Posted on 06/24/2014 2:13:28 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Please explain the above and where you come up with this.
These are people in the old testament.
1 Corinthians 15:20
But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.
Them that slept ( past tense )
Romans 8
29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
This is spoken in the past tense to be glorified i think you would have to be resurrected.
They must have been Glorified just behind Jesus.
John 12
23 And Jesus answered them, saying, The hour is come, that the Son of man should be glorified.
Mathew 27
52
And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
Again slept.
53
And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.
Hebrew 12
1 Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us,
A 144000 would be a seem as a great cloud.
Rev 14
3 And they sang a new song before the throne and before the four living creatures and the elders. No one could learn the song except the 144,000 who had been redeemed from the earth.
4 These are those who did not defile themselves with women, for they remained virgins. They follow the Lamb wherever he goes. They were purchased from among mankind and offered as firstfruits to God and the Lamb.
5 No lie was found in their mouths; they are blameless.
1Cor 15
23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming.
Paul did not say the Hebrews salvation was based on blood sacrifice:
Galatians 3:
The Law and the Promise
17 What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. 18 For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on the promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise.
He taught that we can be adopted children of Abraham because of Christ:
So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Not one scripture reference in your reply just a amazon book list. Please show the scriptures which support your suppositions.
So your beef is not entirely with Paul. It is the entire foundation of Christianity?
None of those references state Jesus took 144,000 with Him after His resurrection.
I don't know what brand if Judaism you follow, but it's very unlikely the ancient Jews would have taken issue with Paul or Christ on the subject of women, seeing as how they were the ones with the actually negative views all around, such as in their old prayer (still used today) wherein they thank God for being born a man an not a beast, a Israelite and not a Gentile, a man and not a woman, and free and not a slave.
It was very likely that Paul was responding to this prayer when he wrote:
Gal_3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
As for divorce and the Talmud: "According to the Talmud, only the husband can initiate a divorce, and the wife cannot prevent him from divorcing her. Later rabbinical authorities took steps to ease the harshness of these rules by prohibiting a man from divorcing a woman without her consent. In addition, a rabbinical court can compel a husband to divorce his wife under certain circumstances: when he is physically repulsive because of some medical condition or other characteristic, when he violates or neglects his marital obligations (food, clothing and sexual intercourse), or, according to some views, when there is sexual incompatibility."
Furthermore, "Under Jewish law, a man can divorce a woman for any reason or no reason. The Talmud specifically says that a man can divorce a woman because she spoiled his dinner or simply because he finds another woman more attractive, and the woman's consent to the divorce is not required. In fact, Jewish law requires divorce in some circumstances: when the wife commits a sexual transgression, a man must divorce her, even if he is inclined to forgive her."
http://www.jewfaq.org/divorce.htm
This divorce for "any reason or no reason" of the Hillel school, with the husbands having the ability to put away their wife at a whim, in fact, was something Christ spoke out against Himself:
"The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." (Mat 19:3-6)
Your religion is not the feminist paradise you are making it sound like.
While it is true that divorce (except for fornication) is a sin in Christianity, this is not an oppressive view against women. It is simply a higher view of marriage.
Our ancestors were just as rational and thinking as we are and the didn’t make such decisions lightly.
Really? Your religion spends a great deal of time dictating different ways on how to take a pee, even charging that if you have sex too soon afterwards, your kid will have epilepsy, because the demon of epilepsy hooks gets you if he catches you breaking the rule:
"The Rabbis taught: 'On coming from a privy (outdoor toilet) a man should not have sexual intercourse till he has waited long enough to walk half a mile, because the demon of the privy is with him for that time; if he does, his children will be epileptic.'" (Babylonian Talmud, Gittin 70a)
And you expect me to believe that the reason why you are not a Christian is because Judaism is so much more rational than the rest of us?
None of those references state Jesus took 144,000 with Him after His resurrection.
They merely trade one addiction for another.
As any true American should be in matters of "spirituality." This bowing and scraping to a tome from the Middle East is no more noble than searching Europe or Asia for philosophical guidance. What have they to do with us? Lands whose people have always been in thrall to ghosts, gods, kings, witchdoctors, prophets, and messiahs. America is the land where independence of thought first cut its teeth. That it's nearly gone today is as much the fault of you who look to Jerusalem for guidance as it is those who look to Brussels.
Not biting.
It is someone who makes specious and stupid arguments.
I don`t remember saying any one hated Paul and I gave you the scripture, I was just stating fact which you choose to ignore.
You stated that they called him a liar and a false Apostle (which, actually, it doesn't, it only says that they "turned away" from him because of his imprisonment), this is most certainly "hate." As for "choosing to ignore" something. Your argument is so stupid that there is not much to say about it. There is no real cause for doubt just because Paul is attacked by some, when he is embraced by all the Apostles. And you, in your absolute shadiness, still refuse to actually give any specifics about what you believe is "true" Christianity. So all you do is tell us how terrible Paul is, without bothering to explain where it is you actually differ with Paul!
You are nothing more than a troll.
What this country needs is a general cleansing. 1- The government needs to be put back into it’s place. That includes totally out of the education system, no more subsidies, no more favoritism. Cut it to the bone, to the Constitutional duties and nothing more.
The end of the modern welfare state must be done as quickly as possible and all at once. From top to bottom, and nowhere is welfare more profitable than government.
“If Paul adhered to Rabbinical teachings he *never* would’ve thought to teach that the *new* way to Gd is through faith, not works.”
It is only a stereotype that Jews believed in salvation by works rather than grace. http://readingacts.wordpress.com/2011/08/29/basics-of-the-new-perspective-judaism-as-a-religion-of-grace/
I don’t believe Paul had the view you believe he did. I think Paul knew exactly what he was talking about.
Your post makes no sense.
“Power, influence, and fame with believers (which belief he hoped to spread further.)”
What evidence do you have for any of these claims of yours about Paul? He knew he was risking his life by BECOMING a Christian. Why do it when he had more power as a Jew?
“As to how he lived his life, I’m happy if he didn’t rape any teenage girls, although the Bible doesn’t really say much about raping virgins so it probably wouldn’t have mattered if he had, and we’ll never know.”
What? You think it would not have mattered if Paul raped young girls? Paul preached the importance of sexual self-control and you’re saying it wouldn’t have mattered if he raped young girls? Seriously, do you realize how kooky that point of view is?
“Plenty of other men in the Bible had sex with young wives, slaves, multiple wives... I think Lot did it with his daughters... it wasn’t exactly a hotbed of women’s rights.”
So if it was a “hotbed of women’s rights” it would have mattered if Paul raped young girls but since it isn’t it doesn’t matter?
“I’d still put Paul in the same category with the myriad of other men over the centuries who claimed power and enlightenment from a diety.”
Really? And which one of them did he act like?
“Indeed, I seem to remember European kings believed they ruled by divine right.”
Some said that but “divine right monarchy” was a short lived concept in Europe.
“Many of them met with violent ends... I suspect they believed God would protect them right up till that last moment. It’s pretty common, apparently, to say (and maybe even believe) that God has spoken to you, chosen you, you are special, you have a fantastical destiny in store...”
Your post makes no sense.
“I actually have a schizophrenic ex-boyfriend who went through this in 2010-2011. He wandered around India for quite a while, convinced that God was talking to him and warning him about 2012 and the end of the world.”
I’m sorry about your friend, but nothing about Paul is about your friend in regard to your friend’s illness.
“Have you read the Greek?”
Of what?
Gamecock, you asked A_perfect_lady this question:
“Are you perchance Roman Catholic?”
Did she ever answer that question?
How about Paul simply articulated Christianity?
Not to my knowledge.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.