Zone1 The Second Coming of Christ

[alang1216]

It doesn't matter that some didn't. By your logic Trump can't be bad or good since not everyone believes it, right?

Is Trump bad or good or just someone people project their beliefs, biases, and values onto?

The first Christians that DID worship Jesus as God did so because of what they saw and heard. Not because of anything which hadn't been written yet.

Some early Christians DID worship Jesus as God, however we will never know what they saw vs what they heard. Certainly the stories about Jesus circulated widely.

 

[ding]

"A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing — if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety." (1 Timothy 2:11–15)

Evidence suggesting Paul was misogynistic often points to specific passages in his letters, like 1 Timothy 2:11-15 (silencing women in church) and 2 Timothy 3:6-9 (describing women as "silly"), which critics interpret as limiting women's roles and character, though defenders argue these texts address specific cultural issues or predatory behavior, not inherent inferiority, emphasizing context over universal application.

Here's a breakdown of the passages and interpretations:

• 1 Timothy 2:11-15: "Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man... but to remain quiet. Yet she will be saved through childbearing if she continues in faith and love and holiness with self-control.".
  • Criticism: Seen as a clear ban on women in leadership and teaching roles, linking salvation to domesticity.
  • Defense: Some argue it addresses specific local issues in Ephesus or relates to Adam and Eve's creation narrative, not a universal command.
• 2 Timothy 3:6-9: "Among them are those who creep into households and capture weak women, burdened with sins, led astray by various passions, always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth.".
  • Criticism: Portrays women as easily swayed, weak, and gullible.
  • Defense: Others suggest Paul is warning against specific false teachers preying on vulnerable women, not all women.
• 1 Corinthians 14:34-35: "The women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says.".
  • Criticism: Explicitly commands silence for women during worship.
  • Defense: May relate to disorderly conduct in Corinthian church gatherings, not all public worship.

Context is Key:
Proponents of Paul argue that understanding the specific historical, cultural (ancient Greco-Roman/Jewish society), and situational context of these letters is crucial, suggesting Paul wasn't inherently misogynistic but responding to particular challenges or cultural norms.

 

[alang1216]

Which is why Paul is such a credible witness. He put himself in harms way (physically and spiritually) precisely because he determined that it could not be avoided.

If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead… Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied (1Cor 15:13-15,18-19).

As credible as the people who flew their planes into buildings.

 

[alang1216]

Because that is what we are discussing. The reason you don't have a clue is because it had no bearing one way or another on why the first Christians worshiped Jesus as God. They worshiped Jesus as God because of what they saw and heard. Not because of things that had no been written about him yet.

Or they heard stories about Jesus that were embellished. So the birth narratives do have a direct bearing what we are discussing. Either the NT has embellishments or it doesn't. Which is it?

 

[hobelim]

There's no evidence Paul hated Jesus, but rather, before his conversion, he vehemently persecuted Jesus's followers (the early Church), imprisoning and consenting to the deaths of Christians because he believed their message about Jesus was blasphemous and a threat to Judaism. He described himself as a furious persecutor, even leading hunts for Christians to force them to blaspheme,

Paul was a rabid anti christian persecutor present and in agreement with the stoning of Stephen condemning him and the source of his faith, Jesus, and his inspiration, the Holy Spirit, as evil which Jesus said was the only sin that could never be forgiven.

Paul set the stage for the Romans to assimilate and pervert Christianity with Mithraism, the secret Babylonian MYSTERY RELIGION of the Roman government and military, whose seven sacraments YOUR Church follows identically, because they both hated Jesus.

Damn rabble rouser. He couldn't just join the crowd and make money off the brainwashed.

That bastard!

How much more evidence of Roman contempt for Jesus do you need other that what is openly practiced in your church? Teaching the "faithful" that the Body of Christ is not the words that form the body of his teaching but a matzo MADE BY HUMAN HANDS that you worship and eat on your knees for spiritual life, DERP, and then crap down the toilet?

You need more evidence? Go to church listen and watch the possessed eat Jesus as a demon pulls their strings. Stand up, sit down, kneel, pray to a trinity, give money, **** off.

 

[alang1216]

Evidence suggesting Paul was misogynistic often points to specific passages in his letters, like 1 Timothy 2:11-15 (silencing women in church) and 2 Timothy 3:6-9 (describing women as "silly"), which critics interpret as limiting women's roles and character, though defenders argue these texts address specific cultural issues or predatory behavior, not inherent inferiority, emphasizing context over universal application.

Here's a breakdown of the passages and interpretations:

• 1 Timothy 2:11-15:"Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man... but to remain quiet. Yet she will be saved through childbearing if she continues in faith and love and holiness with self-control.".
  • Criticism: Seen as a clear ban on women in leadership and teaching roles, linking salvation to domesticity.
  • Defense: Some argue it addresses specific local issues in Ephesus or relates to Adam and Eve's creation narrative, not a universal command.
• 2 Timothy 3:6-9:"Among them are those who creep into households and capture weak women, burdened with sins, led astray by various passions, always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth.".
  • Criticism: Portrays women as easily swayed, weak, and gullible.
  • Defense: Others suggest Paul is warning against specific false teachers preying on vulnerable women, not all women.
• 1 Corinthians 14:34-35:"The women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says.".
  • Criticism: Explicitly commands silence for women during worship.
  • Defense: May relate to disorderly conduct in Corinthian church gatherings, not all public worship.

Context is Key:
Proponents of Paul argue that understanding the specific historical, cultural (ancient Greco-Roman/Jewish society), and situational context of these letters is crucial, suggesting Paul wasn't inherently misogynistic but responding to particular challenges or cultural norms.

I think it was later Christians that deprecated the role of women in the church, not Paul.

Most New Testament scholars agree that seven Pauline letters are undoubtedly authentic (undisputed): Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon; these form the core of Paul's undisputed writings, while others like Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy, and Titus are debated, with many scholars considering them Deutero-Pauline (written by later followers in Paul's name).

 

[hobelim]

I think it was later Christians that deprecated the role of women in the church, not Paul.

Christians do that based on what Paul wrote, or whoever wrote in his name. As a lifelong pharisee it would have been a requirement for Paul, a holy obligation, to subjugate women.

 

[hobelim]

@alang. Obviously you have never lived in an ultra orthodox neighborhood living under a compulsory literal interpretation of Mosaic Law exactly like existed at the time of Jesus.

Don't you even have an inkling how women are openly treated under those conditions?

As for the Roman Church, which reflects the beliefs and practices of Mithraism exactly, was an ascetic anti female religion whose priesthood consisted of celibate men only.

 

[ding]

Romans 13:1-5; "Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established.The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves."

Paul said this, obey Rome OR ELSE, when Nero was Caesar.

There's no direct evidence Paul was a "shill for Rome," but rather scholarly debate exists on his complex relationship with Roman power, with some viewing his acceptance of Roman rule as pragmatic (e.g., Romans 13) while others see veiled critiques of the Emperor's divine claims through elevating Jesus as Lord. Arguments against him being a shill highlight his subversive message, replacing imperial worship with YHWH, and his death as a martyr under Nero, while some interpretations see his letters as subtly undermining Roman authority by emphasizing God's ultimate power over the state, not outright rebellion.

Arguments Suggesting Collaboration or Accommodation (Not "Shilling"):

• Obedience to Authority (Romans 13): Paul's instruction in Romans 13:1-7 to submit to governing authorities because they are instituted by God is often cited as evidence of acknowledging Roman power.
• Roman Citizenship: Paul's Roman citizenship, which afforded him legal protections (Acts 22, 25), shows an understanding and use of Roman structures for his mission.

Arguments Against Him Being a "Shill":

• Subversive Claim of Jesus as Lord: Paul's constant message that "Jesus Christ is Lord" directly challenged the Roman state's demand for emperor worship, a core tenet of Roman imperial cult.
• Critique of Empire: Some scholars interpret Paul's writings (like in 1 Corinthians 1:18-25 or Philippians 3:20) as highlighting the foolishness of worldly power (Rome) compared to God's wisdom, notes the Acton Institute article.
• Martyrdom: His execution in Rome, tradition holds, as a martyr for his faith under Nero, contradicts the idea of him being a Roman collaborator.

Scholarly Interpretation:

• Most modern scholars view Paul as navigating a complex space: acknowledging earthly authorities for order while simultaneously promoting a kingdom that ultimately supersedes Rome, a nuanced position rather than simple collusion or outright rebellion.

 

[ding]

AI can only be as intelligent as the people who input the information based on what religious idiots claim.


Why do you turn to AI for answers? Doesn't your own brain work? Why not turn to God for answers? Your edible supernatural mangod, the Antichrist? Or ask a consecrated matzo?

I couldn't be happier for you to see it that way. What you are intending for evil, God is using for good.

 

[hobelim]

There's no direct evidence Paul was a "shill for Rome,"

But there is direct irrefutable evidence that your church teaches people to practice idolatry.

If you don't believe me keep your eyes and ears open next time you go to church and you will see and hear it for yourself.

 

[Hafar1014]

But there is dicer evidence that you church teaches people to practice idolatry.

If you don't believe me keep your eyes and ears open next time you go to church and you will see and hear it for yourself.

Jesus is an idol a god with a face name and personality.

 

[ding]

No, unless you think going through life without a functioning brain is funny, but if thats the case its hysterical.

What you are intending for evil, God is using for good.

 

[hobelim]

Jesus is an idol a god with a face name and personality.

The ascetic pusillanimous Jesus perpetuated by the Roman church is the Antichrist, a false reality defying supernatural mangod whose amazing powerful 'miracles of the lie' that scripture is to be taken literally does not correspond to any real living being ever in existence.

 

[Hafar1014]

The ascetic pusillanimous Jesus perpetuated by the Roman church is the Antichrist, a false reality defying supernatural mangod whose amazing powerful "miracles of the lie" that scripture is to be taken literally does not correspond to any real living being ever in existence.

Osiris is a good match

 

[ding]

Is Trump bad or good or just someone people project their beliefs, biases, and values onto?

I don't really care. I'm not political. I only used it to spotlight the ridiculous of your argument that unless everyone worshiped Jesus as God, Jesus couldn't be God.

Some early Christians DID worship Jesus as God, however we will never know what they saw vs what they heard. Certainly the stories about Jesus circulated widely.

The written accounts told us why and were corroborated by Jewish texts which stated that Jesus was put to death for sorcery and inciting Israel to apostasy. There are no accounts which challenge the veracity of the gospels.

 

[ding]

As credible as the people who flew their planes into buildings.

Incorrect. That's an idiotic comparison and you should be ashamed of yourself for making it.

Saint Paul (the Apostle) was a key figure in spreading Christianity through missionary work and writing epistles, focusing on spiritual transformation, while the 9/11 terrorists were perpetrators of mass murder and destruction, driven by extremist religious and political ideologies, making their actions fundamentally opposite: Paul transformed lives through faith, whereas the terrorists ended them through violence. The only common thread might be religious motivation (Paul's Christian faith vs. al-Qaeda's extremist Islam), but their methods and goals were diametrically opposed, with Paul's work being foundational to a major world religion and the terrorists' actions being acts of terror.

Saint Paul (Apostle Paul)

• Role: Missionary, evangelist, theologian, author of significant parts of the New Testament.
• Actions: Traveled extensively, founded churches, taught about Jesus Christ, encouraged spiritual growth, and emphasized love, faith, and community.
• Impact: Profoundly shaped Christian theology and beliefs, leading to the spread of Christianity.

9/11 Terrorists (Al-Qaeda)

• Role: Perpetrators of large-scale terrorist attacks.
• Actions: Hijacked planes and crashed them into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, killing thousands, driven by extremist ideology.
• Impact: Caused mass death, widespread fear, and initiated global conflicts, fundamentally different from Paul's message of peace and spiritual renewal.

Key Differences

• Intent: Paul sought to build up believers; the terrorists sought to destroy and instill terror.
• Method: Paul used teaching and writing; the terrorists used violence and murder.
• Outcome: Paul's work led to spiritual movements; the terrorists' actions led to immense death and destruction.

While both operated under religious banners, one was a spiritual leader transforming lives, and the others were mass murderers, making any comparison of their actions inaccurate, as they represent opposite ends of human behavior.

 

[hobelim]

What you are intending for evil, God is using for good.

Sure.

 

[hobelim]

Incorrect. That's an idiotic comparison and you should be ashamed of yourself for making it.

Thats was a perfect comparison. Dimwit.

 

[hobelim]

Incorrect. That's an idiotic comparison and you should be ashamed of yourself for making it.

Saint Paul (the Apostle) was a key figure in spreading Christianity through missionary work and writing epistles, focusing on spiritual transformation, while the 9/11 terrorists were perpetrators of mass murder and destruction, driven by extremist religious and political ideologies, making their actions fundamentally opposite: Paul transformed lives through faith, whereas the terrorists ended them through violence. The only common thread might be religious motivation (Paul's Christian faith vs. al-Qaeda's extremist Islam), but their methods and goals were diametrically opposed, with Paul's work being foundational to a major world religion and the terrorists' actions being acts of terror.

Saint Paul (Apostle Paul)

• Role: Missionary, evangelist, theologian, author of significant parts of the New Testament.
• Actions: Traveled extensively, founded churches, taught about Jesus Christ, encouraged spiritual growth, and emphasized love, faith, and community.
• Impact: Profoundly shaped Christian theology and beliefs, leading to the spread of Christianity.

9/11 Terrorists (Al-Qaeda)

• Role: Perpetrators of large-scale terrorist attacks.
• Actions: Hijacked planes and crashed them into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, killing thousands, driven by extremist ideology.
• Impact: Caused mass death, widespread fear, and initiated global conflicts, fundamentally different from Paul's message of peace and spiritual renewal.

Key Differences

• Intent: Paul sought to build up believers; the terrorists sought to destroy and instill terror.
• Method: Paul used teaching and writing; the terrorists used violence and murder.
• Outcome: Paul's work led to spiritual movements; the terrorists' actions led to immense death and destruction.

While both operated under religious banners, one was a spiritual leader transforming lives, and the others were mass murderers, making any comparison of their actions inaccurate, as they represent opposite ends of human behavior.

AI is no substitute for thinking.