If it's 'kind of long to go into', then it simply is NOT material or relevant to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

And St. Paul preached only One Gospel, and that was the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Period.

All the modern day writers and dipwads can write all they wish...but that means nothing.

For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and Him crucified.
1 Corinthians 2:2

But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 1 Galatians 8

Nope.

The folks you have been reading may be in good faith, though I doubt it, but they are simply mistaken.

Read the Gospels as a First Century man or woman would have read them...with the utmost simplicity.

Anything more than that, is not His Word.

Eric The(FirstCentury)Hun

Quoted:
If it's 'kind of long to go into', then it simply is NOT material or relevant to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.


The folks you have been reading may be in good faith, though I doubt it, but they are simply mistaken.

Read the Gospels as a First Century man or woman would have read them...with the utmost simplicity.

The people reading these letters back then also knew what was going on since they were living at that time, knew the culture, etc.
They also knew that they were in the Dipsensation of Grace which is talked about in the N.T but not being taught in many churches today..
By understanding that God had different dispensations, couldn't eat pork, then could eat pork, offer sacrifices, no need to offer anything, etc then you could read the Bible with the utmost simplicity. It is very easy for me to understand.



EDIT: Once a person realizes and sees the difference between God's program for Israel at one time, and how it ended/was withdrawn in Acts, then you can understand and see clearly that there isn't a contradiction whatsoever with Paul and the apostles.

You mean, "Once you become a 'Dispensalitionalist' then you can think as I do"?

No, thanks!



I'll stick to simple Gospel-believing fundamentalism.

Eric The(GotToKnowYourLimitations)Hun

Quoted: You mean, "Once you become a 'Dispensalitionalist' then you can think as I do"? No, thanks! I'll stick to simple Gospel-believing fundamentalism. Eric The(GotToKnowYourLimitations)Hun

Not only the churches I guess, but even people reading posts will still take things that are said waaaay out of context.

Also, honestly, from what you have written in posts I have a hard time thinking that you believe anything.

EDIT added.. You seem very angry and all, and are bashing Christians, that is why I said this.


EDIT and copying from another thread that Eric replied so friendly like....

Eroc, to blatantly argue with another Christian on posts shouldn't be done in front of seekers, especially with the sarcasm you are giving off.
Personally, if I was a seeker on here, I wouldn't stay around and read this, for it isn't about what is being talked about it is now  personally attacking a fellow believer.
That isn't judging?
Honestly, I am finished posting back to your responses, someone has to stop this nonsense.
take care

Disconnector,

The only 2 conclusions I can come up with for your situation is:

1.  You were genuinely born again, but are majorly back-sliding

2.  You never were saved

Based on your description of the way you talked about your 'faith', I did not find too much 'Christ' mention- for that would have been the 'sign' of a truly transformed life (ie becoming a Christian).  My conclusion- you are a number 2, although I admit I know little about what happened to you in life.

For instance, what is your version of the gospel?  In other words, how did you become a Christian?

In your own words.

I was raised in a secular family, and was never introduced to religion beyond what society mandated.  That you as a WASP have to fulfill the P, and assemble with relatives on holidays.  Purely a result of societal peer pressure.

As I matured into my teens (15+ years ago) and was exposed to more religious people (in Rural VA, ya don't say...), there was always this nagging belief that they were also going through the motions of belonging to a huge fraternity, with all its rituals and codes.  I, living outside of the fraternity, couldn't help but compare my life to theirs, and concluded that their behavior is a human invention.  My life was no different (in fact it was better), than most of theirs, which really irked many who believed that devotion vs lack of devotion should have some type of beneit beyond their perception of salvation.

It's true that being an Athiest is not easy on the social front.  Church does povide a huge social outlet that lasts your whole life.  You don't have that as an Athiest.  I know of many people who go through the motions without 'belief' simply to keep that/those relationship(s).

Keep in mind that if you obsess about comparing your current beliefs to X or Y, that you might simply be an Agnostic 'waiting' to find what's fits your vision of spirituality best.   An athiest believes that such 'spirituality' is a social and mental need of man that extends no further than his mind.

Quoted: Keep in mind that if you obsess about comparing your current beliefs to X or Y, that you might simply be an Agnostic 'waiting' to find what's fits your vision of spirituality best.   An athiest believes that such 'spirituality' is a social and mental need of man that extends no further than his mind.

agreed, but there is another option.  There are religions that fill the social and mental need without requiring a belief in a supreme being.  

Quoted: Quoted: Keep in mind that if you obsess about comparing your current beliefs to X or Y, that you might simply be an Agnostic 'waiting' to find what's fits your vision of spirituality best.   An athiest believes that such 'spirituality' is a social and mental need of man that extends no further than his mind. agreed, but there is another option.  There are religions that fill the social and mental need without requiring a belief in a supreme being.

Spiritual Masturbation????

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Keep in mind that if you obsess about comparing your current beliefs to X or Y, that you might simply be an Agnostic 'waiting' to find what's fits your vision of spirituality best.   An athiest believes that such 'spirituality' is a social and mental need of man that extends no further than his mind. agreed, but there is another option.  There are religions that fill the social and mental need without requiring a belief in a supreme being.   Spiritual Masturbation????

lol

Rabbi Sherwin Wine might disagree with you

My best wishes to you Friend Disconnector.

I was raised agnostic, with Science and Reason as the highest wisdom.

I do feel that right now you will find a more comfortable fit in your own skin with agnosticism than atheism

Atheism presumes knowledge about the unknowable, just as does Christianity.  (ie, atheism presumes to know that there is no Divinity, just as religions seem to know all about It, Him, or Her)

If something is not subject to being either empirically proven false or true, agnosticism lumps it into the Not Proven category.  Each individual makes his own decisions as to what degree of faith he may want to personally inject into each situation.  I may want to say "The sun will (appear to) rise tomorrow morning", basing my faith on past experience, while another agnostic might say "The sun will most likely come up tomorrow".

Unfortunately, I have found from a lot of visiting of various churches, that the theologically  liberal (open to scepticism, like the Unitarians) are ridiculously politically liberal   as well.

Thus, there is no place for folks like us... YET.

Also note that Deism ( a philosophy or religion which posits that "God" or The Divine, reveals Its, His or Her Self to us THROUGH Science and Reason) was very mainstream during the American Revolution,  with patriots such as Thomas Paine and Thoma Jefferson among its adherents.

--An Agnostic Deist

Quoted:

Quoted: If it's 'kind of long to go into', then it simply is NOT material or relevant to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The folks you have been reading may be in good faith, though I doubt it, but they are simply mistaken. Read the Gospels as a First Century man or woman would have read them...with the utmost simplicity.

The people reading these letters back then also knew what was going on since they were living at that time, knew the culture, etc.

Yes, they certainly did, and no one ever put forward such a cockamamie idea that there was any 'friction' between Jesus and St. Paul.

It took almost 2,000 years for some 'wise men' to come up with such tomfoolery...and an equal amount of time for some few Christians to become so 'bumfuzzled' in their own minds to accept such tripe.

Jesus Christ sought out St. Paul as a man to take His Gospel to the Gentiles.

Let's not, at this late date, question His Wisdom in doing so.

Mmmkay?

They also knew that they were in the Dipsensation of Grace which is talked about in the N.T but not being taught in many churches today..

Huh?

What 'Dispension of Grace' was being taught to First Century Christians that is NOT being taught today.

Can you explain that without using the term, 'dispensationalist'?

Is that even possible?

By understanding that God had different dispensations, couldn't eat pork, then could eat pork, offer sacrifices, no need to offer anything, etc then you could read the Bible with the utmost simplicity.

I suppose that you could calculate the number of 'dispensations' that could dance on the head of a pin, if you were of a mind to do so.

But find where Jesus taught of any 'dispensation' other than the Coming of the Kingdom of Heaven?

God did not change. He never has, He never will.

It is very easy for me to understand.

Yeah, well, that's all well and good, I suppose.

EDIT: Once a person realizes and sees the difference between God's program for Israel at one time, and how it ended/was withdrawn in Acts, then you can understand and see clearly that there isn't a contradiction whatsoever with Paul and the apostles.

Nor between St. Paul, the other Apostles and Jesus.

There is NO contradiction.

My side is not the one urging any contradiction.

And neither I, nor you, nor anyone else on the planet, knows what God may have in store for Israel, or whether or not a political or national Israel even figures into His Plan.

Eric The(Fundamentalist)Hun

Quoted:

Quoted: You mean, "Once you become a 'Dispensalitionalist' then you can think as I do"? No, thanks! I'll stick to simple Gospel-believing fundamentalism. Eric The(GotToKnowYourLimitations)Hun

Not only the churches I guess, but even people reading posts will still take things that are said waaaay out of context.

Stuff happens, big deal.

Also, honestly, from what you have written in posts I have a hard time thinking that you believe anything.

Oh, honey, if you only knew....

EDIT added.. You seem very angry and all, and are bashing Christians, that is why I said this.

I doubt that you will find a happier person on the planet....than yours truly.

That just shows how perceptive some folks are....

And I never bash Christians...I simply bash their un-Christian doctrines and beliefs.

EDIT and copying from another thread that Eric replied so friendly like.... Eroc, to blatantly argue with another Christian on posts shouldn't be done in front of seekers, especially with the sarcasm you are giving off.

I graciously hand out great doses of sarcasm when such a remedy appears to be what the recipient needs...or deserves.

But my 'attention whore' detection meter runs off the scale when someone posts a 'Look at Me - Christian No More !' thread on a religious forum.

So, in such cases, sarcasm is the very best elixir that I can offer.

Personally, if I was a seeker on here, I wouldn't stay around and read this, for it isn't about what is being talked about it is now  personally attacking a fellow believer.

Honeychild, if you think that what I wrote on that other thread was a 'personal attack', then you don't know the meaning of that phrase.

Get a c-c-c-clue.

That isn't judging?

Nope.

That is discernment.

Learn it, live it, love it.

Honestly, I am finished posting back to your responses, someone has to stop this nonsense. take care

We shall see about that.

Eric The(IPromise)Hun

Quoted: Also, I noticed an amazingly capricious and bloodthirsty God in the Old Testament.  Entire cities killed, children murdered, young women sold into sexual slavery, etc ALL AT THE COMMAND OF GOD!  The typical Christian response to this is that "we cannot judge God . . . he is above judgement" or that "these people were being judged by God".  HORSESHIT!  By his own rules, killing for no reason is wrong.  Murdering innocents is a SIN - and morality isn't relative by Christianity's own definitions. I can judge God - if he exists he is far more bloodthirsty and barbaric that Hitler ever was PLUS he throws temper tantrums like a 4 year old.  For example, we giggle our way through the plagues of Eygpt, but do you ever stop and think of the horror of EVERY innocent first-born male being killed because of the FUCKING PHAROAH'S CHOICES THAT WERE FORCED ON HIM BY GOD HIMSELF?  If that doesn't bother you, you aren't reading closely enough.  Or how about Numbers 31?  Kill all of the men, children, and women EXCEPT the virgins . . . one can only imagine what for.  Barbaric, cruel, and petulant are the best word to describe the god of the old testament.

Your post really struck a chord with me.  

Those are my feelings exactly.

I've heard all the "we can't judge God", "how can you be so presumptuous" arguments and they just don't have any meaning to me.  I'm really shocked, disgusted and dismayed by so much of what is in the Bible that I have terrible difficulty with the whole thing.  

Whatever your decision I wish you the best.

Quoted: Quoted: Also, I noticed an amazingly capricious and bloodthirsty God in the Old Testament.  Entire cities killed, children murdered, young women sold into sexual slavery, etc ALL AT THE COMMAND OF GOD!  The typical Christian response to this is that "we cannot judge God . . . he is above judgement" or that "these people were being judged by God".  HORSESHIT!  By his own rules, killing for no reason is wrong.  Murdering innocents is a SIN - and morality isn't relative by Christianity's own definitions. I can judge God - if he exists he is far more bloodthirsty and barbaric that Hitler ever was PLUS he throws temper tantrums like a 4 year old.  For example, we giggle our way through the plagues of Eygpt, but do you ever stop and think of the horror of EVERY innocent first-born male being killed because of the FUCKING PHAROAH'S CHOICES THAT WERE FORCED ON HIM BY GOD HIMSELF?  If that doesn't bother you, you aren't reading closely enough.  Or how about Numbers 31?  Kill all of the men, children, and women EXCEPT the virgins . . . one can only imagine what for.  Barbaric, cruel, and petulant are the best word to describe the god of the old testament. Your post really struck a chord with me.   Those are my feelings exactly. I've heard all the "we can't judge God", "how can you be so presumptuous" arguments and they just don't have any meaning to me.  I'm really shocked, disgusted and dismayed by so much of what is in the Bible that I have terrible difficulty with the whole thing.   Whatever your decision I wish you the best.

Hi guys/gals!

Livefree, I don't know who has told you not to judge God/question things He has done, but they were wrong. For crying out loud people, even Biblical figures questioned God.
Ref: Genesis 18:20-32 Abraham questioned God wiping out Sodom and Gommorah if there were good people living there! I could go down a list with people asking God why...

Anyway, I hope I can explain this where you might understand, problem is, it will be lengthy, so bear with me and try to read all of this, k?
You may still not agree and think it was all wrong anyway, but I am still going to give it a shot.

The first five books of the Bible are full of stories of the conquest of Caanan.
The most widely questioned section of Numbers 31 is verses 17-18:

“Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women-children, that have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.”
To understand this passage, one must realize that Numbers 25 is the “prequel” to the events recorded in Numbers 31. Numbers 25 tells how the Midianites, specifically the women, led the Israelites astray into worshiping the Baal or Peor. The Lord’s anger burned against Israel, and He struck them with a plague. The plague ended when Phinehas, the grandson of Aaron, killed an Israelite man and the Midianite woman he brought into his family (Numbers 25:6-9). The relations with Midianite women were in direct violation of God’s commands in Deuteronomy 7:3-4: “Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. For he will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of Jehovah be kindled against you, and he will destroy thee quickly.”

As a result of these events, God instructed the Israelites to “Vex the Midianites, and smite them; for they vex you with their wiles, wherewith they have beguiled you in the matter of Peor, and in the matter of Cozbi, the daughter of the prince of Midian, their sister, who was slain on the day of the plague in the matter of Peor” (Numbers 25:17-18). When, in Numbers 31, the army brought back the women, it was in direct violation to God’s order in Numbers 25 to destroy the Midianites, who would lead the Israelites into apostasy.

Those inhabitants were destroyed because of their wickedness (Deuteronomy 9:4; 18:9-14). They were so evil that their Creator no longer could abide their corruption. That they had numerous opportunities to repent is evident from the prophetic books (Nineveh did repent, for example, and for a time stayed the day of destruction). Complaining about Jehovah’s order to destroy innocent children is a vain gesture when one realizes that the children were spared an even worse fate of being reared as slaves under the domination of sin. Instead of having to endure the scourge of a life of immorality and wickedness, these innocents were ushered early into the bliss of Paradise. If the male children had been allowed to mature, they most likely would have followed the pagan ways of their forefathers, and eventually would have taken vengeance on the Israelites. Killing the males not only prevented them from falling into the same abominable sins as their parents, but also kept Israel from having to battle them later.

The allegation that the Israelite men spared the young girls in order to rape them is nothing but baseless supposition predicated upon a lack of biblical knowledge. In the custom of the time, marriages were conducted at a young age. Therefore, the reference to the young girls who had not “known man by lying with him” would indicate that they were very young, likely under the age of twelve. These girls were too young to be able to lead the men of Israel away from Jehovah; therefore, these girls were allowed to live. As to raping them, it is more logical to assume that they wanted these girls for servants. This would be similar to Joshua 9, where Joshua allowed the Gibeonites to live in compelled servitude to the Israelites. Moreover, it would have been sinful for the Israelite men to rape the Midianite girls because rape was (and still is) abhorrent to God (Deuteronomy 22:23-28, esp. 25).

The simple answer to the questions surrounding Numbers 31 is that God ordered the Midianites to be killed in Numbers 25:17-18. When the army did not carry out this order at the time of the Midianite defeat, it was carried out in a delayed fashion when the army returned with the captives. As to Moses allowing the young girls to remain alive, that was a judgment call from the man with God’s authority over the Israelites.

God is the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and all-righteous “I Am” Who is over all things—so He may do whatever He wishes, so long as it is not in violation of His character. However, God does everything for a reason. Sometimes that reason may be unclear to us. In the case of the destruction of people like the Canaanites, God’s reasoning had to do with His justice. Deuteronomy 32:3-4 records: “For I will proclaim the name of Jehovah: Ascribe ye greatness unto our God. The Rock, his work is perfect; For all his ways are justice: A God of faithfulness and without iniquity, Just and right is he” (emp. added). Men may not always understand God’s justice, or His reasons for exercising it as He does. As Job 4:17 asked: “ Shall mortal man be more just than God? Shall a man be more pure than his Maker?” (emp. added). The fact is, God does condone killing—in the name of justice (whether it be justice in regard to one person, or a whole nation). Even in modern times, the death penalty is an acceptable means of administering justice (Romans 13:1-7; cf. Genesis 9:6). While God is all loving, He also is a God of justice, and He will execute that justice in the most propitious manner—including by means of death.

on the part about God/ pld testament, another thing that shys me away from it all is his selfishness. Creating an entire world of existance JUST to worship him? sounds a little insecure, and/or full of himself. Claims he gives everyone free will but will send them to hell if they do not believe in something that they cannot see, hear, touch, etc


Belloc, your argument is moot, whatever those concepts are they DO NOT explain or prove anything, nothing can and nothing ever will

Quoted: Belloc, your argument is moot, whatever those concepts are they DO NOT explain or prove anything, nothing can and nothing ever will

You are going to have to explain how something you admit you know nothing about is useless at explaining anything.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: If it's 'kind of long to go into', then it simply is NOT material or relevant to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The folks you have been reading may be in good faith, though I doubt it, but they are simply mistaken. Read the Gospels as a First Century man or woman would have read them...with the utmost simplicity. The people reading these letters back then also knew what was going on since they were living at that time, knew the culture, etc. Yes, they certainly did, and no one ever put forward such a cockamamie idea that there was any 'friction' between Jesus and St. Paul. It took almost 2,000 years for some 'wise men' to come up with such tomfoolery...and an equal amount of time for some few Christians to become so 'bumfuzzled' in their own minds to accept such tripe. Jesus Christ sought out St. Paul as a man to take His Gospel to the Gentiles. Let's not, at this late date, question His Wisdom in doing so. Mmmkay?

Actually, no.   James makes it pretty clear that there was friction between Paul and the disciples who actually knew Jesus.

That is not a new theory, a simple reading of the words Jesus spoke and the words Paul spoke reveals differences in their outlook.   Either Jesus changed his mind on things after he was resurrected, or Paul was a bit of  a fibber.  

Paul won out in the end (largely due to the destruction of Jerusalem and the dispersion/death of its leaders), but that doesn't change the fact that he altered the Christian religion to fit his views.

The Bible itself shows that Paul had conflict with the leaders in Jerusalem.  You have read it haven't you, ETH?

Quoted: Quoted: Belloc, your argument is moot, whatever those concepts are they DO NOT explain or prove anything, nothing can and nothing ever will You are going to have to explain how something you admit you know nothing about is useless at explaining anything.

Im sorry, it might explain something, but it sure as hell IS NOT going to prove anything, which this thread is about, whether there is a supernatural god or not

Quoted: Quoted: Belloc, your argument is moot, whatever those concepts are they DO NOT explain or prove anything, nothing can and nothing ever will You are going to have to explain how something you admit you know nothing about is useless at explaining anything.

I do know something about them and he is correct.

Catholic theologians can't even agree on premotion.  Thomism and Molinism take different views on premotion.  To an outside observer, it looks like nothing more than self-masturbatory theories that have no real value (other than to religous philosophers).  

It has about as much real world value as how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.   I'm sure you know the actual answer though, with your superior education.

We are discussing it from a real world perspective, so crawl back to your ivory tower and let us wallow in our ignorance.   thankskbye

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: If it's 'kind of long to go into', then it simply is NOT material or relevant to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The folks you have been reading may be in good faith, though I doubt it, but they are simply mistaken. Read the Gospels as a First Century man or woman would have read them...with the utmost simplicity. The people reading these letters back then also knew what was going on since they were living at that time, knew the culture, etc. Yes, they certainly did, and no one ever put forward such a cockamamie idea that there was any 'friction' between Jesus and St. Paul. It took almost 2,000 years for some 'wise men' to come up with such tomfoolery...and an equal amount of time for some few Christians to become so 'bumfuzzled' in their own minds to accept such tripe. Jesus Christ sought out St. Paul as a man to take His Gospel to the Gentiles. Let's not, at this late date, question His Wisdom in doing so. Mmmkay? Actually, no.   James makes it pretty clear that there was friction between Paul and the disciples who actually knew Jesus. That is not a new theory, a simple reading of the words Jesus spoke and the words Paul spoke reveals differences in their outlook.   Either Jesus changed his mind on things after he was resurrected, or Paul was a bit of  a fibber.   Paul won out in the end (largely due to the destruction of Jerusalem and the dispersion/death of its leaders), but that doesn't change the fact that he altered the Christian religion to fit his views. The Bible itself shows that Paul had conflict with the leaders in Jerusalem.  You have read it haven't you, ETH?

Hiya again Dino..

 You're correct  on the differences. However, then I am going to disagree on some other things you said.
Jesus was speaking to the Jews at the time of the Gospels. Paul was at first speaking to the Jews, and then only to the Gentiles. The dispensation of grace had entered. Totally different.
 When Paul first came on the scene then Jesus stopping him on the road to Damascus, there was some years before Paul was teaching. Alot of people had a problem with Paul and didn't trust him.
I can't blame them. He killed Christians before that, and now he is changed?
Same how we are towards people that were pretty awful human beings and then claimed a change. Takes a while to believe them.
 The name Christian was a slang term given to people who followed Christ.  
Paul was executed in Rome in 68 A.D
The destruction of Jerusalem was in 70 A.D.

The Jewish Wars began in 66 A.D. and they were a direct revolt by the Jews against Rome’s authority. Titus with his Roman legions arrived at the outermost northern Wall of Jerusalem, the Passover of 70 A.D. The Romans built embankments of earthenwork, they placed battering rams and the siege began.
The Roman army numbered 30,000; while the Jewish army numbered 24,000. According to Tacitus they were 600,000 visitors crowding the streets of Jerusalem for the Passover.
After five months the walls were battered down, the great Temple was burned down, and the city was left ruined and desolate, except for Herod's three great towers at the northwest corner of the city. These served as a memorial of the massive strength of Jerusalem's fortifications which Titus of Rome had brought to rubble.

Will talk to you guys later, going to  head off to my bowling league.

Have a good night everyone

Quoted:
I do know something about them and he is correct.
In what manner, that a man should discard as useless that which he confesses he know little if nothing?

Catholic theologians can't even agree on premotion.  Thomism and Molinism take different views on premotion.  To an outside observer, it looks like nothing more than self-masturbatory theories that have no real value (other than to religous philosophers).
I see you have a well formed disdain for letting your ignorance get much ahead of your baseness.


 

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: If it's 'kind of long to go into', then it simply is NOT material or relevant to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The folks you have been reading may be in good faith, though I doubt it, but they are simply mistaken. Read the Gospels as a First Century man or woman would have read them...with the utmost simplicity. The people reading these letters back then also knew what was going on since they were living at that time, knew the culture, etc. Yes, they certainly did, and no one ever put forward such a cockamamie idea that there was any 'friction' between Jesus and St. Paul. It took almost 2,000 years for some 'wise men' to come up with such tomfoolery...and an equal amount of time for some few Christians to become so 'bumfuzzled' in their own minds to accept such tripe. Jesus Christ sought out St. Paul as a man to take His Gospel to the Gentiles. Let's not, at this late date, question His Wisdom in doing so. Mmmkay? Actually, no.   James makes it pretty clear that there was friction between Paul and the disciples who actually knew Jesus. That is not a new theory, a simple reading of the words Jesus spoke and the words Paul spoke reveals differences in their outlook.   Either Jesus changed his mind on things after he was resurrected, or Paul was a bit of  a fibber.   Paul won out in the end (largely due to the destruction of Jerusalem and the dispersion/death of its leaders), but that doesn't change the fact that he altered the Christian religion to fit his views. The Bible itself shows that Paul had conflict with the leaders in Jerusalem.  You have read it haven't you, ETH? Hiya again Dino..  You're correct  on the differences. However, then I am going to disagree on some other things you said. Jesus was speaking to the Jews at the time of the Gospels. Paul was at first speaking to the Jews, and then only to the Gentiles. The dispensation of grace had entered. Totally different.  When Paul first came on the scene then Jesus stopping him on the road to Damascus, there was some years before Paul was teaching. Alot of people had a problem with Paul and didn't trust him. I can't blame them. He killed Christians before that, and now he is changed? Same how we are towards people that were pretty awful human beings and then claimed a change. Takes a while to believe them.  The name Christian was a slang term given to people who followed Christ.   Paul was executed in Rome in 68 A.D The destruction of Jerusalem was in 70 A.D. The Jewish Wars began in 66 A.D. and they were a direct revolt by the Jews against Rome’s authority. Titus with his Roman legions arrived at the outermost northern Wall of Jerusalem, the Passover of 70 A.D. The Romans built embankments of earthenwork, they placed battering rams and the siege began. The Roman army numbered 30,000; while the Jewish army numbered 24,000. According to Tacitus they were 600,000 visitors crowding the streets of Jerusalem for the Passover. After five months the walls were battered down, the great Temple was burned down, and the city was left ruined and desolate, except for Herod's three great towers at the northwest corner of the city. These served as a memorial of the massive strength of Jerusalem's fortifications which Titus of Rome had brought to rubble.

Yeah my bad, I meant to say the destruction of the Jerusalm church and the death/dispersion of its leaders.   What I get for typing in hurry

The destruction of Jerusalem was punishment for the death of James the Just, brother of Jesus,  a man who had many differences with Paul.  

Even while I was a Christian, I had some issues with Paul, who never spoke with Jesus before his crucifixion (I'll leave open whether he spoke with him after).  I didn't understand why he should be given precedence over the men who new Jesus during his ministry and were present for his trial and crucifixion.  

Is it possible Jesus spoke to him on the road to Damascaus?  Certainly, its also possible he had no such experience (especially since there are 3 different versions in scripture with totally different details).

Personally, I think Eisenman is correct in his idea that James was the true heir of Jesus' ministry and what we have now is  a mixture of Jewish though and Greek mysticism.    

I could be wrong though

Quoted: Quoted: I do know something about them and he is correct. In what manner, that a man should discard as useless that which he confesses he know little if nothing? Catholic theologians can't even agree on premotion.  Thomism and Molinism take different views on premotion.  To an outside observer, it looks like nothing more than self-masturbatory theories that have no real value (other than to religous philosophers). I see you have a well formed disdain for letting your ignorance get much ahead of your baseness.

lol I think you missed your mark with that last sentence.

I feel like I'm talking to Vizzini

"Truly, you have a dizzying intellect"

Quoted: I feel like I'm talking to Vizzini

You only think you're talking to Vissini, wait till I get started.

Sorry for the delay . . . I've had a really rough couple of days at work and I've been trying to spend what little free time I have with my kids.

Some of you have raised some interesting questions and posted reply-worthy insights.  To keep the conversations "on track" for each, I am going to try to start a new thread in reply to each over the next couple of days.

Once again, thanks for all of the replies and even prayers.  

Disconnector

Quoted: Quoted: I feel like I'm talking to Vizzini You only think you're talking to Vissini, wait till I get started.

lol, were you paraphrasing him on purpose? or just a coincidence?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I feel like I'm talking to Vizzini You only think you're talking to Vissini, wait till I get started. lol, were you paraphrasing him on purpose? or just a coincidence?

I'll give you one guess.

It's a good idea to believe in God, just in case he really exists.

Quoted:

Actually, no.   James makes it pretty clear that there was friction between Paul and the disciples who actually knew Jesus.

Give us a quote from St. James, dear boy, that shows this 'friction' between St. Paul and Jesus.

Why limit the discussion to 'friction' between St. Paul and the rest of the disciples?

Because you know their was no 'friction' at all, between any of those folks.

Are you perhaps referring to the Council of Jerusalem?

That's 'friction'?

That is not a new theory, a simple reading of the words Jesus spoke and the words Paul spoke reveals differences in their outlook.

Exempli gratia, m'boy, give us some pithy examples.....of the 'differences' in 'outlook.'

Wow...'outlook.'

What a weasel word.

Either Jesus changed his mind on things after he was resurrected, or Paul was a bit of  a fibber.

Hmmm, what putrid fallacies have you been lapping up?

St. Paul lied, eh?

'bout what?

Paul won out in the end (largely due to the destruction of Jerusalem and the dispersion/death of its leaders), but that doesn't change the fact that he altered the Christian religion to fit his views.

Baloney!

The Bible itself shows that Paul had conflict with the leaders in Jerusalem.  You have read it haven't you, ETH?

Again, if the Council of Jerusalem was the height of conflict in Christianity, then the entire world would likely be Christian by now.

How did it end?

With bloodshed?

With schism?

With seething hatred?

Well, let's see.....

The entirety of the Council of Jersualem is conatined in but a single Chapter, Acts 15:

And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.

When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.

And being brought on their way by the church, they passed through Phenice and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles: and they caused great joy unto all the brethren.

And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them.

But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.

And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.

And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.

And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;

And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.

Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?

But we believe that through the grace of the LORD Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.

And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:

Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.

And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,

After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:

That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.

Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.

Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:

But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.

Then pleased it the apostles and elders with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas and Silas, chief men among the brethren:

And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia.

Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:

It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,

Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth.

For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;

That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well. Verses 1-29

OK.

Where is the 'conflict', the 'friction', the cauldron of strife that existed between these righteous men?

Point out the specific acts of violence or threats that were carried out in this council.

What? Are there none?



Nope.

Brothers among brothers.

Eric The(ABrotherHimself)Hun

Quoted: Quoted: I see you have a well formed disdain for letting your ignorance get much ahead of your baseness. lol I think you missed your mark with that last sentence. I feel like I'm talking to Vizzini "Truly, you have a dizzying intellect"

Truly, you have an abysmal grasp of the English vernacular.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I see you have a well formed disdain for letting your ignorance get much ahead of your baseness. lol I think you missed your mark with that last sentence. I feel like I'm talking to Vizzini "Truly, you have a dizzying intellect" Truly, you have an abysmal grasp of the English vernacular.

Colorless green ideas sleep furiously

Colorless green ideas sleep furiously

Quoted: Colorless green ideas sleep furiously upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/ae/IWW.jpg

As always, Chomsky is both good and original.

Unfortunately, what is good in his work is not original, and what is original in his work is not good.

"There is at least one earlier example of such a sentence, and probably many more. The pioneering (yet mostly forgotten) French syntactician Lucien Tesnière came up with the French sentence "Le silence vertébral indispose la voile licite" ("The vertebrate silence worries the legal sail"). The Estonian writer Eduard Vilde (1865–1933) made the same point in his 1954 book (which was mostly written in the late 1930s), writing "The urchin sat on the roof and cried, as if rabbits were running along the tin-pipe towards the eternity, holding lycoperdons in their mouths", etc.

"The game of cadavre exquis (1925) is a method for generating meaningless sentences. It was named after the first sentence generated, Le cadavre exquis boira le vin nouveau (the exquisite corpse will drink the new wine)."

From Wikipedia....

Eric The(DerivativeGenius)Hun

Quoted: I became a Christian at 13 and have seriously attended church my entire life.  I have a Bachelors degree in Bible and youth ministry, led my youth group while I was growing up, and have pastored a church.  I married my wife from Christian college and have been raising my children in a Christian atmosphere. Finally, after 23 years of it I have realized that it all is a load of crap.  In my deepest heart, I am an atheist.  No god, no Jesus, no supernatural, nothing on the other side of the sky but more sky . . . Needless to say all of my friends and family are pretty freaked out right now.  My wife has been supportive because she thinks that somehow god is going to bring me back through some miracle . . . Looks like I'm in for a bit of a hard time.  Any good Atheist resources that anyone can recommend? Disconnector

Care to estimate how much money you have spend on the church business????