AH! Ok :D.
I guess I should have clarified it was in my experience that rapture stuff was presented as fact (Pentecostal Church - I’m a Lutheran now).
This is a pretty central concept in Christianity and (unlike some central Christian doctrines such as the Trinity) one that is discussed extensively throughout the New Testament.
That you don’t already know this, Kable, suggests to me that not only do you not understand much about Christian theology, but that you haven’t even read the entire New Testament. Am I correct?
There are many translations of many passages in the Bible, according to Matthew; Jesus said the sun would not give it’s light, the moon would turn to blood, the stars would fall, and that generation would not pass away until all those things would be accomplished. Some sects teach that the word generation didn’t mean the same as today, but Matthew also wrote that there was 14 generations between David and Jesus. Using the same word.
Jesus also is quoted as saying that he would return in his father’s glory with his angels, before some of those standing there listening to him would see death. It didn’t happen . I have heard different ways to look at this (because it was never recorded) but the Resurrection was in secret; there was no angels at the transfiguration. and it seems to me if these writings were true, the Book of Revelations would be moot!
Matthew c 15 v 24, Jesus tells the woman who asked him for help, that he was only sent for the lost sheep of Israel. If this is literal than Jesus had no plans to save the whole world.
I follow you.
OK, that’s what I thought too.
I’m still with you.
OK, now I have a problem with that. You are saying Jesus is OK with sin and breaking all them laws because he’s died for you? You think that henceforth sinning is a perfectly OK thing to do, and not something people should endeavor to avoid?
No, I’ve read all of the NT, and the OT too.
“What then? Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace? By no means!” -Paul, in Romans 6
True, but I’m not sure how that relates to what I said.
Then why is your understanding of Paul so weak? Perhaps you only skimmed it?
To be fair, “His letters contain some things that are hard to understand” (2 Peter 3:16).
I understand Paul well enough. I just think where he and Jesus contradict each other, Jesus trumps him. I realize that most Christians side with Paul on these matters. I think that’s odd, but then taking Paul’s side seems a lot less demanding on you all.
That’s a bizarre thing to say. First of all, you’re asking questions that have clear and obvious answers to anyone who has actually read Paul, suggesting that either you didn’t read Paul, you forgot or misunderstood what you read, or you’re trying to trick Christians who you assume didn’t read or understand Paul (which wouldn’t make much sense).
Secondly, it makes no sense to say (though I hear liberal Christians say it all the time) that where Paul and Jesus contradict each other, Jesus trumps Paul. From a traditional or conservative Christian point of view, of course, there can’t be any contradiction since both the Gospels and the writings of Paul are equally the inspired word of God; they assume that one can only explain or expand on the other. From an educated secular or historical-critical point of view, it doesn’t make sense because Paul’s writings predate any of the Gospels and likely represent an earlier tradition about the teachings of Jesus than anything found in the Gospels, which were almost certainly written or edited partly in response to Paul. From that perspective, there simply is no pre-Pauline Jesus accessible from the text to trump Paul. (Ok, you can try to construct such a pre-Pauline Jesus using the hypothetical so-called Q Document and the supposedly early layers of the Gospel of Thomas, but I find such attempts highly speculative, and that’s clearly not what you’re doing here.)
Furthermore, contrary to what biblically illiterate members of liberal churches sometimes think, this isn’t a case where Paul and Jesus contradict each other anyway. It’s a case where Jesus himself is reported (in many cases probably in response to Paul, as mentioned above) to have said apparently contradictory things about the Law, and Paul (whether in response to actual early traditions about Jesus or simply in response to debate among Christians of his time) spells out at great length and detail, over much of the New Testament, just how these various positions are to be understood and reconciled.
I might add that Frylock, in the other thread, has summarized for you with exquisite pithiness exactly what seems to me to be the position of both Jesus (taken as a whole in the Synoptic Gospels) and Paul, and in fact strikes me as one of the major themes of most of the New Testament, but which you seem constitutionally unable or unwilling to comprehend.
Finally let me ask, who is the “you all” you refer to in your last post?
Maybe I forgot, I can’t say that I read Paul with any particular reverence. What are you suggesting I missed?
What’s YOUR perspective?
Jesus responded to Paul?
Christians who don’t feel they need to follow the law, do things like go to church on Sunday instead of the Sabbath for example.
Are you serious? The entirety of Romans for a start, though practically every word he wrote touches on it in one way or another.
The latter, obviously.
Yes. I already explained that, and then mentioned that I’d already explained it in the bit you cut out. It’s the whole second paragraph!
Don’t be silly; I’m an atheist. It hardly does either of us any service if you assume that because I know more than you I must be a Christian. I have no motive to make things “less demanding” for Christians. I think the whole thing is bullshit. But to me it’s interesting bullshit, and unfortunately it’s important bullshit in our society, so it’s worth getting right. I actually lead a monthly bible study for my local atheist group so that we understand the context of things theists come up and quote at us when we’re manning our booth at the Thursday Farmer’s Market in San Luis Obispo. (Mention this post, and I’ll buy you a drink!) and can argue them better. When you argue the way you do, without understanding the Bible or Christian beliefs, you do more good for the other side than for us. But you can learn.
You’re welcome.
Except that, in verse 28, he relents and grants the request. (Sorry if the point of the post was to see whether Kable knew that.)
It would be more accurate to say Paul contradicts Matthew. The latter claims to quote Jesus; the former claims divine inspiration. Besides, Matthew is ambiguous. But, more simply, the reason (most) Christians don’t regard themselves as bound by the Law (except in a few particulars) is Acts, chapter 15. That’s an unambiguous passage and just as much a part of the canon as Matthew. Indeed, taking the canon as a whole, the mainstream Christian view is amply supported as a fair interpretation of their own scriptures.
I don’t feel like rereading Romans. Tell me something specific.
OK, so you think all the Jesus quotes were just made up and don’t reflect much of anything some real guy named Jesus might have said. I’ll buy that.
In that case Jesus wouldn’t be responding to Paul. Just some guy pretending to speak for Jesus would be responding to Paul. You should have been more clear.
No, I assumed you were Christian because you sounded like a typical Christian who did not want to follow the law.
That’s all great, but most Christians attribute Jesus’ writing to Jesus, Paul often contradicts Jesus, and with regards to obeying a bunch of rules most Christians I know tend to prefer Paul’s versions rather than Jesus’.
How much more accurate is that? Did Matthew write Matthew?
You don’t believe Matthew quotes Jesus? How about the other gospel authors, do they quote Jesus?
Seemed pretty clear to me.
Well sure, Paul contradicted Jesus, I noted that earlier.
Sure, as long as you don’t mind ignoring what Jesus said, if you think he even said it. Seems it would be prudent for Christians to follow more of God’s laws rather than less. Unless of course you think those laws are dumb.
What exactly do you mean by “Jesus trumps him?” If you were a believer, I’d understand exactly what you meant–that Jesus’s teachings have greater authority than Paul’s. But since you’re a non-believer, you think both have zero authority. So I do not know what you mean when you say one of them “trumps” the other. Can you explain?
That’s like saying, “The Constitution says something about the government? Tell me where.” Seriously, the entire book is about this issue. You can’t possibly have read it and not know this.
You should have read for comprehension the first time.
That’s because Christians in this instance are actually correct about what a major doctrine and key theme of their belief system is.
“Jesus’ writing”? Really? Are you that ignorant of the subject? No Christian attributes any writings to Jesus whatsoever, except possibly in the sense of divine inspiration, which they would apply equally to Paul’s writings. And how can you argue that Paul contradicts Jesus when Jesus (especially in Luke) is a mouthpiece for Pauline Christians?
I’m glad to hear this. (And though I know you think it’s all bullshit-albeit-interesting-bullshit, I hope that I don’t strike you as merely a bullshitter.)