Also, as a bonus to show off your theological prowess, why doesn't Paul ever mention the "virgin" birth?
2007-08-23 11:18:42 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
covered well in other books? Can you show me a place in any of the five books G-d dictated face to face to Moses?
My logic is this: modern day evangelism plays the hell card very often as a tactic to fill the pews, but it seems very sketchy at best if the scriptures are to be taken for what they say versus what people want them to say.
2007-08-23 11:30:04 · update #1
If it was such a basic understanding to the Jews, why did Jesus have to talk about it, but Paul went to the Gentiles explaining the meaning of the Judaic faith and these gentiles that "didn't know their right from the left" already had profound understandings of hell? Give me a break!
2007-08-23 11:34:12 · update #2
"God is just: He will pay back trouble to those who trouble you and give relief to you who are troubled, and to us as well. This will happen when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels. He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power on the day he comes to be glorified in his holy people and to be marveled at among all those who have believed. This includes you, because you believed our testimony to you."
II Thessalonians 1:6-10
2007-08-23 11:24:21 · answer #1 · answered by wefmeister 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
You can twist it up to fit your own little self worship group but that won't change the facts are save your bacon.
If you are going to use the bible to make your stand you should read more than a few verses at a time. It's less confusing if you read the whole story that you are quoting from.
Why should Paul speak of Mary. He preached the virgin birth isn't that enough for you. It was for them. You know Paul often had other followers with him that filled in details and we don't have any sort of record of all he said. Or when.
2007-08-30 12:12:16 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Romans 2:8-9 has "But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil." There are similar passages, but he's generally more clement on the subject of Hell than "Jesus" seemed to be.
As for the Virgin Birth, it's possible that Paul never heard the story, or regarded it as a dangerously pagan appropriation. He certainly never mentions what would become a cardinal point of Christian theology - nor do Mark and John, for that matter. There's every evidence that this aspect of the fable is a late interpolation.
2007-08-23 18:31:34 · answer #3 · answered by jonjon418 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I think those two items were thoroughly covered in the gospels and it wasn't necessary to go over them again.
Paul was more concerned about presenting truths that the Holy Spirit had not yet revealed, but had only hinted at by Jesus.
In the same way, you could also ask "Why doesn't the professor of a college lit class teach elementary grammar?"
2007-08-23 18:25:58 · answer #4 · answered by no1home2day 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i can't answer the first part of your question, but, strangely it seems that no-one else has, either.
as fas as the second part, the whole 'virgin birth' thing.... there was none. there was never a prophecy for a virgin birth, the actual wording was that a young girl (aged 12 years and 1 day, to 12 and a half years) would be delivered of a child. the term was NOT 'bseulah' or virgin, it was 'bogereth' or girl between 12 years and one day and 12 and a half years. that age had a significance in jewish law, vis a vis betrothalsl, and nothing else.
2007-08-23 18:33:31 · answer #5 · answered by tuxey 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Paul was primarily interested in spreading the Good News of salvation through Christ and edification of the church. As a result, he concentrated on these things. He didn't mention a lot of other things, such as his shoe size. What are you trying to achieve with your line of reasoning?
2007-08-23 18:24:32 · answer #6 · answered by Mutations Killed Darwin Fish 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hells are not permanent places. As the Book of Revelation says death and hell will be destroyed in the Lake of Fire, which I consider to be a Cosmic Recycler. That is what burns eternal.
2007-08-23 18:25:26 · answer #7 · answered by THE NEXT LEVEL 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Your logic being that because one man may not have mentioned a couple of things in his writings that many other books of the Bble cover adequately, that none of his writings are credible as a result?
Get a grip man!
2007-08-23 18:24:52 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
For example 2Thess 1:9 "They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power"
2007-08-23 18:30:04 · answer #9 · answered by Steve Amato 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Ha ha. Virgin.
I love how Catholics go on about Mary's virginity and it's like "WTF MARY IS NOT A VIRGIN." She would've broken Jewish law of some sort by denying herself to Joseph and remaining a virgin.
Ridiculous. It's just another way to go on about the sanctity of virginity and try and deprive us from pleasure.
The hell idea is addressed by Jesus somewhere.
2007-08-23 18:26:07 · answer #10 · answered by lonely suburbanite 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋