Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2014 8:24:34 GMT -5
Can anyone remember what I wrote about Jesus' "Evil Twin" ?
That is, half of what Jesus said is identical to half of what Paul wrote -
-hierarchical -judgmental -moralistic -works based -eschatological death and destruction
Attempts to portray Paul as an adversary to the Gospels are simply uninformed, unintelligent and smack of religious advocacy.
|
|
|
Post by kencoolidge on Apr 22, 2014 13:02:17 GMT -5
Nathan and Ken, Tweet has a 140 character limit. What would you say if this board had a 140 word limit? I would say they don't want to get into a meaningful discussion so limit discussion to140 words!
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 22, 2014 17:22:13 GMT -5
Bob wrote: Jesus was already dead, and Ananias was thinking. ~~ NathanB: Jesus resurrected after 3 days/nights in the grave and he was alive... You should know that. It was the Lord Jesus own words speaking to Ananias that Paul "was a chosen Vessel". It wasn't Ananias or Paul own words or thinking but Jesus the Lord/God himself own words, Paul was a chosen vessel.Bob: Yes -- according to who? According to Paul. So what tongue did Jesus use to tell Ananias that? Sorry everyone, for wasting so much space.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 22, 2014 18:29:46 GMT -5
1) Rational wrote: According to Paul. Nathan: No, according to Jesus and Ananias own words that Paul was a chosen Vessel. Where did Jesus say this? I have seen David Copperfield do that trick.Sounds like a a poor teacher. Your logic is astounding. Paul preaches something over and over, people believe the preaching, and then the preaching is considered true because people believe it. Using your logic Jim Jones was in the same league as Paul.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Apr 22, 2014 22:09:30 GMT -5
OR, was Paul who Jesus was referring to when he talked about 'false prophets'. Maybe Paul directed Christianity in a whole different direction than what Jesus meant. After all, we only have Paul's word that he actually saw Jesus in a vision. Anyone can say that. I don't know that Jesus ever knew who Paul was. But Paul certainly had his differences with the 12 apostles and their followers. Somehow he and Peter ended up in Rome at the same time, yet apparently had nothing to do with each other. The Romans certainly knew Peter was in town. But it's interesting that most people think that the false prophets Paul spoke about were someone other than the 12 apostles followers. Paul even identified them as preaching that people needed to keep the old law -- exactly what Jesus apparently left them with. That's kind of a clue that the ones who came and upset Paul's gospel had come from Palestine. Yes and he also refers to the other 'Lords suppers' and 'Christs' as being the wrong lords suppers and false prophets. So from that it is evident that there were others that claimed to be Messiahs and he had to differentiate his Christ from the others.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Apr 22, 2014 23:39:35 GMT -5
Nathan and Ken, Tweet has a 140 character limit. What would you say if this board had a 140 word limit? Bert ~ Many of us couldn't cope with that restriction ~ myself included!
By the way, you have to admit that Nathan did a fine job answering Bob's questions in the last post with the proper scriptures in support of his statements. I was really impressed with Nathan's answers, too!
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 22, 2014 23:41:54 GMT -5
I don't know that Jesus ever knew who Paul was. But Paul certainly had his differences with the 12 apostles and their followers. Somehow he and Peter ended up in Rome at the same time, yet apparently had nothing to do with each other. The Romans certainly knew Peter was in town. But it's interesting that most people think that the false prophets Paul spoke about were someone other than the 12 apostles followers. Paul even identified them as preaching that people needed to keep the old law -- exactly what Jesus apparently left them with. That's kind of a clue that the ones who came and upset Paul's gospel had come from Palestine. Yes and he also refers to the other 'Lords suppers' and 'Christs' as being the wrong lords suppers and false prophets. So from that it is evident that there were others that claimed to be Messiahs and he had to differentiate his Christ from the others. Interesting you should mention that, because there were, in Greek mythology ("Pagan religion" of that time), other Christs, Lord's Suppers, Crucifixions for salvation, Risings from the dead, and he was well enough educated in the Greek culture to have understood Jesus to be another one of them -- which he decided was the true one.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Apr 22, 2014 23:53:42 GMT -5
Yes and he also refers to the other 'Lords suppers' and 'Christs' as being the wrong lords suppers and false prophets. So from that it is evident that there were others that claimed to be Messiahs and he had to differentiate his Christ from the others. Interesting you should mention that, because there were, in Greek mythology ("Pagan religion" of that time), other Christs, Lord's Suppers, Crucifixions for salvation, Risings from the dead, and he was well enough educated in the Greek culture to have understood Jesus to be another one of them -- which he decided was the true one. Bob ~ Are you suggesting that pagan religions had an influence upon the stories found within the Gospels themselves and that Christianity actually adopted some of these story lines in relation to Jesus as fill-in material to portray him as divine and the promised Messiah?
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 23, 2014 1:32:27 GMT -5
Interesting you should mention that, because there were, in Greek mythology ("Pagan religion" of that time), other Christs, Lord's Suppers, Crucifixions for salvation, Risings from the dead, and he was well enough educated in the Greek culture to have understood Jesus to be another one of them -- which he decided was the true one. Bob ~ Are you suggesting that pagan religions had an influence upon the stories found within the Gospels themselves and that Christianity actually adopted some of these story lines in relation to Jesus as fill-in material to portray him as divine and the promised Messiah? No. I'm suggesting that Paul's philosophy and concept of the cosmos was Greco-Roman and not at all in sync with that of Jews in Palestine. That was the culture of all the Jews in the Diaspora -- in the Roman Empire. And education for them was in Greek philosophy and society was Pagan. We know that because Paul advised the Pagan rule for marriage -- one wife at a time. That has not been a Christian rule except in Western/Roman Christianity. I'm not going to say that Paul knew nothing about what the Jews in Palestine believed, but he most surely did not believe in traditional Jewish theology. How the 4 gospels come to accommodate Paul's teaching as easily as it does is because, to begin with, the Roman church selected the gospels they believed satisfied their agenda. Accepting that they were the four "correct" gospels is strictly a matter of trust in the Early Church Fathers of the late second century and onward. Most, meaning mostly everything available, of any other source about what became of Jesus apostles and their followers (including virtually all Jesus' Jewish followers) was destroyed with the advent of the orthodox church. They burned whole libraries just to obliterate any record of anything that was outside their intentional adaptation to Greek/Pagan philosophy and theology. Then they had to as strenuously obliterate any evidence that they had taken anything from Paganism, because they had already outlawed Paganism. But concerning the Gospels -- the scribes and ECF have not left us any doubt that they "corrected" passages to suit their doctrine. A few have even left admissions that: (1) "There are many things that are true which is not useful for the vulgar crowd to know; and certain things which although they are false it is expedient for the people to believe otherwise." [St. Augustine, City of God]. (2) Eusebius boasted that he had "made it all right" (referring to the history of Christianity). (3) John Crysostom opined that “Great is the force of deceit, provided it is not excited by a treacherous intention.” (In his commentary on 1 Corinthians). (4) Cardinal John Henry Newman said, "The Greek Fathers thought that when the cause was just (justa causa) an untruth needed not be a lie.” (5) Origen complained that the differences between copies of the Gospels in his day were “considerable, .... partly because of the impious audacity of “those who added or removed what seemed good to them in the work of ‘correction.’” (6) Firmicus was outraged that his treatise "was deliberately mutilated at a passage accusing Christians of following the practices of the widely popular cult of Mithras." SO -- how do we use the Roman Bible to verify what the apostles believed and taught. The Bible does record a scrap of instruction that the 12 apostles gave to Paul when he finally met them, but the only record we have of Paul repeating it indicated that he changed it. Paul threw out the Jewish dietary laws. Interestingly, I notice that the new hierarchy in Viet Nam enforces a part of Jewish dietary law. One of the workers did tell a newspaper reporter that they were more fundamentalist than the fundamentalists.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 23, 2014 1:45:40 GMT -5
Interesting you should mention that, because there were, in Greek mythology ("Pagan religion" of that time), other Christs, Lord's Suppers, Crucifixions for salvation, Risings from the dead, and he was well enough educated in the Greek culture to have understood Jesus to be another one of them -- which he decided was the true one. Bob ~ Are you suggesting that pagan religions had an influence upon the stories found within the Gospels themselves and that Christianity actually adopted some of these story lines in relation to Jesus as fill-in material to portray him as divine and the promised Messiah? Sorry - another answer. Yes. There is really nothing new in the 4 gospels. There isn't a story in them that was not part of Pagan lore for centuries and millennia. It was not difficult for Jews to accept Jesus as a messiah. What was difficult for the Jews was to accept that he was a "Christ" -- and there's a reason why they were called Christians first at some other place than Jerusalem. The Roman church and government chose Paul's Christianity over Jesus' message (whatever that was aside from the Pagan lore he repeated), and that is why Jewish believers virtually disappeared by the end of the second century -- they were not acceptable to the emerging orthodox church.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Apr 23, 2014 2:41:45 GMT -5
Bob ~ Are you suggesting that pagan religions had an influence upon the stories found within the Gospels themselves and that Christianity actually adopted some of these story lines in relation to Jesus as fill-in material to portray him as divine and the promised Messiah? No. I'm suggesting that Paul's philosophy and concept of the cosmos was Greco-Roman and not at all in sync with that of Jews in Palestine. That was the culture of all the Jews in the Diaspora -- in the Roman Empire. And education for them was in Greek philosophy and society was Pagan. We know that because Paul advised the Pagan rule for marriage -- one wife at a time. That has not been a Christian rule except in Western/Roman Christianity. I'm not going to say that Paul knew nothing about what the Jews in Palestine believed, but he most surely did not believe in traditional Jewish theology. How the 4 gospels come to accommodate Paul's teaching as easily as it does is because, to begin with, the Roman church selected the gospels they believed satisfied their agenda. Accepting that they were the four "correct" gospels is strictly a matter of trust in the Early Church Fathers of the late second century and onward. Most, meaning mostly everything available, of any other source about what became of Jesus apostles and their followers (including virtually all Jesus' Jewish followers) was destroyed with the advent of the orthodox church. They burned whole libraries just to obliterate any record of anything that was outside their intentional adaptation to Greek/Pagan philosophy and theology. Then they had to as strenuously obliterate any evidence that they had taken anything from Paganism, because they had already outlawed Paganism. But concerning the Gospels -- the scribes and ECF have not left us any doubt that they "corrected" passages to suit their doctrine. A few have even left admissions that: (1) "There are many things that are true which is not useful for the vulgar crowd to know; and certain things which although they are false it is expedient for the people to believe otherwise." [St. Augustine, City of God]. (2) Eusebius boasted that he had "made it all right" (referring to the history of Christianity). (3) John Crysostom opined that “Great is the force of deceit, provided it is not excited by a treacherous intention.” (In his commentary on 1 Corinthians). (4) Cardinal John Henry Newman said, "The Greek Fathers thought that when the cause was just (justa causa) an untruth needed not be a lie.” (5) Origen complained that the differences between copies of the Gospels in his day were “considerable, .... partly because of the impious audacity of “those who added or removed what seemed good to them in the work of ‘correction.’” (6) Firmicus was outraged that his treatise "was deliberately mutilated at a passage accusing Christians of following the practices of the widely popular cult of Mithras." SO -- how do we use the Roman Bible to verify what the apostles believed and taught. The Bible does record a scrap of instruction that the 12 apostles gave to Paul when he finally met them, but the only record we have of Paul repeating it indicated that he changed it. Paul threw out the Jewish dietary laws. Interestingly, I notice that the new hierarchy in Viet Nam enforces a part of Jewish dietary law. One of the workers did tell a newspaper reporter that they were more fundamentalist than the fundamentalists. Bob ~ Thank you for bringing out some of my own discoveries while personally researching the ECF's and early Christian writers and their beliefs. However, it seems that Christian teaching today is more centered around Paul's teachings than those put forth by Jesus and his 12 apostles.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Apr 23, 2014 2:46:41 GMT -5
Bob ~ Are you suggesting that pagan religions had an influence upon the stories found within the Gospels themselves and that Christianity actually adopted some of these story lines in relation to Jesus as fill-in material to portray him as divine and the promised Messiah? Sorry - another answer. Yes. There is really nothing new in the 4 gospels. There isn't a story in them that was not part of Pagan lore for centuries and millennia. It was not difficult for Jews to accept Jesus as a messiah. What was difficult for the Jews was to accept that he was a "Christ" -- and there's a reason why they were called Christians first at some other place than Jerusalem. The Roman church and government chose Paul's Christianity over Jesus' message (whatever that was aside from the Pagan lore he repeated), and that is why Jewish believers virtually disappeared by the end of the second century -- they were not acceptable to the emerging orthodox church.Bob ~ Could you be referring to the Ebionites above? This was a group within the early church that was causing a great deal of discord according to some ECF's writings, if I remember right?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebionites
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 23, 2014 3:13:09 GMT -5
Sorry - another answer. Yes. There is really nothing new in the 4 gospels. There isn't a story in them that was not part of Pagan lore for centuries and millennia. It was not difficult for Jews to accept Jesus as a messiah. What was difficult for the Jews was to accept that he was a "Christ" -- and there's a reason why they were called Christians first at some other place than Jerusalem. The Roman church and government chose Paul's Christianity over Jesus' message (whatever that was aside from the Pagan lore he repeated), and that is why Jewish believers virtually disappeared by the end of the second century -- they were not acceptable to the emerging orthodox church.Bob ~ Could you be referring to the Ebionites above? This was a group within the early church that was causing a great deal of discord according to some ECF's writings, if I remember right?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebionites
I have never read or been told by anyone that the Jewish believers were called Ebionites. But knowing what they believed most certainly put them in that category, because they were harassed out of existence and every trace of them destroyed. I've not gotten into any of that aspect of history at all. When I get time. But you are right, the ECF very much did not want them around.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 23, 2014 3:18:18 GMT -5
No. I'm suggesting that Paul's philosophy and concept of the cosmos was Greco-Roman and not at all in sync with that of Jews in Palestine. That was the culture of all the Jews in the Diaspora -- in the Roman Empire. And education for them was in Greek philosophy and society was Pagan. We know that because Paul advised the Pagan rule for marriage -- one wife at a time. That has not been a Christian rule except in Western/Roman Christianity. I'm not going to say that Paul knew nothing about what the Jews in Palestine believed, but he most surely did not believe in traditional Jewish theology. How the 4 gospels come to accommodate Paul's teaching as easily as it does is because, to begin with, the Roman church selected the gospels they believed satisfied their agenda. Accepting that they were the four "correct" gospels is strictly a matter of trust in the Early Church Fathers of the late second century and onward. Most, meaning mostly everything available, of any other source about what became of Jesus apostles and their followers (including virtually all Jesus' Jewish followers) was destroyed with the advent of the orthodox church. They burned whole libraries just to obliterate any record of anything that was outside their intentional adaptation to Greek/Pagan philosophy and theology. Then they had to as strenuously obliterate any evidence that they had taken anything from Paganism, because they had already outlawed Paganism. But concerning the Gospels -- the scribes and ECF have not left us any doubt that they "corrected" passages to suit their doctrine. A few have even left admissions that: (1) "There are many things that are true which is not useful for the vulgar crowd to know; and certain things which although they are false it is expedient for the people to believe otherwise." [St. Augustine, City of God]. (2) Eusebius boasted that he had "made it all right" (referring to the history of Christianity). (3) John Crysostom opined that “Great is the force of deceit, provided it is not excited by a treacherous intention.” (In his commentary on 1 Corinthians). (4) Cardinal John Henry Newman said, "The Greek Fathers thought that when the cause was just (justa causa) an untruth needed not be a lie.” (5) Origen complained that the differences between copies of the Gospels in his day were “considerable, .... partly because of the impious audacity of “those who added or removed what seemed good to them in the work of ‘correction.’” (6) Firmicus was outraged that his treatise "was deliberately mutilated at a passage accusing Christians of following the practices of the widely popular cult of Mithras." SO -- how do we use the Roman Bible to verify what the apostles believed and taught. The Bible does record a scrap of instruction that the 12 apostles gave to Paul when he finally met them, but the only record we have of Paul repeating it indicated that he changed it. Paul threw out the Jewish dietary laws. Interestingly, I notice that the new hierarchy in Viet Nam enforces a part of Jewish dietary law. One of the workers did tell a newspaper reporter that they were more fundamentalist than the fundamentalists. Bob ~ Thank you for bringing out some of my own discoveries while personally researching the ECF's and early Christian writers and their beliefs. However, it seems that Christian teaching today is more centered around Paul's teachings than those put forth by Jesus and his 12 apostles. That's true, very much so. Quite some time ago I read a paper by someone who was claiming that Paul derailed Christianity and made it something it wasn't supposed to be. It was before all my studies, and it was my first exposure to anything of that line of thought, and I thought he was a bit nutty at the time. But I couldn't dismiss what he wrote entirely because everything he said I agreed with -- I guess I just couldn't get my head around his "conclusion" of the matter.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Apr 23, 2014 14:47:10 GMT -5
Yes and he also refers to the other 'Lords suppers' and 'Christs' as being the wrong lords suppers and false prophets. So from that it is evident that there were others that claimed to be Messiahs and he had to differentiate his Christ from the others. Interesting you should mention that, because there were, in Greek mythology ("Pagan religion" of that time), other Christs, Lord's Suppers, Crucifixions for salvation, Risings from the dead, and he was well enough educated in the Greek culture to have understood Jesus to be another one of them -- which he decided was the true one. Of course he knew that. Why else did he feel the need to warn HIS followers to not be taken in by other Lords suppers, that they were false and only his version was the right one. That would also mean he didn't agree with the apostles. Paul very much thought of himself as the 'first apostle' and that only his interpretation of the Christ was the right one and he only received these 'enlightenments' through his so called visions where Jesus supposedly talked to him and guided him. He derailed Christianity as far as I'm concerned.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2014 14:52:57 GMT -5
i looked up apostle and not once did paul say he was the "first apostle" he even in one verse says that he is not worthy to be called an apostle...
1Co_15:9 For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 23, 2014 16:43:02 GMT -5
i looked up apostle and not once did paul say he was the "first apostle" he even in one verse says that he is not worthy to be called an apostle... 1Co_15:9 For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. Oh yeah. The idiot elder of the meeting I used to go to also told me that he was unworthy to be called an elder (in fact he was, every other man in the meeting had been professing longer than him by at least 30 years); but it didn't stop him from telling me I was too evil for him to have fellowship with any more, warning my friends not to have anything to do with me, and calling down hell-fire on me and my whole family with the workers -- my wife and I had a perverted private relationship. But he was the elder of the meeting and he knew better. John Crysostom's comment observation of Paul's writings was: “Great is the force of deceit, provided it is not excited by a treacherous intention.”
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 23, 2014 16:44:31 GMT -5
Of course he knew that. Why else did he feel the need to warn HIS followers to not be taken in by other Lords suppers, that they were false and only his version was the right one. That would also mean he didn't agree with the apostles. Paul very much thought of himself as the 'first apostle' and that only his interpretation of the Christ was the right one and he only received these 'enlightenments' through his so called visions where Jesus supposedly talked to him and guided him. He derailed Christianity as far as I'm concerned. Paul didn't derail Christianity but he put it in the right Path/course... WITH and according to Jesus Christ teachings. SAVED by Grace alone and NOT Saved by grace AND must keep obeying the law of Moses to be SAVED. Jesus would NOT have called Paul His chosen Vessel as a messenger/ambassador to the Gentiles people, if he was going to derail His/Jesus New Testament foundations teachings.
Paul saved the early Church from going/following the path of destruction, the false apostles, teachers within the church teaching false doctrines. So you believe the 12 apostles were wrong? And all I want for an answer is either YES or NO.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2014 18:05:41 GMT -5
i looked up apostle and not once did paul say he was the "first apostle" he even in one verse says that he is not worthy to be called an apostle... 1Co_15:9 For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. Oh yeah. The idiot elder of the meeting I used to go to also told me that he was unworthy to be called an elder (in fact he was, every other man in the meeting had been professing longer than him by at least 30 years); but it didn't stop him from telling me I was too evil for him to have fellowship with any more, warning my friends not to have anything to do with me, and calling down hell-fire on me and my whole family with the workers -- my wife and I had a perverted private relationship. But he was the elder of the meeting and he knew better. John Crysostom's comment observation of Paul's writings was: “Great is the force of deceit, provided it is not excited by a treacherous intention.” why were you too evil, what had you done?
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 23, 2014 18:42:15 GMT -5
Oh yeah. The idiot elder of the meeting I used to go to also told me that he was unworthy to be called an elder (in fact he was, every other man in the meeting had been professing longer than him by at least 30 years); but it didn't stop him from telling me I was too evil for him to have fellowship with any more, warning my friends not to have anything to do with me, and calling down hell-fire on me and my whole family with the workers -- my wife and I had a perverted private relationship. But he was the elder of the meeting and he knew better. John Crysostom's comment observation of Paul's writings was: “Great is the force of deceit, provided it is not excited by a treacherous intention.” why were you too evil, what had you done? What I admit to is: Accidentally discovering that the workers promoted a lie about a child rape. Complaining to the overseer that the worker involved lied about the case. Visiting friends in jail who were on the banished list. Complaining that my name was used to boot someone out when I made claims to the opposite about the kid. Complaining that the sister worker told me my wife and I had an "immoral private lifestyle". Inviting the jailed man's parents to stay with us while visiting their son. Helping the alleged "pervert" get permission to associate with the friends again. What I was accused of: Disturbing the church. (Very complicated explanation for that) Defying the workers. (I was following the 2x2 conscience I was nourished on for 50 years) Holding a convention for people who were kicked out of meeting. (It was a picnic for visiting professing people) Promoting immorality among our young people. (Wanting the workers to admit that the kid in jail was not the pervert they told everyone he was) Missing meetings. (I was alternate elder and filled in for him FREQUENTLY. He later admitted he couldn't remember a meeting I had not been in.) Promoting false doctrine. (Having someone I know nothing about come to speak to people at my alleged convention.) What I did that they never learned about: I had a worker put in the slammer for life for raping children for years. That's for starters !!!!!!!!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2014 2:20:18 GMT -5
Quote - "That's true, very much so. Quite some time ago I read a paper by someone who was claiming that Paul derailed Christianity and made it something it wasn't supposed to be. It was before all my studies, and it was my first exposure to anything of that line of thought, and I thought he was a bit nutty at the time. But I couldn't dismiss what he wrote entirely because everything he said I agreed with -- I guess I just couldn't get my head around his "conclusion" of the matter."
Bob, the CALIBRE of this "Pauline" argument I put on par with those with J.F.K asassination conspiracies. That is to say people take an element of the facts and build kingdoms around it.
To say that Paul commandeered Christianity is to also accept that Peter, John, Jude and Jesus Himself did much the same. Silly really.
|
|
|
Post by kencoolidge on Apr 24, 2014 4:20:32 GMT -5
why were you too evil, what had you done? What I admit to is: Accidentally discovering that the workers promoted a lie about a child rape. Complaining to the overseer that the worker involved lied about the case. Visiting friends in jail who were on the banished list. Complaining that my name was used to boot someone out when I made claims to the opposite about the kid. Complaining that the sister worker told me my wife and I had an "immoral private lifestyle". Inviting the jailed man's parents to stay with us while visiting their son. Helping the alleged "pervert" get permission to associate with the friends again. What I was accused of: Disturbing the church. (Very complicated explanation for that) Defying the workers. (I was following the 2x2 conscience I was nourished on for 50 years) Holding a convention for people who were kicked out of meeting. (It was a picnic for visiting professing people) Promoting immorality among our young people. (Wanting the workers to admit that the kid in jail was not the pervert they told everyone he was) Missing meetings. (I was alternate elder and filled in for him FREQUENTLY. He later admitted he couldn't remember a meeting I had not been in.) Promoting false doctrine. (Having someone I know nothing about come to speak to people at my alleged convention.) What I did that they never learned about: I had a worker put in the slammer for life for raping children for years. That's for starters !!!!!!!!! Bob I admire you for your actions. Like for many of us exes swimming upstream against workers direction is difficult and will get you outside the fellowship quickly. ken
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 24, 2014 4:54:27 GMT -5
So you believe the 12 apostles were wrong? And all I want for an answer is either YES or NO. ~~ I don't know about the 12 apostles... but were false apostles, teachers in Jerusalem... according to Paul II Cor. 11:13-15 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ. And no wonder! For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works.I guess you're not going to answer my question.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 24, 2014 5:13:36 GMT -5
Quote - "That's true, very much so. Quite some time ago I read a paper by someone who was claiming that Paul derailed Christianity and made it something it wasn't supposed to be. It was before all my studies, and it was my first exposure to anything of that line of thought, and I thought he was a bit nutty at the time. But I couldn't dismiss what he wrote entirely because everything he said I agreed with -- I guess I just couldn't get my head around his "conclusion" of the matter." Bob, the CALIBRE of this "Pauline" argument I put on par with those with J.F.K asassination conspiracies. That is to say people take an element of the facts and build kingdoms around it.
To say that Paul commandeered Christianity is to also accept that Peter, John, Jude and Jesus Himself did much the same. Silly really.Well, come to think about it, Paul didn't commandeer Christianity -- he created it. Jesus and the 12 apostles never called themselves Christians. But according to where the term "Christian" originated, it's not outrageous to say that Jeaus and the 12 were not even Christians. Ford and General Motors both make cars, and Ford came first -- Ford called them Ford, General Motors called them something else. Actually, Paul never would have made any lasting impression on Christianity if not for the likes of St. Augustine who discovered his writings long after Paul was dead and found his writings useful in attracting Pagans to Christianity. The word for Paul's type of religion is "Christianism" -- Pagan beliefs in the existence of "christs". It so happened that Paul portrayed himself in line with Jesus, so Paul's doctrines continued to be called Christianity -- who knows what Jewish Jesus-believers called themselves in that period of time. In retrospect we refer to them as Christians, but they didn't use that name themselves.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 24, 2014 5:14:57 GMT -5
What I admit to is: Accidentally discovering that the workers promoted a lie about a child rape. Complaining to the overseer that the worker involved lied about the case. Visiting friends in jail who were on the banished list. Complaining that my name was used to boot someone out when I made claims to the opposite about the kid. Complaining that the sister worker told me my wife and I had an "immoral private lifestyle". Inviting the jailed man's parents to stay with us while visiting their son. Helping the alleged "pervert" get permission to associate with the friends again. What I was accused of: Disturbing the church. (Very complicated explanation for that) Defying the workers. (I was following the 2x2 conscience I was nourished on for 50 years) Holding a convention for people who were kicked out of meeting. (It was a picnic for visiting professing people) Promoting immorality among our young people. (Wanting the workers to admit that the kid in jail was not the pervert they told everyone he was) Missing meetings. (I was alternate elder and filled in for him FREQUENTLY. He later admitted he couldn't remember a meeting I had not been in.) Promoting false doctrine. (Having someone I know nothing about come to speak to people at my alleged convention.) What I did that they never learned about: I had a worker put in the slammer for life for raping children for years. That's for starters !!!!!!!!! Bob I admire you for your actions. Like for many of us exes swimming upstream against workers direction is difficult and will get you outside the fellowship quickly. ken I'm working on my memoirs -- whether anyone will read them or not.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2014 5:19:54 GMT -5
Yes, the term "Christian" was probably pejorative. They had no name, and deflected questions as to why. SOME people always treated writings of the Apostolic Church as Cannon. Others need intellectual or social persuasion. What pagans believed, even in sons-of-gods, doesn't change scripture. And HOW MANY religions there are can't scripture either - they are just handy to imply all scripture is the same.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Apr 24, 2014 11:57:26 GMT -5
Of course he knew that. Why else did he feel the need to warn HIS followers to not be taken in by other Lords suppers, that they were false and only his version was the right one. That would also mean he didn't agree with the apostles. Paul very much thought of himself as the 'first apostle' and that only his interpretation of the Christ was the right one and he only received these 'enlightenments' through his so called visions where Jesus supposedly talked to him and guided him. He derailed Christianity as far as I'm concerned. Paul didn't derail Christianity but he put it in the right Path/course... WITH and according to Jesus Christ teachings. SAVED by Grace alone and NOT Saved by grace AND must keep obeying the law of Moses to be SAVED. Jesus would NOT have called Paul His chosen Vessel as a messenger/ambassador to the Gentiles people, if he was going to derail His/Jesus New Testament foundations teachings.
Paul saved the early Church from going/following the path of destruction, the false apostles, teachers within the church teaching false doctrines. Paul made Christianity to resemble what he was familiar with, the way the Greeks viewed Gods and their offspring.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 24, 2014 13:06:44 GMT -5
I guess you're not going to answer my question. You asked me a question " So you believe the 12 apostles were wrong? And all I want for an answer is either YES or NO." Some questions need more than a Yes, or No Answer. So, let me ask you this, what were the 12 apostles wrong about in your question? Can you be more specific.You answer questions like Sarah Palin. Someone asks a question, and you say what's on your mind whether you answer the question or not. What did you not understand about the question?
|
|