Christ and Paul Contradict ?

@sonship said
This is a false alarm and a warped prejudicial and superficial twisting of the New Testament.

"Warped."

"Warped."

"Warped."

"Warped."

Hmmm.

@sonship said
Some readers may be helped to know to pray and study is good to address false accusations or even valid observations.

What if you prayed and your God figure "told" you that Witness Lee's ideology is false?

@sonship said
You have never had any of your imagined logical high ground over believers in Christ.

I am sure you think highly of yourself, sonship. And that's OK. You see yourself as "becoming like Jesus", after all. But my observation that informal fallacies feature very prominently in the propagation of your ideology is, apparently, going to go unaddressed.

@FMF

Yes, warped.

• Paul Exhorts Celibacy, But Jesus Clearly Says It is A Choice Not Within Everyone's Power.

What would Paul say? Did Paul say it was a choice just like Jesus said?
As if showing you a verse would help you.

"But I wish all men to be even as myself; but each has his own gift from God, one of this kind, and another of that." (1 Cor. 7:7)

Some have a gift for lifelong singleness and some of marriage.
Though the word "choice" does not appear here, "gift" from God enables one to choose one or the other according to God's gift. By God's providence it is or is not within their power.

Yea,
warped, warped, warped. Hmmm.

@sonship said
Yea,
warped, warped, warped. Hmmm.

It's not very convincing, though, is it, when this is the sort of thing that you are resorting to?

@sonship said
I said after I prayed and studied. There is no logical fallacy.

But is it not an Appeal to One's Own Authority and kind of special pleading and/or an Appeal to Some Sort of [Supernatural] Knowledge?

The guy who seems to love to be hoodwinked comes again.

• Jesus Says There Is One Pastor and Teacher (Himself), But Paul Tells Church He is a Teacher, & There Are Many Pastors and Teachers.

This one is not even worth a smile or a chuckle.

Jesus tells Peter that if he loves Him, he should feed His sheep.
Again Jesus twice more tells Peter, who denied Him three times, to shepherd His sheep and feed His lambs if he [Peter] really does love Him. (John 21:15-25.)

And of course Peter did so.
It required teaching, feeding, cherishing, guiding the latter disciples.
And Peter says he too was an elder (or some would say pastor).

"Therefore, the elders among you I entreat, who am a fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ ..." (1 Peter 5:1a)

Oh, but the Internet said the only shepherd or pastor is Jesus Himself - "the Good Shepherd".

Jesus told Peter to do what He Himself did - FEED and SHEPHERD the disciples -(don't look now but that is PASTORING in the purest sense).

Sorry you have to read it. See John 21:15-25.

@sonship said
The guy who seems to love to be hoodwinked comes again.

"To be hoodwinked"?

By?

To add something.

Yes Jesus said to call not one by certain official TITLES because He alone was the Master, the Teacher, the Lord.

It is rediculous to extrapolate from that that Christ did not want anyone of His disciples to teach, shepherd, or be a leader (by example) to younger believers.

The leap that Jesus intended no more teachers and shepherds is false.
He did say rather than an empty official title, DO THE WORK FAITHFULLY.

If the original criticism is meant to mean Jesus was not endorsing a clerical CLASS of titled people as a hierarchy, I agree with this.

@FMF

"To be hoodwinked"?

By?

To be questioned? By?

Questioned?
Got a question?
Got a good question ???

@sonship said
@FMF

"To be hoodwinked"?

By?

To be questioned? By?

Questioned?
Got a question?
Got a good question ???

You said: "The guy who seems to love to be hoodwinked comes again."

Do you really, honestly think that an emotional, tetchy assertion like this ~ about the person you are talking to being "hoodwinked" ~ holds any weight in discourse in a venue like this?

Do you see the pouting and logical fallacies you use as being rhetorical tools that your God figure has given you with which to proselytize.

Or are they merely kinds of discursive gimmicks that you pick up from "Fireside Chats" by the Local Churches sect/cult/denomination?

• Paul Says God Is The God of the Dead, But Jesus Says God Is Not The God of the Dead.

Jesus, in stressing the truth of resurrection did say that God was the God of the living and not the dead. (Mark 12:27, Luke 20:38).

This is another TRICK "contradiction".

Paul said Jesus was the Judge of the living and the dead.

"I solemnly charge you before God and Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, ..." (2 Tim. 4:1)

To be the Judge of the dead He of course has to be the God of the dead.

Jesus again:

"Do not marvel at this, for an hour is coming in which all who are in the tombs shall hear His voice, and shall come forth [in resurrection] those who have done the good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done the evil to the resurrection of judgment." (John 5:29)

Anyone hoping that by being dead they will not have to face their God will be bitterly disappointed.

@sonship said

I said after I prayed and studied. There is no logical fallacy.

You may have prayed on the contradiction but returned to the thread speaking in tongues and failing utterly to resolve it.

I would have had more respect for you if you had simply said you couldn't explain it.

Three times Jesus in the Book of Revelation condemns eating meat sacrificed to idols, even saying this is the doctrine of a false prophet. (Rev. 2:6, 14 (Ephesus); Rev. 2:14-15 (Pergamum); Revelation 2:20 (Thyatira).

This absolute prescription also was set forth in James' ruling at the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15:20. Then it is repeated when it was put in a letter. (Acts 15:29.) Finally, James reiterates this for a third and final time in Acts chapter 21. James tells Paul that many claim Paul is teaching lawless doctrine -- "apostasia." (Acts 21:21.) So James reminds Paul what was the ruling at the Jerusalem Council. He tells Paul that previously "we wrote giving judgment that they [i.e., the Gentiles] should keep themselves from things sacrificed to idols...." (Acts 21:25.) James asks Paul to reassure everyone that Paul believes the Law is still valid by Paul performing the vow from Numbers chapter six. Paul agrees, impliedly leading James to assume Paul never wavered from the principle that it is unlawful to eat meat sacrificed to idols.

However, Paul clearly teaches multiple times that there is nothing wrong in itself eating meat sacrificed to idols. Paul reasoned that a "strong" conscience knows an idol is nothing. Thus, eating meat sacrificed to nothing can have no consequences. Those who thought otherwise Paul says were "weak" minded in thinking the fact an idol was involved meant eating meat sacrificed to an "idol" made it wrong to do so. (1 Corinthians 8:4-13, and 1 Corinthians 10:19-29. See also Romans 14:21.)

Why did Paul devote so much time, and take the risk endorsing eating idol meat unless you were in the presence of such a "weak" minded brother? Well, idol temples apparently gave such meat away free to anyone who would come to the idol's temple after the sacrifice to sit and enjoy the feast of meats. Such feasts were a primary way the public enjoyed any game-meat. So this was an important teaching by Paul which would attract poor followers to Paul's doctrines.

(Link already provided in OP)

@sonship

Jesus made abundantly clear in the Book of Revelation that eating meat sacrificed to idols was the doctrine of a false prophet.

What is it with you and false prophets? Seriously?