Does Paul say anything in the epistles about the need to repent? Does he mention hell and eternal damnation?

Romans 2:4 Repentance
Romans 2:6-8 Damnation
Romans 2:16 Jesus

For a start....

Hmm. His mention of repentance is not in the context of being saved, which is where you would expect to find it given that it is supposed to be the first step towards salvation. But here he says it is the goodness of God that leads you to repentance, not repentance that leads you to the goodness of God.

He mentions tribulation and anguish to the wicked, but says they will perish. Nothing about eternal damnation or hellfire here.

He mentions Jesus, yes, but as always, he never mentions anything of his life, nothing that points to Jesus of Nazareth. As well, he mentions all this as his gospel, not the good news of Jesus. Elsewhere, he mentions it as the gospel of God.

When you don't read him with the context of the gospels along for the ride, it's clear he isn't speaking of the guy in the gospels, but a Christ of the scriptures and personal revelation.

Paul does not mention Hell in any of his writings but he certainly eludes to it in 2 Thessalonians 1:9......
They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might

what would Paul know?

he never even met Jesus, and his real name wasn't Paul...

2 Thessalonians is widely considered by scholars to be a forgery, so I'm not sure this can be counted. But even if it were, it still points up the problem for those who insist that eternal hellfire is the reward for the unsaved: the go-to guy for what it means to be saved, doesn't focus on hell and never mentions it directly at all. If it is such an essential element in the mix, how could he just leave it out?

:hemad:

Galatians 5

Whys He mad ? He's just stating fact no ?

He did say he that Christ "was seen of" himself in his list in 1 Cor 15. What is interesting here, and something most folks jump right over without wondering, is that he adamantly equates his own experience of witnessing Christ with the others in the list. There is nothing in his epistles where he or anyone else questions the difference in the experience. This would be impossible if he had only had a vision while the others saw Jesus walking around in a resurrected body, but there is nothing in his writings to indicate that such an event took place. To Paul, "was seen of" clearly meant a personal revelation and not a resurrected physical body, and he never ever talks of Christ's return, but always his coming.

Also note that Paul mentions nothing of the road to Damascus scene in Acts and his account contradicts the later Acts.

I am not sure what you mean by his real name being Paul. If you mean it was Saul, well, he never mentions that, either. It only appears in Acts. But there are many scholars who question whether Paul ever existed. He is as invisible to outside history as Jesus of Nazareth is, and there are differing theories as to who actually wrote the epistles that are considered his.

What about it? All I know is that he says the usual suspects, murderers, idolaters, etc. shall not inherit the kingdom. Is this what you are pointing to?

Yea

Hey foy why dont you debunk 2 Samuel 23 about Christs coming? No need to discuss Paul here and have a shallow party

Gladly , post the scripture and the argument .

As for "Paul" he's already been thoroughly debunked Several Times any many ways

Last Edited by Aqua 7 on 01/05/2016 02:23 PM

It's God's way of telling you not to hijack the thread, Foy. I just know it is.

1Now these be the last words of David. David the son of Jesse said, and the man who was raised up on high, the anointed of the God of Jacob, and the sweet psalmist of Israel, said,

2The Spirit of the LORD spake by me, and his word was in my tongue.

3The God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spake to me, He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God.

4And he shall be as the light of the morning, when the sun riseth, even a morning without clouds; as the tender grass springing out of the earth by clear shining after rain.

The translation doesnt bold it but the argument is prophecy of Christs coming. Continued in the NT. Because noone else came but him. Theres plenty of bible studies about it actually. Its not about solomon or military men. Only one who fits the description is Christ

won't be Postin on your threads anymore

Make your own thread , I'll swing by

Oh Faith sorry lol.. Do you mind?

Well, that would be God working in mysterious ways, then, cause I was just being a wise-ass.

Well, I doubt anyone is gonna actually dig into the topic as it is, so wtf, have at it.

Thanks Faith! Youre awesum!

Foy go ahead..

Thanks OP, i was wrong about the name, and i learnt a few things i didn't know before.

Glad to oblige. Pretty much the only point to posting this stuff is to give folks a broader picture than is usually painted.

Dont tell me you will abandon twice in a row foy

If you have argument against it i would really like to know

Oh, I don't know if you will continue to think so, because I don't think that's a prophecy that fits Jesus.

After all, he did not rule, did he? And it doesn't say anything about oh, he will rule when he comes back the second time.

That's the part I don't get about all the talk of prophecy and the messiah. Where does it hold that the Jews were waiting for someone who was going to come twice in order to bring in the kingdom?

Oh he rules. He sits at the right hand.

We see his rulership worldwide.

Thats why we must accept him thus more because he is the messiah

He isn't ruling at all and can't. This is why the idea is so foreign to me when it comes to the lord and savior bit. How can he be lord when you have every right to refuse what he "commands"? That's not ruling in any way I can grok.