Paul taught psychology almost 2,000 years before it became a science; and if you understand what most "Religious" Christians teach then you will understand that they say they believe Paul while teaching the exact opposite!

Example: Baptist Preacher, Charles Stanley has stated that there are some things that you just don't challenge! Well of course not, or you would realize that he doesn't know much about scripture. We can't have that!
We would realize that he ignores the scripture that says "Seek the Truth in ALL things, and hold to that which is true"!

First of all, anyone who isn't smart enough to read "Let there be no divisions among you" can't know much about scripture. That's like a group of People born under the Aries sign coming together to protest, saying "We Aries don't believe in that Astrology stuff"! <s>

Grace by faith is what will set you free from religion, and all it's self righteousness.
Buildings are no longer needed to worship God in, and rituals, are seen for what they are, cover ups! The Catholic Confessional should have had revolving doors in them all along. There is no such thing as a Bible (Completed Canon) for the scriptures are plural. Jesus did not and would not cause all the confusion over infant baptism in water, etc. by commanding something and not explaining why, and he sure wouldn't command a 3 name Pagan Chant over someone!

It's like Abe Lincoln said "I don't go to church but I would if I could find one that said over the door "Love God and love others"!
Thanks

seven8s

Well I gotta be honest with ya, I love sparkly, and if I could find a church that had a door that said, ‘sparkly welcomed’....................

The truth is, most church’s have a door so narrow, I can’t fit in.............do you think I ought’a loose some weight, a little sparkly, or do you think they ought to widen the door...........

Hmm, the Christians, both Catholic and Protestant, have an icon for that, but they don’t practice what they preach? Is this the icon atheists remember, or do you think they forgot too?

Mr. Logic

Actually, it is also when they practice what they preach that I have a problem with also. I have often suggested that they use a sharp knife to the throat as an Evangelistic tool. If your going to be an Extortionist why not bring the reality home, and gain more Converts! Hard to say NO with a knife to your throat! <s>

These People never seek out the truth on anything. They go to their denominational Leader, and get spoon fed, group beliefs, or traditional beliefs that everyone who calls themselves "Christian" "Must" believe!
They are in fact, believing what everyone says is true, not what is written.
What is written: The wages of sins is DEATH! Does this sound like eternal punishment in hell? Look at the horrible way that Jesus was murdered and yet instead of crying out "Your going to hell for rejecting me" he instead said "Forgive them for they know not what they do"! Why? Because they were brainwashed by Religion. Jesus didn't teach what the leaders did, for the Leaders thought like the rest of the World (We are Right and everyone else is wrong).

John the Baptist didn't go to Israel and say "Get Gentiles/Nonbelievers to repent"!

Jesus stated that if he had gone to the Gentile Cities they would have repented.
Wow! What an amazing statement! So does that mean that Non Jews are better People/racially superior? Nope! It means that they hadn't been brain washed with nonsense about the Creator. God's message about Pork was "don't be like a pig" not "Don't eat a pork chop"! One is about inward attitude, but they were concerned about the outward actions. That is what "Religionists" do! They are about "Dog and Pony Shows"! Jesus called such People, White Washed Tombs.
They look real good on the outside but they are dead inside, where it counts, since the Kingdom of God is within us, not outside of us wrapped up in some ritual that does nothing.

Change the inner Person and how they think though understanding the love of God, and that Person no longer needs an outward laundry list of do's and don'ts, or Rituals that do nothing!
Note: I wondered as a child why Jesus would care if People had 3 names chanted over them and it sounded like something that a Witch would do, and when I was 38 and became a Believer based on logic of the Gospel message (Christ died for me),
I researched the word "baptism" to the bone, and found that the word had been narrowed by the Religionists (they changed a lot of words, such as Saint, and church, etc.) to mean water when the word baptism was used alone. Bad assumption to say the least. It was based on a second century interp. by the Pagan Christians, and Witches are Pagans! Bingo! Now I knew why it sounded like something a Witch would do. There isn't a drop of water mentioned in any of the 3 Great Commission accounts, or by Peter on the day of Pentecost. The word baptism is there and it's assumed water, as I mentioned. There is a lot of water in the gospels because of John's baptism (that was the element that he used), but the vast majority of verses from the later epistles were waterless! Water is simply assumed because of so much water early on in the Gospels.

There is no such thing as a "Just add water, instant conversion"! It does bring the 10% rolling in from those trying to buy their way into heaven and avoid eternal punishment, though. I have to give them that!

Chili

But death as the wage of sin is good and is very good since that is the purpose of Law! Just go to Romans 7:7-12 but especially verse 11 where it says that "sin found its opportunity first to deceive me, then to kill me. (12), Yet the Law is holy and the commandment is holy and just and good." Now you must keep in mind here that the writer of this verse has died so he must also have walked away from death much in the way Jesus did. I mean what is the big deal if freedom is ours after the ego is crucified, or has raptured for all I care. Here then, that which remains is in heaven with the ego gone forever.

But Jesus was rigth in saying "forgive them for they do not know what they do!" I would now add that nothing has changed since because they still do not know what they are doing but they only know that they are doing and, yes, that must be what hell is all about.

Masorah613

hmm, now there is a serious problem with your logic here.
Paul taught not to circumcise (i.e. take the Torah upon oneself) if he was a gentile. That is why he circumcised Timothy, known as his figurative 'son', because he was born of a Jewish MOTHER and a Greek father. And he circumcised him without the pressures of James.

Acts 16:1
Then came he to Derbe and Lystra: and, behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timotheus, the son of a certain woman, which was a Jewess, and believed; but his father [was] a Greek:
16:3 Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek.

Based on the grammatical reading, it looks like Paul circumcised Timothy to, somewhat, spite those Jews that knew Timothy's father was a Greek.

But how?
If one studies the history of the Jewish people in those times, one would realize that everywhere there is a synagogue it was run by a leader, a Pharisee of either the school of Hillel or Shammai.

In studying both of these schools we would see that the school of Shammai had a humongous prejudice against non-Jews, and they would keep a Jew who was born to those 'dreadful' Greek men from being a part of the community of the Jewish people; so as to not contaminate the Jewish people with idolatrous urges.

Even more so, it is known to the Jewish people today that the majority of the lay people leaned toward the school of Shammai's rulings and opinions, hence, making Bet Hillel the minority in those days until 90 CE when the Sanhedrin moved and the zealots were destroying themselves. (The zealots were affiliated with the pharisees of the school of Shammai).

The Pharisees of the school of Hillel, however, were lenient and welcomed any Jew born to a non-Jewish father to be circumcised and enter the community of Israel.

So what is it that we find Paul doing and endorsing?

1) Paul circumcised Timothy to belittle the traditions of the pharisees of the school of Shammai.

2) Paul held that Jewishness is through the mother and thus that child born of a Jewish mother MUST be circumcised. This also shows that Paul agreed with the Rabbinical opinion, as held by Hillel and Shammai, that Jewishness is through the mother, when ONLY tribal affiliation is through the father. (this also explains the Jewish idiom, "born of a woman".

3) Paul held to the opinion of the school of Hillel, a pharisaic school of which his teacher Rabban Gamliel was the grandson of Hillel himself, and the leader of that school.

Another problem you face is that Paul obeyed the order of James to be in charge of those who were Nazirites (who had taken the vow of the Nazirite).

Acts 21:21 And they [the Jews of Shammai] are informed of thee, that you teach all the Jews which are in the Diaspora to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise [their] children, neither to walk after the customs (i.e. Jewish Law).

However, we know that this is not true. The Shammaites believed what they wanted to believe, so we have to ask, "who was this informer?" we know that what the Shammaites were informed about has no bearing because as we have seen earlier in chapter 16, Paul circumcised Timothy in spite of what the school of Shammai believes.

So it looks like the school of Shammai were looking for a pretense to seize him as they had done with Jesus and later with James.

Acts 21:23-24
Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them;
Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave [their] heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but [that] thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law.

So we see here that James was looking out for the well-being of his friend, Paul. And we see that if Paul had wanted to show that James was wrong in teaching that his law of Moses stuff was out-dated, then this would have been the perfect time to lash out on his teachings. However, we find that this isn't so, because Paul goes on to, in verse 26:

Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them.

So going back to what you said, if the so-called "church" (a word that doesn't exist in the NT) age began at the JEWISH festival of Pentecost, which is still celebrated by Jews around the world today and it is known as "Shavuot" (it is also known as the festival of 'converts'), then why is Paul circumcising Timothy and making sure that good ol Nazirites fulfill the law?

In fact, Pauls stance was exactly as James said in Acts 21:25:

As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written [and] concluded that they observe no such thing [as circumcision, Moses, and to walk in all the ordinances and customs of the Jews], save only that they keep themselves from [things] offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.

This is the very thing that was said in Acts 15...

We find that Gentiles are:
1) not to be circumcised in order to be saved
2) not to do the Laws of Moses (more detailed explanation of #1)
3) not to walk in the customs (i.e. do the oral law which is only for the Jewish people.)

And in Acts 16 we find that:
Paul circumcises a Jew born from a Jewish mother.
and in Acts 21 we find that:
Paul sees that a group of Jews fulfills the law concerning Nazirites

You have a lot to deal with if the so-called "church" age began at Shavuot.

Some, more reasonable xtians, realizing these very troubles, say that the "law of grace" didn't take effect until after the destruction of the second temple.

If you want to espouse that one, we're going to have a blast of a time now.
And if you want to continue holding to your current opinion, then...I'm still going to have a blast.

Mr. Logic

Masorah said: So it looks like the school of Shammai were looking for a pretense to seize him as they had done with Jesus and later with James.<<

Your info on these different groups is very informative, and it in fact is helping me prove my points, believe it or not! <s>
I have often stated that James was a Moderate Judaizer. There always measures of fanaticism in any group. James was clearly the Leader of the Judaizers in Jerusalem, but he wasn't a fanatical as many of them were.

The real fanatics didn't have the prob. with James that they had with Paul. That is why Acts 21 states "They have a prob. with you", not "They have a prob. with US"!


Malcolm X was killed by the Muslims, and the Man that assembled the "innocent" Scapegoats <s> in Hollywood for the Stalinists, was later killed by them. James being killed by his own kind for not being totally loyal to the cause is nothing new.

Maso said: So going back to what you said, if the so-called "church" (a word that doesn't exist in the NT) age began at the JEWISH festival of Pentecost, which is still celebrated by Jews around the world today and it is known as "Shavuot" (it is also known as the festival of 'converts'), then why is Paul circumcising Timothy and making sure that good ol Nazirites fulfill the law?

In fact, Pauls stance was exactly as James said in Acts 21:25:

As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written [and] concluded that they observe no such thing [as circumcision, Moses, and to walk in all the ordinances and customs of the Jews], save only that they keep themselves from [things] offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.<<<<

Ah, ah, "so called Church"? What do you mean that the word doesn't exist in the N.T.? What are you going to tell me next, that the Word Jesus isn't there either? Where are you coming from with such an obvious error?
The definition was chanted by the RCC to pertain to a Temple, but that is their error and the word Church is no doubt in scritpure!

Paul, to win the Jews became as one! What is so hard to understand about that? James as a Moderate cut the Gentiles some slack in what they practiced but where do you see James saying that ALL ARE UNDER GRACE BY FAITH? Peter says so in Acts 15, because he learned his lesson and took rebuke from Paul (which proves btw that he wasn't the first infallible Pope <s> either)
In Facts Acts 15 mentions the earlier incident in Antioch in verse 1.

You have got to explain the "no church" in the n.t. thing! Type O? did you mean O.T.?
The fact that James makes the final dicission shows that he is the head of the Judaizers. It also let's the cat out of the bag on him, because he is saying that one group needs this, while the other group doesn't!
This is segragation. Like saying "Black People don't have to do this, "over there" like we do over here"!
It isn't like he said "Hey you wild and crazy Gentiles get over here and let me give you a big hug because we are all one under grace!

With all of your knowledge Friend, you need to admit that you are promoting a bias here. I have none and no group and no Leaders to defend.
I became a Believer because of the pure logic of scripture, and how it showed Religious People in their true light. James acts just like we should expect him to. Paul not so much, for someone who teaches against following the law, but he also water bapt. even though he later admitted that Christ didn't send him to do it. I don't think that becoming a Jew to win them was a good idea or one given him by God. His trip to Jerusalem failed because he didn't listen to the warning not to go.
Paul was very human still, and did so out of love for those who were still in the bondage that he once was in.
Blessings