You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

dreamdigital ago

I've been looking for a post to put all this info about Hellfire and Demons into. This seems like the place.

While I do not believe in hell, or hellfire, because Jesus did not teach it as a real thing, I do believe they are in contact with real demons. Especially since they claim to worship Molech (Moloch). There is nothing lower, or more Satanic than the sexual abuse and murder of children.

Even if you are not a Christian, you cannot refute the biblical evidence from the Bible. Look at it as a history book. If more preachers and ministers did that, there would be a lot less people trying to refute it altogether. Instead they coat the bible in mystery and paint God himself as a mystery when in fact he is not, as you will see.

Regarding Hellfire (The research is extensive and backed by the bible, not religious tradition. Tradition is not something the Jesus taught.)

SOME who believe the doctrine of hellfire point to Jesus’ words recorded at Mark 9:48 (or verses 44, 46). He mentioned worms (or maggots) that do not die and fire that is not quenched. If someone asked you about those words, how would you respond?

Depending on the Bible version being used, the person might read verse 44, 46, or 48 because these verses read similarly in some versions.* The New World Translation reads: “If your eye makes you stumble, throw it away; it is finer for you to enter one-eyed into the kingdom of God than with two eyes to be pitched into Gehenna, where their maggot does not die and the fire is not put out.”—Mark 9:47, 48.

In any case, some claim that Jesus’ statement supports the view that after death the souls of the wicked suffer forever. For instance, a comment in the Spanish Sagrada Biblia of the University of Navarre says: “Our Lord uses [these words] to refer to the torments of hell. Often ‘the worm that does not die’ is explained as the eternal remorse felt by those in hell; and the ‘fire which is not quenched,’ as their physical pain.”

However, compare Jesus’ words with the final verse of Isaiah’s prophecy.* Is it not apparent that Jesus was alluding to the text in Isaiah chapter 66? The prophet there apparently refers to going out “of Jerusalem to the surrounding Hinnom Valley (Gehenna), where human sacrifice was once practiced (Jer 7:31) and which eventually became the city’s refuse heap.” (The Jerome Biblical Commentary) The symbolism at Isaiah 66:24 clearly is not that of people being tortured; it speaks of carcasses. What it refers to as not dying is worms—not live humans or immortal souls. What, then, is the import of Jesus’ words?

Note the comment on Mark 9:48 in the Catholic work El evangelio de Marcos. Análisis lingüístico y comentario exegético, Volume II: “[The] phrase is taken from Isaiah (66,24). There the prophet shows the two ways corpses were usually destroyed: putrefaction and incineration . . . The juxtaposition in the text of maggots and fire reinforces the idea of destruction. . . . Both destructive forces are described as permanent (‘is not quenched, does not die’): there is simply no way to escape them. In this image, the only survivors are the maggot and the fire—not man—and they both annihilate anything that falls within their power. Hence, this is not a description of everlasting torment, but one of total destruction which, as it prevents resurrection from occurring, is tantamount to final death. [Fire] is, then, a symbol of annihilation.”

Anyone who knows that the true God is loving and just should be able to see how reasonable it is to understand Jesus’ words in that way. He was not saying that the wicked will experience everlasting torment. Rather, they are at risk of total destruction that prevents resurrection from occurring.

[Footnotes]

The most reliable Bible manuscripts do not include verses 44 and 46. Scholars acknowledge that those two verses were likely later additions. Professor Archibald T. Robertson writes: “The oldest and best manuscripts do not give these two verses. They came in from the Western and Syrian (Byzantine) classes. They are a mere repetition of verse 48. Hence we [omit] the numbering 44 and 46 in our verses which are not genuine.”

“They will actually go forth and look upon the carcasses of the men that were transgressing against me; for the very worms upon them will not die and their fire itself will not be extinguished, and they must become something repulsive to all flesh.”—Isa. 66:24.

UglyTruth ago

Even if you are not a Christian, you cannot refute the biblical evidence from the Bible.

Some of the irrational text of the Bible can be refuted by textual criticism and by alternate texts from that period.

Some of the gospel verses have been edited to promote the role of the (Roman) state. Paul was a liar (Romans 3:7) and a Roman citizen (Acts 21:39).

Hell as an idea is a composite constructed from sheol and tartarus, and the gospel accounts of hell don't conform well to either of these original descriptions.

dreamdigital ago

You are interpreting Romans 3:7 as what that scripture says by itself without viewing the surrounding scriptures. It's same as people interpreting Jesus saying "If you are to be my follower you will drink my blood and eat my flesh." He was speaking symbolically.

That scripture is speaking in contrast to man’s sinfulness. The degraded practices of non-Jews(at that time period) and the disobedience of the Jews to God’s law in no way brought harm to the Creator personally. Instead, his truthfulness, holiness, and righteousness stood out in sharp contrast, and this to his glory. But the fact that man’s wrongdoing makes God’s righteousness stand out in even greater prominence provides no basis for claiming that God is unjust in executing an adverse judgment against wrongdoers. Being a creation of God, a person has no right to harm himself by sinning.

The above is the argument that Paul used in his letter to the Romans, saying: “If our unrighteousness brings God’s righteousness to the fore, what shall we say? God is not unjust when he vents his wrath, is he? (I am speaking as a man does.) Never may that happen! How, otherwise, will God judge the world? Yet if by reason of my lie # [compare Ps 62:9] the truth of God has been made more prominent to his glory, why am I also yet being judged as a sinner? And why not say, just as it is falsely charged to us and just as some men state that we say: ‘Let us do the bad things that the good things may come’? The judgment against those men is in harmony with justice.” (Ro 3:5-8) God has delivered his people, not for a course of sin, but for a life of righteousness, that they may glorify Him. The apostle says later in his letter: “Neither go on presenting your members to sin as weapons of unrighteousness, but present yourselves to God as those alive from the dead, also your members to God as weapons of righteousness.”—Ro 6:12, 13.

# Weighing scales were spoken of figuratively, as when Job mentioned ‘weighing his adversity on scales.’ (Job 6:2) The littleness of earthling men was emphasized by saying that they are lighter than an exhalation on the scales (Ps 62:9), and the nations were compared to an insignificant film of dust on the scales from the standpoint of Jehovah, who could, as it were, weigh all the hills in the scales. (Isa 40:12, 15) Scales were sometimes used to represent accurate measurement in judgment.—Job 31:6; Da 5:27.

UglyTruth ago

You are interpreting Romans 3:7 as what that scripture says by itself without viewing the surrounding scriptures.

No I'm not. There are several cases of Paul lying in the Bible: his lie to the Sanhedrin about the reason he was brought before them, his lie to the Galatians about the four points from the Council of Jerusalem, and most notably his lie to King Agrippa about his appointment as an apostle on the road to Damascus.

He was speaking symbolically.

The symbolic reference to blood drinking should raise red flags since it is forbidden to drink blood in Judaism. The Synoptic Problem is one hint that the gospels have been redacted, the divergence between the Christian new covenant and the new covenant of Jeremiah 31:33 is another.

[compare Ps 62:9]

This verse refers to the vain son of man [הבל בני־אדם], i.e. exclusion of vanity from repentance. (cf Numbers 23:19).

When Paul speaks of "my lie" he is arguing that the ends justify the means, i.e. that he should not be judged as a sinner for serving a divine purpose. This argument is used to refute the allegation that he advocated doing evil, i.e. it is Paul's contention that it is not evil to lie for the greater good.

dreamdigital ago

Regarding Paul Lying (Acts 26:1-28) Paul was not lying about Jesus appearing before him on the road to Damascus. In the book of Acts, Greek terms for persuasion are repeatedly used in association with Paul. The words of Festus indicate that Paul faced trumped-up charges of sedition—a crime that carried the death penalty. (Acts 25:11) However, Paul was innocent. The charges stemmed from the jealousy of religious leaders in Jerusalem. They opposed Paul’s work as a Kingdom proclaimer and deeply resented that he helped others to become followers of Jesus Christ. Under heavy guard, Paul was brought from Jerusalem to the seaport city of Caesarea, where he appealed to Caesar. From there he would be taken to Rome. Imagine Paul in the governor’s palace before a group that includes the ruler of an important part of the Roman Empire. King Agrippa turns to Paul and says: “You are permitted to speak.” As words flow from Paul’s mouth, an extraordinary thing happens. What Paul says begins to affect the king. Indeed, King Agrippa says: “In a short time you would persuade me to become a Christian.”—Acts 26:1-28. <--- Read this. Just think! As a result of Paul’s skillful defense, a ruler was affected by the penetrating power of God’s Word. (Hebrews 4:12) What was it about Paul’s defense that was so effective? And what can we learn from Paul that can help us in our disciple-making work? If we analyze his defense, two main elements clearly stand out: (1) Paul was persuasive in his presentation. (2) He employed his knowledge of God’s Word skillfully, even as an artisan uses a tool effectively.

Regarding the New Covenant: Well, this law is also called “the law of the Christ.” It was first given to spiritual Israelites (a symbolic term), those in the new covenant. (Gal. 6:2; Rom. 2:28, 29) You could sum up “the law of the Christ” in one word: love. (Matt. 22:36-39) How do those of the anointed get this law written in their heart? Key ways are by their studying God’s Word and approaching Jehovah in prayer. Accordingly, those aspects of true worship should be regular features of the lives of all true Christians, even those who are not in the new covenant but who want to benefit from it. (Which is everlasting life on a perfect Earth and NOT a heavenly hope) Luke 23:43 - Isaiah 65:21-25 “The law of the Christ” is referred to as “the perfect law that belongs to freedom” and “the law of a free people.” (Jas. 1:25; 2:12) Many were born under the Mosaic Law, but no one is born into the new covenant or under the law of the Christ. None who become obedient to the law of the Christ are coerced into serving God. Rather, they are delighted to know that God’s law can be written in hearts and that lasting benefits of the covenant that Jeremiah foretold are available to humans today. How is God’s law written in hearts? When a person loves God’s law so much that he has a fervent desire to do Jehovah’s will, it can be said that God’s law is written in his heart.

Regarding the sacredness of blood and Jesus symbolic statement, not to be taken literally However, the people take exception to Jesus’ words. “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” they ask. (John 6:52) Jesus wants them to understand that he means this figuratively, not literally. What he adds shows this to be his meaning. “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in yourselves. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has everlasting life, . . . for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood remains in union with me.”—John 6:53-56. They might think that Jesus is suggesting cannibalism or a violation of God’s law against consuming blood. (Genesis 9:4; Leviticus 17:10, 11) But Jesus is not referring to eating flesh or drinking blood literally. He is showing that all who want everlasting life must exercise faith in the sacrifice that he is to make when he offers up his perfect human body and pours out his lifeblood. Yet, even many of his disciples do not understand this teaching. Some react: “This speech is shocking; who can listen to it?”—John 6:60. Because Jesus realizes that some of his disciples are murmuring, he asks: “Does this stumble you? What, therefore, if you should see the Son of man ascending to where he was before? . . . The sayings that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life. But there are some of you who do not believe.” With that, many disciples leave and no longer follow him.—John 6:61-64. So Jesus addresses his 12 apostles with the question: “You do not want to go also, do you?” Peter responds: “Lord, whom shall we go away to? You have sayings of everlasting life. We have believed and have come to know that you are the Holy One of God.” (John 6:67-69)

UglyTruth ago

Regarding Paul Lying (Acts 26:1-28) Paul was not lying about Jesus appearing before him on the road to Damascus

Straw man. The issue is that Paul lied about being appointed as a witness on the road to Damascus.

Well, this law is also called “the law of the Christ.”

Paul's summary (Galatians 5:14) omits the most important part of Matthew 22:36-39.

He is showing that all who want everlasting life must exercise faith in the sacrifice that he is to make when he offers up his perfect human body and pours out his lifeblood.

The central doctrine of the Pauline death cult isn't supported by the prophetic references to the crucifixion (Isaiah 53, Psalm 22 & 69) or by the deprecation of blood sacrifice by the prophets. Saturnalia is a much better fit for the myth of the father killing the son in relation to the eating of flesh than Judaism is.

dreamdigital ago

We greatly disagree on Paul lying about what happened to him on the road to Damascus. You have nothing to back up that he was lying.

(Matthew 22:36-39) 36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” 37 He said to him: “‘You must love Jehovah your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind.’ 38 This is the greatest and first commandment. 39 The second, like it, is this: ‘You must love your neighbor as yourself

(Galatians 5:13,14) 13 You were called to freedom, brothers; only do not use this freedom as an opportunity to pursue fleshly desires, but through love slave for one another.+ 14 For the entire Law has been fulfilled in one commandment, namely: “You must love your neighbor as yourself.”*

How is this in anyway a contradiction, or omitting what is stated in Matthew about loving your neighbor as yourself? He says the second commandment, which is "like it", or "like the first commandment."

And I am in complete agreement as to what you last said about the Pauline Death Cult and the Crucifixion. Let me elaborate. First touching on the Crucifixion. “THE cross,” says one encyclopedia, “is the most familiar symbol of Christianity.” Many religious paintings and works of art depict Jesus nailed to a cross. Why is this symbol so widespread in Christendom? Did Jesus really die on a cross?

Many would point to the Bible for the answer. For example, according to the King James Version, at the time of Jesus’ execution, onlookers made fun of Jesus and challenged him to “come down from the cross.” (Matthew 27:40, 42) Many other Bible translations read similarly. Today’s English Version says of Simon from Cyrene: “The soldiers forced him to carry Jesus’ cross.” (Mark 15:21) In these verses, the word “cross” is translated from the Greek word staurosʹ. Is there a solid basis for such a translation? What is the meaning of that original word?

Was It a Cross?

According to Greek scholar W. E. Vine, staurosʹ “denotes, primarily, an upright pale or stake. On such malefactors were nailed for execution. Both the noun and the verb stauroō, to fasten to a stake or pale, are originally to be distinguished from the ecclesiastical form of a two beamed cross.”

The Imperial Bible-Dictionary says that the word staurosʹ “properly signified a stake, an upright pole, or piece of paling, on which anything might be hung, or which might be used in impaling a piece of ground.” The dictionary continues: “Even amongst the Romans the crux (Latin, from which our cross is derived) appears to have been originally an upright pole.” Thus, it is not surprising that The Catholic Encyclopedia states: “Certain it is, at any rate, that the cross originally consisted of a simple vertical pole, sharpened at its upper end.”

There is another Greek word, xyʹlon, that Bible writers used to describe the instrument of Jesus’ execution. A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament defines xyʹlon as “a piece of timber, a wooden stake.” It goes on to say that like staurosʹ, xyʹlon “was simply an upright pale or stake to which the Romans nailed those who were thus said to be crucified.”

In line with this, we note that the King James Version reads at Acts 5:30: “The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree [xyʹlon].” Other versions, though rendering staurosʹ as “cross,” also translate xyʹlon as “tree.” At Acts 13:29, The Jerusalem Bible says of Jesus: “When they had carried out everything that scripture foretells about him they took him down from the tree [xyʹlon] and buried him.”

In view of the basic meaning of the Greek words staurosʹ and xyʹlon, the Critical Lexicon and Concordance, quoted above, observes: “Both words disagree with the modern idea of a cross, with which we have become familiarised by pictures.” In other words, what the Gospel writers described using the word staurosʹ was nothing like what people today call a cross. Appropriately, therefore, the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures uses the expression “torture stake” at Matthew 27:40-42 and in other places where the word staurosʹ appears. Similarly, the Complete Jewish Bible uses the expression “execution stake.”

Origin of the Cross

If the Bible does not really say that Jesus was executed on a cross, then why do all the churches that claim to teach and follow the Bible—Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox—adorn their buildings with the cross and use it as a symbol of their faith? How did the cross come to be such a popular symbol?

The answer is that the cross is venerated not only by churchgoers who claim to follow the Bible but also by people far removed from the Bible and whose worship far predates that of “Christian” churches. Numerous religious reference works acknowledge that the use of crosses in various shapes and forms goes back to remote periods of human civilization. For example, ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics and depictions of their gods and goddesses often show a cross in the shape of a T with a circle at the top. It is called the ansate, or handle-shaped, cross and is thought to be a symbol of life. In time, this form of the cross was adopted and used extensively by the Coptic Church and others.

According to The Catholic Encyclopedia, “the primitive form of the cross seems to have been that of the so-called ‘gamma’ cross (crux gammata), better known to Orientalists and students of prehistoric archæology by its Sanskrit name, swastika.” This sign was widely used among Hindus in India and Buddhists throughout Asia and is still seen in decorations and ornaments in those areas.

It is not known exactly when the cross was adopted as a “Christian” symbol. Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words states: “By the middle of the 3rd cent. A.D. the churches had either departed from, or had travestied, certain doctrines of the Christian faith. In order to increase the prestige of the apostate ecclesiastical system pagans were received into the churches apart from regeneration by faith, and were permitted largely to retain their pagan signs and symbols,” including the cross.

Some writers point to the claim by the sun-god worshipper Constantine that in 312 C.E., while on one of his military campaigns, he had a vision of a cross superimposed on the sun along with the motto in Latin “in hoc vince” (by this conquer). Some time later, a “Christian” sign was emblazoned on the standards, shields, and armor of his army. (Pictured at left.) Constantine purportedly converted to Christianity, though he was not baptized until 25 years later on his deathbed. His motive was questioned by some. “He acted rather as if he were converting Christianity into what he thought most likely to be accepted by his subjects as a catholic [universal] religion, than as if he had been converted to the teachings of Jesus the Nazarene,” says the book The Non-Christian Cross.

Since then, crosses of many forms and shapes have come into use. For example, The Illustrated Bible Dictionary tells us that what is called St. Anthony’s cross “was shaped like a capital T, thought by some to be derived from the symbol of the [Babylonian] god Tammuz, the letter tau.” There was also the St. Andrew’s cross, which is in the shape of the letter X, and the familiar two-beamed cross with the crossbar lowered. This latter type, called the Latin cross, is erroneously “held by tradition to be the shape of the cross on which our Lord died.”

(continued in reply) --->

UglyTruth ago

We greatly disagree on Paul lying about what happened to him on the road to Damascus. You have nothing to back up that he was lying.

Except that you previously diverted to an irrelevancy rather than address the actual issue. Luke's account (Acts 9) and Paul's first account (Acts 22) do not mention him being appointed as an apostle, but rather that he was told to go to Damascus for instructions on what to do, which is inconsistent with his account to King Agrippa (Acts 26).

How is this in anyway a contradiction, or omitting what is stated in Matthew about loving your neighbor as yourself?

Again you are avoiding the issue, i.e. that the omission in Paul's summary of the law relates to love of deity.

dreamdigital ago

Please, elaborate how Paul's summary of the law relates to love of deity or a false idols? He's saying love your neighbor as yourself. The apostle Paul said: “He that loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law.” He then names some of the commandments of the Law and concludes: “and whatever other commandment there is, is summed up in this word, namely, ‘You must love your neighbor [ple·siʹon] as yourself.’ Love does not work evil to one’s neighbor [ple·siʹon]; therefore love is the law’s fulfillment.” (Ro 13:8-10; compare Ga 5:14.) James calls the command to love one’s neighbor as oneself “the kingly law.”—Jas 2:8. So far, all I am able to decipher from you accusations is that Paul is lying because he is retelling his account of Jesus confronting him about his persecuting of Christians who believe in Jesus. Paul was Saul. After his anointing by Jesus on the road to Damascus and to get baptized and repent he became Paul. Just for reference, here is Acts 22:

“Men, brothers and fathers, hear my defense to you now.”+ 2 Well, when they heard that he was addressing them in the Hebrew language, they kept all the more silent, and he said: 3 “I am a Jew,+ born in Tarsus of Ci·liʹcia,+ but educated in this city at the feet of Ga·maʹli·el,+ instructed according to the strictness of the ancestral Law,+ and zealous for God just as all of you are this day.+ 4 I persecuted this Way to the point of death, binding and handing over to prisons both men and women,+ 5 as the high priest and all the assembly of elders can bear witness. From them I also obtained letters to the brothers in Damascus, and I was on my way to bring those who were there in bonds to Jerusalem to be punished. 6 “But as I was traveling and getting near to Damascus, about midday, suddenly out of heaven a great light flashed all around me,+ 7 and I fell to the ground and heard a voice say to me: ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?’ 8 I answered: ‘Who are you, Lord?’ And he said to me: ‘I am Jesus the Naz·a·reneʹ, whom you are persecuting.’ 9 Now the men who were with me did see the light, but they did not hear the voice of the one speaking to me. 10 At that I said: ‘What should I do, Lord?’ The Lord said to me: ‘Rise, go into Damascus, and there you will be told about everything it is appointed for you to do.’+ 11 But since I could not see anything because of the glory of that light, I arrived in Damascus led by the hand of those who were with me. 12 “Then a man named An·a·niʹas, a devout man according to the Law, well-reported-on by all the Jews living there, 13 came to me. He stood by me and said to me: ‘Saul, brother, regain your sight!’ And that very moment I looked up and saw him.+ 14 He said: ‘The God of our forefathers has chosen you to come to know his will and to see the righteous one+ and to hear the voice of his mouth, 15 because you are to be a witness for him to all men of the things you have seen and heard.+ 16 And now why are you delaying? Rise, get baptized, and wash your sins+ away by your calling on his name.’+ 17 “But when I had returned to Jerusalem+ and was praying in the temple, I fell into a trance 18 and saw him saying to me: ‘Hurry up and get out of Jerusalem quickly, because they will not accept your witness concerning me.’+ 19 And I said: ‘Lord, they themselves well know that I used to imprison and flog in one synagogue after another those believing in you;+ 20 and when the blood of Stephen your witness was being spilled, I was standing by and approving and guarding the outer garments of those doing away with him.’+ 21 And yet he said to me: ‘Go, because I will send you out to nations far away.’”+ 22 Now they kept listening to him down to this word. Then they raised their voices, saying: “Take such a man away from the earth, for he is not fit to live!” 23 Because they were crying out, throwing their outer garments about, and tossing dust into the air,+ 24 the military commander ordered Paul to be brought into the soldiers’ quarters and said that he should be interrogated under scourging, so that he could learn exactly why they were shouting against Paul this way. 25 But when they had stretched him out for the whipping, Paul said to the army officer standing there: “Is it lawful for you to scourge a Roman* who has not been condemned?”*+ 26 Well, when the army officer heard this, he went to the military commander and reported it, saying: “What are you intending to do? For this man is a Roman.” 27 So the military commander approached and said to him: “Tell me, are you a Roman?” He said: “Yes.” 28 The military commander responded: “I purchased these rights as a citizen for a large sum of money.” Paul said: “But I have them by birth.”+ 29 Immediately, therefore, the men who were about to interrogate him under torture backed away from him; and the military commander became afraid when he realized that he was a Roman and that he had bound him in chains.+ 30 So the next day, because he wanted to know for sure just why he was being accused by the Jews, he released him and commanded the chief priests and all the Sanʹhe·drin to assemble. He then brought Paul down and had him stand among them.+

UglyTruth ago

Please, elaborate how Paul's summary of the law relates to love of deity or a false idols?

It doesn't, that's the whole point. Paul's summary omits the greatest commandment of your text of the summary in Matthew:

(Matthew 22:36-39) 36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” 37 He said to him: “‘You must love Jehovah your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind.’ 38 This is the greatest and first commandment. 39 The second, like it, is this: ‘You must love your neighbor as yourself

Paul's summary is limited to the second commandment of Matthew 22:39.

So far, all I am able to decipher from you accusations is that Paul is lying because he is retelling his account of Jesus confronting him about his persecuting of Christians who believe in Jesus.

Specifically because Paul contradicted his previous account (Acts 22) and Luke's account (Acts 9).

From your text of Acts 22, which contradicts the account of Acts 26:16-18.

10 At that I said: ‘What should I do, Lord?’ The Lord said to me: ‘Rise, go into Damascus, and there you will be told about everything it is appointed for you to do.’

Acts 26:16-18 makes no mention of the instruction to proceed to Damascus:

But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee;

Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee,

To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.

... and no mention of the purpose of bearing the name of Acts 9:15

But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:

dreamdigital ago

This will be last reply regarding the Apostle Paul lying and contradicting himself. I have looked up all of your references trying to prove Paul is lying and it's just not so. The reason is this:

  1. Paul was saying the second part of the law about brotherly love to show that without brotherly love, you cannot have love for God. The two go hand in hand. He was speaking to people of the congregation of that time. And his words go hand in hand with 1 John 4:20, 21** which says: "20** If anyone says, “I love God,” and yet is hating his brother, he is a liar. For the one who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen. 21** And we have this commandment from him, that whoever loves God must also love his brother." You may have knowledge about scriptures, but knowledge is different from understanding and wisdom. Knowledge is seeing the bus coming at you when you're standing in the road. Do you have the understanding to know that if you don't move it's going to hit you? And wisdom is getting out of the way. Rather than accuse Paul of lying, why not try to understand why he said it, or worded it the way he did.

  2. The Bible has no contradictions. If there was contradiction this would make God himself a liar. Numbers 23:19 - "God is not a mere man who tells lies, Nor a son of man who changes his mind. When he says something, will he not do it? When he speaks, will he not carry it out?" Hebrews 6:18 - "in order that through two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled to the refuge may have strong encouragement to take firm hold of the hope set before us."

Here is one lie that Religions teach about God: He is part of a Trinity. God's name is Jehovah, or Yahweh (Hebrew: YHWH). His son, who was the first born of all creation is named Jesus. His heavenly name is Michael. The Holy spirit is God's active force that he uses to accomplish his will. All this truth can be found in the bible.

You know who told me once that the bible contradicted itself? A Catholic Priest when I was 16 years old. Since I know all the truths about Catholicism and their religion based on pagan tradition, as do you, I can prove to myself and have that the bible does not contradict itself. I have tried. I don't accuse it's words, I try to understand them.

Video: Who Is the Author of the Bible?

Video: Why Study the Bible?

UglyTruth ago

Paul was saying the second part of the law about brotherly love to show that without brotherly love, you cannot have love for God.

He didn't call it the second part. There's nothing in Paul's text to support your argument.

The Bible has no contradictions. If there was contradiction this would make God himself a liar.

Wrong, you are assuming that "God" is responsible for the writing of the Bible,which isn't the case.