I don't disagree with that, I'm sure One God wants us all to interpret His Word one way. But that goes back to my original post, people can interpret the Bible how ever they want, but you agreed with that so I'm not arguing with the point you are making.
Just to be clear, if we are talking about Paul from the Book of Acts, who later wrote the letters to the churches, then yes Paul, who at one time was known as Saul, DID support the killing of Christians BEFORE his conversion by Christ, (who HAS risen ). Acts 9 Saul's Conversion 1Meanwhile, Saul was still breathing out murderous threats against the Lord's disciples. He went to the high priest 2and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any there who belonged to the Way, whether men or women, he might take them as prisoners to Jerusalem. 3As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. 4He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?" 5"Who are you, Lord?" Saul asked. 6"I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting," he replied. "Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do." 7The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone. 8Saul got up from the ground, but when he opened his eyes he could see nothing. So they led him by the hand into Damascus. 9For three days he was blind, and did not eat or drink anything. 10In Damascus there was a disciple named Ananias. The Lord called to him in a vision, "Ananias!" "Yes, Lord," he answered. 11The Lord told him, "Go to the house of Judas on Straight Street and ask for a man from Tarsus named Saul, for he is praying. 12In a vision he has seen a man named Ananias come and place his hands on him to restore his sight." 13"Lord," Ananias answered, "I have heard many reports about this man and all the harm he has done to your saints in Jerusalem. 14And he has come here with authority from the chief priests to arrest all who call on your name." 15But the Lord said to Ananias, "Go! This man is my chosen instrument to carry my name before the Gentiles and their kings and before the people of Israel. 16I will show him how much he must suffer for my name." 17Then Ananias went to the house and entered it. Placing his hands on Saul, he said, "Brother Saul, the Lord--Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here--has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit." 18Immediately, something like scales fell from Saul's eyes, and he could see again. He got up and was baptized, 19and after taking some food, he regained his strength. Saul in Damascus and Jerusalem 20Saul spent several days with the disciples in Damascus. At once he began to preach in the synagogues that Jesus is the Son of God. 21All those who heard him were astonished and asked, "Isn't he the man who raised havoc in Jerusalem among those who call on this name? And hasn't he come here to take them as prisoners to the chief priests?" 22Yet Saul grew more and more powerful and baffled the Jews living in Damascus by proving that Jesus is the Christ.[1] Now you know my signature has more than one meaning....
You know I was going to write, Paul probably wrote those teachings because he didn't want to get his head lopped off. But I didn't think everyone would find that so funny. I am just being sarcastic.
I agree that there is one correct interpretation of most facets of the Bible. Some areas are more grey than others. But the ones that mean the difference between being saved and being lost are quite clear, in my opinion. The argument that there are so many denominations, are they all right/wrong? is addressed in the New Testament. Christ states rather bluntly that it is difficult to be saved and far more will perish than see Heaven in Matthew 7: We are also warned of the dangers of false teachers (anyone who professes to teach truth, but does not) in the very next passage:
You got me there. Paul was originally Saul of Tarsus, chief persecuter of Christians. He made the turn from heel to babyface during the vision you quoted.
AMEN. I don't believe this thread. Yetti, hold your tongue if your statements are wholly baseless. If you're not a Christian, don't talk about the teachings of the Bible if you don't know it. And if you are, don't judge someone in their faith. I really despise this thread title. Whoever sheds the blood of a human, by a human shall that person's blood be shed; For in his own image, God made man. Genesis 9:6
Got to love it. The BIBLE interpreted for rasslin' fans! Sweet. AMEN! Judge not, lest ye be judged. (A little Bible and later interpreted by Metallica as well.) he he
Touché. That's a good point but I think it is different from the allegation that I was addressing. I was talking about the idea that there is a passage in the Bible that supports every position (like, if you want to go to war, read Paul, but if you don't then read the Sermon on the Mount). What we have here is a disagreement on the interpretation of a single passage. The latter cannot be denied: there are varied interpretations of the Bible. But, I was arguing that the Bible is not a tool you can easily manipulate to justify your own preconceived notions. It really drives theology itself and is not so much molded by theology. finalsbound, do you see that line as a directive or a prediction? Hammer, it is true that the Catholic doctrine espouses the infallibility of the Pope in matters of doctrine. I think the reasoning is that the Pope is divinely inspired, much like the authors of the Bible were divinely inspired. That is different, I think, from divinely empowered. The Pope is, essentially, just like the 12 apostles. If they could add a replacement for Judas to the 12 after Jesus' death, why shouldn't the apostolic succession continue on? But, I do think we are getting way of track here. Bush isn't even Catholic. One extra thing, while I doubt Paul was approve of the persecution of Christians, I do think he would espouse meek submission to authority by Christians even under persecution. He tells women to submit to husbands, children to parents and slaves to masters (along with directives to the husbands, parents and masters on how to treat those they have authority over). I don't think he'd change horses in the middle. All the same, there were religious authorities that could have been submitted to. Paul was one, as were several other apostles. They had an organization complete with ministers, deacons, elders, and the whole bit. Even so, I do think it is plain from the context that he is talking about political governments when he talks about submission.
I agree that the discussion has gotten way off-topic, but I have enjoyed the conversation. I can also see the difference between divine inspiration and being God incarnate, thanks for the clarification. But I still think it's dangerous to accept any latter-day prophet who claims divine inspiration. I have two passages to cite and I'll move on: First is in the book of 1 Corinthians 13: 8-10. This is the so-called 'Wedding Scripture' - Love suffers long, etc. These verses tell us that the spiritual gifts of prophesy, speaking in tongues, and knowledge will fail. These were gifts given to the Apostles and and verse 10 indicates that "when that which is perfect (the kingdom of Jesus) has come, then that which is in part (spiritual gifts) will be done away." That says to me that after Christ's kingdom had come (which culminated with his death, burial, resurrection, and ascension) there would be no need for spiritual gifts, meaning the gifts died with the original Apostles they were bestowed upon. The second is from the book of Revelation (Rev 22: 18-19) and tells us pretty clearly that it is wrong to add or take away from the "prophesy of this book." I take that to mean that we've been given God's message in its entirety and there is no authority for any additional doctrine. I agree wholeheartedly with your opinions regarding submission, I just personally don't feel that there were any Christian authorities at the time other than Jesus. As you mentioned, there were pastors, deacons, and elders governing the individual congregations, but they were given no power that I can see over the church universal as Christ was given. Again, thanks for the quality discussion. You've given me several points to ponder and I hope I've done the same for you.
