PDA

View Full Version : 1 Corinthians 15:14


Anil
12-11-2008, 08:42 PM
New American Standard Bible (1995)
"and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain."

What does this mean?
thoughts and opinions?

Face of the Golden Falcon
12-11-2008, 08:49 PM
It's Paul the deceiver, manipulating the ignorant again...

Anil
12-11-2008, 08:50 PM
It's Paul the deceiver, manipulating the ignorant again...

?

Face of the Golden Falcon
12-11-2008, 09:12 PM
Paul, previously Saul of Tarsus, who (supposedly) wrote the book of Corinthians. All his writings smack of false piety. He contradicts himself each time he tells his story of a vision of Jesus on the road to Damascus. He contradicts Jesus' actual teachings on many occasions. He introduced the word Christ as a name in his books when it is a title. He raised Jesus to the level of God and himself to mediator. He regarded himself as better than actual 12 apostles (who, by the way, wanted nothing to do with him). And these are just a few things.

SHEM HETEP

Anil
12-11-2008, 09:18 PM
Paul, previously Saul of Tarsus, who (supposedly) wrote the book of Corinthians. All his writings smack of false piety. He contradicts himself each time he tells his story of a vision of Jesus on the road to Damascus. He contradicts Jesus' actual teachings on many occasions. He introduced the word Christ as a name in his books when it is a title. He raised Jesus to the level of God and himself to mediator. He regarded himself as better than actual 12 apostles (who, by the way, wanted nothing to do with him). And these are just a few things.

SHEM HETEP

interesting, although i can say that i dont completely understand. Im a newb when it comes to the bible, forgive me

sarr
12-11-2008, 10:42 PM
Paul, previously Saul of Tarsus, who (supposedly) wrote the book of Corinthians. All his writings smack of false piety. He contradicts himself each time he tells his story of a vision of Jesus on the road to Damascus. He contradicts Jesus' actual teachings on many occasions. He introduced the word Christ as a name in his books when it is a title. He raised Jesus to the level of God and himself to mediator. He regarded himself as better than actual 12 apostles (who, by the way, wanted nothing to do with him). And these are just a few things.

SHEM HETEP

proof please faggot

V4D3R
12-11-2008, 10:54 PM
proof please faggot
STFU

Now your on point Falcon - HTP

Paul the xtian killer that took evrything Jesus taught and twisted it.
The reason Xtian priests believe they should be celibate = Paul

Paul the xtian killer - the one responsible for the stoning death of St. Stephen. And many many other xtians who taught Xtianity correctly - Gnostic knowledge.

V4D3R
12-11-2008, 11:11 PM
proof please faggot

And to top it off if you are somebody that has read the bible with a reasonable high level of understanding and cognizance you would know that what I said is in there written plainly to see.

Face of the Golden Falcon
12-12-2008, 01:42 AM
P.E.A.C.E and Blessings...

proof please faggot

lol @ faggot, how old are you? Someone presents information that you dont like and you call them names? :lmao:

Proof? Read his books. He gives himself away time and again.

SHEM HETEP

Koolish
12-12-2008, 02:06 AM
i pay no attention to cynicism anymore.

New American Standard Bible (1995)
"and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain."

What does this mean?
thoughts and opinions?

probably saying more like believe in the resurrection, and you will understand Christ better.

Face of the Golden Falcon
12-12-2008, 02:14 AM
i pay no attention to cynicism anymore.

lol, yeah nothing like ignoring information that contradicts your own to make sure your faith stays in tact.

Edgar Erebus
12-12-2008, 05:34 AM
I never liked that punk Paul, even when I was an obedient Catholic. He's just too suspect to me to admire him.

I mean, who told him how to interpret Jesus' words when he didn't even know the guy?

How come he was such a hater, but converted so suddenly - and look at that, at the same time when he obtained Roman citizenship, making him untouchable to other crazy Jews around?

Just how did he manage to go into house arrest during Neron's persecution of Christians? House arrest, in time when lions were fed with them? And just look - he wasn't even doing anything to protect himself, while Peter had this whole intelligence organization in Rome and yet ended up on cross.

And how the motherfluck was he freed and permitted to go on missions to Spain during the same persecution?

hectis
12-12-2008, 10:55 AM
I hope no one reads the bible for Paul's teachings. am not saying I don't read the letters of Paul, but they hold no weight on the Gospels. one thing about the Bible is that it has been translated so much and so many things have been take out, added in and mistranslated it is hard at times to feel it is correct

Koolish
12-12-2008, 12:47 PM
lol, yeah nothing like ignoring information that contradicts your own to make sure your faith stays in tact.
i don't see information, all i see is someone's posts, information comes from a source, not from a forum. when asked for proof all you said was "just read it, you'll see", i've read it at least 4 or 5 times and don't see what you're talking about.

Memory Man
12-12-2008, 02:20 PM
in galatians, paul makes it clear that the church leadership in jerusalem, including the apostles and jesus' brother james, disagrees with his claim that the law is no longer required. in galatians 3:6 paul attempts to use abraham as an example of someone being righteous without adhering to the law. james refutes this example in james 2:20, and paul attempts to rebut the refutation in romans chapter 4.

it comes down to who you trust concerning jesus' message, paul (who never met the living jesus) or the apostles who knew jesus' teachings first hand.

Memory Man
12-12-2008, 02:26 PM
I never liked that punk Paul, even when I was an obedient Catholic. He's just too suspect to me to admire him.

I mean, who told him how to interpret Jesus' words when he didn't even know the guy?

How come he was such a hater, but converted so suddenly - and look at that, at the same time when he obtained Roman citizenship, making him untouchable to other crazy Jews around?

Just how did he manage to go into house arrest during Neron's persecution of Christians? House arrest, in time when lions were fed with them? And just look - he wasn't even doing anything to protect himself, while Peter had this whole intelligence organization in Rome and yet ended up on cross.

And how the motherfluck was he freed and permitted to go on missions to Spain during the same persecution?

Romans 16:11
"Salute Herodion my kinsman."

paul was a member of the extended "royal" family of herod.

Dokuro
12-12-2008, 02:32 PM
New American Standard Bible (1995)
"and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain."

What does this mean?
thoughts and opinions?
if your not caverting people the ypur preching is pointless

Koolish
12-12-2008, 02:39 PM
in galatians, paul makes it clear that the church leadership in jerusalem, including the apostles and jesus' brother james, disagrees with his claim that the law is no longer required. in galatians 3:6 paul attempts to use abraham as an example of someone being righteous without adhering to the law. james refutes this example in james 2:20, and paul attempts to rebut the refutation in romans chapter 4.

it comes down to who you trust concerning jesus' message, paul (who never met the living jesus) or the apostles who knew jesus' teachings first hand.

from my interpretation:

Jesus provided the message, Paul explained its practise.

Face of the Golden Falcon
12-12-2008, 02:48 PM
So the only Son of God needed Paul to explain his message to the people? :?

You'd think if Jesus wanted the practice of his message explained he would have done it himself. Maybe he should have started his mission a little sooner?

I see people condemn Moslems for believing Muhammed to be a prophet because they say no one comes after Jesus unless it is Jesus in the second coming. Yet what would christianity as an organised religion be without Paul?

Edgar Erebus
12-12-2008, 05:06 PM
That's true that he was pivotal in organizing the Christianity (although I'm still convinced Peter did more for it than Paul), yet he was also one of the first who started to mess up its message. And I tell you his whole story is kinda fishy.


@ memoryman: I doubt that the fact that he was member of extended family of a provincial puppet king held much weight by someone as crazy as Neron.

V4D3R
12-12-2008, 06:36 PM
Peter messed up the message just as badly.
Mary of Magdalene was the most important apostle.

Koolish
12-12-2008, 07:47 PM
So the only Son of God needed Paul to explain his message to the people? :?

You'd think if Jesus wanted the practice of his message explained he would have done it himself. Maybe he should have started his mission a little sooner?

I see people condemn Moslems for believing Muhammed to be a prophet because they say no one comes after Jesus unless it is Jesus in the second coming. Yet what would christianity as an organised religion be without Paul?
the fact is, everyone can just read the gospel and put it into practice, which is all Paul did (he knew the message, and put it into practice), but don't try to take away the help that his messages offer for the sake of "he isn't worthy".

Jesus said the prophets were until John, and Paul was nothing more than a Christian, he didn't need to be a prophet for his words to resonate.

the Lord knows all things, therefore he would know that the epistles would be written.

diggy
12-12-2008, 08:01 PM
from my interpretation:

Jesus provided the message, Paul explained its practise.


Why should people listen to Paul; what authority does he have?

zooruka
12-12-2008, 08:49 PM
in galatians, paul makes it clear that the church leadership in jerusalem, including the apostles and jesus' brother james, disagrees with his claim that the law is no longer required. in galatians 3:6 paul attempts to use abraham as an example of someone being righteous without adhering to the law. james refutes this example in james 2:20, and paul attempts to rebut the refutation in romans chapter 4.

it comes down to who you trust concerning jesus' message, paul (who never met the living jesus) or the apostles who knew jesus' teachings first hand.

what paul was saying was that nobody can fufill the law (except jesus) and so that it is through faith that GOD accepts people, what james was saying was that sombody who has faith should manifest there faith through good works (what james said has nothing to do with the law) all he is saying is you should practice what you preach to show you have faith in GOD, because having faith without practicing good is a dead faith...he is not saying that you should have faith and obey the law or doing good works alone will save you ( thats not what he is saying at all) .. all he is saying is put your faith into action by doing good works.


see your misunderstand what they are both saying one is saying its not because of good deeds that you are saved but by faith the other is saying then if you have faith then do good.


peace

Face of the Golden Falcon
12-12-2008, 09:36 PM
the fact is, everyone can just read the gospel and put it into practice, which is all Paul did (he knew the message, and put it into practice), but don't try to take away the help that his messages offer for the sake of "he isn't worthy".

Jesus said the prophets were until John, and Paul was nothing more than a Christian, he didn't need to be a prophet for his words to resonate.

the Lord knows all things, therefore he would know that the epistles would be written.

But his messages dont offer much help. They mislead, they have people looking outside of themselves for something or someone to save them when "the kingdom of God is within you".

And it has nothing to do with his worth. Paul was the first one to tell you how worthless he and everyone else was (but at the same time he said he worked harder than all the other apostles?). How many times can I say false piety?

Ever met those people who are always saying very humble things yet in the very next breath they will mention all the things they have accomplished? Paul's only desire was to glorify himself not Jesus or God.

SHEM HETEP

zooruka
12-12-2008, 11:44 PM
But his messages dont offer much help. They mislead, they have people looking outside of themselves for something or someone to save them when "the kingdom of God is within you".

And it has nothing to do with his worth. Paul was the first one to tell you how worthless he and everyone else was (but at the same time he said he worked harder than all the other apostles?). How many times can I say false piety?

Ever met those people who are always saying very humble things yet in the very next breath they will mention all the things they have accomplished? Paul's only desire was to glorify himself not Jesus or God.

SHEM HETEP

paul was telling people to take himself as an example..not how good he was, paul was the first modern day christian... meaning he was the first true believer not to have known jesus personally but to follow and believe in him...sombody that all christians today can relate to(because we havent met jesus personally but believe in him) just like paul ....that is why we should take paul as an example because he was just like us only he was the first to do it.


peace

Koolish
12-13-2008, 12:47 AM
Why should people listen to Paul; what authority does he have?
what authority does the church minister have? he just happens to be really religious, and more deep into faith than the community, i guess he doesn't have anything valuable to say because he isn't a true heavenly authority.

But his messages dont offer much help. They mislead, they have people looking outside of themselves for something or someone to save them when "the kingdom of God is within you".

And it has nothing to do with his worth. Paul was the first one to tell you how worthless he and everyone else was (but at the same time he said he worked harder than all the other apostles?). How many times can I say false piety?

Ever met those people who are always saying very humble things yet in the very next breath they will mention all the things they have accomplished? Paul's only desire was to glorify himself not Jesus or God.

SHEM HETEP
his messages do help. i can say some of the information in the epistles have been exactly what i needed at certain times of my life. that's all i need to know.

from a christian mind we are not to judge anyone, so despite paul having shortcomings it is the positive things he wrote about that are accepted, many of the things were sound instructions on how to maintain the early church if i remember correctly, and people back then didn't disagree with him too much i guess. if he said he was better than the other apostles, then as Christians, we don't judge the man but rather understand it is his shortcoming as a human being, and it doesn't render him incapable of having something good to say.

the average Christian doesn't know who Paul really is, or even know about him at all.

diggy
12-13-2008, 01:13 AM
what authority does the church minister have? he just happens to be really religious, and more deep into faith than the community, i guess he doesn't have anything valuable to say because he isn't a true heavenly authority.


He has no authority; just an interpretation.

Face of the Golden Falcon
12-13-2008, 03:36 AM
his messages do help. i can say some of the information in the epistles have been exactly what i needed at certain times of my life. that's all i need to know.

from a christian mind we are not to judge anyone, so despite paul having shortcomings it is the positive things he wrote about that are accepted, many of the things were sound instructions on how to maintain the early church if i remember correctly, and people back then didn't disagree with him too much i guess. if he said he was better than the other apostles, then as Christians, we don't judge the man but rather understand it is his shortcoming as a human being, and it doesn't render him incapable of having something good to say.

the average Christian doesn't know who Paul really is, or even know about him at all.

Your right. And I'm not suggesting everything Paul says should be thrown out the window. If a crazy man or an evil man tells you not to jump of a 100 foot cliff, regardless it is still good advice.

But given that many things he says contradicts Jesus and his motives are definitely questionable wouldn't it be wiser to stick to Jesus' teachings first?

Is the message of Jesus complete without Paul?

SHEM HETEP

Memory Man
12-13-2008, 07:46 AM
see your misunderstand what they are both saying one is saying its not because of good deeds that you are saved but by faith the other is saying then if you have faith then do good.


peace

you're totally ignoring the context of those passages.

@ slim t, his relationship to herod betrays his allegiance to rome.

Koolish
12-13-2008, 12:05 PM
He has no authority; just an interpretation.

oh well, i personally don't believe he needs authority.

Your right. And I'm not suggesting everything Paul says should be thrown out the window. If a crazy man or an evil man tells you not to jump of a 100 foot cliff, regardless it is still good advice.

But given that many things he says contradicts Jesus and his motives are definitely questionable wouldn't it be wiser to stick to Jesus' teachings first?

Is the message of Jesus complete without Paul?

SHEM HETEP
yeah i agree with you man, i'm not aware of people who think better of Paul than they do Jesus, but they would be completely wrong to do so. despite Paul being a huge figure, he's definitely far below Jesus in what he has to say. but i still respect a lot of the things the man said, because they work well for improving yourself, like things such as "the drunkards shall not inherit the kingdom of heaven" was not said by Jesus, just by Paul, but you'd know Jesus would agree with it.

the message of Jesus is complete, but i don't think everyone can fully grasp it, and to me it seems what Paul wrote helps you grasp it a bit more.

V4D3R
12-13-2008, 04:18 PM
Paul is a liar.

Prince Rai
12-13-2008, 06:33 PM
the message of Jesus is complete, but i don't think everyone can fully grasp it, and to me it seems what Paul wrote helps you grasp it a bit more.

What is so difficult about Jesus' teachings? Interpreting scriptures and prophetic sayings can be very dangerous if the role is put in the wrong hands.

If Jesus, the God you believe in, is true, then surely his method of teaching cannot be too hard for his "sheep" to grasp. Jesus was a simple man and must surely know how to reach out for simple people.

You just said that you don't care whether Paul has authority or not, but if he is shady, then so will be his material.

zooruka
12-13-2008, 06:39 PM
you're totally ignoring the context of those passages..


I read them passages and thats what they say.


peace

Memory Man
12-13-2008, 08:31 PM
I read them passages and thats what they say.


peace

if you read them in context you'd see that "works" and "deeds" connote living in accordance with the law.

zooruka
12-13-2008, 09:45 PM
if you read them in context you'd see that "works" and "deeds" connote living in accordance with the law.


thats not true... if it is why did both writters use abraham as an example ...a person who was never under the law to make there point...




peace

Memory Man
12-14-2008, 07:54 AM
thats not true... if it is why did both writters use abraham as an example ...a person who was never under the law to make there point...




peace

well, that's why paul chose him as an example. james is saying that abraham still had to follow god's commandments (raising his son upon the altar) and thus was in accordance with the law as it stood then. surely you can see that james is arguing with paul...

Memory Man
12-14-2008, 08:01 AM
if you still don't believe that james and the jerusalem church advocated adhering to the law, read galatians 2:12.

zooruka
12-14-2008, 05:41 PM
if you still don't believe that james and the jerusalem church advocated adhering to the law, read galatians 2:12.

all that says is peter drew back from socialising with gentiles..


peace

Memory Man
12-14-2008, 10:09 PM
all that says is peter drew back from socialising with gentiles..


peace

when and why? c'mon, man you're being willfully ignorant at this point. table fellowship with gentiles was a concern for whom?

zooruka
12-14-2008, 11:15 PM
table fellowship with gentiles was a concern for whom?

for people under the law..you are right...but if you read peter was associating with gentiles (breaking the law)but he had a change of heart and you if you continue reading thats what paul scoldes him about and he goes on to make his case against why the law is no longer vaild.


so peter wasnt adhereing to the law(and mixing with gentiles) but he had a change of heart and the reason was... if you read was that some jews who where in favour of circumsing gentiles came to town and he didnt want to be seen associating with them (gentiles) and paul calls him out on that...and then thats when the teaching that the law doesnt count anymore to both jews and gentiles is preached by paul... see peter was some what under the impression that jews still had to obey the law.. thats why when those jews came to town he stopped mixing with gentiles but paul makes it clear they dont have to adhere to the law.

also if you read the new testement (im not sure wich part its in I think acts) paul and the elders of jerusalem agree on a final statement that gentiles arent subject to the law..but must adhere to some simple rules like not eating blood or eat no animal that has been strangled or refrain from sexual immorality and some others.

peace
peace

Memory Man
12-15-2008, 09:35 AM
for people under the law..you are right...but if you read peter was associating with gentiles (breaking the law)but he had a change of heart and you if you continue reading thats what paul scoldes him about and he goes on to make his case against why the law is no longer vaild.


so peter wasnt adhereing to the law(and mixing with gentiles) but he had a change of heart and the reason was... if you read was that some jews who where in favour of circumsing gentiles came to town and he didnt want to be seen associating with them (gentiles) and paul calls him out on that...and then thats when the teaching that the law doesnt count anymore to both jews and gentiles is preached by paul... see peter was some what under the impression that jews still had to obey the law.. thats why when those jews came to town he stopped mixing with gentiles but paul makes it clear they dont have to adhere to the law.

also if you read the new testement (im not sure wich part its in I think acts) paul and the elders of jerusalem agree on a final statement that gentiles arent subject to the law..but must adhere to some simple rules like not eating blood or eat no animal that has been strangled or refrain from sexual immorality and some others.

peace
peace

ok, now at least you're being intellectually honest. however, it was not just any jews that came to rome it was some of james' men (gal 2:12) which proves that those jews (the jerusalem church) advocated adhering to the law.

why would peter believe the law still applied if he was one of jesus' disciples? why would paul have more authority on this question than peter or james?

you're correct that in acts, it's claimed that the jerusalem church agreed to the terms you cited about not circumcising gentile converts etc. but acts was written by luke, one of paul's travelling companions, and it was written after james had been killed and jerusalem had been destroyed. paul's epistles were written when the jerusalem church still existed and there are many instances in those letters where it's revealed that there is strong disagreement on this point. in fact, most of the letters are arguments paul is making against upholding the law. who is he arguing with? who are the "super-apostles" that paul claims he is superior to?

Koolish
12-15-2008, 02:48 PM
What is so difficult about Jesus' teachings? Interpreting scriptures and prophetic sayings can be very dangerous if the role is put in the wrong hands.

If Jesus, the God you believe in, is true, then surely his method of teaching cannot be too hard for his "sheep" to grasp. Jesus was a simple man and must surely know how to reach out for simple people.

You just said that you don't care whether Paul has authority or not, but if he is shady, then so will be his material.
Jesus teachings instruct us how to live our lives, so do the epistles. some of the things in the epistles are in certain situations just as helpful as what's in the gospel, the only reason they are in the epistles is because the writer understood the gospel. the message of Jesus is simple, but i think the epistles just talk about the small details of its practice, like, don't get drunk, don't be quick to anger, you would be able to be like this if you were following the gospel, but it helps to have it written out for you too.

personally, i don't see how Paul is a shady character, but i'll read more on him when i get the time, but just from reading the Bible i didn't get the idea that he had nothing but the best intentions.

zooruka
12-15-2008, 07:07 PM
ok, now at least you're being intellectually honest. however, it was not just any jews that came to rome it was some of james' men (gal 2:12) which proves that those jews (the jerusalem church) advocated adhering to the law.

why would peter believe the law still applied if he was one of jesus' disciples? why would paul have more authority on this question than peter or james?

you're correct that in acts, it's claimed that the jerusalem church agreed to the terms you cited about not circumcising gentile converts etc. but acts was written by luke, one of paul's travelling companions, and it was written after james had been killed and jerusalem had been destroyed. paul's epistles were written when the jerusalem church still existed and there are many instances in those letters where it's revealed that there is strong disagreement on this point. in fact, most of the letters are arguments paul is making against upholding the law. who is he arguing with? who are the "super-apostles" that paul claims he is superior to?

i understand what your saying but just because peter and james where direct apostles of JESUS doesnt mean they know everything if they did then why would JESUS annoint paul for the ministry he undertook...see I believe that GOD intended that through paul ... the revelation about the law no longer applying was meant to be given, that was a part of his ministry ... its not about anyone superseeding another but its about who was given what and paul was given the job of relaying the message that the law no longer applied to both jew and gentile,


also peter should haveknow better than to turn away from the gentiles after his vison in acts chapter 10 and further more he himself knew the law no longer was binding just read acts 10:28.


so paul was right to scolded peter after everything he saw and heard he should have know better.


peace

Memory Man
12-15-2008, 08:35 PM
i understand what your saying but just because peter and james where direct apostles of JESUS doesnt mean they know everything if they did then why would JESUS annoint paul for the ministry he undertook..

that was my point to begin with. paul never met the living jesus so we'd have to take his word that the risen jesus had given him any authority.

DUMBO
12-16-2008, 03:41 PM
christianity is gayer than two gay males having sex with a gay baby (male) while being watched by a rugby team and their pedo coach.