Evolution Poll

Avin, were you and others looking for where in the Bible Saul changed his name to Paul? Wasn’t it here:

Acts 13:9
Then Saul, who was also called Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked straight at Elymas and said,

Jennifer, doesn’t this verse imply original sin:

Romans 5
12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned— 13for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law.

trust me,

The catholic Religion is a totally different ball-game.
I disaprove of many many many things they do and disaprove many of the customs and teachings they do.

@MauserBob:

We know his name was Saul; we also know he also went by “Paul”.

If that’s your stance, then I have no issue with you. However I do take issue with Jennifer who seems to think that there was a man named Saul who deliberately changed his name to Paul as a way of indicating his newfound Christianity. Particularly in her last post she clearly espouses this view. This has no precedent in the Bible, and I take issue with her when she is supposedly defending the Bible yet seems to fall prey to basic fallacies regarding it. I am convinced that what I called her on in the other thread, her idea that the Bible endorses the theology that “God provides for those who provide for themselves” (which I do not think is a Biblical doctrine) is of the same sort. It makes me think she has not read and understood the Bible on her own own, but relies on the teaching of others for her theology and often does not check it back to the Bible herself. Some of the other disputes in this thread (such as the concept of original sin) may fall into that category as well, but given that orginal sin is a lot more complex of an issue, I am not picking on her for her stance on that, especially since there are some Christian denominations which either reject the concept or downplay it. But Paul being somehow a “new name” is pretty basic and follows straightforward from a few specific passages and is easily demonstratable from the Bible directly.

@madscientist:

Wasn’t it here: (…)

I was wondering if anyone would actually find that. You will notice I referenced Acts 13 before; I was wondering if Jennifer would actually read it for herself. As you see, that confirms my position, not the “renaming” idea. Paul (Paulos) and Saul (Shaul) were two alternate names that Paul was known by. The verse does NOT say Saul decided to change his name to Paul, it said that he was also called by a different name. The implication consistent with the way Jews were named in the Bible and in that time, as I pointed out in my last post, was that Paul was the Greek name and Saul was the Hebrew name.

I agree with NoMercy, bringing catholism into this discussion and asking a baptist or 2 to rationalize what they do or what they say is pointless, there is no explaining how they come about with their religion. They even use extracanonical books in what they consider the BIBLE.

Also, when the Bible says Mary was a virgin, it means she KNEW NO MAN, not that she was sinless. Because the Bible states that ALL HAVE SINNED AND COME SHORT OF THE GLORY OF GOD. not All except MARY were sinners.

MD, it will never make sense if you never give it a chance, it’s called faith because it can’t make sense to a person who doesn’t believe. Also, if the Bible is true than even the Heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament showeth his handiwork. Meaning that even people who have never heard of Jesus, can tell by looking at nature that some great Creator made all of this. And they have no excuse for not realizing that when the day of judgement comes. But there is a chance for those alive on earth who have never heard of Jesus, to come to repentance during the Tribulation period, the problem is not all of them will.

Also, don’t bother helping us, all your doing is putting you own false spin on what we believe. So either stay on your side of the debate or stay out of it. Don’t try to jump on this ship just so you can sink it.

@madscientist:

Jennifer, doesn’t this verse imply original sin:

Romans 5
12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned— 13for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law.

No.  That says that the angel of death was unleashed on the world when sin first appeared in God’s creation.  It goes on to say that all men will commit sin because no man is perfect.

Now, I must ask again, what version are you reading? And did you come up with all these theories on your own? Or did someone tell you all this?

is it just me, or is MD looking to increase his post-count?

@Shining:

MD, it will never make sense if you never give it a chance,

Well, I tried to make sense of it for about 30 years, including three years at bible college. I think that qualifies as “giving it a chance.”

@Shining:

it’s called faith because it can’t make sense to a person who doesn’t believe.

Please re-read that about 20 times. Thank you. That pretty much proves my entire point. If you can’t come up with something that makes sense to someone who isn’t already a believer, you’re going to have a hard time convincing more people to become believers.

Try this version: "Our carpet cleaner will stain your carpets black. Unless you accept that that’s the best thing to do to your carpets, obviously you will never understand why our carpet cleaner is the best. But it says in the Holy Book that “thou shalt stain thy carpets black,” so do it and be saved!

Just replace “staining carpet black” (bad idea) with “believe without any proof” (imho also a bad idea) and you see that the argument doesn’t really stand on it’s own very well.

If your belief system has no validity unless underpinned by a certain set of assumptions called “faith”, you have to ask yourself on what basis that “faith” is justified.

@Maddogg:

kwazy wabbit.

Maddogg, I think you win this thread. Everyone else is just talking over each other and being stubborn.

The point is no proof, if you want god to come and prove himself to you, you will ge sadly let down.  God doesnt deem it neccesary to come and prove himself to you alone, to FORCE you to believe in him.  Only free choice can take you down the right path.

Thank you Balungaloaf! atleast…. I think…