What did Paul mean in Timothy and Titus "Pay no heed to Jewish fablles and endless geneologies"?
106373
The Jews thought they could be save becaused of their lineage to Abraham, he didn't want them losing site of the truth because of pointless disputes.
687841
Peter was a Jew who staunchly upheld the old law to a fault. he expected all new converts, no matter their culture, to adopt Jewish ways. He critized Gentile Christians for not keeping a kosher diet. God used this vision to show Peter how he was being legalistic. That Jesus Christ accepts all races and cultures, and that the "letter of the law" was not what God had in mind.
5182
A historical/anthropological answer might go along the lines of:\n\nHomosexuality was rife in Greek and Roman societies as it was in many other pagan societies. The early Judeans opposed Greek and Roman oppression and occupation and responded by targeting the fabric of their society by making Laws or interpreting laws (e.g. idol worship became blasphemous, homosexuality became an abomination and women were not to be treated as slaves - tho the Bible records periods when this was not the case - and some traditions continued to view women as second class citizens).\n\nThen came the Christian era.\n\nThis semi-monotheistic faith saw the bible as a pic-n-mix. One minute the Law dictated to Moses at Mount Sinai is what makes you a sinner and you dont need the Law anyway cos belief in Jesus is all that is required, the next your actions and behaviour are all important when certain things offend Paul (e.g. women and homosexuals).\n\nIf it werent for Pauline Christianity, Christianity today would either follow the Law more closely like Judaism (and thus still be a sect of Judaism) or it would have only two rules (love God and your neighbour) and no Law.\n\nThe reason for this schism is the dilemma that faced Paul. On the one hand, Paul sought to form a new religion (after his attempts to 'convert' Jews were unsuccessful) but also needed the "old" one for legitimacy (it was the one God of Israel that gave the Law at Mount Sinai, how could Paul - a mere mortal - cancel the Law of God given to man at Mount Sinai? Interestingly in the original Greek texts, one way Paul got around this was to express that he was the reincarnation of Jesus and therefore also the son of God).\n\nIf you want to read more on whether it was Jesus or Paul who invented Christianity, see the links below.\n\nFinally, I'd like to say that whatever people believe about your sexuality, it is just their belief. You should stick two fingers up to them and get on with your life. There's a reason you were created the way you were - it's just a shame these religions can't appreciate that. However, that is their limit, not yours.
821746
yep because the jews were trying to say this in acts 15\n\n5Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, "The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses...\n\n& 11 says this 11No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are."\n\nand its summed up with what you say in the Question\n\n19& 20 19"It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God20Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood.
90961
As I am Jewish, I find a lot of contradictions in Christians. And narrow minded ideals, which is also a contradiction, as Jesus taught the exact OPPOSITE of that sort of behaviour. So forgive me, but you goyim just confuse the hell out of me.
53407
Well...Paul described it as "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."  I think if you pray over this and think about it, you'll find your answer.
1106025
Get a lexicon and read in context.  Here is what Peter says about Paul, his writings, and people who twist them:\n\n"...even as our BELOVED brother Paul also according to the WISDOM GIVEN UNTO HIM hath written unto you;\n\nAs also in all his Epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which THEY THAT ARE UNLEARNED AND UNSTABLE TWIST, AS THEY DO THE OTHER SCRIPTURES, unto their own destruction.\n\nYe therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the WICKED, fall from your own steadfastness."\n\nII Peter 3:15-17
758503
Jesus called for the reformation of Judaism of the time. To him Judaism was being too heavily influenced by the Roman empire, and when he openly spoke out against it during passover (flipping the merchant's tables etc.), the roman empire saw him as a threat... Jesus ( during his time) was not necessarily viewed as the son of God... just a disrupter.
475003
Paul isolated an outstanding fact respecting Melchizedek, in saying of him: “In being fatherless, motherless, without genealogy, having neither a beginning of days nor an end of life, but having been made like the Son of God, he remains a priest perpetually.” (Heb 7:3)\n\n Like other humans, Melchizedek was born and he died. However, the names of his father and mother are not furnished, his ancestry and posterity are not disclosed, and the Scriptures contain no information about the beginning of his days or the end of his life. \nThus, Melchizedek could fittingly foreshadow Jesus Christ, who has an unending priesthood. As Melchizedek had no recorded predecessor or successor in his priesthood, so too Christ was preceded by no high priest similar to himself, and the Bible shows that none will ever succeed him. Furthermore, although Jesus was born in the tribe of Judah and in the kingly line of David, his fleshly ancestry had no bearing on his priesthood, nor was it by virtue of human ancestry that the offices of both priest and king were combined in him. These things were as a result of Jehovah’s own oath to him.\n\nA view that appears in the Targums of Jerusalem and of Jonathan and that has gained wide acceptance among the Jews and others is that Melchizedek was Noah’s son Shem. Shem was then alive and even outlived Abraham’s wife Sarah. \nAlso, Noah specifically blessed Shem. (Ge 9:26, 27) But this identification has not been confirmed. The fact remains that Melchizedek’s nationality, genealogy, and offspring are left undisclosed in the Scriptures, and that with good reason, for he could thus typify Jesus Christ, who by Jehovah’s sworn oath “has become a high priest according to the manner of Melchizedek forever.”—Heb 6:20.\n\nThe Bible book of Hebrews points out that Jesus Christ, since his resurrection and entry into heaven, is “a high priest according to the manner of Melchizedek forever.” (Heb 6:20; 7:17, 21) To describe the greatness of Christ’s priesthood and its superiority over the Aaronic priesthood, the writer shows that Melchizedek was both a king and a priest by designation of the Most High God, and not by inheritance. Christ Jesus, not of the tribe of Levi, but of Judah and of the line of David, did not inherit his office by descent from Aaron, but obtained it by direct appointment of God, as did Melchizedek. \n\nAlso, it would have been fitting for Melchizedek to be king and priest in the very place where later the kings of the Davidic line and the Levitical priesthood served and where Jesus Christ, the one chosen to be a king and priest “according to the manner of Melchizedek,” was offered in sacrifice.\n\nThe first kingdom of human history, that of Nimrod, seems to have been initially a city-kingdom, later extending its realm to include other cities, its base remaining at Babel. (Ge 10:9-11) Salem, over which King-Priest Melchizedek ruled in the first kingdom with divine approval, was also apparently a city-kingdom.
594315
You're not mistaken, the New T was not written by Jesus, most of it was written by diciples of diciples, like Paul who never even saw Jesus. There are more then 3000 versions of the new testment coz so many priests, monks and popes added, 'corrected'  and took off whatever they thought they would\n\nThere was no 'giving' ceremony marking the New T which is very much out of the tratdion of what we new of GD through Judaism.\n\nThe OLD Testmnt originates from the Torah.\n\nThe Torah was given over to the Jews at Mount Sinai, the Jews numbered 600,000 men, counting those only over the age of 20 and under 60, which there are is a reason for, namely that those under the age of 60 wherent involved in the sins in the desert, and those under 20 hadnt winessed its aftermath. Here are some passages from the Torah...\n\nExodus 12:37\n37 The Israelites journeyed from Rameses to Succoth. There were about six hundred thousand men on foot, besides women and children. \n\nNumbers 11:21\n21 But Moses said, "Here I am among six hundred thousand men on foot, and you say, 'I will give them meat to eat for a whole month!' \n\nUs Jews hold our Torah jealously for fear of translation and consqnt misinterprtation. This occured when the Christians 'hijacked' our Torah converting it and all its meaning in their then pagan mindframes, which it still embodies of you look a bit better at christianity. The muslims made a similar hijacking though they didnt mix it too much with pagan beleifs.\n\nAnyways what im saying is, if you read the Bible in Hebrew, yes it is reliable, all of our Torah's after 3200 years are word for word, letter for letter the same...\n\nIf you count the letters in the Hebrew bible there exactly 600,000 of them, one for each Jew that received it.
276210
""Jews" for Christ," also called, Messianic "Jews," are not Jews! \n\nMany people, Christians and some Jews as well, erroneously believe that just as one can be Black and Christian, just as one can be Oriental and Christian, one can also be Jewish and Christian. It is not true. The Jews are not a race. There is no genetic code passed from either mother or father to the child that makes that child a Jew. Even if all, or some, of the genetic code in a child could be proved to be of Jewish Origin, that would not make the child a Jew. Jewish law determines who is a Jew, and Jewish law is quite clear. If a person's mother is a Jew, and that person has not converted to another faith, then that person will be considered fully Jewish, so long as that person wishes to identify solely as a Jew. Although one cannot convert to become a member of a race, one who converts to Judaism does, indeed, become fully a Jew. Similarly, if one converts from Judaism to another faith, one is no longer a Jew.\n\nMessianic "Judaism" is a product of the successful missionizing campaign of such ministries as the "Jews" for Jesus, who try to make it look as though one can be a Jew and a Christian at the same time. BY definition, one who believes in Jesus as their savior is a Christian. One who accepts Jesus as anything other than a man who once lived, but died without doing anything the Real Messiah will do when he gets here (hence the reason for a Second Coming!), is a Christian and no longer a Jew.\n\nThe Orthodox Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan, writing for the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, for the National Conference of Synagogue Youth, the Orthodox Youth Group, in his book The Real Messiah, on page 21 wrote:\n\nThis brings us back to our original question: \nWhat can a Jew lose by embracing Christianity? \n\nThe answer is: Everything. \n\nChristianity negates the fundamentals of Jewish \nfaith, and one who accepts it rejects the very \nessence of Judaism. Even if he continues to keep \nall of the rituals, it is the same as if he \nabandoned Judaism completely. \n\nA Jew who accepts Christianity might call himself \na "Messianic 'Jew,'" but he is no longer a Jew. \nHe can no longer even be counted as part of a \nJewish Congregation.\n\nWe Jews define for ourselves who is and who is not a Jew, and not the Jewish wannabees, and the targets of this newest technique in missionizing Jews. \nAs a matter of fact, the majority of their members were not ever Jewish up until recently, and this is also true about their messianic ""rabbis."" Many of them change their names to something that sounds stereotypically Jewish, in order to better target those they want to convert to Christianity.\n\nAs the success of this newest technique in missionizing the less knowledgeable Jews increased, the percentage of membership of ex-Jews as members of their messianic congregations has also increased, now running about 50-50.\n\nIt is also interesting to note that a large number of people converting TO Judaism have come to real Judaism from having been exposed to Messianic ""Judaism."" \n\nWhat you should expect at a messianic congregation is that all references to Christian theology has been changed to make it sound more Jewish, and therefore more pallatable to their targets. They will only refer to Jesus as 'Yeshua' (which would not have been his name), they will say 'moshiach' instead of 'christ,' they will say 'synagogue' instead of 'church,' and on and on, in keeping with the techniques described in the book Understanding Church Growth by Donald MacGavran, who helped the idea of Indiginous Cultural Evangelism get started. \n\nThe services will sound very Jewish, usually a lot of (mispronounced) Hebrew, and prayers will have been changed to add the Christian theology of Jesus to them, again, to make the service more f
1001335
"Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons," is the actual quote.  It is taken from Acts 10:34.  The NIV translates this as, "“I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism."  The New American Standard translates this as, "I most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality."\n\nThe Apostle Peter is speaking, his full statement is, "“I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right."\n\nThe basic meaning is that God does not favor one person over another but will accept anyone who chooses to receive him.\n\nThe context of the statement is when Peter was at the home of Cornelius, a Roman Centurian, who wanted learn more about the gospel.  Up to that time in the New Testament church, the belief among the bretheren was that only Jews could become followers of Jesus Christ.  God used Peter and Cornelius to show the brethern in Jerusalem that the gospel message was intended for all people, not just the Jews.
685388
I have been saying, for years, that modern Christians follow Paul, not Jesus. The Christian New Testament is in large degree a Paulist document. The books that were accepted as worthy of inclusion were chosen by religious leaders long after the time of Christ at the request of Constantine. It was his desire to make Christianism the Roman state religion. It needed to be something that was very structured so as to give control over the masses. Paul's writtings afforded them the opportunity to do that, which is why they were picked. Anyone interested in a good look at the REAL Jesus and what HE taught, as opposed to Paul, should read the Lost Gospel of Thomas. Its easy to find, just do a web search. Funny thing about that book ... Jesus was married, spoke in ways that are foriegn to many now days, and comes off looking much more like the Jesus presented by Muslim scholars and also modern Gnostics. Its also dated, as a translation of an earlier work, to 60 C.E. which makes it older than 60 C.E. and very close to the life of Jesus. Its also older than most of Paul's works. And that married part? Makes it a little hard to let that pass as a fact and still enjoin celebacy on priests, monks, and nuns by way of example, don't you think? There goes the control over a cheap source of church labor. Another funny thing that lends credence to the Gospel of Thomas is that almost every quote in it can be found in the current Christian New Testament. But the OTHERS, the ones that are left out, make all the difference in the world. Paul was who and what he was. That's between Paul and Deity. But I don't think he was an Apostle, and I don't think he spoke for true Christianity. But, hey, Thomas did a good job. ;-) ~ Peace and Blessings ~ (Just an added thought ... Luke wrote the Book of Acts.He wasn't an Apostle, he probably never knew Jesus, he came on the scene latter. He worked and traveled with Paul. Realistically, where do you think he got his information. Who gave Luke input?)
925733
Hopefully nothing. Although Paul speaks well of Love he speaks poorly of relationships and people are constantly misquoting him for thier own purposes. If Paul had his way the human race would have died out about 1900 years ago. Being a virgin was the best but it was better to wed than to burn. Eek. I'll follow Jesus rather than Paul.
920265
The passage of inspired text to which you refer finds place with in the context of the Lord's conversation with the Jews who were tempting him in an effort to "catch him in his words" as they often did.  The Jews knowing of the continued controversary about marriage law which found much addressing between the Jews who insisted that Moses allowed divorce for any reason, and the Jews who contended that that which Moses' law was restricted to divorce based upon adultrey only, well realized that the marriage, divorce, re-marriage topic was hotly contested. They concluded that such was indeed the best of subjects with which to put the Lord in the proverbial hot water before the then present audience.\nThe Lord, however, being wise to the foolishness of such simply asked the question; "have ye not read" the Scripture? The Lord plainly refered the Jews to the Garden of Eden when God established his law regarding marriage. It is of good importance to notice that in the context of Matt.19:1-12 the Lord twice referd to the "begining," going back to God's law regarding marriage established in the Garden.  The Lord explained that God's law was never intended to be set aside concerning marriage, and that God intends that marriage is to be for life, and that divorce was never even so much as mentioned in the Genesis record. Thus the importance of that which the Lord stated in Matt.19:6 "That which God hath joined together, let not man put assunder."\nThe Jews then followed up with the question; "why did Moses then command " that a bill of divorcement be given?  Jesus informed the Jews that Moses did so because of the "hardness of the hearts" (Matt. 19:8) of the Jews.   Notice again the Lord's comment when he stated; "but from the begining it was not so" (Matt.19:8). \nThe Lord plainly revealed the fact that God's law pertaining to marriage was to be forever sealed, that is marriage is for life and only in the case of adultery may one (an innocent party)  put away a mate. Only the innocent mate in a marriage has the right to divorce a spouce who has committed adultery.  The innocent party then has the right to re-marry with God's approval, and only the innocent party (Matt.19:6). \nThe Lord plainly declared that one who was put away for adultery has lost the right to re-marry and must remain single. One guilty of adultery must come to the knowlege of the truth and comply with God's marriage law and remain single. For one to re-marry, who has committed adultery, places one in a continoius state of adultery. Thus the reason the Lord prohibited the mate guilty of adultry to re-marry.  It must also be realized that the only reason the Lord authorized divorce is in fact adultery.  If a divorce occurs in which neither spouce has committed adultery then neither spouce meets the requirements of the only exception authorized by the Lord to indeed acquire a divorce. Thus neither spouce has the right to re-marry, for neither one has indeed met the law establishing the exception the Lord allowed.\nAfter the Lord had well explained this matter to the Jews then present, (the 12 apostles also being present) the apostles concluded that if that which the Lord had just set forth in verses 4-9 were true it would be better to never marry if one could not divorce his spouce (Matt.19:10). The Lord of course gave this a ready reply. The reply is indeed recorded in verses 11 and 12\nNotice: \nVerse 11; "But he (Jesus) said unto them, all men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given."     The passage is this by way of explaination. \nFirst; note that the words "But he said" are used. This of course settles the matter of the authority. It was Christ who said what he said.  Therefore, all men ought to heed well that which has been declared in the passage.\n\nSecond; The Lord stated, "All men cannot receive this saying."
543824
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." Leviticus 20:13.\n\nuse that one if you dont believe paul
374382
Alright all you would be Biblical scholars out there -- Paul did have 2 friends in which he was close to -- They were Aquillia who was the husband to Priscilla and they were tent makers -- Paul was a Free Roman at birth on to adult hood witch was no small matter in and of itself during that day in time -- He was raised at a Gentile (non-Jew uncircumcised) and only claimed to be Jewish in his later years from the tribe of Benjamin, from a long-established Pharisee family in Tarsus that was practically erased off the face of the earth so there was no one around to validate his claim. -- Before he became Paul he was known as Saul in the Roman Empire and carried a fair amount of status. Men of that status were automatically expected to have a wife even just for show. Usually a mutually agreed upon business arrangement between the brides father and the groom for more political power -- The wife always stayed at home while the men when away and about to deal with business. So it is commonly accepted that he did have a wife in that capacity but not a wife in the since of how we perceive them today. As for "the thorn in his side" it has been speculated on for thousands of years -- Most commonly believe that it was eye sight problems he continued to have after the blinding light of seeing the full glory of Jesus that day -- Others speculate that it was his wife calling him back home to Rome and quit his insanity with the new religion -- And some take it literally that he had some sort of kidney, bowel or internal problem -- But the truth is no one knows -- There is a lot of new information on Paul in the newly published Gnostic Gospels found with the Nag Hamani Library from the 70's -- You can find the complete Gospels and English translations on the Internet that can shed new light and a different perspective on biblical times if that's what you are looking for -- Maybe a few more facts to fill in the gaps -- Hope all this helps and please feel free to email me if you have any more questions, I'll be happy to help and share what I know --\n---Angel