freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
What? That's not what most churches teach.
Welcome to the greater world of free religious thought, philosophy and exploration
P.S. who said what most churches teach is true? :idunno:
Last edited:
What? That's not what most churches teach.
While I don't agree with the inference, I'd say it does boil the whole thing down. Either Paul was given a commission by the risen Christ and it behooves us to pay attention, or he was someone making a claim no different from any number of claims.
Same on the inference, but I also had a conversion experience. Surprised me after nearly thirty years of curiously unproblematic atheism. I entered the night one creature and by the grace of God and the presence of the risen Christ became another. I won't bother with details that might only offend your sensibility. Suffice to say it was sufficient to convince me and alter the course of my life.
I don't think it's particularly odd when you consider that Paul was set on the Gentile. It's just a numbers game at that point.
Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil. Matthew 4:1
I appreciate your sharing/testimony and I think an interruption that produces the sort of change any of us are speaking to is in itself a miracle, but I don't know of any particular reason to think that Paul, relating the greatest truth of an altered life, would alter the truth of it in telling. Seems contrary to the thing related and the character evidenced. As to others sufficiently motivated by the experience of God to produce in them a desire to share it, a similar sentiment in gentle rebuttal.Were I to become an evangelist, speaking to a rough first century crowd, I can imagine how my story might need some embellishment for effect. People were so miracle minded in that day........or perhaps people retelling my story, putting me on a pedestal, they might embellish the retelling of my retelling.
I don't see conflict, though I do see the Acts account of his conversion and the Galatians note that after it he spend three years in Arabia. I've supposed that had to do with waiting out both those he'd persecuted and those who'd given him a commission to do greater damage. The latter would have sent out powers to locate him and the former would be fearful and angry with him absent sufficient time for word to scatter about his conversion and personal alteration of mission.There are a couple different versions of Paul in the NT after his conversion. One has him going to the apostles first the other has him going off into Arabia for 3 years.
I think Paul notes offering his own thinking at least once and the noting of it speaks to a lack of worry regarding the rest.But I have no doubt that Paul brought some of his own ideas into the new religion about Jesus which was inadvertently overwritten onto the religion of Jesus, the pre-cross gospel.
I think your notion runs aground on more than a little scripture and, if accepted in foundation, would leave men arguing the particulars of faith like refugees from Babel. I don't mean that harshly, but as a cautionary and dividing note between us, the premise of my Christian faith.Its not God who changes, its mans understanding of God that changes. As a Father, God has always been forgiving, the crass injustice of God the Son being rejected, mistreated and killed has never been a requirement for God to forgive. It is because man has found it difficult to comprehend Love and forgiveness just because that's Gods nature (something for nothing) that man created the whole Pagan sacrificial system. Jesus never taught sacrifice for sin, that was projected onto his teachings after he left, and perhaps by necessity as a gallon cant fit into a quart
I appreciate your sharing/testimony and I think an interruption that produces the sort of change any of us are speaking to is in itself a miracle, but I don't know of any particular reason to think that Paul, relating the greatest truth of an altered life, would alter the truth of it in telling. Seems contrary to the thing related and the character evidenced. As to others sufficiently motivated by the experience of God to produce in them a desire to share it, a similar sentiment in gentle rebuttal.
I don't see conflict, though I do see the Acts account of his conversion and the Galatians note that after it he spend three years in Arabia. I've supposed that had to do with waiting out both those he'd persecuted and those who'd given him a commission to do greater damage. The latter would have sent out powers to locate him and the former would be fearful and angry with him absent sufficient time for word to scatter about his conversion and personal alteration of mission.
I think Paul notes offering his own thinking at least once and the noting of it speaks to a lack of worry regarding the rest.
Now concerning the betrothed, I have no command from the Lord, but I give my judgment as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy. 1 Corinthians 7:25
I think your notion runs aground on more than a little scripture and, if accepted in foundation, would leave men arguing the particulars of faith like refugees from Babel. I don't mean that harshly, but as a cautionary and dividing note between us, the premise of my Christian faith.
18 [FONT=&]For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: [/FONT]1 Peter 3:18
25 [FONT=&]Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification. [/FONT]Romans 4:25
5 [FONT=&]But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. [/FONT]Isaiah 53:5
2 [FONT=&]And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. [/FONT]1 John 2:2
14 [FONT=&]Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; [/FONT]Colossians 2:14
7 [FONT=&]In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace; [/FONT]Ephesians 1:7
28 [FONT=&]Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many. [/FONT]Matthew 20:28
Now some might be offended by that statement, by the implication in it of conflict and the suggestion of a distinction in difference with the person of Christ. I think you could and should have voiced that differently, but I'll set that complaint aside in answering...To the orthodox Christian church, there really is no conflict. Just as Christ, in fulfilling the law, altered its application, so the message before the cross was necessarily different in application after it and so was the larger mission to the Gentile, God's people having rejected it institutionally.I understand your faith and the reasons for it, but I'm a disciple of Jesus of Nazareth not Paul of Tarsus.
28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. Matthew 26:28I'm a disciple of the original pre-cross Gospel. Jesus taught salvation by faith and sonship with God, a whole souled dedication to doing Gods will. Paul's Gospel was about Jesus, Christ and him crucified. I believe Jesus lived for the cause of salvation, Paul taught that he died fro the cause of sin.
Or, Paul did as he was told and there is an understandable reason for it.It's not strange that Jews, influenced by the Pagan sacrifices of Judaism, would interpret the death of Jesus as a final sacrifice. IT made sense to Paul, it made sense to the Pagan world that already had such beliefs.
Or, you're mistaken and the greater part of Christendom isn't, that the danger of pride is in judging Paul instead of receiving his message.Sect divided Christianity as it stands today was built on a compromise for the sake of acceptance by Jews and Gentiles, for numbers. Such compromises have confused both. But proud Christians and a proud church cannot reform itself.
It would have been an unfathomable thing to attempt.Before the cross, neither Jesus not his apostles went from town to town teaching Paul's Gospel o "Christ and him crucified".
Christian truth isn't your thing Caino. You don't understand it nor comprehend it. It would be best if you stuck with something you know rather well. That would be, little green men flying around in their custom made (Flying purple people eater) UFOs. Just trying to help you, little buddy. Oh, the pain of it all.
I just hit the view button (as I have him on ignore) to see if GM has changed any, but hes still tooting the same horn.
Just a quickie for those following, GM has been fully addressed and corrected about the UB have any UFO connections here and elsewhere. He is just continuing his usual TROLLING (as a cheap shot buffoon), so pay him no mind as hes unable to engage in an intelligent, respectful dialogue without resorting to ad-hoc ridicule, mockery and ad hominems. Ignoring such is the most sane thing you can do.
Now some might be offended by that statement, by the implication in it of conflict and the suggestion of a distinction in difference with the person of Christ. I think you could and should have voiced that differently, but I'll set that complaint aside in answering...To the orthodox Christian church, there really is no conflict. Just as Christ, in fulfilling the law, altered its application, so the message before the cross was necessarily different in application after it and so was the larger mission to the Gentile, God's people having rejected it institutionally.
28 [FONT=&]For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. Matthew 26:28
[/FONT]That's not Paul speaking, it's the Christ, Jesus. Or, Christ called the Jews into a fuller understanding of their obligation. Christ's death did a bit more than that.
Or, Paul did as he was told and there is an understandable reason for it.
Or, you're mistaken and the greater part of Christendom isn't, that the danger of pride is in judging Paul instead of receiving his message.
It would have been an unfathomable thing to attempt.
In any event, we aren't likely to move the other on a point foundational to our faith, but it never hurts to understand the other fellow a bit better. :e4e:
He spent his whole life on the cross of human experience.
He told you and he told those who killed him why he laid down his life and why he took it up again:
On account of this, the Jews demanded, “What sign can You show us to prove Your authority to do these things.” 19Jesus answered, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up again.”
Although Jesus did not die this death on the cross to atone for the racial guilt of mortal man nor to provide some sort of effective approach to an otherwise offended and unforgiving God; even though the Son of Man did not offer himself as a sacrifice to appease the wrath of God and to open the way for sinful man to obtain salvation; notwithstanding that these ideas of atonement and propitiation are erroneous, nonetheless, there are significances attached to this death of Jesus on the cross which should not be overlooked. It is a fact that Urantia has become known among other neighboring inhabited planets as the “World of the Cross.”
188:4.2 Jesus desired to live a full mortal life in the flesh on Urantia. Death is, ordinarily, a part of life. Death is the last act in the mortal drama. In your well-meant efforts to escape the superstitious errors of the false interpretation of the meaning of the death on the cross, you should be careful not to make the great mistake of failing to perceive the true significance and the genuine import of the Master's death.
188:4.3 Mortal man was never the property of the archdeceivers. Jesus did not die to ransom man from the clutch of the apostate rulers and fallen princes of the spheres. The Father in heaven never conceived of such crass injustice as damning a mortal soul because of the evil-doing of his ancestors. Neither was the Master's death on the cross a sacrifice which consisted in an effort to pay God a debt which the race of mankind had come to owe him. *
188:4.4 Before Jesus lived on earth, you might possibly have been justified in believing in such a God, but not since the Master lived and died among your fellow mortals. Moses taught the dignity and justice of a Creator God; but Jesus portrayed the love and mercy of a heavenly Father.
188:4.5 The animal nature—the tendency toward evil-doing—may be hereditary, but sin is not transmitted from parent to child. Sin is the act of conscious and deliberate rebellion against the Father's will and the Sons' laws by an individual will creature. *
188:4.6 Jesus lived and died for a whole universe, not just for the races of this one world. While the mortals of the realms had salvation even before Jesus lived and died on Urantia, it is nevertheless a fact that his bestowal on this world greatly illuminated the way of salvation; his death did much to make forever plain the certainty of mortal survival after death in the flesh.
188:4.7 Though it is hardly proper to speak of Jesus as a sacrificer, a ransomer, or a redeemer, it is wholly correct to refer to him as a savior. He forever made the way of salvation (survival) more clear and certain; he did better and more surely show the way of salvation for all the mortals of all the worlds of the universe of Nebadon.
188:4.8 When once you grasp the idea of God as a true and loving Father, the only concept which Jesus ever taught, you must forthwith, in all consistency, utterly abandon all those primitive notions about God as an offended monarch, a stern and all-powerful ruler whose chief delight is to detect his subjects in wrongdoing and to see that they are adequately punished, unless some being almost equal to himself should volunteer to suffer for them, to die as a substitute and in their stead. The whole idea of ransom and atonement is incompatible with the concept of God as it was taught and exemplified by Jesus of Nazareth. The infinite love of God is not secondary to anything in the divine nature.
188:4.9 All this concept of atonement and sacrificial salvation is rooted and grounded in selfishness. Jesus taught that service to one's fellows is the highest concept of the brotherhood of spirit believers. Salvation should be taken for granted by those who believe in the fatherhood of God. The believer's chief concern should not be the selfish desire for personal salvation but rather the unselfish urge to love and, therefore, serve one's fellows even as Jesus loved and served mortal men.
188:4.10 Neither do genuine believers trouble themselves so much about the future punishment of sin. The real believer is only concerned about present separation from God. True, wise fathers may chasten their sons, but they do all this in love and for corrective purposes. They do not punish in anger, neither do they chastise in retribution.
188:4.11 Even if God were the stern and legal monarch of a universe in which justice ruled supreme, he certainly would not be satisfied with the childish scheme of substituting an innocent sufferer for a guilty offender.
188:4.12 The great thing about the death of Jesus, as it is related to the enrichment of human experience and the enlargement of the way of salvation, is not the fact of his death but rather the superb manner and the matchless spirit in which he met death.
188:4.13 This entire idea of the ransom of the atonement places salvation upon a plane of unreality; such a concept is purely philosophic. Human salvation is real; it is based on two realities which may be grasped by the creature's faith and thereby become incorporated into individual human experience: the fact of the fatherhood of God and its correlated truth, the brotherhood of man. It is true, after all, that you are to be “forgiven your debts, even as you forgive your debtors.”
11 John was delighted with his visit to Jerusalem. Matheno told him all about the service of the Jews; the meaning of their rites. 12 John could not understand how sin could be forgiven by killing animals and birds and burning them before the Lord. 13 Matheno said, The God of heaven and earth does not require sacrifice. This custom with its cruel rites was borrowed from the idol worshippers of other lands. 14 No sin was ever blotted out by sacrifice of animal, of bird, or man. 15 Sin is the rushing forth of man into fens of wickedness. If one would get away from sin he must retrace his steps, and find his way out of the fens of wickedness. 16 Return and purify your hearts by love and righteousness and you shall be forgiven. 17 This is the burden of the message that the harbinger shall bring to men. 18 What is forgiveness? John inquired. 19 Matheno said, It is the paying up of debts. A man who wrongs another man can never be forgiven until he rights the wrong. 20 The Vedas says that none can right the wrong but him who does the wrong. 21 John said, If this be true where is the power to forgive except the power that rests in man himself? Can man forgive himself? 22 Matheno said, The door is wide ajar; you see the way of man's return to right, and the forgiveness of his sins.
Hi Caino,.....The story of the first humans is indeed wonderful, - could you share if any archeological or fossil findings corroborate the UB account? - particularly the biologic procession of species-development and what branch man came from, related to the primates and lemurs![]()
The ub is not recognized as a source for truth here. We all know that the ub is a fabrication, so we ignore it. The ub might be accepted on a UFO forum, but not a Christian forum.