Once saved can we lose our salvation??

[Thiscrosshurts]

Yes, you are correct. Unless we know his will then making statements that could possibly go against his will are pointless. Are you claiming to know God's mind? I'm certainly not claiming such. I simply know its a perfect plan, he knows all (including the end), and therefore it is already completed and perfected.

I have gone back and forth on this issue several times.Things I thought were going to be bad turned out good and things I was just sure would turn out good did not.Not always but enough to make me question my concept of good.For a while I may have let that idea lead me into a weak position in my prayer life.
The way I see it now is that there is no time in God so my request tomorrow can be written in before the foundation of the world.God doesn't have to change a thing.Just like those who believe and receive Jesus tomorrow will be written in the Lamb's book of life before the foundation of the world.At least that's the only way my puny human brain can get any kind of handle on it.As long as my request is already his will and it's out of love there should be no cosmic conflicts.

 

[David777]

Yo.

Attention MorningStar.

I am confused, MorningStar look at the following extracts from your posts.

Once again, if you look at the contrast between what Jesus actually taught, and what Paul "said"....its amazingly different,

That fact of the matter is, we don't know who wrote ANY part of the bible. All we have is "he said, she said, he said". Also, ALL scripture was written literally decades after their supposed time.

The obvious question is how do you know what Paul wrote?

You have basic problems with authorship.

If you could shed some light on this contradiction.

 

[MorningStar]

Attention MorningStar.

I am confused, MorningStar look at the following extracts from your posts.

Once again, if you look at the contrast between what Jesus actually taught, and what Paul "said"....its amazingly different,

That fact of the matter is, we don't know who wrote ANY part of the bible. All we have is "he said, she said, he said". Also, ALL scripture was written literally decades after their supposed time.

The obvious question is how do you know what Paul wrote?

You have basic problems with authorship.

If you could shed some light on this contradiction.

I have NO issues with authorship. I simply question the evidence for Paul, and that he wrote these things. Pauline authorship has ALWAYS been in question by prominent scholars.

Therefore, I guess the best way I can illustrate this point is to ask you the same thing....How do you know what Paul wrote (or didn't write)?

It should be noted that opinion of what he might have written is not proof he wrote it, and vice versa. So, unless you have 100% concrete proof that Paul wrote these things, its simply not proven.

The most intellectually honest thing we can say is that we simply do not know who wrote it. To claim we do know for certain, when we have NO proof, would be to lie.

(And yes, it OK to admit when we don't know, even as a Christian).:wink:

 

[David777]

Are you serious MorningStar.

Authorship of the letters that Paul wrote are in fact not under scrutiny
by scholars. What is the source of your information MorningStar,

One letter is under debate, the letter to the Hebrews.

I have never assumed Paul wrote Hebrews, nor does it matter.

Unless of course you are referring to letters outside of the New Testament such as 3 Corinthians. Which is of course beyond the
boundaries of Talk Jesus.

Further, I might also ask whether you have read the book of Acts which Luke penned along with the Gospel of Luke.

Acts contains an eye witness account of Paul and his teachings.
Paul's interaction with Peter, the Church in Jerusalem, Paul's
commission by the pillars of the church in Jerusalem.
Missionary journeys, etc.

Opinions? What opinions?

 

[MorningStar]

Authorship of the letters that Paul wrote are in fact not under scrutiny
by scholars. What is the source of your information MorningStar,

One letter is under debate, the letter to the Hebrews.

I have never assumed Paul wrote Hebrews, nor does it matter.

Unless of course you are referring to letters outside of the New Testament such as 3 Corinthians. Which is of course beyond the
boundaries of Talk Jesus.

Further, I might also ask whether you have read the book of Acts which Luke penned along with the Gospel of Luke.

Acts contains an eye witness account of Paul and his teachings.
Paul's interaction with Peter, the Church in Jerusalem, Paul's
commission by the pillars of the church in Jerusalem.
Missionary journeys, etc.

Opinions? What opinions?

Yes, everything Paul wrote has come under question at more than one time in history, and by quite a few historians.

Considering all the extravagant situations that Paul was supposed to be involved in, such as his early persecution of Christians, his supernatural conversion, his miraculous release from prison (Acts 16:26), and being pursued by hundreds and hundreds of soldiers and horsemen (Acts 23:23), being stranded from a shipwreck (Acts 27) and supposedly founding several churches around the Mediterranean, being a Roman citizen, and self claimed Pharisee, he fails to make it into any credible historical texts of that time. Considering the hundreds of well known historians, (and that time period being one of the most well documented in historical record), he was completely overlooked by Josephus, Pliny, and other well known historians.

Although in modern times, even Thomas Jefferson wrote that Paul was the "first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus" and if you look at the discrepancies of the teachings, he was quite correct.

It is also claimed by scholars that his writings were simply a product of pseudepigraphical transcription.

What has become Paul's greatest hurdle for historicity is that it appears his stories were a 'compilation' so to speak of Apollonius of Tyana, and even the works of Josephus. He appears to be a mish-mash created character that the early RC Church wanted to promulgate in order to give credibility to their agenda.

I'm sure you are ware that the book of Apollonius of Tyana vs. Paul of Tarsus was a huge controversy in the Christian world because of the vast and detailed similarities with Paul in the bible. Like Paul, Apollonius was educated in Tarsus, knew Ephesus, and he cast out demons and even raised people from the dead. (Not that people raising from the dead was a rare event in those times considering hundreds were raised at the same time Jesus was resurrected.) So, it is quite possible these stories are SO similar because Apollonius was Paul, or that Paul was 'plagiarized' from Apollonius. I mean if you think more than second about it, the names are quite similar linguistically.

Apollonius was thought to be a well respected person in those times, who caused a substantial movement, so the church later concocted his history to match and agree with their agenda and give the impression that he was a follower of their Christ. It appears they may have done the same with Paul.

BTW, stories about 'eye witness accounts' are only as good as how well we know the witnesses, and their credibility. In Paul's case, we know virtually nothing as a concrete fact.

 

[David777]

Still trying.

Pauline Authorship (source: Wikepedia)

These are the 7 letters (considered genuine by most scholars)

First Thessalonians (ca. 51 AD)
Philippians (ca. 52-54 AD)
Philemon (ca. 52-54 AD)
First Corinthians (ca. 53-54 AD)
Galatians (ca. 55 AD)
Second Corinthians (ca. 55-56 AD)
Romans (ca. 55-58 AD)

The letters on which modern scholars are about evenly divided are:

Ephesians
Colossians
Second Thessalonians

The letters thought to be pseudepigraphic by the majority of modern scholars include:

Pastoral epistles
First Timothy
Second Timothy
Titus

Please notice MorningStar that Romans, Galatians and 1,2 Corinthians
are considered genuine by the majority of scholars.

Now you have a serious problem MorningStar, these letters form the core of
what you call Pauline theology.

Here is what you previously said regarding Paul's authorship.

"I have NO issues with authorship. I simply question the evidence for Paul,
and that he wrote these things. Pauline authorship has ALWAYS been in
question by prominent scholars."

You are wrong MorningStar, there is no question now that
your opinions cannot be trusted. Pauline authorship has most
certainly not been questioned regarding the most important
letters from a doctrinal position.

I wonder if you realize the gravity of your error.

 

[El Hombre viejo]

Pauline Authorship (source: Wikepedia)

These are the 7 letters (considered genuine by most scholars)

First Thessalonians (ca. 51 AD)
Philippians (ca. 52-54 AD)
Philemon (ca. 52-54 AD)
First Corinthians (ca. 53-54 AD)
Galatians (ca. 55 AD)
Second Corinthians (ca. 55-56 AD)
Romans (ca. 55-58 AD)

The letters on which modern scholars are about evenly divided are:

Ephesians
Colossians
Second Thessalonians

The letters thought to be pseudepigraphic by the majority of modern scholars include:

Pastoral epistles
First Timothy
Second Timothy
Titus

Please notice MorningStar that Romans, Galatians and 1,2 Corinthians
are considered genuine by the majority of scholars.

Now you have a serious problem MorningStar, these letters form the core of
what you call Pauline theology.

Here is what you previously said regarding Paul's authorship.

"I have NO issues with authorship. I simply question the evidence for Paul,
and that he wrote these things. Pauline authorship has ALWAYS been in
question by prominent scholars."

You are wrong MorningStar, there is no question now that
your opinions cannot be trusted. Pauline authorship has most
certainly not been questioned regarding the most important
letters from a doctrinal position.

I wonder if you realize the gravity of your error.

Well its wise to be cautious of scholars. Intellect without the guidance of the HOLY SPIRIT is very faulty.

 

[MorningStar]

Pauline Authorship (source: Wikepedia)

These are the 7 letters (considered genuine by most scholars)

First Thessalonians (ca. 51 AD)
Philippians (ca. 52-54 AD)
Philemon (ca. 52-54 AD)
First Corinthians (ca. 53-54 AD)
Galatians (ca. 55 AD)
Second Corinthians (ca. 55-56 AD)
Romans (ca. 55-58 AD)

The letters on which modern scholars are about evenly divided are:

Ephesians
Colossians
Second Thessalonians

The letters thought to be pseudepigraphic by the majority of modern scholars include:

Pastoral epistles
First Timothy
Second Timothy
Titus

Please notice MorningStar that Romans, Galatians and 1,2 Corinthians
are considered genuine by the majority of scholars.

Now you have a serious problem MorningStar, these letters form the core of
what you call Pauline theology.

Here is what you previously said regarding Paul's authorship.

"I have NO issues with authorship. I simply question the evidence for Paul,
and that he wrote these things. Pauline authorship has ALWAYS been in
question by prominent scholars."

You are wrong MorningStar, there is no question now that
your opinions cannot be trusted. Pauline authorship has most
certainly not been questioned regarding the most important
letters from a doctrinal position.

I wonder if you realize the gravity of your error.

And I wonder if you realize the 'gravity' of yours in logic considering that if Paul was concocted from Apollonius, then none of those scholars are correct on the ones that were not doctored. If you read the stories of Apollonius, they are strikingly similar, and we do know for a FACT that the RC Church has doctored the bible, not just once, but many many times. The original Hebrew (and Greek) are simply not the same as what we read today.

Additionally, if even ONE is in question for being plagiarized or falsified, then all of Paul's are in question.

Now on to your smugness and false sense of certainty....

How can you claim these things are 'true' (ie that I am wrong) when there is not a single shred of concrete evidence for Paul even being a real person?

You DO realize that if you have NO concrete proof, to claim such things are true, would be to LIE.

The most intellectually honest thing we can say about Paul's writings and historicity is that we simply do not know for certain. This happens when, as what you have done above, mistake ASSUMPTIONS for fact.

Therefore, your certainly in claiming these things as 100% true can be seen as a boldfaced lie, or that you are just ignorant of basic logic and archeological/textural evidence. So which is it?

 

[MorningStar]

Well its wise to be cautious of scholars. Intellect without the guidance of the HOLY SPIRIT is very faulty.

Exactly, as all scholars should be put to the test of logic and reason. The Holy Spirit wants us to use our God given gift of reason and wisdom, and look past what can be human error, and massively erroneous assumptions.

Some scholars are far more thorough than others, and even more so are biased. History has shown over and over that if the RC Church is trying to make things fit their political agenda, they OFTEN fabricate not only "scholarly works", but even scripture itself. This is a proven fact.

On the other hand, a scholar that has a political agenda of their own can fabricate evidence as well in the other direction.

Therefore, you have to examine all the evidence possible, and let the Holy Spirit guide you through the wheat vs. the chaff.

 

[firstthings1st.]

Can we lose our salvation?

Hi All.

This questions comes up a lot and i'm still not sure of the answer. But can we lose our salvation?. I've read scripures saying that all we need to do is confess with our mouths that Jesus is our saviour etc and we will then have eternal life but then i read about God punishing others like King david for his sins.
I have had a few struggles with commiting the same sin over and over and i really do repent and do the 180 but i then fall back into sin again. I love Jesus, and i do hate disappointing God and myself. But it always raises the question can you lose your salvation??...
Thanks in advance.. GOD BLESS

Hello Shell84 and how are you all? My deepest question is that of the above quote within the context of the question titled, we should all give this major fact of getting on the wright side of true repentenance, instead of what we feel like doing, this would make a difference in your true faith walk in Christ. I do remember what our Saviour have said in the book of John 15:1-7, 8 -27. and this title of, Can we lose our salvation? I would say that yes! in words and in deeds, and in John 8:12.

And if a person would take heed of themself as towards their salvation in GOD through his dear Son our Lord and precious Saviour Jesus Christ of Nazareth, they would know of their faith in GOD through Christ. We will all give an account for our actions, wheather or not do we have the proper fellowship in christ. Because of the holy scriptures being done in action on his earth only by GOD spirit, Romans 8:1-9-39. Faith without works is deae being alone, wright?

 

[David777]

Yet again.

MorningStar you stated,

"Pauline authorship has ALWAYS been in question by prominent scholars."

I showed you seven letters of Paul that are not questioned by Scholars.

Pauline authorship has NOT ALWAYS been in question by scholars.

MorningStar the red line above is what you claimed.

You are questioning the authorship, i did not.

Can you support your statement in red with some evidence.

The onus is on you MorningStar to validate your claim.

 

[David777]

Dear El Hombre viejo.

MorningStar made the claim regarding non Pauline authorship.

MorningStar claimed Pauline authorship was in question by scholars.

All I did was show MorningStar that what he claimed was not true.

I do not rely on scholar's opinions myself El Hombre viejo.

My opinion is not the subject of these posts.

MorningStar's opinion is the subject that I am addressing.

I believe the New and Old Testaments are God breathed.

 

[gdemoss]

I believe the New and Old Testaments are God breathed.

Amen, It be so.

 

[Christ4Ever]

And what about my quote makes you think that it is proof that Paul wrote it?

Or that I accept it as being Paul's writing?

That fact of the matter is, we don't know who wrote ANY part of the bible. All we have is "he said, she said, he said". Also, ALL scripture was written literally decades after their supposed time.

Therefore, all we have is circumstantial OPINION, and opinion is not concrete proof of anything.

There have been enough studies to show which parts were written by who. However, if you don't believe them, then by the limits of what you have stated, all knowledge is faulty and not to be trusted. Which means even the words of Jesus that you adhere to over Paul's are meaningless and nothing more then fables.

My question to you then is. Is Scripture the inspired word of God or not?

 

[MorningStar]

I showed you seven letters of Paul that are not questioned by Scholars.

No, you showed me seven letter that YOU believe have never been in question. Big difference.

If you had researched this topic fully you would see that ALL the letters have been in question at one point in time or another.

Can you support your statement in red with some evidence.

Certainly. Origen of Alexandria in the 3rd century even questioned the authenticity of the Pauline authorship, and others all the way up to today.

Critics and scholars such as Edgar Goodspeed and Norman Perrin suggested they are actually amalgamations and not wholly complete unto themselves. Later, things heated up again over the epistles with F.C. Baur, and then a string of other scholars who had agreed they were likely doctored because of linguistic differences, as well as theological differences. Granted Paul supposedly changed his theological perspectives over time, but if there are basic or foundational perspectives that are changed within a short time it contrasts even more heavily against other writings.

And let's be quite clear on this point..there are NO letters that are normally attributed to Paul that have not been in question at some point.

Even if just one person has reasonable evidence that brings any writings in question...then they ARE in question. I think if any "rational" person saw evidence suggesting it was not valid, and supporting evidence to back it up, then any "rational" person would consider it in question....and the fact is, they have indeed long been in question by scholars.

Also as stated, if you have read the book of Apollonius you would clearly see the parallels to Paul. Its completely unreasonable to not consider these parallels from Apollonius and Paul. In fact, there are other people who had similar stories such as Paul that could have added to the amalgamation possibility. Both historical and mythological figures such as Orpheus, Apollonius, Saulus of Josephus and of course the Old Testament Saul which is perhaps the most obvious candidate.

Putting even more credence to the idea that Paul was simply a conglomerate of Apollonius (1st cent. CE) is the fact that his writings surfaced long after Paul's supposed death, yet before Apolloinus's death in texts like the Apocalypses of Baruch and Ezra in 70 CE. [Interestingly enough, Apollonius was also said to have been born of a virgin...as have so many, literally thousands, of other god-men pre-dating and post dating the Jesus and Paul account.]

The bottom line is, despite your objection, we simply do not have the original or whole papyrus of the actual "Pauline" writings as most were lost or damaged....therefore, it will likely never be known unless other sources surface.

Face it. We simply cannot say "for certain" at this point in time if they were genuine to Paul.

 

[MorningStar]

There have been enough studies to show which parts were written by who.

LOL, that is completely false. Perhaps you should read other (non-biased) scholars and sources and you will clearly see there is no concrete agreement on who wrote the bible as a whole tome.

However, if you don't believe them, then by the limits of what you have stated, all knowledge is faulty and not to be trusted. Which means even the words of Jesus that you adhere to over Paul's are meaningless and nothing more then fables.

My question to you then is. Is Scripture the inspired word of God or not?

Well, I can certainly see how you would come to that conclusion brother, but as for me, and as I have stated herein before, my personal relationship with Jesus is my own. I have proof internal to myself, and I feel no need to attempt to prove it to others because if held to those standards, then they would not be considered as proof, but only opinion.

But to answer your question straightforwardly, I feel some of the scripture is indeed doctored in the new versions/translations. In fact, this is a PROVEN fact that they have been changed by multiple sources over multiple dates. As an example, the concept of a fire and brimstone type hell was NEVER in the original Hebrew...therefore, all subsequent translations that ADDED this concocted type of hell are strictly erroneous as they contradict what the ORIGINAL Hebrew stated. So, are THOSE additions God inspired, or made man? Clearly they are man-made if the translations do not match the original source text. So, we must use our best, personal judgement on what is real deal God inspired original scripture and what might be fabricated by man.

So, in my personal opinion, as Christians we have to "personally" decide what constitutes proof...to us...in order to base our personal conclusion about God. My salvation is not dependent on what others think, it is only dependent on what God thinks. However, just because I cannot prove my conclusions to others through experimentation and repeatability as what the scientific method requires, it doesn't mean I am forced to forgo my personal conclusions. That's the beauty of faith, and God's personal connection to our personal situations.

 

[David777]

Greetings MorningStar.

You did reply and I will quote you directly.

"Certainly. Origen of Alexandria in the 3rd century even questioned the authenticity of the Pauline authorship,"

This is a typical generalization of which you seem compelled to make.

Origen of Alexandria was concerned with Pauline authorship of the letter to the Hebrews. Why? Because the letter to the Hebrews has no author's name attached.

Origen does not question Pauline authorship of letters with Paul's name attached. Only Hebrews.

Now the evidence to support my statements.

(Wikipedia)

This consists of what the author tells us about himself in the letter, either explicitly — the author clearly identifies himself — or implicitly — provides autobiographical details. This evidence is important in spite of its problems. For example, because the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews never identified him or herself, scholars as early as Origen of Alexandria in the 3rd century suspected that Paul was not the author.

 

[MorningStar]

I do not rely on scholar's opinions myself El Hombre viejo.

My opinion is not the subject of these posts.

MorningStar's opinion is the subject that I am addressing.

Just asking, but if you do not accept scholars opinions...why post scholars opinions to simply counter my lowly, amateur opinion lol? Seems rather contradictory in claim.

Also, why are my opinions subject, yet you claim your opinions are not? Have I done something to upset you in some fashion? I certainly hope we can keep this adult, and not let a great topic erode into something personal for you. Personally speaking, I am interested in your opinion. I might not agree with it....but if you have information I am not aware of, then great.

As I have stated, our faith is our own.

 

[MorningStar]

Origen of Alexandria was concerned with Pauline authorship of the letter to the Hebrews.

Origen does not question Pauline authorship of letters with Paul's name attached. Only Hebrews.

LOL, if you only wanted to concern yourself with Hebrews, or only certain parts of the bible, then you should have stated so as some odd rule of this discussion. Clearly, Origen questioned Paul's involvement in the bible. That was the point.

Am I not allowed to say other things now? Let's get your personal 'rules' of what is allowed in discussion out in the open lol. (Yes, I am joking.):wink:

 

[David777]

Does it ever stop.

MorningStar this about sums up your position.

"Even if just one person has reasonable evidence that brings any writings in question...then they ARE in question. I think if any "rational" person saw evidence suggesting it was not valid, and supporting evidence to back it up, then any "rational" person would consider it in question....and the fact is, they have indeed long been in question by scholars."

Scholars for centuries have been arguing with one another.
That's what scholars do MorningStar.

I showed you that seven of Paul's letters were not in question.

You cannot hold onto the claim that Paul was not the author of seven of his important doctrinal letters. You can accept Pauline theology
MorningStar there are no barriers now.

Scholarship over a long period of time has exonerated seven of Paul's
letters, they were written by Paul. They are not in question as you tried to infer.

I have already dealt with Origen of Alexandria and your erroneous claim. Origen of Alexandria was discussing Hebrews, this letter
is not included in Paul's letters. Why did you mention Origen of Alexandria?