|
Post by intelchips on Apr 21, 2020 22:42:38 GMT -5
I was thinking about another thread expressing how workers today are different from those very fist archetype. If I were a worker today I might find a sermon in the lyrics of Bradley Cooper - Maybe It's Time (from A Star Is Born)
Maybe it's time to let the old ways die
Maybe it's time to let the old ways die
It takes a lot to change a man
Hell, it takes a lot to try
Maybe it's time to let the old ways die
Nobody knows what awaits for the dead
Nobody knows what awaits for the dead
Some folks just believe in the things they've heard
And the things they read
Nobody knows what awaits for the dead
I'm glad I can't go back to where I came from
I'm glad those days are gone, gone for good
But if I could take spirits from my past and bring' 'em here
You know I would, you know I would
Nobody speaks to God these days
Nobody speaks to God these days
I'd like to think he's looking down and laughing at our ways
Nobody speaks to God these days
When I was a child they tried to fool me
Said the worldly man was lost and that the hell was real
Well, I've seen hell in Reno
And this world's one big old Catherine wheel
Breaking wheel
Maybe it's time to let the old ways die
Maybe it's time to let the old ways die
It takes a lot to change your plans
And a train to change your mind
Maybe it's time to let the old ways die
Oh, maybe it's time to let the old ways die
|
|
|
Post by nathan on Apr 21, 2020 23:27:57 GMT -5
In Deuteronomy 19:14 we read, “Thou shalt not remove thy neighbour’s landmark, which they of old time have set.”
Again in Deuteronomy 27:17 we read, “Cursed be he that removeth his neighbour’s landmark.”
We read again in Job 24:2, “Some remove the landmarks; they violently take away flocks, and feed thereof.”
Proverbs 22:28 says, “Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set.”
Proverbs 23:10 says again, “Remove not the old landmark"
Don't REMOVE the ancient New Testament teachings of Jesus Christ and the 1st century apostles... If it ain't broken don't FIX it. When God the Father and Christ establish their Old and New Testament teachings it's forever! it doesn't need to change because it works in every generation, under any types of gov't that rule, and any cultures of any nation in the world through the ages.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2020 23:36:31 GMT -5
I was thinking about another thread expressing how workers today are different from those very fist archetype. If I were a worker today I might find a sermon in the lyrics of Bradley Cooper - Maybe It's Time (from A Star Is Born) Maybe it's time to let the old ways die Maybe it's time to let the old ways die It takes a lot to change a man Hell, it takes a lot to try Maybe it's time to let the old ways die Nobody knows what awaits for the dead Nobody knows what awaits for the dead Some folks just believe in the things they've heard And the things they read Nobody knows what awaits for the dead I'm glad I can't go back to where I came from I'm glad those days are gone, gone for good But if I could take spirits from my past and bring' 'em here You know I would, you know I would Nobody speaks to God these days Nobody speaks to God these days I'd like to think he's looking down and laughing at our ways Nobody speaks to God these days When I was a child they tried to fool me Said the worldly man was lost and that the hell was real Well, I've seen hell in Reno And this world's one big ol' Catherine wheel Spinnin' still Maybe it's time to let the old ways die Maybe it's time to let the old ways die It takes a lot to change your plans Hella drain to change your mind Maybe it's time to let the old ways die Oh, maybe it's time to let the old ways die not well thought out if i say so myself....
|
|
|
Post by ant_rotten on Apr 22, 2020 0:03:05 GMT -5
In Deuteronomy 19:14 we read, “Thou shalt not remove thy neighbour’s landmark, which they of old time have set.” Again in Deuteronomy 27:17 we read, “Cursed be he that removeth his neighbour’s landmark.”
We read again in Job 24:2, “Some remove the landmarks; they violently take away flocks, and feed thereof.” Proverbs 22:28 says, “Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set.”
Proverbs 23:10 says again, “Remove not the old landmark" Don't REMOVE the ancient New Testament teachings of Jesus Christ and the 1st century apostles... If it ain't broken don't FIX it. When God the Father and Christ establish their Old and New Testament teachings it's forever! it doesn't need to change because it works in every generation, under any types of gov't that rule, and any cultures of any nation in the world through the ages.
“If it ain’t broken don’t fix it”.. The bible itself has broken entire populations for 2000 years..
|
|
|
Post by intelchips on Apr 22, 2020 9:59:36 GMT -5
In Deuteronomy 19:14 we read, “Thou shalt not remove thy neighbour’s landmark, which they of old time have set.” Again in Deuteronomy 27:17 we read, “Cursed be he that removeth his neighbour’s landmark.”
We read again in Job 24:2, “Some remove the landmarks; they violently take away flocks, and feed thereof.” Proverbs 22:28 says, “Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set.”
Proverbs 23:10 says again, “Remove not the old landmark" Don't REMOVE the ancient New Testament teachings of Jesus Christ and the 1st century apostles... If it ain't broken don't FIX it. When God the Father and Christ establish their Old and New Testament teachings it's forever! it doesn't need to change because it works in every generation, under any types of gov't that rule, and any cultures of any nation in the world through the ages.
You said " If it ain't broken don't FIX it". In what reality do you live where it isn't broken? The ability of exegetes today to plausibly say what did or did not historically happen, and how those methods could be used to determine the reliability of the teaching of Jesus and the 1st century apostles is much at question and tho you be of all faith that does not make your views the correct ones. You and Wally are the same, if I say ice cream, you would find something negative to say about it. So I'm not much worried about your thoughts but perhaps wiser more stable heads that are open to change if needed will speak on this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2020 10:18:50 GMT -5
In Deuteronomy 19:14 we read, “Thou shalt not remove thy neighbour’s landmark, which they of old time have set.” Again in Deuteronomy 27:17 we read, “Cursed be he that removeth his neighbour’s landmark.”
We read again in Job 24:2, “Some remove the landmarks; they violently take away flocks, and feed thereof.” Proverbs 22:28 says, “Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set.”
Proverbs 23:10 says again, “Remove not the old landmark" Don't REMOVE the ancient New Testament teachings of Jesus Christ and the 1st century apostles... If it ain't broken don't FIX it. When God the Father and Christ establish their Old and New Testament teachings it's forever! it doesn't need to change because it works in every generation, under any types of gov't that rule, and any cultures of any nation in the world through the ages.
You said " If it ain't broken don't FIX it". In what reality do you live where it isn't broken? The ability of exegetes today to plausibly say what did or did not historically happen, and how those methods could be used to determine the reliability of the teaching of Jesus and the 1st century apostles is much at question and tho you be of all faith that does not make your views the correct ones. YOU an Wally are the same if I say ice cream you would find some negative to say about it. SO, I'm not much worried about your thoughts but perhaps wiser more stable heads that are open to change if needed will speak on this. ice cream...too much sugar for you...
|
|
|
Post by intelchips on Apr 22, 2020 10:45:36 GMT -5
You said " If it ain't broken don't FIX it". In what reality do you live where it isn't broken? The ability of exegetes today to plausibly say what did or did not historically happen, and how those methods could be used to determine the reliability of the teaching of Jesus and the 1st century apostles is much at question and tho you be of all faith that does not make your views the correct ones. YOU an Wally are the same if I say ice cream you would find some negative to say about it. SO, I'm not much worried about your thoughts but perhaps wiser more stable heads that are open to change if needed will speak on this. ice cream...too much sugar for you... You mean just like the scriptures are to much for you? Can you explain the following: In Acts 9:8 Paul is still blind from the light he was shown during his vision. He could not see, so he was led “by the hand” to Damascus by those who were traveling with him. There he met Ananias, who then restores Paul's sight. (vv. 17-18 ) This narrative contrasts with Paul's description in Gal. 1:15-17. Here Paul seems to be arguing against the ideas that Luke would later adopt into Acts. Paul says that he “did not confer with any human being, nor did [he] go up to Jerusalem to those who were already apostles before [him], but [he] went away at once into Arabia, and afterwards [he] returned to Damascus.” Arabia is to the far southeast of Jerusalem, while Damascus directly north. According to Paul he had a few other things he needed to do first, which would have required his sight. And just to give you a tough time I'll drag out a dead herring here by mentioning a little known fact in the old city of Jerusalem what was in Paul's time known as the Damascus gate leads directly to Qumran.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2020 13:36:06 GMT -5
ice cream...too much sugar for you... You mean just like the scriptures are to much for you? Can you explain the following: In Acts 9:8 Paul is still blind from the light he was shown during his vision. He could not see, so he was led “by the hand” to Damascus by those who were traveling with him. There he met Ananias, who then restores Paul's sight. (vv. 17-18 ) This narrative contrasts with Paul's description in Gal. 1:15-17. Here Paul seems to be arguing against the ideas that Luke would later adopt into Acts. Paul says that he “did not confer with any human being, nor did [he] go up to Jerusalem to those who were already apostles before [him], but [he] went away at once into Arabia, and afterwards [he] returned to Damascus.” Arabia is to the far southeast of Jerusalem, while Damascus directly north. According to Paul he had a few other things he needed to do first, which would have required his sight. And just to give you a tough time I'll drag out a dead herring here by mentioning a little known fact in the old city of Jerusalem what was in Paul's time known as the Damascus gate leads directly to Qumran. that'll be the day. sure i can study that, pray and meditate on it and seek revelation the answer will come in a day or a week or a month or a year or several years so don't hold your breath....
|
|
|
Post by snow on Apr 22, 2020 13:37:36 GMT -5
ice cream...too much sugar for you... You mean just like the scriptures are to much for you? Can you explain the following: In Acts 9:8 Paul is still blind from the light he was shown during his vision. He could not see, so he was led “by the hand” to Damascus by those who were traveling with him. There he met Ananias, who then restores Paul's sight. (vv. 17-18 ) This narrative contrasts with Paul's description in Gal. 1:15-17. Here Paul seems to be arguing against the ideas that Luke would later adopt into Acts. Paul says that he “did not confer with any human being, nor did [he] go up to Jerusalem to those who were already apostles before [him], but [he] went away at once into Arabia, and afterwards [he] returned to Damascus.” Arabia is to the far southeast of Jerusalem, while Damascus directly north. According to Paul he had a few other things he needed to do first, which would have required his sight. And just to give you a tough time I'll drag out a dead herring here by mentioning a little known fact in the old city of Jerusalem what was in Paul's time known as the Damascus gate leads directly to Qumran. Oh come on now. You should know by now that facts mean nothing to those who believe based on lack of evidence, called belief!
|
|
|
Post by intelchips on Apr 22, 2020 13:57:44 GMT -5
You mean just like the scriptures are to much for you? Can you explain the following: In Acts 9:8 Paul is still blind from the light he was shown during his vision. He could not see, so he was led “by the hand” to Damascus by those who were traveling with him. There he met Ananias, who then restores Paul's sight. (vv. 17-18 ) This narrative contrasts with Paul's description in Gal. 1:15-17. Here Paul seems to be arguing against the ideas that Luke would later adopt into Acts. Paul says that he “did not confer with any human being, nor did [he] go up to Jerusalem to those who were already apostles before [him], but [he] went away at once into Arabia, and afterwards [he] returned to Damascus.” Arabia is to the far southeast of Jerusalem, while Damascus directly north. According to Paul he had a few other things he needed to do first, which would have required his sight. And just to give you a tough time I'll drag out a dead herring here by mentioning a little known fact in the old city of Jerusalem what was in Paul's time known as the Damascus gate leads directly to Qumran. Oh come on now. You should know by now that facts mean nothing to those who believe based on lack of evidence, called belief! I'm a slow learner snow. However notice how Wally didn't even pick up on the fact that Paul may have been on his way to Qumran which would have meant what?
|
|
|
Post by snow on Apr 22, 2020 14:26:15 GMT -5
Oh come on now. You should know by now that facts mean nothing to those who believe based on lack of evidence, called belief! I'm a slow learner snow. However notice how Wally didn't even pick up on the fact that Paul may have been on his way to Qumran which would have meant what? That he was possibly an Essene?
|
|
|
Post by intelchips on Apr 22, 2020 14:41:48 GMT -5
I'm a slow learner snow. However notice how Wally didn't even pick up on the fact that Paul may have been on his way to Qumran which would have meant what? That he was possibly an Essene? My opinion is that he was hunting the Essene. And that later when Paul's writing and Acts were compiled it got changed to Christian which again in my opinion didn't even exists at that time
|
|
|
Post by snow on Apr 22, 2020 14:43:37 GMT -5
That he was possibly an Essene? My opinion is that he was hunting the Essene. And that later when Paul's writing and Acts were compiled it got changed to Christian which again in my opinion didn't even exists at that time That could have been it. He was against them in the beginning according to scripture. So you're likely right.
|
|
|
Post by intelchips on Apr 22, 2020 14:51:19 GMT -5
My opinion is that he was hunting the Essene. And that later when Paul's writing and Acts were compiled it got changed to Christian which again in my opinion didn't even exists at that time That could have been it. He was against them in the beginning according to scripture. So you're likely right. Consider for a moment: As for Paul being struck by a 'light from heaven' - many explanations have been offered including epileptic seizure and sunstroke, with most scholars opting for the sunstroke. There is however a simpler explanation. Paul was struck with a brilliant idea: of how he could neutralize the spreading influence of the militant early Church by hijacking it - turning it into an expansionist ideology along the lines of the Roman Empire, but using the name of Christ or Messiah. This would be entirely natural, for the Qumranians - the early Christians that is - were themselves a messianic sect. Through this device Paul sought to subvert the threat and turn it into an agent of the Roman Empire itself. In other words, he had a brain-wave - one of the most fateful and fruitful brain-waves in history. This was the brilliant light he saw.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2020 20:24:55 GMT -5
That could have been it. He was against them in the beginning according to scripture. So you're likely right. Consider for a moment: As for Paul being struck by a 'light from heaven' - many explanations have been offered including epileptic seizure and sunstroke, with most scholars opting for the sunstroke. There is however a simpler explanation. Paul was struck with a brilliant idea: of how he could neutralize the spreading influence of the militant early Church by hijacking it - turning it into an expansionist ideology along the lines of the Roman Empire, but using the name of Christ or Messiah. This would be entirely natural, for the Qumranians - the early Christians that is - were themselves a messianic sect. Through this device Paul sought to subvert the threat and turn it into an agent of the Roman Empire itself. In other words, he had a brain-wave - one of the most fateful and fruitful brain-waves in history. This was the brilliant light he saw. pure speculation....
|
|
|
Post by nathan on Apr 22, 2020 23:09:14 GMT -5
Consider for a moment: As for Paul being struck by a 'light from heaven' - many explanations have been offered including epileptic seizure and sunstroke, with most scholars opting for the sunstroke. There is however a simpler explanation. Paul was struck with a brilliant idea: of how he could neutralize the spreading influence of the militant early Church by hijacking it - turning it into an expansionist ideology along the lines of the Roman Empire, but using the name of Christ or Messiah. This would be entirely natural, for the Qumranians - the early Christians that is - were themselves a messianic sect. Through this device Paul sought to subvert the threat and turn it into an agent of the Roman Empire itself. In other words, he had a brain-wave - one of the most fateful and fruitful brain-waves in history. This was the brilliant light he saw. pure speculation.... I agree with you, Wally.
innuendo [ˌinyəˈwendō]NOUN: an allusive or oblique remark or hint, typically a suggestive or disparaging one.
"she's always making sly innuendoes" ·
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2020 23:24:03 GMT -5
That could have been it. He was against them in the beginning according to scripture. So you're likely right. Consider for a moment: As for Paul being struck by a 'light from heaven' - many explanations have been offered including epileptic seizure and sunstroke, with most scholars opting for the sunstroke. There is however a simpler explanation. Paul was struck with a brilliant idea: of how he could neutralize the spreading influence of the militant early Church by hijacking it - turning it into an expansionist ideology along the lines of the Roman Empire, but using the name of Christ or Messiah. This would be entirely natural, for the Qumranians - the early Christians that is - were themselves a messianic sect. Through this device Paul sought to subvert the threat and turn it into an agent of the Roman Empire itself. In other words, he had a brain-wave - one of the most fateful and fruitful brain-waves in history. This was the brilliant light he saw. you'll need to make a YouTube video about it - that'll convince at least one skeptic. That's actually a very interesting line of thought to meander down... Bonus thought - it seems likely to me that Annanias and Saphira (sp) were poisoned. This explains how Peter was so able to predict their deaths. For the crime of...? Not giving Peter all their money! It worked - a "great fear" (and no doubt great amount of cash) came upon all.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Apr 22, 2020 23:30:57 GMT -5
What's intriguing about Paul is he not only said "Not to go beyond the things written", but he said to "Be in subjection to the higher authorities".
While some think that might mean accommodating various strains of pluralism, Intel firmly believes it meant worshiping Rome in the day.
Was America founded upon a rejection of Paul's delimiter?
|
|
|
Post by Pragmatic on Apr 23, 2020 0:01:39 GMT -5
I was thinking about another thread expressing how workers today are different from those very fist archetype. If I were a worker today I might find a sermon in the lyrics of Bradley Cooper - Maybe It's Time (from A Star Is Born) Maybe it's time to let the old ways die Maybe it's time to let the old ways die It takes a lot to change a man Hell, it takes a lot to try Maybe it's time to let the old ways die Nobody knows what awaits for the dead Nobody knows what awaits for the dead Some folks just believe in the things they've heard And the things they read Nobody knows what awaits for the dead I'm glad I can't go back to where I came from I'm glad those days are gone, gone for good But if I could take spirits from my past and bring' 'em here You know I would, you know I would Nobody speaks to God these days Nobody speaks to God these days I'd like to think he's looking down and laughing at our ways Nobody speaks to God these days When I was a child they tried to fool me Said the worldly man was lost and that the hell was real Well, I've seen hell in Reno And this world's one big old Catherine wheel Breaking wheel Maybe it's time to let the old ways die Maybe it's time to let the old ways die It takes a lot to change your plans And a train to change your mind Maybe it's time to let the old ways die Oh, maybe it's time to let the old ways die Good song, and I enjoyed the movie. Lady Gaga was great, and Bradley Cooper actually has not a bad voice
|
|
|
Post by Dan on Apr 23, 2020 4:38:15 GMT -5
You mean just like the scriptures are to much for you? Can you explain the following: In Acts 9:8 Paul is still blind from the light he was shown during his vision. He could not see, so he was led “by the hand” to Damascus by those who were traveling with him. There he met Ananias, who then restores Paul's sight. (vv. 17-18 ) This narrative contrasts with Paul's description in Gal. 1:15-17. Here Paul seems to be arguing against the ideas that Luke would later adopt into Acts. Paul says that he “did not confer with any human being, nor did [he] go up to Jerusalem to those who were already apostles before [him], but [he] went away at once into Arabia, and afterwards [he] returned to Damascus.” Arabia is to the far southeast of Jerusalem, while Damascus directly north. According to Paul he had a few other things he needed to do first, which would have required his sight. And just to give you a tough time I'll drag out a dead herring here by mentioning a little known fact in the old city of Jerusalem what was in Paul's time known as the Damascus gate leads directly to Qumran.
Me thinks your looking for a contradiction that doesn't exist? Paul went to Damascus after being blinded, that was the road he was on and where he found Ananias (Acts 22). After receiving his sight, he went to Arabia, but returned again to Damascus, "Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus" (Galatians 1:17). Granted, the exact chronology isn't crystal clear, but Paul wasn't wandering around blind in Arabia for 40 days... jmo
|
|
|
Post by nathan on Apr 23, 2020 9:51:30 GMT -5
You mean just like the scriptures are to much for you? Can you explain the following: In Acts 9:8 Paul is still blind from the light he was shown during his vision. He could not see, so he was led “by the hand” to Damascus by those who were traveling with him. There he met Ananias, who then restores Paul's sight. (vv. 17-18 ) This narrative contrasts with Paul's description in Gal. 1:15-17. Here Paul seems to be arguing against the ideas that Luke would later adopt into Acts. Paul says that he “did not confer with any human being, nor did [he] go up to Jerusalem to those who were already apostles before [him], but [he] went away at once into Arabia, and afterwards [he] returned to Damascus.” Arabia is to the far southeast of Jerusalem, while Damascus directly north. According to Paul he had a few other things he needed to do first, which would have required his sight. And just to give you a tough time I'll drag out a dead herring here by mentioning a little known fact in the old city of Jerusalem what was in Paul's time known as the Damascus gate leads directly to Qumran.
Me thinks your looking for a contradiction that doesn't exist? Paul went to Damascus after being blinded, that was the road he was on and where he found Ananias (Acts 22). After receiving his sight, he went to Arabia, but returned again to Damascus, "Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus" (Galatians 1:17). Granted, the exact chronology isn't crystal clear, but Paul wasn't wandering around blind in Arabia for 40 days... jmo
Amen, Saul first encountered which recorded in Acts 6 where he first met and heard the disciple of Jesus name Stephen, who testified Jesus was the Christ/God. Saul was in Sanhedrin court and he gave consent to Stephen's death, before he died Stephen he looked up in heaven and saw Jesus standing next to God the Father and he uttered these words, "Lord, Jesus forgive them for they KNOW what they do."
Saul went and got permission from the Pharisee Sanhedrin court to imprison Jesus apostles and followers in Jerusalem and he went after those in Damascus followers also. As Saul went his way to Damascus that was when the resurrected Jesus appeared to him and told him he was going the wrong way about thing! for thinking Jesus was a Cult leader so, he was doing God's work by persecuting and killing his followers.
After Saul had repented of his sins Jesus opened his understanding that He WAS the Christ/God.
|
|
|
Post by intelchips on Apr 23, 2020 12:33:47 GMT -5
You mean just like the scriptures are to much for you? Can you explain the following: In Acts 9:8 Paul is still blind from the light he was shown during his vision. He could not see, so he was led “by the hand” to Damascus by those who were traveling with him. There he met Ananias, who then restores Paul's sight. (vv. 17-18 ) This narrative contrasts with Paul's description in Gal. 1:15-17. Here Paul seems to be arguing against the ideas that Luke would later adopt into Acts. Paul says that he “did not confer with any human being, nor did [he] go up to Jerusalem to those who were already apostles before [him], but [he] went away at once into Arabia, and afterwards [he] returned to Damascus.” Arabia is to the far southeast of Jerusalem, while Damascus directly north. According to Paul he had a few other things he needed to do first, which would have required his sight. And just to give you a tough time I'll drag out a dead herring here by mentioning a little known fact in the old city of Jerusalem what was in Paul's time known as the Damascus gate leads directly to Qumran.
Me thinks your looking for a contradiction that doesn't exist? Paul went to Damascus after being blinded, that was the road he was on and where he found Ananias (Acts 22). After receiving his sight, he went to Arabia, but returned again to Damascus, "Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus" (Galatians 1:17). Granted, the exact chronology isn't crystal clear, but Paul wasn't wandering around blind in Arabia for 40 days... jmo
If I had only this one piece of criticism then yes you might convince but I could write volumes about the confusion (which Wally says God is not the author of confusion) Example: Paul is converted on his way to Damascus the text of Acts reports, “[Jesus said to Paul] But get up and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do.” 9:6) 8 Therefore Luke presents Paul as having received only instructions on what to do next in his revelation of Christ. There was no revelation of gospel teachings until Paul was “told what [he was] to do.” In contrast to what Luke has written in Acts, Paul says in Galatians that “[he] did not receive i t from a human source, nor was [he] taught it, but [he] received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.”(Ga. 1:12) These two sources for the history of Paul‟s conversion seem to contradict one another. If Paul had not received the gospel from man, why does Luke not include this in his narrative?
|
|
|
Post by snow on Apr 23, 2020 13:28:58 GMT -5
That could have been it. He was against them in the beginning according to scripture. So you're likely right. Consider for a moment: As for Paul being struck by a 'light from heaven' - many explanations have been offered including epileptic seizure and sunstroke, with most scholars opting for the sunstroke. There is however a simpler explanation. Paul was struck with a brilliant idea: of how he could neutralize the spreading influence of the militant early Church by hijacking it - turning it into an expansionist ideology along the lines of the Roman Empire, but using the name of Christ or Messiah. This would be entirely natural, for the Qumranians - the early Christians that is - were themselves a messianic sect. Through this device Paul sought to subvert the threat and turn it into an agent of the Roman Empire itself. In other words, he had a brain-wave - one of the most fateful and fruitful brain-waves in history. This was the brilliant light he saw. Well he certainly changed the message. And he made is sound quite similar to other religions that talked about crucified Saviors, born to a virgin etc. This was not the belief of the early Christians in Jerusalem. The Ebionites didn't believe in a Jesus that was born to a virgin, that was a god etc. Ebionites is a patristic term referring to a Jewish Christian movement that existed during the early centuries of the Christian Era. They regarded Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah while rejecting his divinity and his virgin birth and insisted on the necessity of following Jewish law and rites.from Wiki
|
|