what being apart from the law means.

[FallentoReason]

Good to hear that those nasty Crusaders are burning in lakes of fire.

[Question Mark]

Odd, I've heard that last statement before a few times, but it's always a little different each time.

That's beside the point I suppose. Anyway, how is it that you came by this information, if I might ask?

I read my bible.

Do you want book chapter and verse? (It's not a one verse here one verse there kinda of thing. It's entire books, complete chapters and multiple paragraphs of verses.)

Christ Himself set the pace in Mt 5 and in several key parables then Paul in the book of Romans cements the details in stone.

---

No, not really, since I've yet to be given any reason to consider anything the bible relates to us as true on this matter. Especially since people like Paul weren't even alive when Jesus supposedly lived.

A legitimate reason for believing what the bible says might be helpful though.

[FallentoReason]

Christ Himself set the pace in Mt 5 and in several key parables then Paul in the book of Romans cements the details in stone.

You have that back to front. Paul mentions tons of doctrine which never gets related back to the events found in the Gospels. Then the Gospels are written and we get told about these miraculous stories that somehow escaped Paul's attention, and no, I don't believe that was intentional, because Paul gives himself a chance to reiterate things found in the Gospels but fails to do so. An example is when he says Jesus was "born of a woman". Ok, did she have a name? Was it by any chance a rather unusual birth? The man is clueless on the topic he's dedicated his life to.

[The Grand Nudger]

Rhythm is a more accurate prophet than any found in the Bible.

I'm not beyond passing the collection plate either. I'll even offer atonement or whatever product your looking to buy as well (caveat emptor, void where prohibited, and mileage may vary). I'm an agile, low cost, low overhead alternative to the more mainstream providers of a similar service.

[Drich]

I read my bible.

Do you want book chapter and verse? (It's not a one verse here one verse there kinda of thing. It's entire books, complete chapters and multiple paragraphs of verses.)

Christ Himself set the pace in Mt 5 and in several key parables then Paul in the book of Romans cements the details in stone.

---

No, not really, since I've yet to be given any reason to consider anything the bible relates to us as true on this matter. Especially since people like Paul weren't even alive when Jesus supposedly lived.

A legitimate reason for believing what the bible says might be helpful though.

What would make a reason 'legitimate' enough to believe the bible in your mind?

[5thHorseman]

this thread is shit,

[Drich]

Christ Himself set the pace in Mt 5 and in several key parables then Paul in the book of Romans cements the details in stone.

You have that back to front. Paul mentions tons of doctrine which never gets related back to the events found in the Gospels. Then the Gospels are written and we get told about these miraculous stories that somehow escaped Paul's attention, and no, I don't believe that was intentional, because Paul gives himself a chance to reiterate things found in the Gospels but fails to do so. An example is when he says Jesus was "born of a woman". Ok, did she have a name? Was it by any chance a rather unusual birth? The man is clueless on the topic he's dedicated his life to.

Paul's letters are not meant to be used as material to convert new believers. Paul identifes his role as being the next step in the Church. As new believers require milk (as the very young do) More mature believers require Meat to sustain their Spiritual growth. Paul's role is not to breast feed new believers, but to supply the meat more mature believers need to grow in the Faith.

That is why Paul does not repeat the same things that are found in the gospels over and over. He focouses his efforts in the problems established believers were having in the Church. Think about it for a minute. Why spend all of his time and effort teaching things people already believe, when there were more pressing matters like people marring their mothers, endless law suits, people forcing new believers to be circumsized before they could be apart of a church, members being thrown in jail and forgotten, widows going hungry, orphans being left unattended, and on and on.. with all of this going on why does Paul need to spend all of his life teaching things the people who received his letters already believe?

[Neo-Scholastic]

I believe the correct term is "smite".

How was all the smiting justified? It contradicts the Christian doctrine of turning the other cheek and the Golden Rule.

That was a joke, FTR. But the short answer is I don't know. But since I believe there is a God and that He is both merciful and just...I can only believe He acted consistently on His knowledge of their hearts. My guess is that He would know who had so corrupted themselves with evil that they had lost the capacity to repent. As such they had already died within and being removed from this earth was merely a formality.

---

You should take the time you waste here trying to rationalize the insanity you believe and use it to love God. I think he might wonder what the hell you're doing.

And what makes you think that Drich's participation here is not an expression of his love for God?

---

A legitimate reason for believing what the bible says might be helpful though.

How's this for a legitimate reason: it teaches us how to love more effectively. That doesn't mean other books and other teaching are not helpful, but most people who earnestly study the bible learn to see an underlying spiritual unity that transcends all the apparent nastiness and contradictions. We learn love and take that with us into the world. That, brother, is a legitimate reason. We believe it because it works.

[FallentoReason]

You have that back to front. Paul mentions tons of doctrine which never gets related back to the events found in the Gospels. Then the Gospels are written and we get told about these miraculous stories that somehow escaped Paul's attention, and no, I don't believe that was intentional, because Paul gives himself a chance to reiterate things found in the Gospels but fails to do so. An example is when he says Jesus was "born of a woman". Ok, did she have a name? Was it by any chance a rather unusual birth? The man is clueless on the topic he's dedicated his life to.

Paul's letters are not meant to be used as material to convert new believers. Paul identifes his role as being the next step in the Church. As new believers require milk (as the very young do) More mature believers require Meat to sustain their Spiritual growth. Paul's role is not to breast feed new believers, but to supply the meat more mature believers need to grow in the Faith.

That is why Paul does not repeat the same things that are found in the gospels over and over. He focouses his efforts in the problems established believers were having in the Church. Think about it for a minute. Why spend all of his time and effort teaching things people already believe, when there were more pressing matters like people marring their mothers, endless law suits, people forcing new believers to be circumsized before they could be apart of a church, members being thrown in jail and forgotten, widows going hungry, orphans being left unattended, and on and on.. with all of this going on why does Paul need to spend all of his life teaching things the people who received his letters already believe?

Paul's letter wouldn't look any different if Jesus hadn't been on Earth. He would still be addressing the issues of the time, because hijacking a religion and moulding it into something new will undoubtedly produce a lot of problems for the ones converting.

[Drich]

Paul's letter wouldn't look any different if Jesus hadn't been on Earth. He would still be addressing the issues of the time, because hijacking a religion and moulding it into something new will undoubtedly produce a lot of problems for the ones converting.

This is an argument from willful ignorance.

I just finished telling you the 'believers' of the religion Christ had established were marring their "Father wives," sueing each other into slavery, and on and on... Those people like you thought the 'freedom Christ offered meant they could relish and live in their sins.

Paul's Job was one past the point of accepting the faith, into a viable working Christian relationship. He was bridging the gap between a works based righteousness, and a righteousness founded on Love and grace.

whether it be Paul or someone else there was an obvious gap between knowing of Christ/The gospel and a working relationship with the Holy Spirit.