Biblical Christianity 101, a study of the book of Romans

[Drich]

I wasn't  that familiar with early LDS church history, so I looked up the death of Joseph Smith. I'm sure there was persecution, but it was not all one sided, and their is reasons why Mormons where driven out of states. In any case, it seems inaccurate, to say that Smith died because he believed himself a prophet.

Don't you see that similar things could be said of Paul? The difference is that we have a severe lack of information to go by when assessing the reliability of what a 2000-year-old man said about his own experiences.

With Joseph Smith, we have a much clearer picture.

Again no. Paul did not run from persecution, he faced his accusors and honored what he believed. Joseph ran from his religious persecutors and from the law till he had no other place to run. We know this because even the LDS Church acknoweledges this. albeit they misuse the word 'persecution.'

Paul's trials and sufferings were also recorded

[GrandizerII]

Don't you see that similar things could be said of Paul? The difference is that we have a severe lack of information to go by when assessing the reliability of what a 2000-year-old man said about his own experiences.

With Joseph Smith, we have a much clearer picture.

Again no. Paul did not run from persecution, he faced his accusors and honored what he believed. Joseph ran from his religious persecutors and from the law till he had no other place to run. We know this because even the LDS Church acknoweledges this. albeit they misuse the word 'persecution.'

Paul's trials and sufferings were also recorded

By Paul himself, you mean? lol

[Drich]

So when Paul (you say, since we have no actual evidence that he was executed; I've been going along with your presumption because there was no point in debating that element, until now) was eventually captured and killed, after using his status as a Roman to get out of an earlier "kangaroo court", as you put it, he wasn't "running"?

I see your not familiar with the term 'kangaroo court.'
kan·ga·roo court
/ˈˌkæŋɡəˈru ˌkɔrt/

noun
1. an unofficial court held by a group of people in order to try someone regarded, especially without good evidence, as guilty of a crime or misdemeanor
A self-appointed tribunal that violates established legal procedure; also, a dishonest or incompetent court of law.
Paul never ran from a legit court.

Joey however ran till he could no longer avoid the charges of treason he was facing. Plus he only surrendered because he thought one of his buddies would eventually break him out of jail " Jonathan Dunham, major general of the Nauvoo Legion" However once pinned down he had been running so long and upset so many people, they all took the law into their own hands, and killed him out right before he could escape or weasle his way out of jail.. Again nothing to do with religion.

Upon arrival at Carthage, almost immediately Joseph and Hyrum were charged with treason against the state of Illinois for declaring martial law in Nauvoo, by a warrant founded upon the oaths of A. O. Norton and Augustine Spencer. At a preliminary hearing that afternoon, the city council members were released on $500 bonds, pending later trial. The judge ordered the Smith brothers to be held in jail until they could be tried for treason, which was a capital offense.


It looks to me like the life of Joseph Smith, who could miraculously talk to angels and translate ancient Egyptian (which no one, then, could read), parallels nicely with that of Paul, even when the people got tired of that expanding cult and decided to do something about it:

The violent deaths of the Prophet Joseph Smith at the age of thirty-eight and his brother Hyrum Smith (age forty-four), Associate President and patriarch of the Church, dramatically ended the founding period of the LDS Church. On June 27, 1844, they were mobbed and shot while confined at Carthage Jail in Hancock County, in western Illinois. Climaxing more than two decades of persecution across several states, this event gave them an enduring place as martyrs in the hearts of Latter-day Saints.

These tensions coalesced around Joseph Smith. In addition to being prophet and President of the Church, he also served as mayor, commander of the Nauvoo Legion state militia, justice of the peace, and university chancellor. Non-Mormon fears of this concentration of powers were intensified by the Church's belief in the theocratic union of spiritual, economic, and political matters under the priesthood. This and other "unorthodox" doctrines, such as continuing revelation, temple ordinances for the living and the dead, new scripture, and plural marriage, further intensified political and economic rivalries.

Illinois anti-Mormons, perhaps assisted by old enemies from Missouri, joined with a handful of determined Mormon defectors within Nauvoo. Several had held high Church positions and, when excommunicated, fueled efforts to destroy Joseph Smith and the Church. [...]

However, threats of mob violence increased. In Warsaw and Carthage, newspapers called for extermination of the Mormons. On June 18, Joseph Smith mobilized his troops to protect Nauvoo. When Illinois governor Thomas Ford apparently sided with the opposition and ordered the Church leaders to stand trial again on the same charges, this time in Carthage, Joseph and Hyrum first considered appealing to U.S. President John Tyler, but then decided instead to cross the Mississippi and escape to the West. Pressured by family and friends who felt abandoned and who believed Joseph to be nearly invincible, he agreed to return and surrender; but he prophesied that he would be going "like a lamb to the slaughter" and would be "murdered in cold blood". Joseph urged Hyrum to save himself and succeed him as prophet, but Hyrum refused and accompanied his brother to Carthage.

He also "predicted" after his arrest:

On June 25, 1844, Joseph and Hyrum Smith, along with the other fifteen city council members and some friends, surrendered to Carthage constable William Bettisworth on the original charge of riot. During the trip to Carthage, Smith reportedly recounted a dream in which he and his brother Hyrum escaped a burning ship, walked on water, and arrived at a great heavenly city. Which would have made Him a false prophet.

Their was no ship, fire, water, walking, escape, or holy city . His brother and joey were in a jail cell his brother was shot in the face, and he was gut shot both died.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Joseph_Smith

[Drich]

Again no. Paul did not run from persecution, he faced his accusors and honored what he believed. Joseph ran from his religious persecutors and from the law till he had no other place to run. We know this because even the LDS Church acknoweledges this. albeit they misuse the word 'persecution.'

Paul's trials and sufferings were also recorded

By Paul himself, you mean? lol

No, Acts also records Paul's trials and Paul did not write acts.

[GrandizerII]

By Paul himself, you mean? lol

No, Acts also records Paul's trials and Paul did not write acts.

Oh, that book. When was that book written again?

[Drich]

No, Acts also records Paul's trials and Paul did not write acts.

Oh, that book. When was that book written again?

between 4 and 6 years before the death of Paul in 68AD

[GrandizerII]

Oh, that book. When was that book written again?

between 4 and 6 years before the death of Paul in 68AD

You know that's not the scholarly consensus, right?

[Drich]

romans 3

So, do Jews have anything that others don’t have? Do they get any benefit from being circumcised? 2 Yes, the Jews have many benefits. The most important one is this: God trusted the Jews with his teachings. 3 It is true that some Jews were not faithful to God. But will that stop God from doing what he promised? 4 No, even if everyone else is a liar, God will always do what he says. As the Scriptures say about him,

“You will be proved right in what you say,
    and you will win when people accuse you."

 Here Paul is doing a little damage control in that He just spent the majority of Last chapter telling the church at Rome that they did not have to convert to Judaism in order to believe. At the same time however he is also saying this does not devalue what it means to be a jew. that despite what some may think the Jew did and always will hold a special place in God's heart.
So to recap, one does not have to be a jew to be Christisan, but at the same time being a Christian believer who was jewish does not mean their status is devalued either.

5 When we do wrong, that shows more clearly that God is right. So can we say that God does wrong when he punishes us? (That’s the way some people think.) 6 Of course not. If God could not punish us, how could he judge the world?

7 Someone might say, “When I lie, it really gives God glory, because my lie makes his truth easier to see. So why am I judged a sinner?” 8 It would be the same to say, “We should do evil so that good will come.” Many people criticize us, saying that’s what we teach. They are wrong, and they should be condemned for saying that.

Here I don't fully follow all the logic Paul is using to get to his final point, but I do agree with it. I myself teaching from Romans have found both in and out of the church that people accuse me of teaching people to do wrong. When I instruct as Paul instructs later in this Book. (and briefly through the following in this chapter)
People assume I am saying it is ok to sin, so the want to pretend that what is said here (that we are free from sin) means we are tasked to sin by God. that is not the case.

9 So are we Jews better than other people? No, we have already said that those who are Jews, as well as those who are not Jews, are the same. They are all guilty of sin. 10 As the Scriptures say,
“There is no one doing what is right,
    not even one.
11 There is no one who understands.
    There is no one who is trying to be with God.
12 They have all turned away from him,
    and now they are of no use to anyone.
There is no one who does good,
    not even one.”
13 “Their words come from mouths that are like open graves.
    They use their lying tongues to deceive others.”
“Their words are like the poison of snakes.”
14 “Their mouths are full of cursing and angry words.”
15 “They are always ready to kill someone.
16     Everywhere they go they cause trouble and ruin.
17 They don’t know how to live in peace.”
18 “They have no fear or respect for God.”
19 What the law says is for those who are under the law. It stops anyone from making excuses. And it brings the whole world under God’s judgment, 20 because no one can be made right with God by following the law. The law only shows us our sin.

verses 10-18 refer back to what David wrote in Psalms 14. That what he meant by 'scripture says.' In Psalms 14 David is saying unbelievers show these attributes, while here Paul quotes what david says and applied it to everyone, believers and unbelievers alike. So the question then becomes how can a believer's efforts (works of morality) be dismissed as sin/view by God as an unbeliever? Because of what he concludes in verse 20. "No one can be made right by following the law."
This means all of those who define their Christianity or any belief in God through their efforts in trying to just keep the law fall under the psalms 14 list/people. Which makes them the same as unbelievers

The following is how we are now find 'righteousness' before God.

21 But God has a way to make people right, and it has nothing to do with the law. He has now shown us that new way, which the law and the prophets told us about. 22 God makes people right through their faith in[] Jesus Christ. He does this for all who believe in Christ. Everyone is the same. 23 All have sinned and are not good enough to share God’s divine greatness. 24 They are made right with God by his grace. This is a free gift. They are made right with God by being made free from sin through Jesus Christ. 25-26 God gave Jesus as a way to forgive people’s sins through their faith in him. God can forgive them because the blood sacrifice of Jesus pays for their sins. God gave Jesus to show that he always does what is right and fair. He was right in the past when he was patient and did not punish people for their sins. And in our own time he still does what is right. God worked all this out in a way that allows him to judge people fairly and still make right any person who has faith in Jesus.

The above Should be the exact oppsite of what most of you believe Christianity is. While you may concede to one or two points, the over all contextual message is very counter intuitive to a legalistic Christian/Atheist who assumes Chriistianity is another law based religion. Most people bound in legalism work to earn their place in heaven, meaning one's good deeds must exceed their evil deeds. a lot of Christian is based on this fundamently wrong precept.
The Fact that Paul says "The laws is not our means to righteousness anymore, it only points to our sin, and subsequent need for redemption, would their by invalidate all of those looking to 'earn their salvation though their works. Paul emphasizes this in the rest of the Chapter:

27 So do we have any reason to boast about ourselves? No reason at all. And why not? Because we are depending on the way of faith, not on what we have done in following the law. 28 I mean we are made right with God through faith, not through what we have done to follow the law. This is what we believe. 29 God is not only the God of the Jews. He is also the God of those who are not Jews. 30 There is only one God. He will make Jews[b] right with him by their faith, and he will also make non-Jews[] right with him through their faith. 31 So do we destroy the law by following the way of faith? Not at all! In fact, faith causes us to be what the law actually wants.
Also note how he ends this chapter. Those who assume I teach lawless ness  because I teach from romans only hear the bit about the law only defines our sin, and the seem to assume that it must mean we would then want to live the oppsite way from the law. verses 30 and 31 say otherwise. It says if we are truly justified by our faith/belief in Christ we are not bound by the law for our righteousness, but yet we will want to serve God through the Law.

I have used this simple marriage analogy to explain this in the past.
when I got married I did not give my wife flowers and showered her with love, gifts and thoughtful words because I was under contract to do so, nor because I read a book that told me to. She did not marry me because she wanted or demanded that I do those things. Our marriage is not based on a ritual or a certain perscription of acts/behaivor. I do/did those things because I loved her. It was my love for her that made me want to live my life in such a way as to be pleasing and joyful to her.
Like wise We are not saved because we are contractually obligated to follow a given set of rules. We are saved Because God loves us and our hearts truly want to love Him. We then inturn follow his laws because we want to live our lives in such a way to honor and please God. Our obedience is our of love, not obligation! What's the difference? Obligation promotes wicked legalistic behavior, and even bigotry and hate for those who do not follow suit. Those are the Christian version of the pharrisees. To follow God's law out of love, produces tolerance and understanding those who obligate themselves do not understand.

[Drich]

between 4 and 6 years before the death of Paul in 68AD

You know that's not the scholarly consensus, right?

Actually it is, because the book is left open ended with Paul looking forward to his last missionary journey the on where he was imprisioned and later executed.

[GrandizerII]

You know that's not the scholarly consensus, right?

Actually it is, because the book is left open ended with Paul looking forward to his last missionary journey the on where he was imprisioned and later executed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical...e_Apostles

A key contested issue is the historicity of the depiction of Paul in Acts. According to the majority viewpoint, Acts described Paul differently from how Paul describes himself, both factually and theologically.[/url] Acts differed with Paul's letters on important issues, such as the [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_of_Tarsus_and_Judaism]Law, Paul's own apostleship, and his relation to the Jerusalem church. Scholars generally prefer Paul's account over that in Acts.