Is this a religious viewpoint you could agree with?

[Delightful Life]

Thank you for your answer unsafe. Since you say you take that passage literally, how do you reconcile 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 with your being "...a Lesbian ----happy ---healthy ----peaceful ---joyful"? Are you saying that because you have the Holy Spirit, God will not count your being a homosexual against you?

Unsafe isnt a man so shes safe :3 That bit aboot lesbians being sinful isnt in scripture; its Mans Word and amazingly a result of trying to apply feminism to g_ds word...

 

[airclean33]

There are a variety of possibilities.

Maybe it actually happened.

Maybe this is what Luke was told.

Maybe it was Paul who told him.

Maybe it's mythic. Which means not untrue, but written in such a way as to take an actual event and frame it in such a way that it reveals deeper truth.

Maybe it's an attempt to capture with what I call "word-pictures" the power and drama of the moment of Paul's conversion - a power that can't be captured by just saying "Paul had a really deep experience with Christ and got converted."

In any event, in keeping with the spirit of what I just wrote, I choose not to get really invested in "why was it written this way?" or "did it really happen exactly this way?" and am instead far more concerned with "what truth does it reveal to me?"

--Hi Rev--Steve just wondered your story ,of GOD saving you. I relate to Pauls saving. Christ Jesus came and called me by name.

 

[unsafe]

Pr.Jae ----in all your getting get understanding ----the passage is not addressing saved people here in 9and 10 ----it is addressing people who are not saved -----verse 11 is key in this scripture -----this verse says what saved people are ------and the beginning of verse 11 says ---- That’s what some of you were!-----speaking of unsaved people -----this is the rest of verse 11 -----But you have been washed and made holy, and you have received God’s approval in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

I am saved Pr.Jae and considered a saint in God's eyes ---Go read my original post ------I am made holy and have God's approval through Jesus Christ In God's eyes Pr.Jae I am no longer a sinner ------I am Holy and acceptable -----and because I follow God's word on how to live a healthy --prosperous ---joyful ---happy ---wonderful ----peaceful ---enemy free life ----I am living that life ------I love my life ----am I tested ---yes --but God provides a way out so when trials come I trust God and it has never failed me yet -----I live a very stress free life -----

Read verse 11 ----and get understanding ------I explained all that in the above post ---you can't read 9and 10 without verse 11 ---verse 11 is important for complete understanding ------9 Don’t you know that wicked people won’t inherit God’s kingdom? Stop deceiving yourselves! People who continue to commit sexual sins, who worship false gods, those who commit adultery, homosexuals,10 or thieves, those who are greedy or drunk, who use abusive language, or who rob people will not inherit God’s kingdom.
11 That’s what some of you were! But you have been washed and made holy, and you have received God’s approval in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

 

[Jaebius]

Pr.Jae ----in all your getting get understanding ----the passage is not addressing saved people here in 9and 10 ----it is addressing people who are not saved -----verse 11 is key in this scripture -----this verse says what saved people are ------and the beginning of verse 11 says ---- That’s what some of you were!-----speaking of unsaved people -----this is the rest of verse 11 -----But you have been washed and made holy, and you have received God’s approval in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

I am saved Pr.Jae and considered a saint in God's eyes ---Go read my original post ------I am made holy and have God's approval through Jesus Christ In God's eyes Pr.Jae I am no longer a sinner ------I am Holy and acceptable -----and because I follow God's word on how to live a healthy --prosperous ---joyful ---happy ---wonderful ----peaceful ---enemy free life ----I am living that life ------I love my life ----am I tested ---yes --but God provides a way out so when trials come I trust God and it has never failed me yet -----I live a very stress free life -----

Read verse 11 ----and get understanding ------I explained all that in the above post ---you can't read 9and 10 without verse 11 ---verse 11 is important for complete understanding ------9 Don’t you know that wicked people won’t inherit God’s kingdom? Stop deceiving yourselves! People who continue to commit sexual sins, who worship false gods, those who commit adultery, homosexuals,10 or thieves, those who are greedy or drunk, who use abusive language, or who rob people will not inherit God’s kingdom.
11 That’s what some of you were! But you have been washed and made holy, and you have received God’s approval in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

But, by your own witness unsafe, you are still a homosexual. Is it your belief that because you are saved you now have license to do/be the things described in verses 9-10? You said that you take the Scriptures literally. If you do, how can you consider yourself an inheritor of the Kingdom of God since you are still a homosexual?

 

[Delightful Life]

But, by your own witness unsafe, you are still a homosexual. Is it your belief that because you are saved you now have license to do/be the things described in verses 9-10? You said that you take the Scriptures literally. If you do, how can you consider yourself an inheritor of the Kingdom of God since you are still a homosexual?

But, by your own witness unsafe, you are still a homosexual. Is it your belief that because you are saved you now have license to do/be the things described in verses 9-10? You said that you take the Scriptures literally. If you do, how can you consider yourself an inheritor of the Kingdom of God since you are still a homosexual?

Again she is alright
The word homsexual wasnt around at the.time of the bibble
It is our more modern translation of 'a man who lies with another man like a woman'
(which is problematic in itself ontologically)
She isnt even a man so why do you continue to put Man's word above g_d's word? Why continue to blaspheme and sin against g_d?

Continue to have fun playing with people's lives here going over the exact ground again n again n again...

 

[revjohn]

@revjohn, historians believe whoever wrote Acts was unaware of Paul's letters when it was written, because Pauls letters were never quoted

Some historians do sloppy work.

Because nothing by Paul is quoted proves only that nothing by Paul was quoted.

Nothing from the writings of Peter, James, the Johns, Jude or Hebrews are quoted in Acts either so what shall we make from that?

and the fact that there are discrepancies would suggest that the author of Acts knew nothing about the letters that Paul wrote himself describing his own life.

Even if we grant that as true (and I don't believe that it is for a moment) I hope you aren't going to try and assert that Luke's inclusion of Paul's missionary journeys is a figment of his imagination.

We do have, in Paul's letters mention of his movements. No detailed itinerary anywhere near approaching what is recorded in Acts which summarizes rather briefly Paul's entire ministry.

Luke was clearly able to gain a lot of information on Paul, his travelling companions, his connections and ports of call from somewhere.

So when we have these "liberties" taken in Acts to describe Paul's conversion and then Paul's letters which he alone authored that also describe his conversion, I find it hard to believe Acts description of Paul's conversion.

That is fair.

I will disagree with your assessment.

In the end it doesn't really matter much unless you are attempting to strip the office of Apostle away from Paul.

I expect, that Paul's conversion story would be very well known. His transformation was rather abrupt and initially there would be a great deal of doubt. Leopards changing spots and the like.

I would imagine that Paul was compelled to tell the story over and over again. The details do not ever contribute significsntly to his epistles and of those we have none are introductory in that he writes to a community he has never visited.

Why repeat the whole story again and again? Especially to folk who have already heard the story before?

When his Apostolic standing is questioned he doesn't feel compelled to share in exacting detail. There are clues, especially when he claims to be an Apostle unnaturally born. In order to use that term in the early church one had to be an eyewitness to the resurrected Christ.

Does Paul claim that?

Does Acts claim that?

No discrepancy there right?

 

[Luce NDs]

Can one find everything in the bible ... even eternal discrepancies ... male and fey male angels as some took off ... when they found men patriarchal and closed in opinions and not very open minded?

They had to be got to in a different route thus the ethereal path ... for the thin mine-dead .. eL dor' a do? Thus woman bug the ass off men about what they didn't do ... Hun neigh do list en ... but they Kant due to mental twists?

Looking at hinds going ... look but don't touch and your mind will return ... and the cat came back ... much happens in the dark under the Rome antic regarding blanketing by pall ... between the sheets the story gets cloudy ...

 

[Waterfall]

Some historians do sloppy work.

Because nothing by Paul is quoted proves only that nothing by Paul was quoted.

Nothing from the writings of Peter, James, the Johns, Jude or Hebrews are quoted in Acts either so what shall we make from that?



Even if we grant that as true (and I don't believe that it is for a moment) I hope you aren't going to try and assert that Luke's inclusion of Paul's missionary journeys is a figment of his imagination.

We do have, in Paul's letters mention of his movements. No detailed itinerary anywhere near approaching what is recorded in Acts which summarizes rather briefly Paul's entire ministry.

Luke was clearly able to gain a lot of information on Paul, his travelling companions, his connections and ports of call from somewhere.



That is fair.

I will disagree with your assessment.

In the end it doesn't really matter much unless you are attempting to strip the office of Apostle away from Paul.

I expect, that Paul's conversion story would be very well known. His transformation was rather abrupt and initially there would be a great deal of doubt. Leopards changing spots and the like.

I would imagine that Paul was compelled to tell the story over and over again. The details do not ever contribute significsntly to his epistles and of those we have none are introductory in that he writes to a community he has never visited.

Why repeat the whole story again and again? Especially to folk who have already heard the story before?

When his Apostolic standing is questioned he doesn't feel compelled to share in exacting detail. There are clues, especially when he claims to be an Apostle unnaturally born. In order to use that term in the early church one had to be an eyewitness to the resurrected Christ.

Does Paul claim that?

Does Acts claim that?

No discrepancy there right?

I'm not denying Paul had a conversion experience, just questioning how it is described in Acts. Are you saying that it's okay to embellish anyone's conversion story as long as it just points to their conversion?
Curious though, where does it say that an Apostle must be an eyewitness to the resurrected Christ?

 

[airclean33]

Again she is alright
The word homsexual wasnt around at the.time of the bibble
It is our more modern translation of 'a man who lies with another man like a woman'
(which is problematic in itself ontologically)
She isnt even a man so why do you continue to put Man's word above g_d's word? Why continue to blaspheme and sin against g_d?

Continue to have fun playing with people's lives here going over the exact ground again n again n again...

--Here you are so full of it Inanna, and if unsafe believe this, she to is a mile off path. airclaen33

 

[revjohn]

I'm not denying Paul had a conversion experience, just questioning how it is described in Acts.

Fair enough.

Are you saying that it's okay to embellish anyone's conversion story as long as it just points to their conversion?

No I am not. What I am saying is that it is impossible for us to know what actually is embellishment of Luke's and what is not since Luke's reason for adding the various conversion accounts does not match Paul's need, in his epistles to do the same. It is an apples and oranges comparison. The lack of identical detail is not indicative of contradiction and it is, actually what one would expect to find in the oral history as it develops. Bearing in mind that Acts spans activity which happened over years and not simply one event which began and ended in minutes.

The fact that Paul, in his writings never feels a need to repeat the conversion experience in its entirety indicates it was not necessary for him to do so. If he had been compelled to tell of the experience in its entirety we would have a better idea of where Luke's account and Paul's accounts might contradict. What we do know is that Luke was not directly an eyewitness of what happened to Paul on the way to Damascus. We aren't ever given the names of those who were or what Luke's source for these accounts are.

We are dealing with a puzzle that is missing pieces and we have no box picture to work with to try and fill in the gaps.

Paul had an experience and Paul does talk about it?

People hear it and people share it.

Luke sets out to write a brief history of the Christian faith for Theophilus (whomever that turns out to be--it is disputed).

Luke, as was the custom of the time, doesn't footnote his work with the academic rigour of the 21st Century.

Because survival rates of documents from this time is relatively low we have no way of knowing what Luke invented, the veracity of all second hand material he worked with, or even what contact he may have had with Paul.

I have had a conversion experience. If we were to sit down with every instance of me recording it in some manner we would find that account details appear and disappear depending upon the context in which I am doing the sharing. That is not evidence that I cannot remember which lie I told last time. It is evidence that I don't tell the story the precisely same way each time I tell it.

Why?

Because there are some details which really are not remarkable or important.

I know where I was. I know what day of the week it was. I know roughly what time of day it was. I know how God addressed me. I know how I felt about all of it. There are times and places where folk are interested more in one element of the story than they are the other. If I know that ahead of time I will centre more attention on those elements. That changes the story in its telling. It does not change the truth of the story.

Neither you nor I are eyewitnesses to Paul's conversion. Neither you nor I have had an opportunity to grill the actual eye-witnesses for ourself and at our own leisure.

What makes you or I an expert on who Luke talked to and whether or not Paul or even a disciple of Paul were one of the witnesses Luke relied on.

Who, born in this century or even the last century is such an expert? Who really knows?

Curious though, where does it say that an Apostle must be an eyewitness to the resurrected Christ?

Acts 1: 21-22 (Yes I am aware it is Luke and you distrust his reporting on Paul) records Peter setting out criteria for the replacement of Judas. Peter, as the leader of the fledgling Church surely gets to make that call at that time even if Paul's arrival suggests that Peter was making assumptions rather than speaking with a lot of wisdom on the matter. Which wouldn't be new or out of character for Peter.

Bearing in mind that while Peter is known for leaping without looking he is also known for accepting correction when it is given.

 

[Waterfall]

Fair enough.



No I am not. What I am saying is that it is impossible for us to know what actually is embellishment of Luke's and what is not since Luke's reason for adding the various conversion accounts does not match Paul's need, in his epistles to do the same. It is an apples and oranges comparison. The lack of identical detail is not indicative of contradiction and it is, actually what one would expect to find in the oral history as it develops. Bearing in mind that Acts spans activity which happened over years and not simply one event which began and ended in minutes.

The fact that Paul, in his writings never feels a need to repeat the conversion experience in its entirety indicates it was not necessary for him to do so. If he had been compelled to tell of the experience in its entirety we would have a better idea of where Luke's account and Paul's accounts might contradict. What we do know is that Luke was not directly an eyewitness of what happened to Paul on the way to Damascus. We aren't ever given the names of those who were or what Luke's source for these accounts are.

We are dealing with a puzzle that is missing pieces and we have no box picture to work with to try and fill in the gaps.

Paul had an experience and Paul does talk about it?

People hear it and people share it.

Luke sets out to write a brief history of the Christian faith for Theophilus (whomever that turns out to be--it is disputed).

Luke, as was the custom of the time, doesn't footnote his work with the academic rigour of the 21st Century.

Because survival rates of documents from this time is relatively low we have no way of knowing what Luke invented, the veracity of all second hand material he worked with, or even what contact he may have had with Paul.

I have had a conversion experience. If we were to sit down with every instance of me recording it in some manner we would find that account details appear and disappear depending upon the context in which I am doing the sharing. That is not evidence that I cannot remember which lie I told last time. It is evidence that I don't tell the story the precisely same way each time I tell it.

Why?

Because there are some details which really are not remarkable or important.

I know where I was. I know what day of the week it was. I know roughly what time of day it was. I know how God addressed me. I know how I felt about all of it. There are times and places where folk are interested more in one element of the story than they are the other. If I know that ahead of time I will centre more attention on those elements. That changes the story in its telling. It does not change the truth of the story.

Neither you nor I are eyewitnesses to Paul's conversion. Neither you nor I have had an opportunity to grill the actual eye-witnesses for ourself and at our own leisure.

What makes you or I an expert on who Luke talked to and whether or not Paul or even a disciple of Paul were one of the witnesses Luke relied on.

Who, born in this century or even the last century is such an expert? Who really knows?
.

So Luke is the expert because he knew Paul but didn't witness the conversion and we don't know what sort of conversations he had? This reminds me of the historical Apollonius of Tyana, a Nazorene, who also has a lot of historical basis for his existence,. Born at the same time of Jesus, worked miracles, healed the dead, had many temples built in his honour and was quite well known to common people and emperors. He wrote many books but only a piece of one book survives called "On Sacrifice".Statues have been found in his honour and he supposedly travelled the same route as Paul at the same time.He also had a travelling companion who wrote of these things, yet the church discounts his companions account as false because it was an account that was repeated to another.
Where is the criteria for what is true?
Do you even think that the church leaders tampered with Lukes account at all?

 

[Mendalla]

Where is the criteria for what is true?

This is not just a problem with Paul, though. This is a problem with the entire Bible. At least with Luke and Paul, we have some idea of who the author was. The authorship of most of the Old Testament, even the ones with some kind of traditional attribution, is unknown or controversial. At least in the case of the New Testament, authorship has been determined to some degree, even if the details of the authors and their relationship to the events is sketchy at times (e.g. your questions about Luke and Paul). If the exact history of the author and their relation to the events is your criteria for truth, then even the Gospels fall down badly as do even some of the Pauline letters (e.g. 1 & 2 Timothy). Which is one big reason why using the Bible as a sole source of literal, unquestioned truth just doesn't hold water for a lot of people, even among those who are religious.

 

[Waterfall]

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Apollonius_of_Tyana

 

[Mendalla]

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Apollonius_of_Tyana

Maybe a religion based upon Apollonius is what we would be following had Christianity not caught on.

 

[revjohn]

So Luke is the expert because he knew Paul but didn't witness the conversion and we don't know what sort of conversations he had?

He is closer to the material than either you or I. What makes you more of an expert than Luke on what is or isn't true/accurate?

Where is the criteria for what is true?

Good question.

Initially many of these disputes were settled by the early Church leaders themselves and no, everything was not written down simply because that was not the way most of the world operated at the time. Yes, Rome, kept pretty detailed records primarily because some Roman Leadership tended towards paranoid and delusional.

Do you even think that the church leaders tampered with Lukes account at all?

No. I don't.

 

[Luce NDs]

Church patriarchy wouldn't do such a thing if you didn't agree with what they didn't do ... and thus negative things come back at yah ...

 

[Waterfall]

He is closer to the material than either you or I. What makes you more of an expert than Luke on what is or isn't true/accurate?.

I am not an expert. I wasn't there but sometimes being farther away and seeing things from a distance can be a good thing.

 

[unsafe]

Pr.Jae -----Please read this post carefully ------

I will see you in Heaven ----if you really have stopped sinning ----you say you have the Holy Spirit and you still sin ----how are you going to get into Heaven -----nothing unclean can enter God's holy place -the Bible is very clear on this----you still sin Pr.Jae -----here is what the scripture says below -----Pr.Jae have you ever lied ????----I don't know about you Pr.Jae but my name is in the Lambs Book of Life ------

Revelation 21:27GOD’S WORD Translation (GW)
27 Nothing unclean,[a]no one who does anything detestable, and no liars will ever enter it. Only those whose names are written in the lamb’s Book of Life will enter it.

----so if I have the Holy Spirit and God says I am a saint ---washed ---holy because of His Grace ----and that I have eternal life ---and I am not forgiven of all sin past --present and future ---then God would be a liar ----you are in the same boat as you still sin and you classify yourself as a sinner still even though you have the Holy Spirit and God sent His Son who is sinless to die to save all people ---I do not classify myself as a sinner any longer in the way God sees me ---I still sin but in God's eyes I am righteous and sinless ---I am a saint in God's eyes -----God sees me through His Son Jesus Christ who was sinless -----no one comes to the Father except through the Son -----God only sees His Son's righteousness when he sees all who have excepted His Son ----Grace does not give us a licence to sin ----it erases all sin ---we will still sin but Grace is there to strengthen us to be able to stay out of sin -----but we will still sin

this is from Got questions -----http://www.gotquestions.org/how-does-God-see-me.html

"How does God see me in Christ?" ----

Because we are in Christ, God sees Christ’s righteousness covering us. ------

Only "in Christ" is our sin debt cancelled, our relationship with God restored, and our eternity secured (John 3:16-18;20:31). -----"For you have died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God." When we come to Christ as broken sinners, He exchanges our sin nature for His righteousness (2 Corinthians 5:21). We cannot remain as we were and enter into the presence of a holy God. We must “die” to self and be “hidden” in the righteousness of Christ .Galatians 3:27

I leave you with this -----Proverbs 4:7 -----Wisdom is the principle thing so get wisdom and in all your getting get understanding ------all who have the Holy Spirit are clothed in the righteousness of Christ forever ---

again 1 Corinthians 6--AMP verse 9and 10 are talking about UNSAVED PEOPLE -------again you refuse to acknowledge verse 11 ----Please read verse 11 very carefully -----so 9and 10 are literal all unsaved people will not inherit the kingdom of God -------------------True statement -------

11 And such were some of you [before you believed]. ---But you were washed [by the atoning sacrifice of Christ], you were sanctified [set apart for God, and made holy], you were justified [declared free of guilt] in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the [Holy] Spirit of our God [the source of the believer’s new life ]. ------


My being a Lesbian has nothing to do with how God sees me in my new saved --sanctified ---redeemed state ----I am clothed in righteousness as far as God is concerned and He is the only one who matters ----

 

[revsdd]

I am not an expert. I wasn't there but sometimes being farther away and seeing things from a distance can be a good thing.

The problem is that you're 2000 years away and you're not seeing anything. Your speculation is merely speculation with really no evidence to back up your assertion that Luke "lied" when he wrote the Book of Acts. I'm willing to say that the stories of Paul's conversion had been circulating pretty much from the moment he converted. Luke certainly would have heard them. There would have been no particular reason for Paul to share the details in his letters, since (a) he wasn't writing history, he was generally writing to address specific concerns in the churches he was writing to - and the details of his conversion experience wouldn't have been especially relevant to those concerns, and (b) it's more than likely that the recipients of his letters (especially those whom he had actually visited - which would have been, basically, all except the Romans) already knew the story of his conversion, so why would he bother repeating the story to them. Luke on the other hand, by his own account, was trying to write an account of the early church, in which such details were more relevant. I just think that you're completely missing the point that Paul and Luke's writings have completely different purposes.

Personally, I simply go back to what I said a long time ago. If you want to start to nitpick the details of the account of Paul's conversion, that's a game you're welcome to play, but I really don't see the point. You could nitpick my own conversion experience, because frankly the details probably differ slightly if I made a habit of sharing it multiple times. Basically, I don;t consider those details important. What matters is that at one time in my life I was not a Christian, and I became a Christian.

Paul had a dramatic conversion experience, the effects of which others saw. That's more than enough for me.

 

[revjohn]

I am not an expert. I wasn't there but sometimes being farther away and seeing things from a distance can be a good thing.

Agreed.

Standing back from a work of art gives a greater appreciation of how individual brushstrokes create a work of beauty.

When you are too close to the canvas the individual brush strokes do not communicate the same.

Respectfully you are standing too close to the canvas with respect to Paul's conversion. As a result you are letting your expectations demand what the brushstrokes must look like rather than standing back to see their cumulative effect.