Evolution Poll

@Avin:

Well MauserBob, Shining Bowie, or Jennifer, if you are confident you can find that in the book of Acts, please enlighten me where it states that Saul was renamed Paul.

I guarantee that you won’t find it.

Saul continues to be called Saul after his encounter with Jesus… see all of Acts chapter 9. No mention of renaming to Paul.

Furthermore, Saul continues to be called Saul when he is sent on his first missionary Journey: see Acts 13:2.

Saul is called Paul for the rest of the book of Acts, and Paul refers to himself by that name in his letters, with no mention of being renamed, even though he recounts his history a couple times.

If you find a reference to him being renamed, I will concede the point but it looks to me like the Bible makes absolutely no reference to Saul being renamed at any point.

Rather the names Saul and Paul are really the same name: the Hebrew form is “Sha-ul”, which is Romanized to Saul, and the Greek form is “Paulos” which is Romanized to Paul. When you first meet him in Acts it is in the Hebrew context, but the bulk of his life he is seen in a Greek context. He is still both Saul and Paul. No renaming takes place.

I have a hard time reading this thread when defenders of the Bible get Biblical facts wrong.

I have no idea what you’re picking nits over. We know his name was Saul; we also know he also went by “Paul”. Our first introduction to this man is in the Book of Acts, where we see him going by both names. So……what is the problem? Am I to understand that you’ve been babbling on now for 3 pages because there is no verse that specifically states when he started using the name “Paul” ? I personally never said that there was. I took your question as asking where you find him using/going by/being called  “Paul”, and I answered you correctly…and to be more specific, Acts 13:9 is the first mention of him being called by both names, though it clearly does not state when the first instance of this occured. I cannot speak for Jennifer, but I interpret what she originally wrote to mean basically the same thing. Surely your whole purpose has not been to nitpick over semantics?

Rob.

Switch, salvation also only works if you believe, and mean it from your heart, since you don’t appear to believe now, I highly doubt you did then.

@Shining:

By Jesus saying “for such is the kingdom of heaven” in reference to the children, he was basically trying to say, that he came to save all men, not just those who were important, or of a certain age, at the time of his ministry. And bible says in Romans 5:12 that by “one man sin entered the world”. It’s hereditary, because Adam sinned, his seed is not worthy of the kingdom of heaven, though, babies, up to what Baptists consider “the age of accountability” do enter the kingdom of heaven if they die without maturing to the point that they can understand that they are sinners. But you can’t say that children are pure and sinless that’s for sure, a baby that cries just for the attention even if nothing is wrong, is being selfish, a child who lies has sinned, a child who disobeys his parents has sinned. You’re born a sinner by the very nature of man.

Then how do you explain Mary, whom the Catholics call a Virgin because she was free from sin.  If all men are born with sin on their souls through no fault of their own, then Mary would not have been a “virgin” by Catholic standards.

No.  Men make or break themselves in the sight of God.  Adam’s eating of the forbidden fruit only resulted in the curse of the soil.  Eve’s resulted only in the curse of painful child birth.  God did not curse all men and women with sin for the act of eating of the fruit.

If he had, then he would have specifically stated in plain terms that we were all cursed with an initial sin on our souls.

Furthermore, if we had original sin on our souls, then why did the Jews not have to atone for this sin at temple like they did for other sin?  After all, the price of sin is death.  So if they were all born as sinners then they would have had to kill something the instant they were born!

No, original sin didn’t start until the Catholic Church.  It was part of their policies of grabbing money, land and power to include original sin and purgatory and a myriad of other things to sucker men out of their money.  The Catholic Chruch’s leadership were very despotic and evil.  This has just kept going even after the fall of teh Catholic Church from a state power to a religious organization.  No where in the Bible does it mention Christening or Original Sin, etc.

When Jesus said the kingdom of heaven is made of people like Children, he meant exactly that.  Those in heaven will be as innocent and pure as children.

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?