Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Christianity could possibly become a minority religion in US as early as 2045…

This is so true. "Take heed that ye be not deceived. For many shall come in my name"

I knew that you were incapable of answering simple questions.

I am immune to your scripture force fields (they're not really there either).

Have you ever considered that verse as being applicable to you too…? Or do you just consider it as being applicable to those other’s who don’t agree with your staunch anti-Apostle Paul position (since that’s always when you toss it out there)…?

Not really, but what do I know? What do you think?

No, you are incapable of understanding even simple biblical concepts.

As I have said before, I can explain, but I cannot understand it for you.


I guess there is another explanation ….. perhaps your mind is clouded and you prefer to stay in the darkness.

I think that that verse that you’ve weaponized against those other’s here who don’t agree with your staunch anti-Apostle Paul position is just as applicable to you as it is to anyone else here.

I am not against anyone here or weaponizing against anyone. Just stating my doubts about Paul and hoping others will look into the matter. As I earlier said I understand I am in a decided minority in my opinion. But there are those that like me accept that Jesus was exactly who claimed to be and accept his teachings as truth. We aren't that many compared to the whole that claim Christianity but we are not a miniscule number either.

I don't know. I'm willing to view about everything with an open mind. But I can't understand why someone in Paul's situation would toss it all aside in order to go on the road to spread the Gospel to a bunch of Pagans.

It wasn't a high paying job and it put you at risk of getting your head cut off,.....which, by most accounts is what happened to Paul.

There's a lot of examples to choose from. But if Paul was just there to stir up a false Gospel, why did he jump all over the Corinthians for not having the proper respect for Holy Communion? (1 Corinthians 11:27-30) For that matter, why would he have even gone to the trouble to teach about Holy Communion to a bunch of Pagans if he was just there to deceive them?

The Eucharist is a fairly complex concept that still produces a lot of disagreements among Catholics and many Protestant denominations.

Paul could have just left that part out and not have had to go to the trouble of chastising the Corinthians about their casual way of doing it. It would have made life much simpler for him.

In fact, just not getting involved with the entire affair would have made life much simpler for Paul.

Basically, he had to turn his back on his own people and give up everything that he had and knew to spread the Gospel.

So what was his motivation?

As mentioned, it was a low paying job and it caused him to be a pariah among the Jews and most of the Pagans who he was ministering to.

The ‘only’ time you toss out that verse about ‘being deceived’ is when you’re throwing it at those other’s here who disagree with you on this matter. You’ve done it many times, and it’s ‘always’ under the same circumstances.Doubt away. That’s your prerogative. But other's here ‘have’ looked into the matter and they still clearly overwhelmingly disagree with you about it. You seem to think that since they disagree with you about Paul, that it’s because they haven’t looked into the matter, and that’s simply not the case.OK. Cool. I likely am too when it comes to some of my positions about the faith of Christianity.Probably 100% of the people on this board who profess to be Christians ‘also’ accept that Jesus was exactly who He claimed to be and accept His teachings as truth, but they still disagree with you about Apostle Paul. You seem to think that since they disagree with you about Paul, that it’s because they don’t accept that Jesus was exactly who claimed to be, and you seem to think that since they disagree with you about Paul, that it’s because they don’t accept Jesus’ teachings as truth…and that’s simply not the case in either of those instances. Incidentally, you’ve repeatedly said on these threads that you “believe that Jesus was exactly who He claimed to be”, but you’ve also clearly and repeatedly claimed disbelief that Jesus was and is God. And the fact that you’re in the minority regarding your staunch anti-Apostle Paul position is irrelevant, as sometimes those in the minority are correct, and sometimes they’re not.

Your opinions are yours. That’s OK. Differing opinions are OK. I have many of my own that are clearly different from many of those here about the faith of Christianity.

Claims can be made after the event. What is written came decades after the described events.

Did Jesus himself claim to be God? I know about the ambiguous I AM statement in John, but did he otherwise claim that he was God? He directly prayed to God as if he were not himself God. Lots of times.

It is true that Jesus never said the exact words, “I am God.” He did, however, make the claim to be God in many different ways, and those who heard Him knew exactly what He was saying. For example, in John 10:30, Jesus said, “I and the Father are one.” The Jews who heard Him make that statement knew well that He was claiming to be God, as witnessed by their reaction: “His Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him” (John 10:31). When He asked them why they were attempting to stone Him, they said, “For blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God” (John 10:33). Stoning was the penalty for blasphemy (Leviticus 24:16), and the Jews plainly accused Jesus of claiming to be God

The Gospel of John begins with a statement of Jesus’ deity: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1, emphasis added). In verse 14, John identifies the Word: “The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.” John is affirming that the Word (Jesus) is God, and He left heaven to come to earth in the form of a man to live with men and display the glory of God the Father.

Maybe so, but I thought "the word" meant "the truth". I have a hard time making that leap because of how often he referred to his Father and how often it is recorded that he prayed to God. I could be wrong but I just don't see him or the synoptic gospels making that claim and that is a very important issue if true.

Nothing ambiguous about it. Jesus clearly used the very words that God the Father clearly used to reveal Himself to Moses from the burning bush. To the Old Covenant, Mosaic Law following Jews who were there, this was the very epitome of blasphemy, and they clearly had no doubt that Jesus was clearly claiming to be God. So much so that they attempted to stone Him on the spot for it.

Another time Jesus clearly told the Jews that He and His Father are one. And the Old Covenant, Mosaic Law following Jews who were there had no doubt that Jesus was clearly claiming to be God. So much so that they again attempted to stone Him on the spot for it. They even clearly said they were stoning Him because He “claimed to be God.”

These things have been clearly pointed out to you many times, by ‘many’ people here, every single time that you’ve stated here your disbelief that Jesus was and is God; and these things have been clearly pointed out to you many times, by ‘many’ people here, every single time that you’ve asked the question “Did Jesus Himself claim to be God”…?

JGRaider is right. “The Word” in John 1 is clearly a reference to Jesus Himself, as evidenced in other verses later in the same chapter: “the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us” (for example).

So it’s “In the beginning was Jesus, and Jesus was with God, and Jesus WAS God”.

You seem to struggle an awful lot (no offense). It's pretty simple to understand the Jesus was God incarnated as a man (scripture backs it up as has been explained multiple times). He was a living, breathing example of how we should live out lives, including praying to God Almighty.

He was clearly handpicked by God Himself to carry His message to the Gentiles ‘and’ to the Jews. Luke, not Paul, clearly and specifically documented this in Acts. He was a violent and murderous fanatical Old Covenant, Mosaic Law following Jewish Pharisee who was trained by one of the leading Jewish scholars of the time, Gamaliel. That put him as one of the upcoming men in Judaism.

He was a fire and brimstone Jew who hated Christians with a passion, thinking he was doing God's work. Then he met the risen Jesus head on, getting knocked down in the dirt and slapped along side the head. And he did a 180 in the course of a single day.

God also said that He would teach Paul what he would suffer for doing His work. And Paul did suffer. He was beaten and imprisoned, snake-bit and shipwrecked. Paul went through some rough times. In the end he was murdered by Nero.

God knew what Paul was capable of and hand picked him to be the leading missionary of all time.

I believe in Jesus's life example, his resurrection, he is of the trinity of God, the Holy Spirit is my communication and spiritual link to God all everyone else.

I don't need Paul or any other man's words for a personal relationship with Christ, the church needed Paul to exist, I don't.

Paul wasn't a false prophet, I don't challenge his conversion and actually agree he saw the light of Christ and was transformed. But he was still a man and got some things wrong from Jesus's message, everyone does. I've heard to much personal testimony of the white light and how powerful it is, for whatever reason I'm a magnet for people to dump their testimony on just out of the blue, it's strange. Paul wasn't a prophet at all, a church builder and a good one. Goesn't mean his words are God's more than anyone else that has seen the light and lived to tell about it.

I don't discount Joseph Smith anymore for the same reason. I'm kinda ashamed of the theological battles I had with my mormon cousins on my younger years, would guild myself with the shield and sword of chapter and verse and swing for blood. They did the same and we would part each thinking we won.

Christ is inclusive, Paul is exclusive, if you wish to uplift your bother with hope use Christ, if you wish to attack use Paul.

This is like the 20th time I've said this on this site in these discussions, I've given plenty of real examples of contradictions before... no more... and next thread everyone will act like they never heard such a thing before.

It's not Paul's fault the church took his words and weaponized them against the rest of mankind hundreds of years later, he didn't write those words for that.

Kent