Christians must follow the old testament.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-03-2014, 04:18 PM
RE: Christians must follow the old testament.
(19-03-2014 06:24 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Drich, you've accused me of not referencing my work.
the accusation is well founded. The following is a sad attempt to try and save face by simply dumping references... The very next topic is a perfect example of that.

Quote:Here is more about Paul's relationship with the Jews, including Jesus' family and disciples. It is well referenced. It touches on the very legitimacy of Pauline Christianity.

How did Paul get on with Yeshua’s disciples and family? Let’s turn to Galatians:
“Then god who had specially chosen me while I was still in my mother’s womb, called me through his grace and chose to reveal his son in me, so that I might preach the Good News about him to the pagans. I did not stop to discuss this with any human being nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were already apostles before me, but I went off to Arabia at once and later went straight back from there to Damascus. Even when after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and stayed with him for fifteen days, I did not see any of the other apostles; I only saw James, the brother of the Lord, and I swear before God that what I have just written is the literal truth” (Gal. 1:15–20, NJB.)

Paul was bragging about the fact that his personal God, a character only he had contact with, was the source of his ideas. That may have impressed naïve people two thousand years ago, but it shouldn’t impress today’s rationalists who can read the accounts of hundreds of people who claim they’ve talked to God.

After having the Son of God revealed to him, Paul more or less snubbed Yeshua’s family and supporters by shooting off to Arabia for three years. If he’d suddenly “seen the light” and become a believer in Yeshua, surely he would have jolted to Jerusalem to meet James, the son of God’s half brother, and Peter and Mary. Surely he would’ve been anxious to meet the other Mary, Yeshua’s mum, the mother of God! Apparently not! Something more important enticed him to Arabia.
Three years later, he visited Jerusalem again, but still didn’t meet Yeshua’s family or disciples, except for James and Peter.

What you did here is simply dump a verse that half way supports your commentary, and just start spouting off whatever it is you 'think.'

This is the perfect example, and sums up the body of your 'work.' what you have left me above, is proof positive that you are completely ignorant of not only what the bible says but you are guilty of ignoring what you do not want to hear.

In the example above you go one and on for a few sentences about how Jesus did not see James, when in fact in verse 19 Paul clears says he did.

(Pay attention to how I pair my statement/Claim with a proper Primary source so that the opposition can not refute my rebuke) t
19 But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?sea...rsion=NKJV

This is how you properly quote something, to support what you have said.. When you 'quoted' Gal 1:15-20 you paired your own personal commentary, with an actual a source. The two do not agree with each other. This is a 'reference dump.' A reference dump is based on a 'proof by verbosity' arguement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_verbosity
I can see it was your hope by just dumping a bunch of empty sources it would silence me... If that was your intent know it is about to go very bad for you.

Quote:The Gospel stories are sadly short of genuine historical facts about Jesus. Things could’ve been different. Paul, who was educated and literate, could’ve saved much of the painstaking guesswork of historians over the last three hundred years ( Jesus’ historicity has only been seriously studied in this time) by jotting down some facts as related by his family and disciples. Paul should have outshone the Gospels and made them redundant. He didn’t. He only wrote about things he thought were important: his own Christ, and his own ethics. I suspect this wasn’t a deliberate omission on Paul’s part; he was obviously totally unaware that people in the future might be interested in Jesus. Interestingly, the author of the epistle of James, who may have been Jesus’ brother, also neglected to document a single fact about Jesus. Neither Paul or James knew Jesus was going to become a hero-figure…because the gospels hadn’t been written yet.

Again empty commentary without source or reference. I am assuming it was your intention to pair this commentary with the source you mention in Gal, 1 and was hoping to build off of that. The problem there is two fold. One, your initial commentary did not match with the conclusions of the source material, and this sumation clearly does not support anything you have made claim to. So all of this can be dismissed with a "Shoo fly.'
Smartass


Quote:“It was not until fourteen years had passed that I went up to Jerusalem again. I went with Barnabas and took Titus with me. I went there as a result of a revelation, and privately I laid before the leading men the Good News as I proclaim it among the pagans; I did so for fear the course I was adopting or had already adopted would not be allowed. And what happened? Even though Titus who had come with me is a Greek, he was not obliged to be circumcised. The question came up only because some who do not really belong to the brotherhood have furtively crept in to spy on the liberty we enjoy in Jesus Christ, and want to reduce us all to slavery. I was so determined to safeguard for you the true meaning of the Good News, that I refused even out of deference to yield to such people for one moment. As a result, these people who are acknowledged leaders—not that their importance matters much to me, since God has no favorites—these leaders, as I say, had nothing to add to the Good News as I preach it. On the contrary, they recognized I had been commissioned to preach the Good News to the uncircumcised just as Peter had been commissioned to preach it to the circumcised. The same person whose action had made Peter the apostle of the circumcised had given me a similar mission to the pagans. So James, Cephas and John, these leaders, these pillars, shook hands with Barnabas and me as a sign of partnership: we were to go to the pagans and they to the circumcised. The only thing they insisted on was that we should remember to help the poor, as indeed I was anxious to do. When Cephas came to Antioch, however, I opposed him to his face, since he was manifestly in the wrong. His custom had been to eat with the pagans, but after certain friends of James arrived he stopped doing this and kept away from them altogether for fear of the group that insisted on circumcision. The other Jews joined him in this pretence, and even Barnabas felt himself obliged to copy their behavior. When I saw they were not respecting the true meaning of the Good News, I said to Cephas in front of everyone, ‘In spite of being a Jew, you live like the pagans and not like the Jews, so you have no right to make the pagans copy Jewish ways.’” (Gal. 2:1–15 JB.)

Quote:Each sentence reveals a facet of a very strained relationship. Paul was clearly intimidated by James,’ John’s and Peter’s authority. He referred to them as “Pillars,” and “leading men,” and was well aware they mightn’t accept his proclamation of “Good News” as preached to gentiles:
“I laid before the leading men the Good News as I proclaim it among the pagans; I did so for fear the course I was adopting or had already adopted would not be allowed.”
What’s more, he barely concealed the fact he begrudged their authority:
“Not that their importance matters much to me.” Can anyone imagine him writing that about someone (James) he thought was the half brother of the son of God! He quite clearly regarded them as competition:
“I was so determined to safeguard for you the true meaning of the Good News, that I refused even out of deference to yield to such people for one moment.”
Paul mistrusted them. They didn’t
“belong to the brotherhood.” He accused them of spying on
“the liberty we enjoy in Christ Jesus.” He said they had
“nothing to add to the Good News I preach.” He believed they
“want to reduce us all to slavery.” He thought that the
“good news” he, and only he, preached, entitled people to be part of his brotherhood. He thought he was freeing people from the
“slavery” of the Judaic Law.
Then, he and Peter, allegedly stalwarts of the fledgling Christian movement (who the Vatican claim founded a Christian church in Rome together,) bickered with each other. Paul claimed (probably quite correctly) that Peter didn’t respect his
“good news.” He claimed he publically challenged Peter directly by accusing him of hypocrisy.

What an intriguing snippet of scripture! Paul, the first founder of Christianity, was personally and philosophically at odds with Jesus’ brother and disciples!
Which further proves what I said in the beginning, that Their is not one way to worship under Christianity.

Quote:He was angry and frustrated that they’d been undermining him, and he didn’t hold back his vindictive retort. Why the churlish, hostile attitude?
He explains the the orginal 11 were needlessly binding themselves to the Law by making new converts go through the steps of Judaism first then convert to Christianity. Even though they themselves had witnessed a sucessful conversion without having to first go through said conversion (will quote the scripture later on in my response.)

Quote: Weren’t they all preaching the same message?
No, The orginal disciples were interested in first honoring thier Jewish Heritage and then allowing one to convert to Christianity, while Paul preached a message of freedom from the law/Judaism.

Quote:The reason for his antagonism becomes clear when we gain a deeper understanding of Paul’s plan.
Paul the Salesman
I think Paul was a salesman with an ambitious agenda.

Not true Paul was a Pharisee. Some even speculate that he was also a weaver/net/tent maker after He left the temple..

Quote:He hoped to sell his interpretation of Judaism to the Roman world.
As a trained Prarisee He would have been able to do this if this was His goal, but as you pointed out in Galations Paul was seperating Himself from Judaism.

Quote:I think he had a plan to undermine those dangerous messianic Nazarene beliefs that roused rebellion against Roman rule.
Then why did he preach those beliefs and made them accessiable to the Romans? It was the orginal 11 who preached of a salvation that excluded all non jewish people. That anyone who wanted salvation would have to be first become a Jew then a Christian. When Paul was able to preach a doctrine that had anyone (Jew or Gentile) come to God just as they were.

Quote:He wrote to various groups scattered throughout the Empire, and desperately insisted they believe only his theology.
Absolutly not true. For the Jew He acted like and held fast to Jewish tradition to help them understand and ease into freedom from the Law as a means to righteousness, but for the gentile He acted as if He were free from the law so that He could bring salvation to them.

1Cor 9:19 For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; 20 and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law,[c] that I might win those who are under the law; 21 to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God,[d] but under law toward Christ[e]), that I might win those who are without law; 22 to the weak I became as[f] weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. 23 Now this I do for the gospel’s sake, that I may be partaker of it with you.


Quote:He was so obsessed with snaring converts that little else in his life mattered. In Romans 15:16, he wrote that Gentiles were an offering he would bring to God.
“That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost.”
Laugh out load
14 Now I myself am confident concerning you, my brethren, that you also are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, able also to admonish one another.[g] 15 Nevertheless, brethren, I have written more boldly to you on some points, as reminding you, because of the grace given to me by God, 16 that I might be a minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering of the Gentiles might be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit. 17 Therefore I have reason to glory in Christ Jesus in the things which pertain to God. 18 For I will not dare to speak of any of those things which Christ has not accomplished through me, in word and deed, to make the Gentiles obedient— 19 in mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God, so that from Jerusalem and round about to Illyricum I have fully preached the gospel of Christ. 20 And so I have made it my aim to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build on another man’s foundation, 21 but as it is written:

“To whom He was not announced, they shall see;
And those who have not heard shall understand.”[h]

You know when you read only the snipit you isolated from the actual context you have a valid point. But, when one looks at the whole context of that passage it shows that at best your being intentionally deceptive.

Quote:Most of the people he wrote to were Gentiles (pagans) associated with Jewish synagogues, (“God-fearing Gentiles,”) although he wrote to some Jews in the diaspora too. From Paul’s perspective, his patrons were in desperate need of direction and an authoritative, charismatic leader to look up to. He considered himself just the man. He knew how to win the hearts, minds, and souls of people, as he imagined himself as one of the few god fearers (i.e. Jews) who understood Gentile cultures.
So?

Quote:Paul’s theology probably had a long and carefully thought out gestation. He knew In order to appeal to his customers. he needed a product very different to traditional Judaism, because Judaism required obedience to cumbersome dictates. The Jews believed one had to be circumcised, a painful and embarrassing procedure, not easy to sell to an adult man. They worshipped Yahweh, who is portrayed in Jewish scripture as a thunderous and violent pro-Jewish anti-gentile God. They could only eat kosher food, marry only fellow Jews, and had to stop work on the Sabbath. Jewish heritage and history were regarded as superior, and all Jews were expected to take part in the fasts and feasts celebrating the ancient epic of Israel. Many Jews thought they were one day going to be the masters of the world. Their messianic dreams were an obstacle to the peace Rome imposed on the people of the empire. Paul knew that gentiles found all this inconvenient, irksome and out of touch with reality, so he labeled these Jewish rules and beliefs as a type of “slavery.” He had to jettison the old rules, so he did, by reinventing Judaism so that it was more to the gentile world’s liking.
Again, your commentary/thoughts are not consistant with what Paul taught or preached. In addition to 1cor 9 where Paul tells us to the Jew he acted and work with them under the law (which is in direct contradiction to what you have claimed) Paul also talks about "eating Meat offered to idols."
In romans 14:14-20
Also note the Larger message of Romans 14 is to not allow one's freedoms in Christ obstruct the faith of a weaker brother who need bind himself to the Law.
Followed by 1 cor 8 (the whole chapter) and 1 cor 10:23-33

It seems like EVERYTHING you know and have said about Paul is completely untrue to this point... Almost like you've ONLY read a few websites who's views were slanted against paul, and you've just piled on your own empty thoughts... Otherwise you would have seen at least one or two of the passages I have pointed out that disproves your personal version of the anti Paul/God commentary you have been spouting thus far. So tell me again of that decade long study you immersed yourself with on this subject..Rolleyes

Quote:According to Paul, there was now no need for circumcision or to stop work on the Sabbath. The dietary kosher rules were out; bacon was back on the breakfast menu.
Either your a practice fool who pretends to be something he is not or your a liar.
Paul was not the one who did any of these things. It was Peter
The lift of Dietary restrictions:http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+10&version=NKJV start at verse 9.

The lift of the bann of circumcision was also first instituted by peter in Chapter 10 as well:44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word. 45 And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. 46 For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God.

Then Peter answered, 47 “Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then they asked him to stay a few days.
The Jewish converts believed all who were saved through Christ must first be a Jew. (That it what it identifies them as those of the circumcision)

Then as peter preached they were endowed by the Holy Spirit. It was because the Same Holy Spirit indewelled the Apstoles indewelled the GENTILES Peter declared them saved, and had them baptized in the Church.

The change of the Sabbath to the first day of the week was spear headed by Peter as he taught the first church service on sunday. Here are the other reason we worship on sunday as well:
Jesus rose on the first day of the week not the Sabbath: Mk 16:9
All 6 appearances of Jesus happen on two Sundays, none on Sabbath. Mk 16:9; Mt 28:5-9; Lk 24:34; Lk 24:13-15; Lk 24:33,36 + Jn 20:19; Jn 20:26
Christians are recorded assembling three times on Sunday after resurrection and before ascension, never on the Sabbath. Jn 20:19 Jn 20:26 Acts 2:1 (We do not claim that these were worship services, just the early starting point of Sunday gatherings)
The only time Christians are recorded to have assembled together was on a Sunday in Acts 20:7, never does it say the disciples assembled on the Sabbath.
The only day ever mentioned when Christians broke bread was on Sunday: Acts 20:7
Christians are commanded every Sunday to give into a common treasury of the church: 1 Cor 16:1-2
Jesus was declared the Son of God on Sunday: Rom 1:4
Ps 2:7 "Today I have begotten thee" was fulfilled on Sunday when he rose: Acts 13:33
The sign that Jesus was glorified was given on Sunday: Jn 7:39 + Acts 2:1,32
The church officially began on Pentecost Sunday: Acts 2:1
Jesus was crowned king on a Sunday: Acts 2:33-36
The disciples reception of the promise of the Father on Sunday: Acts 1:4-5; 2:1-4
The Holy Spirit first fell upon the apostles on a Sunday: Acts 2:1-4
Salvation first preached by Peter on Sunday: Mt 16:19; Acts 2:1,38,40-41
The Keys to the Kingdom of God were first used on Sunday: Mt 16:19
The great "Triumphal entry" (also called "Palm Sunday") happened on the first day: Luke 13:32
The time between the Lord's resurrection (sheaf waving day) and Pentecost was Sunday to Sunday counting of 50 days. The starting and stopping time was on the 1st day.
First time Jesus worshiped after resurrection was on the first day by Thomas (Jn. 20:26).
The first time we could be born again to a living hope was on a Sunday: 1 Pet. 1:3
The first time Jesus had communion after his resurrection with His disciples, was on a Sunday: (Lk. 24:1, 13, 28-35)
Pentecost was a Sunday - Sunday duration of 50 days. The starting point and stopping point of counting the 50 days was a Sunday - Sunday period!
http://www.bible.ca/7-sunday-significanc...stians.htm


Quote:He downplayed the importance of the Jewish Temple, and replaced the Jews’ hope for a political messiah of their own with Christ, the spiritual savior of all mankind. The “kingdom of God,” according to Paul, became a place in heaven, not in Israel. He declared Yahweh was such a decent deity he’d sent his own precious son, the Christ, to earth. He alleged gentiles were descendants of Abraham too, and that the centuries-old Jewish Law was a “curse.” All that was now required was faith in his claims about Christ. Voilà! The Christ myth and Christian theology were born.
Again empty commentary with out proper documentation.

Quote:Paul was one of history’s first examples of an ambitious cult leader who, when the rules of the established religion were no longer convenient, simply invented new ones to suit himself. He replaced the so-called “old covenant” of the Jews with his entirely fabricated “new covenant.” He was trying to reinvent Judaism and I think doing his best to dampen down Jewish messianic dreams. He was bending over backwards to infiltrate Judaism with Gentiles and Gentile ideas. He had no idea he was creating an almost entirely new religion, yet that’s precisely what his writings helped do many years later.
Flat out not true. Christ introduced the "New Covenant" himself in the Last supper when He directed the disciples to drink the wine which repersented His blood and eat of the Bread that was to repersent His broken body.

Again How do you not know this stuff? Or is it your hope by the simple verbosity of your reply i would not read your misrepersentation of Scripture/Christianity?

Again Everything to this point has been across the board flat out untrue. It seems you have little to NO Understanding of biblical Christianity.

Quote:To help realize this remodeling of belief, he undermined Yeshua’s family and disciples behind their backs. He was surprised and angry to find himself competing with them for people’s allegiance. They were treading on what he considered his turf. How dare they preach old-fashioned Jewish theology and disrupt his mission to set up communities of believers! Those annoying war-mongering Jews were full of subversive fantasies about a messiah, but God had revealed to him the real Christ, the up-to-date modern Christ! He, not them, was plugging the “good news.” He knew what the newly flexible, expansionist, less violent, less Judaic God expected in these modern, pro-Roman times. He was an educated, savvy, Greek-speaking sophisticate who knew a stack more about selling religion to the subjects of the Empire than the anti-Roman bumpkins from the backwater of Galilee!

This opinionated, manipulative, over imaginative weazel of a man was the true founder of Christian theology....a religion that has poisoned man's thinking for nearly 2000 years now.
Without source material your commentary can be dismissed as wishful thinking.. Shoo fly..

Quote:References;
Cupitt, D. 1979 “The Debate About Christ”. SCM Press Limited. London
Murphy-O’Connor, J. 1996 “Paul A Critical Life”. Oxford University Press. Oxford.
Schonfield, H. 1977 “The Passover Plot”. Futura Publications. London
Schonfield, H. 1969 “Those Incredible Christians”. Bantam. New York.
Stourton, E. 1994 “Paul Of Tarsus”. Hodder and Stoughton. London.
Tabor, J. 2006 “The Jesus Dynasty”. Harper Collins. London.
Cresswell, Peter 2010 “Jesus the Terrorist” O books, Winchester, UK.
http://www.philipharland.com/Blog/2009/0...ollection/
http://www.philipharland.com/Blog/2007/1...ssalonica/
http://www.sullivan-county.com/id2/paul_problem.htm
http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/paul/paul.htm
http://armageddonconspiracy.co.uk/The-Mi...53794).htm
http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/supp06.htm
http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/supp08.htm
http://paulproblem.faithweb.com/paul_odd...acts15.htm
http://books.google.com/books?id=3VFnsDu...&q&f=false
http://feeds.feedburner.com/feedburner/APRP
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-h5L1Js9e...re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmmcyX4HHfc
http://www.askwhy.co.uk/christianity/064...nFraud.php
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFXVR8W5N...re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPhKmRmCSoE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlYL9C24rHI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8HFMoyl6SY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_Vg9HNlRLM
http://askwhy.co.uk/christianity/0580Paul.php
http://www.askwhy.co.uk/questioningbelie...essiah.php
http://askwhy.co.uk/christianity/0589PaulJudaizers.php
All of this is at BEST is tertiary source material, that MAY only loosly reference secondary source material. The VAST Majority of it is empty conjecture and pointless commentary based on personal 'feeling' and general hatred of christianity..

That like quoting a Nazi propagandist about Jewish culture and history as a legitmate source material.. You can't be seriously present this hot mess as anything other than a joke right? Or do you really not know any better?Drinking Beverage

The Index: A/S/K Ask Seek Knock as outlined by Luke 11:5-13
Ot Old testament
Nt New testament
H/S Holy Spirit

If you want to ask me a question feel free to Pm me or E/M me. I will not speak of it to anyone.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-03-2014, 06:13 PM
RE: Christians must follow the old testament.
(20-03-2014 04:18 PM)Drich Wrote:  
(19-03-2014 06:24 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Drich, you've accused me of not referencing my work.
the accusation is well founded. The following is a sad attempt to try and save face by simply dumping references... The very next topic is a perfect example of that.

Quote:Here is more about Paul's relationship with the Jews, including Jesus' family and disciples. It is well referenced. It touches on the very legitimacy of Pauline Christianity.

How did Paul get on with Yeshua’s disciples and family? Let’s turn to Galatians:
“Then god who had specially chosen me while I was still in my mother’s womb, called me through his grace and chose to reveal his son in me, so that I might preach the Good News about him to the pagans. I did not stop to discuss this with any human being nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were already apostles before me, but I went off to Arabia at once and later went straight back from there to Damascus. Even when after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and stayed with him for fifteen days, I did not see any of the other apostles; I only saw James, the brother of the Lord, and I swear before God that what I have just written is the literal truth” (Gal. 1:15–20, NJB.)

Paul was bragging about the fact that his personal God, a character only he had contact with, was the source of his ideas. That may have impressed naïve people two thousand years ago, but it shouldn’t impress today’s rationalists who can read the accounts of hundreds of people who claim they’ve talked to God.

After having the Son of God revealed to him, Paul more or less snubbed Yeshua’s family and supporters by shooting off to Arabia for three years. If he’d suddenly “seen the light” and become a believer in Yeshua, surely he would have jolted to Jerusalem to meet James, the son of God’s half brother, and Peter and Mary. Surely he would’ve been anxious to meet the other Mary, Yeshua’s mum, the mother of God! Apparently not! Something more important enticed him to Arabia.
Three years later, he visited Jerusalem again, but still didn’t meet Yeshua’s family or disciples, except for James and Peter.

What you did here is simply dump a verse that half way supports your commentary, and just start spouting off whatever it is you 'think.'

This is the perfect example, and sums up the body of your 'work.' what you have left me above, is proof positive that you are completely ignorant of not only what the bible says but you are guilty of ignoring what you do not want to hear.

In the example above you go one and on for a few sentences about how Jesus did not see James, when in fact in verse 19 Paul clears says he did.

(Pay attention to how I pair my statement/Claim with a proper Primary source so that the opposition can not refute my rebuke) t
19 But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?sea...rsion=NKJV

This is how you properly quote something, to support what you have said.. When you 'quoted' Gal 1:15-20 you paired your own personal commentary, with an actual a source. The two do not agree with each other. This is a 'reference dump.' A reference dump is based on a 'proof by verbosity' arguement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_verbosity
I can see it was your hope by just dumping a bunch of empty sources it would silence me... If that was your intent know it is about to go very bad for you.

Quote:The Gospel stories are sadly short of genuine historical facts about Jesus. Things could’ve been different. Paul, who was educated and literate, could’ve saved much of the painstaking guesswork of historians over the last three hundred years ( Jesus’ historicity has only been seriously studied in this time) by jotting down some facts as related by his family and disciples. Paul should have outshone the Gospels and made them redundant. He didn’t. He only wrote about things he thought were important: his own Christ, and his own ethics. I suspect this wasn’t a deliberate omission on Paul’s part; he was obviously totally unaware that people in the future might be interested in Jesus. Interestingly, the author of the epistle of James, who may have been Jesus’ brother, also neglected to document a single fact about Jesus. Neither Paul or James knew Jesus was going to become a hero-figure…because the gospels hadn’t been written yet.

Again empty commentary without source or reference. I am assuming it was your intention to pair this commentary with the source you mention in Gal, 1 and was hoping to build off of that. The problem there is two fold. One, your initial commentary did not match with the conclusions of the source material, and this sumation clearly does not support anything you have made claim to. So all of this can be dismissed with a "Shoo fly.'
Smartass


Quote:“It was not until fourteen years had passed that I went up to Jerusalem again. I went with Barnabas and took Titus with me. I went there as a result of a revelation, and privately I laid before the leading men the Good News as I proclaim it among the pagans; I did so for fear the course I was adopting or had already adopted would not be allowed. And what happened? Even though Titus who had come with me is a Greek, he was not obliged to be circumcised. The question came up only because some who do not really belong to the brotherhood have furtively crept in to spy on the liberty we enjoy in Jesus Christ, and want to reduce us all to slavery. I was so determined to safeguard for you the true meaning of the Good News, that I refused even out of deference to yield to such people for one moment. As a result, these people who are acknowledged leaders—not that their importance matters much to me, since God has no favorites—these leaders, as I say, had nothing to add to the Good News as I preach it. On the contrary, they recognized I had been commissioned to preach the Good News to the uncircumcised just as Peter had been commissioned to preach it to the circumcised. The same person whose action had made Peter the apostle of the circumcised had given me a similar mission to the pagans. So James, Cephas and John, these leaders, these pillars, shook hands with Barnabas and me as a sign of partnership: we were to go to the pagans and they to the circumcised. The only thing they insisted on was that we should remember to help the poor, as indeed I was anxious to do. When Cephas came to Antioch, however, I opposed him to his face, since he was manifestly in the wrong. His custom had been to eat with the pagans, but after certain friends of James arrived he stopped doing this and kept away from them altogether for fear of the group that insisted on circumcision. The other Jews joined him in this pretence, and even Barnabas felt himself obliged to copy their behavior. When I saw they were not respecting the true meaning of the Good News, I said to Cephas in front of everyone, ‘In spite of being a Jew, you live like the pagans and not like the Jews, so you have no right to make the pagans copy Jewish ways.’” (Gal. 2:1–15 JB.)

Quote:Each sentence reveals a facet of a very strained relationship. Paul was clearly intimidated by James,’ John’s and Peter’s authority. He referred to them as “Pillars,” and “leading men,” and was well aware they mightn’t accept his proclamation of “Good News” as preached to gentiles:
“I laid before the leading men the Good News as I proclaim it among the pagans; I did so for fear the course I was adopting or had already adopted would not be allowed.”
What’s more, he barely concealed the fact he begrudged their authority:
“Not that their importance matters much to me.” Can anyone imagine him writing that about someone (James) he thought was the half brother of the son of God! He quite clearly regarded them as competition:
“I was so determined to safeguard for you the true meaning of the Good News, that I refused even out of deference to yield to such people for one moment.”
Paul mistrusted them. They didn’t
“belong to the brotherhood.” He accused them of spying on
“the liberty we enjoy in Christ Jesus.” He said they had
“nothing to add to the Good News I preach.” He believed they
“want to reduce us all to slavery.” He thought that the
“good news” he, and only he, preached, entitled people to be part of his brotherhood. He thought he was freeing people from the
“slavery” of the Judaic Law.
Then, he and Peter, allegedly stalwarts of the fledgling Christian movement (who the Vatican claim founded a Christian church in Rome together,) bickered with each other. Paul claimed (probably quite correctly) that Peter didn’t respect his
“good news.” He claimed he publically challenged Peter directly by accusing him of hypocrisy.

What an intriguing snippet of scripture! Paul, the first founder of Christianity, was personally and philosophically at odds with Jesus’ brother and disciples!
Which further proves what I said in the beginning, that Their is not one way to worship under Christianity.

Quote:He was angry and frustrated that they’d been undermining him, and he didn’t hold back his vindictive retort. Why the churlish, hostile attitude?
He explains the the orginal 11 were needlessly binding themselves to the Law by making new converts go through the steps of Judaism first then convert to Christianity. Even though they themselves had witnessed a sucessful conversion without having to first go through said conversion (will quote the scripture later on in my response.)

Quote: Weren’t they all preaching the same message?
No, The orginal disciples were interested in first honoring thier Jewish Heritage and then allowing one to convert to Christianity, while Paul preached a message of freedom from the law/Judaism.

Quote:The reason for his antagonism becomes clear when we gain a deeper understanding of Paul’s plan.
Paul the Salesman
I think Paul was a salesman with an ambitious agenda.

Not true Paul was a Pharisee. Some even speculate that he was also a weaver/net/tent maker after He left the temple..

Quote:He hoped to sell his interpretation of Judaism to the Roman world.
As a trained Prarisee He would have been able to do this if this was His goal, but as you pointed out in Galations Paul was seperating Himself from Judaism.

Quote:I think he had a plan to undermine those dangerous messianic Nazarene beliefs that roused rebellion against Roman rule.
Then why did he preach those beliefs and made them accessiable to the Romans? It was the orginal 11 who preached of a salvation that excluded all non jewish people. That anyone who wanted salvation would have to be first become a Jew then a Christian. When Paul was able to preach a doctrine that had anyone (Jew or Gentile) come to God just as they were.

Quote:He wrote to various groups scattered throughout the Empire, and desperately insisted they believe only his theology.
Absolutly not true. For the Jew He acted like and held fast to Jewish tradition to help them understand and ease into freedom from the Law as a means to righteousness, but for the gentile He acted as if He were free from the law so that He could bring salvation to them.

1Cor 9:19 For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; 20 and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law,[c] that I might win those who are under the law; 21 to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God,[d] but under law toward Christ[e]), that I might win those who are without law; 22 to the weak I became as[f] weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. 23 Now this I do for the gospel’s sake, that I may be partaker of it with you.


Quote:He was so obsessed with snaring converts that little else in his life mattered. In Romans 15:16, he wrote that Gentiles were an offering he would bring to God.
“That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost.”
Laugh out load
14 Now I myself am confident concerning you, my brethren, that you also are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, able also to admonish one another.[g] 15 Nevertheless, brethren, I have written more boldly to you on some points, as reminding you, because of the grace given to me by God, 16 that I might be a minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering of the Gentiles might be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit. 17 Therefore I have reason to glory in Christ Jesus in the things which pertain to God. 18 For I will not dare to speak of any of those things which Christ has not accomplished through me, in word and deed, to make the Gentiles obedient— 19 in mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God, so that from Jerusalem and round about to Illyricum I have fully preached the gospel of Christ. 20 And so I have made it my aim to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build on another man’s foundation, 21 but as it is written:

“To whom He was not announced, they shall see;
And those who have not heard shall understand.”[h]

You know when you read only the snipit you isolated from the actual context you have a valid point. But, when one looks at the whole context of that passage it shows that at best your being intentionally deceptive.

Quote:Most of the people he wrote to were Gentiles (pagans) associated with Jewish synagogues, (“God-fearing Gentiles,”) although he wrote to some Jews in the diaspora too. From Paul’s perspective, his patrons were in desperate need of direction and an authoritative, charismatic leader to look up to. He considered himself just the man. He knew how to win the hearts, minds, and souls of people, as he imagined himself as one of the few god fearers (i.e. Jews) who understood Gentile cultures.
So?

Quote:Paul’s theology probably had a long and carefully thought out gestation. He knew In order to appeal to his customers. he needed a product very different to traditional Judaism, because Judaism required obedience to cumbersome dictates. The Jews believed one had to be circumcised, a painful and embarrassing procedure, not easy to sell to an adult man. They worshipped Yahweh, who is portrayed in Jewish scripture as a thunderous and violent pro-Jewish anti-gentile God. They could only eat kosher food, marry only fellow Jews, and had to stop work on the Sabbath. Jewish heritage and history were regarded as superior, and all Jews were expected to take part in the fasts and feasts celebrating the ancient epic of Israel. Many Jews thought they were one day going to be the masters of the world. Their messianic dreams were an obstacle to the peace Rome imposed on the people of the empire. Paul knew that gentiles found all this inconvenient, irksome and out of touch with reality, so he labeled these Jewish rules and beliefs as a type of “slavery.” He had to jettison the old rules, so he did, by reinventing Judaism so that it was more to the gentile world’s liking.
Again, your commentary/thoughts are not consistant with what Paul taught or preached. In addition to 1cor 9 where Paul tells us to the Jew he acted and work with them under the law (which is in direct contradiction to what you have claimed) Paul also talks about "eating Meat offered to idols."
In romans 14:14-20
Also note the Larger message of Romans 14 is to not allow one's freedoms in Christ obstruct the faith of a weaker brother who need bind himself to the Law.
Followed by 1 cor 8 (the whole chapter) and 1 cor 10:23-33

It seems like EVERYTHING you know and have said about Paul is completely untrue to this point... Almost like you've ONLY read a few websites who's views were slanted against paul, and you've just piled on your own empty thoughts... Otherwise you would have seen at least one or two of the passages I have pointed out that disproves your personal version of the anti Paul/God commentary you have been spouting thus far. So tell me again of that decade long study you immersed yourself with on this subject..Rolleyes

Quote:According to Paul, there was now no need for circumcision or to stop work on the Sabbath. The dietary kosher rules were out; bacon was back on the breakfast menu.
Either your a practice fool who pretends to be something he is not or your a liar.
Paul was not the one who did any of these things. It was Peter
The lift of Dietary restrictions:http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+10&version=NKJV start at verse 9.

The lift of the bann of circumcision was also first instituted by peter in Chapter 10 as well:44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word. 45 And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. 46 For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God.

Then Peter answered, 47 “Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then they asked him to stay a few days.
The Jewish converts believed all who were saved through Christ must first be a Jew. (That it what it identifies them as those of the circumcision)

Then as peter preached they were endowed by the Holy Spirit. It was because the Same Holy Spirit indewelled the Apstoles indewelled the GENTILES Peter declared them saved, and had them baptized in the Church.

The change of the Sabbath to the first day of the week was spear headed by Peter as he taught the first church service on sunday. Here are the other reason we worship on sunday as well:
Jesus rose on the first day of the week not the Sabbath: Mk 16:9
All 6 appearances of Jesus happen on two Sundays, none on Sabbath. Mk 16:9; Mt 28:5-9; Lk 24:34; Lk 24:13-15; Lk 24:33,36 + Jn 20:19; Jn 20:26
Christians are recorded assembling three times on Sunday after resurrection and before ascension, never on the Sabbath. Jn 20:19 Jn 20:26 Acts 2:1 (We do not claim that these were worship services, just the early starting point of Sunday gatherings)
The only time Christians are recorded to have assembled together was on a Sunday in Acts 20:7, never does it say the disciples assembled on the Sabbath.
The only day ever mentioned when Christians broke bread was on Sunday: Acts 20:7
Christians are commanded every Sunday to give into a common treasury of the church: 1 Cor 16:1-2
Jesus was declared the Son of God on Sunday: Rom 1:4
Ps 2:7 "Today I have begotten thee" was fulfilled on Sunday when he rose: Acts 13:33
The sign that Jesus was glorified was given on Sunday: Jn 7:39 + Acts 2:1,32
The church officially began on Pentecost Sunday: Acts 2:1
Jesus was crowned king on a Sunday: Acts 2:33-36
The disciples reception of the promise of the Father on Sunday: Acts 1:4-5; 2:1-4
The Holy Spirit first fell upon the apostles on a Sunday: Acts 2:1-4
Salvation first preached by Peter on Sunday: Mt 16:19; Acts 2:1,38,40-41
The Keys to the Kingdom of God were first used on Sunday: Mt 16:19
The great "Triumphal entry" (also called "Palm Sunday") happened on the first day: Luke 13:32
The time between the Lord's resurrection (sheaf waving day) and Pentecost was Sunday to Sunday counting of 50 days. The starting and stopping time was on the 1st day.
First time Jesus worshiped after resurrection was on the first day by Thomas (Jn. 20:26).
The first time we could be born again to a living hope was on a Sunday: 1 Pet. 1:3
The first time Jesus had communion after his resurrection with His disciples, was on a Sunday: (Lk. 24:1, 13, 28-35)
Pentecost was a Sunday - Sunday duration of 50 days. The starting point and stopping point of counting the 50 days was a Sunday - Sunday period!
http://www.bible.ca/7-sunday-significanc...stians.htm


Quote:He downplayed the importance of the Jewish Temple, and replaced the Jews’ hope for a political messiah of their own with Christ, the spiritual savior of all mankind. The “kingdom of God,” according to Paul, became a place in heaven, not in Israel. He declared Yahweh was such a decent deity he’d sent his own precious son, the Christ, to earth. He alleged gentiles were descendants of Abraham too, and that the centuries-old Jewish Law was a “curse.” All that was now required was faith in his claims about Christ. Voilà! The Christ myth and Christian theology were born.
Again empty commentary with out proper documentation.

Quote:Paul was one of history’s first examples of an ambitious cult leader who, when the rules of the established religion were no longer convenient, simply invented new ones to suit himself. He replaced the so-called “old covenant” of the Jews with his entirely fabricated “new covenant.” He was trying to reinvent Judaism and I think doing his best to dampen down Jewish messianic dreams. He was bending over backwards to infiltrate Judaism with Gentiles and Gentile ideas. He had no idea he was creating an almost entirely new religion, yet that’s precisely what his writings helped do many years later.
Flat out not true. Christ introduced the "New Covenant" himself in the Last supper when He directed the disciples to drink the wine which repersented His blood and eat of the Bread that was to repersent His broken body.

Again How do you not know this stuff? Or is it your hope by the simple verbosity of your reply i would not read your misrepersentation of Scripture/Christianity?

Again Everything to this point has been across the board flat out untrue. It seems you have little to NO Understanding of biblical Christianity.

Quote:To help realize this remodeling of belief, he undermined Yeshua’s family and disciples behind their backs. He was surprised and angry to find himself competing with them for people’s allegiance. They were treading on what he considered his turf. How dare they preach old-fashioned Jewish theology and disrupt his mission to set up communities of believers! Those annoying war-mongering Jews were full of subversive fantasies about a messiah, but God had revealed to him the real Christ, the up-to-date modern Christ! He, not them, was plugging the “good news.” He knew what the newly flexible, expansionist, less violent, less Judaic God expected in these modern, pro-Roman times. He was an educated, savvy, Greek-speaking sophisticate who knew a stack more about selling religion to the subjects of the Empire than the anti-Roman bumpkins from the backwater of Galilee!

This opinionated, manipulative, over imaginative weazel of a man was the true founder of Christian theology....a religion that has poisoned man's thinking for nearly 2000 years now.
Without source material your commentary can be dismissed as wishful thinking.. Shoo fly..

Quote:References;
Cupitt, D. 1979 “The Debate About Christ”. SCM Press Limited. London
Murphy-O’Connor, J. 1996 “Paul A Critical Life”. Oxford University Press. Oxford.
Schonfield, H. 1977 “The Passover Plot”. Futura Publications. London
Schonfield, H. 1969 “Those Incredible Christians”. Bantam. New York.
Stourton, E. 1994 “Paul Of Tarsus”. Hodder and Stoughton. London.
Tabor, J. 2006 “The Jesus Dynasty”. Harper Collins. London.
Cresswell, Peter 2010 “Jesus the Terrorist” O books, Winchester, UK.
http://www.philipharland.com/Blog/2009/0...ollection/
http://www.philipharland.com/Blog/2007/1...ssalonica/
http://www.sullivan-county.com/id2/paul_problem.htm
http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/paul/paul.htm
http://armageddonconspiracy.co.uk/The-Mi...53794).htm
http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/supp06.htm
http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/supp08.htm
http://paulproblem.faithweb.com/paul_odd...acts15.htm
http://books.google.com/books?id=3VFnsDu...&q&f=false
http://feeds.feedburner.com/feedburner/APRP
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-h5L1Js9e...re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmmcyX4HHfc
http://www.askwhy.co.uk/christianity/064...nFraud.php
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFXVR8W5N...re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPhKmRmCSoE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlYL9C24rHI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8HFMoyl6SY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_Vg9HNlRLM
http://askwhy.co.uk/christianity/0580Paul.php
http://www.askwhy.co.uk/questioningbelie...essiah.php
http://askwhy.co.uk/christianity/0589PaulJudaizers.php
All of this is at BEST is tertiary source material, that MAY only loosly reference secondary source material. The VAST Majority of it is empty conjecture and pointless commentary based on personal 'feeling' and general hatred of christianity..

That like quoting a Nazi propagandist about Jewish culture and history as a legitmate source material.. You can't be seriously present this hot mess as anything other than a joke right? Or do you really not know any better?Drinking Beverage

[Image: h78990FE0]

This is for Mark. Big Grin

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] ♪僕は恐怖の一定した状態に住んで、不幸、逃すもう?僕は、それはもう痛いときも気づかないと
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-03-2014, 08:22 PM (This post was last modified: 20-03-2014 08:25 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Christians must follow the old testament.
(20-03-2014 04:18 PM)Drich Wrote:  
(19-03-2014 06:24 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Drich, you've accused me of not referencing my work.
the accusation is well founded. The following is a sad attempt to try and save face by simply dumping references... The very next topic is a perfect example of that.

Quote:Here is more about Paul's relationship with the Jews, including Jesus' family and disciples. It is well referenced. It touches on the very legitimacy of Pauline Christianity.

How did Paul get on with Yeshua’s disciples and family? Let’s turn to Galatians:
“Then god who had specially chosen me while I was still in my mother’s womb, called me through his grace and chose to reveal his son in me, so that I might preach the Good News about him to the pagans. I did not stop to discuss this with any human being nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were already apostles before me, but I went off to Arabia at once and later went straight back from there to Damascus. Even when after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and stayed with him for fifteen days, I did not see any of the other apostles; I only saw James, the brother of the Lord, and I swear before God that what I have just written is the literal truth” (Gal. 1:15–20, NJB.)

Paul was bragging about the fact that his personal God, a character only he had contact with, was the source of his ideas. That may have impressed naïve people two thousand years ago, but it shouldn’t impress today’s rationalists who can read the accounts of hundreds of people who claim they’ve talked to God.

After having the Son of God revealed to him, Paul more or less snubbed Yeshua’s family and supporters by shooting off to Arabia for three years. If he’d suddenly “seen the light” and become a believer in Yeshua, surely he would have jolted to Jerusalem to meet James, the son of God’s half brother, and Peter and Mary. Surely he would’ve been anxious to meet the other Mary, Yeshua’s mum, the mother of God! Apparently not! Something more important enticed him to Arabia.
Three years later, he visited Jerusalem again, but still didn’t meet Yeshua’s family or disciples, except for James and Peter.

What you did here is simply dump a verse that half way supports your commentary, and just start spouting off whatever it is you 'think.'

This is the perfect example, and sums up the body of your 'work.' what you have left me above, is proof positive that you are completely ignorant of not only what the bible says but you are guilty of ignoring what you do not want to hear.

In the example above you go one and on for a few sentences about how Jesus did not see James, when in fact in verse 19 Paul clears says he did.

(Pay attention to how I pair my statement/Claim with a proper Primary source so that the opposition can not refute my rebuke) t
19 But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?sea...rsion=NKJV

This is how you properly quote something, to support what you have said.. When you 'quoted' Gal 1:15-20 you paired your own personal commentary, with an actual a source. The two do not agree with each other. This is a 'reference dump.' A reference dump is based on a 'proof by verbosity' arguement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_verbosity
I can see it was your hope by just dumping a bunch of empty sources it would silence me... If that was your intent know it is about to go very bad for you.

Quote:The Gospel stories are sadly short of genuine historical facts about Jesus. Things could’ve been different. Paul, who was educated and literate, could’ve saved much of the painstaking guesswork of historians over the last three hundred years ( Jesus’ historicity has only been seriously studied in this time) by jotting down some facts as related by his family and disciples. Paul should have outshone the Gospels and made them redundant. He didn’t. He only wrote about things he thought were important: his own Christ, and his own ethics. I suspect this wasn’t a deliberate omission on Paul’s part; he was obviously totally unaware that people in the future might be interested in Jesus. Interestingly, the author of the epistle of James, who may have been Jesus’ brother, also neglected to document a single fact about Jesus. Neither Paul or James knew Jesus was going to become a hero-figure…because the gospels hadn’t been written yet.

Again empty commentary without source or reference. I am assuming it was your intention to pair this commentary with the source you mention in Gal, 1 and was hoping to build off of that. The problem there is two fold. One, your initial commentary did not match with the conclusions of the source material, and this sumation clearly does not support anything you have made claim to. So all of this can be dismissed with a "Shoo fly.'
Smartass


Quote:“It was not until fourteen years had passed that I went up to Jerusalem again. I went with Barnabas and took Titus with me. I went there as a result of a revelation, and privately I laid before the leading men the Good News as I proclaim it among the pagans; I did so for fear the course I was adopting or had already adopted would not be allowed. And what happened? Even though Titus who had come with me is a Greek, he was not obliged to be circumcised. The question came up only because some who do not really belong to the brotherhood have furtively crept in to spy on the liberty we enjoy in Jesus Christ, and want to reduce us all to slavery. I was so determined to safeguard for you the true meaning of the Good News, that I refused even out of deference to yield to such people for one moment. As a result, these people who are acknowledged leaders—not that their importance matters much to me, since God has no favorites—these leaders, as I say, had nothing to add to the Good News as I preach it. On the contrary, they recognized I had been commissioned to preach the Good News to the uncircumcised just as Peter had been commissioned to preach it to the circumcised. The same person whose action had made Peter the apostle of the circumcised had given me a similar mission to the pagans. So James, Cephas and John, these leaders, these pillars, shook hands with Barnabas and me as a sign of partnership: we were to go to the pagans and they to the circumcised. The only thing they insisted on was that we should remember to help the poor, as indeed I was anxious to do. When Cephas came to Antioch, however, I opposed him to his face, since he was manifestly in the wrong. His custom had been to eat with the pagans, but after certain friends of James arrived he stopped doing this and kept away from them altogether for fear of the group that insisted on circumcision. The other Jews joined him in this pretence, and even Barnabas felt himself obliged to copy their behavior. When I saw they were not respecting the true meaning of the Good News, I said to Cephas in front of everyone, ‘In spite of being a Jew, you live like the pagans and not like the Jews, so you have no right to make the pagans copy Jewish ways.’” (Gal. 2:1–15 JB.)

Quote:Each sentence reveals a facet of a very strained relationship. Paul was clearly intimidated by James,’ John’s and Peter’s authority. He referred to them as “Pillars,” and “leading men,” and was well aware they mightn’t accept his proclamation of “Good News” as preached to gentiles:
“I laid before the leading men the Good News as I proclaim it among the pagans; I did so for fear the course I was adopting or had already adopted would not be allowed.”
What’s more, he barely concealed the fact he begrudged their authority:
“Not that their importance matters much to me.” Can anyone imagine him writing that about someone (James) he thought was the half brother of the son of God! He quite clearly regarded them as competition:
“I was so determined to safeguard for you the true meaning of the Good News, that I refused even out of deference to yield to such people for one moment.”
Paul mistrusted them. They didn’t
“belong to the brotherhood.” He accused them of spying on
“the liberty we enjoy in Christ Jesus.” He said they had
“nothing to add to the Good News I preach.” He believed they
“want to reduce us all to slavery.” He thought that the
“good news” he, and only he, preached, entitled people to be part of his brotherhood. He thought he was freeing people from the
“slavery” of the Judaic Law.
Then, he and Peter, allegedly stalwarts of the fledgling Christian movement (who the Vatican claim founded a Christian church in Rome together,) bickered with each other. Paul claimed (probably quite correctly) that Peter didn’t respect his
“good news.” He claimed he publically challenged Peter directly by accusing him of hypocrisy.

What an intriguing snippet of scripture! Paul, the first founder of Christianity, was personally and philosophically at odds with Jesus’ brother and disciples!
Which further proves what I said in the beginning, that Their is not one way to worship under Christianity.

Quote:He was angry and frustrated that they’d been undermining him, and he didn’t hold back his vindictive retort. Why the churlish, hostile attitude?
He explains the the orginal 11 were needlessly binding themselves to the Law by making new converts go through the steps of Judaism first then convert to Christianity. Even though they themselves had witnessed a sucessful conversion without having to first go through said conversion (will quote the scripture later on in my response.)

Quote: Weren’t they all preaching the same message?
No, The orginal disciples were interested in first honoring thier Jewish Heritage and then allowing one to convert to Christianity, while Paul preached a message of freedom from the law/Judaism.

Quote:The reason for his antagonism becomes clear when we gain a deeper understanding of Paul’s plan.
Paul the Salesman
I think Paul was a salesman with an ambitious agenda.

Not true Paul was a Pharisee. Some even speculate that he was also a weaver/net/tent maker after He left the temple..

Quote:He hoped to sell his interpretation of Judaism to the Roman world.
As a trained Prarisee He would have been able to do this if this was His goal, but as you pointed out in Galations Paul was seperating Himself from Judaism.

Quote:I think he had a plan to undermine those dangerous messianic Nazarene beliefs that roused rebellion against Roman rule.
Then why did he preach those beliefs and made them accessiable to the Romans? It was the orginal 11 who preached of a salvation that excluded all non jewish people. That anyone who wanted salvation would have to be first become a Jew then a Christian. When Paul was able to preach a doctrine that had anyone (Jew or Gentile) come to God just as they were.

Quote:He wrote to various groups scattered throughout the Empire, and desperately insisted they believe only his theology.
Absolutly not true. For the Jew He acted like and held fast to Jewish tradition to help them understand and ease into freedom from the Law as a means to righteousness, but for the gentile He acted as if He were free from the law so that He could bring salvation to them.

1Cor 9:19 For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; 20 and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law,[c] that I might win those who are under the law; 21 to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God,[d] but under law toward Christ[e]), that I might win those who are without law; 22 to the weak I became as[f] weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. 23 Now this I do for the gospel’s sake, that I may be partaker of it with you.


Quote:He was so obsessed with snaring converts that little else in his life mattered. In Romans 15:16, he wrote that Gentiles were an offering he would bring to God.
“That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost.”
Laugh out load
14 Now I myself am confident concerning you, my brethren, that you also are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, able also to admonish one another.[g] 15 Nevertheless, brethren, I have written more boldly to you on some points, as reminding you, because of the grace given to me by God, 16 that I might be a minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering of the Gentiles might be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit. 17 Therefore I have reason to glory in Christ Jesus in the things which pertain to God. 18 For I will not dare to speak of any of those things which Christ has not accomplished through me, in word and deed, to make the Gentiles obedient— 19 in mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God, so that from Jerusalem and round about to Illyricum I have fully preached the gospel of Christ. 20 And so I have made it my aim to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build on another man’s foundation, 21 but as it is written:

“To whom He was not announced, they shall see;
And those who have not heard shall understand.”[h]

You know when you read only the snipit you isolated from the actual context you have a valid point. But, when one looks at the whole context of that passage it shows that at best your being intentionally deceptive.

Quote:Most of the people he wrote to were Gentiles (pagans) associated with Jewish synagogues, (“God-fearing Gentiles,”) although he wrote to some Jews in the diaspora too. From Paul’s perspective, his patrons were in desperate need of direction and an authoritative, charismatic leader to look up to. He considered himself just the man. He knew how to win the hearts, minds, and souls of people, as he imagined himself as one of the few god fearers (i.e. Jews) who understood Gentile cultures.
So?

Quote:Paul’s theology probably had a long and carefully thought out gestation. He knew In order to appeal to his customers. he needed a product very different to traditional Judaism, because Judaism required obedience to cumbersome dictates. The Jews believed one had to be circumcised, a painful and embarrassing procedure, not easy to sell to an adult man. They worshipped Yahweh, who is portrayed in Jewish scripture as a thunderous and violent pro-Jewish anti-gentile God. They could only eat kosher food, marry only fellow Jews, and had to stop work on the Sabbath. Jewish heritage and history were regarded as superior, and all Jews were expected to take part in the fasts and feasts celebrating the ancient epic of Israel. Many Jews thought they were one day going to be the masters of the world. Their messianic dreams were an obstacle to the peace Rome imposed on the people of the empire. Paul knew that gentiles found all this inconvenient, irksome and out of touch with reality, so he labeled these Jewish rules and beliefs as a type of “slavery.” He had to jettison the old rules, so he did, by reinventing Judaism so that it was more to the gentile world’s liking.
Again, your commentary/thoughts are not consistant with what Paul taught or preached. In addition to 1cor 9 where Paul tells us to the Jew he acted and work with them under the law (which is in direct contradiction to what you have claimed) Paul also talks about "eating Meat offered to idols."
In romans 14:14-20
Also note the Larger message of Romans 14 is to not allow one's freedoms in Christ obstruct the faith of a weaker brother who need bind himself to the Law.
Followed by 1 cor 8 (the whole chapter) and 1 cor 10:23-33

It seems like EVERYTHING you know and have said about Paul is completely untrue to this point... Almost like you've ONLY read a few websites who's views were slanted against paul, and you've just piled on your own empty thoughts... Otherwise you would have seen at least one or two of the passages I have pointed out that disproves your personal version of the anti Paul/God commentary you have been spouting thus far. So tell me again of that decade long study you immersed yourself with on this subject..Rolleyes

Quote:According to Paul, there was now no need for circumcision or to stop work on the Sabbath. The dietary kosher rules were out; bacon was back on the breakfast menu.
Either your a practice fool who pretends to be something he is not or your a liar.
Paul was not the one who did any of these things. It was Peter
The lift of Dietary restrictions:http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+10&version=NKJV start at verse 9.

The lift of the bann of circumcision was also first instituted by peter in Chapter 10 as well:44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word. 45 And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. 46 For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God.

Then Peter answered, 47 “Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then they asked him to stay a few days.
The Jewish converts believed all who were saved through Christ must first be a Jew. (That it what it identifies them as those of the circumcision)

Then as peter preached they were endowed by the Holy Spirit. It was because the Same Holy Spirit indewelled the Apstoles indewelled the GENTILES Peter declared them saved, and had them baptized in the Church.

The change of the Sabbath to the first day of the week was spear headed by Peter as he taught the first church service on sunday. Here are the other reason we worship on sunday as well:
Jesus rose on the first day of the week not the Sabbath: Mk 16:9
All 6 appearances of Jesus happen on two Sundays, none on Sabbath. Mk 16:9; Mt 28:5-9; Lk 24:34; Lk 24:13-15; Lk 24:33,36 + Jn 20:19; Jn 20:26
Christians are recorded assembling three times on Sunday after resurrection and before ascension, never on the Sabbath. Jn 20:19 Jn 20:26 Acts 2:1 (We do not claim that these were worship services, just the early starting point of Sunday gatherings)
The only time Christians are recorded to have assembled together was on a Sunday in Acts 20:7, never does it say the disciples assembled on the Sabbath.
The only day ever mentioned when Christians broke bread was on Sunday: Acts 20:7
Christians are commanded every Sunday to give into a common treasury of the church: 1 Cor 16:1-2
Jesus was declared the Son of God on Sunday: Rom 1:4
Ps 2:7 "Today I have begotten thee" was fulfilled on Sunday when he rose: Acts 13:33
The sign that Jesus was glorified was given on Sunday: Jn 7:39 + Acts 2:1,32
The church officially began on Pentecost Sunday: Acts 2:1
Jesus was crowned king on a Sunday: Acts 2:33-36
The disciples reception of the promise of the Father on Sunday: Acts 1:4-5; 2:1-4
The Holy Spirit first fell upon the apostles on a Sunday: Acts 2:1-4
Salvation first preached by Peter on Sunday: Mt 16:19; Acts 2:1,38,40-41
The Keys to the Kingdom of God were first used on Sunday: Mt 16:19
The great "Triumphal entry" (also called "Palm Sunday") happened on the first day: Luke 13:32
The time between the Lord's resurrection (sheaf waving day) and Pentecost was Sunday to Sunday counting of 50 days. The starting and stopping time was on the 1st day.
First time Jesus worshiped after resurrection was on the first day by Thomas (Jn. 20:26).
The first time we could be born again to a living hope was on a Sunday: 1 Pet. 1:3
The first time Jesus had communion after his resurrection with His disciples, was on a Sunday: (Lk. 24:1, 13, 28-35)
Pentecost was a Sunday - Sunday duration of 50 days. The starting point and stopping point of counting the 50 days was a Sunday - Sunday period!
http://www.bible.ca/7-sunday-significanc...stians.htm


Quote:He downplayed the importance of the Jewish Temple, and replaced the Jews’ hope for a political messiah of their own with Christ, the spiritual savior of all mankind. The “kingdom of God,” according to Paul, became a place in heaven, not in Israel. He declared Yahweh was such a decent deity he’d sent his own precious son, the Christ, to earth. He alleged gentiles were descendants of Abraham too, and that the centuries-old Jewish Law was a “curse.” All that was now required was faith in his claims about Christ. Voilà! The Christ myth and Christian theology were born.
Again empty commentary with out proper documentation.

Quote:Paul was one of history’s first examples of an ambitious cult leader who, when the rules of the established religion were no longer convenient, simply invented new ones to suit himself. He replaced the so-called “old covenant” of the Jews with his entirely fabricated “new covenant.” He was trying to reinvent Judaism and I think doing his best to dampen down Jewish messianic dreams. He was bending over backwards to infiltrate Judaism with Gentiles and Gentile ideas. He had no idea he was creating an almost entirely new religion, yet that’s precisely what his writings helped do many years later.
Flat out not true. Christ introduced the "New Covenant" himself in the Last supper when He directed the disciples to drink the wine which repersented His blood and eat of the Bread that was to repersent His broken body.

Again How do you not know this stuff? Or is it your hope by the simple verbosity of your reply i would not read your misrepersentation of Scripture/Christianity?

Again Everything to this point has been across the board flat out untrue. It seems you have little to NO Understanding of biblical Christianity.

Quote:To help realize this remodeling of belief, he undermined Yeshua’s family and disciples behind their backs. He was surprised and angry to find himself competing with them for people’s allegiance. They were treading on what he considered his turf. How dare they preach old-fashioned Jewish theology and disrupt his mission to set up communities of believers! Those annoying war-mongering Jews were full of subversive fantasies about a messiah, but God had revealed to him the real Christ, the up-to-date modern Christ! He, not them, was plugging the “good news.” He knew what the newly flexible, expansionist, less violent, less Judaic God expected in these modern, pro-Roman times. He was an educated, savvy, Greek-speaking sophisticate who knew a stack more about selling religion to the subjects of the Empire than the anti-Roman bumpkins from the backwater of Galilee!

This opinionated, manipulative, over imaginative weazel of a man was the true founder of Christian theology....a religion that has poisoned man's thinking for nearly 2000 years now.
Without source material your commentary can be dismissed as wishful thinking.. Shoo fly..

Quote:References;
Cupitt, D. 1979 “The Debate About Christ”. SCM Press Limited. London
Murphy-O’Connor, J. 1996 “Paul A Critical Life”. Oxford University Press. Oxford.
Schonfield, H. 1977 “The Passover Plot”. Futura Publications. London
Schonfield, H. 1969 “Those Incredible Christians”. Bantam. New York.
Stourton, E. 1994 “Paul Of Tarsus”. Hodder and Stoughton. London.
Tabor, J. 2006 “The Jesus Dynasty”. Harper Collins. London.
Cresswell, Peter 2010 “Jesus the Terrorist” O books, Winchester, UK.
http://www.philipharland.com/Blog/2009/0...ollection/
http://www.philipharland.com/Blog/2007/1...ssalonica/
http://www.sullivan-county.com/id2/paul_problem.htm
http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/paul/paul.htm
http://armageddonconspiracy.co.uk/The-Mi...53794).htm
http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/supp06.htm
http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/supp08.htm
http://paulproblem.faithweb.com/paul_odd...acts15.htm
http://books.google.com/books?id=3VFnsDu...&q&f=false
http://feeds.feedburner.com/feedburner/APRP
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-h5L1Js9e...re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmmcyX4HHfc
http://www.askwhy.co.uk/christianity/064...nFraud.php
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFXVR8W5N...re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPhKmRmCSoE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlYL9C24rHI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8HFMoyl6SY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_Vg9HNlRLM
http://askwhy.co.uk/christianity/0580Paul.php
http://www.askwhy.co.uk/questioningbelie...essiah.php
http://askwhy.co.uk/christianity/0589PaulJudaizers.php
All of this is at BEST is tertiary source material, that MAY only loosly reference secondary source material. The VAST Majority of it is empty conjecture and pointless commentary based on personal 'feeling' and general hatred of christianity..

That like quoting a Nazi propagandist about Jewish culture and history as a legitmate source material.. You can't be seriously present this hot mess as anything other than a joke right? Or do you really not know any better?Drinking Beverage

Drich, congratulations on actually reading my post. And, you've even made an attempt to address some of the comments I've made! Nice to see you're not being so lazy. However it's a bit disappointing to see you're still resorting to making general derogatory comments without being specific. I guess you need to vent. Your spelling and grammar is a little improved, but is still way below par. If you are using an editor you need to get a new one.

I'll respond to the specific points you've made, but I won't response to your ad hominems because it's pointless, and boring for anyone else to have to read.

You write
"In the example above you go one and on for a few sentences about how Jesus did not see James,"

I assume you mean "on and on."
I DID NOT say "jesus did not see James." In fact I made the point they were brothers. What I did say was that the author of James, that is the book in the bible, says nothing about what Jesus said or did, and that that is an extraordinary fact.

You wrote
"When you 'quoted' Gal 1:15-20 you paired your own personal commentary, with an actual a source."
This comment doesn't make sense. Get a new editor.

You wrote
"Again empty commentary without source or reference." in reference to my comment
"Interestingly, the author of the epistle of James, who may have been Jesus’ brother, also neglected to document a single fact about Jesus. Neither Paul or James knew Jesus was going to become a hero-figure…because the gospels hadn’t been written
yet"

I don't need to reference anyone because
- it's a fact that the author of James never mentions Jesus.
- it's a fact that in all of the 13 epistles attributed to Paul, he never mentions Jesus' miracles, sayings or deeds (with the exception of one section. where he talks about what Jesus allegedly said at the Last Supper; this is almost certainly an interpolation) You claim to know your bible backwards... I challenge you to prove me wrong.
-it is a fact that Paul's epistles were written well before the Gospels.
I have assumed that most people already know these well-established facts...you obviously didn't.

To be continued...
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-03-2014, 10:31 PM (This post was last modified: 21-03-2014 12:35 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Christians must follow the old testament.
(20-03-2014 04:18 PM)Drich Wrote:  
(19-03-2014 06:24 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Drich, you've accused me of not referencing my work.
the accusation is well founded. The following is a sad attempt to try and save face by simply dumping references... The very next topic is a perfect example of that.

Quote:Here is more about Paul's relationship with the Jews, including Jesus' family and disciples. It is well referenced. It touches on the very legitimacy of Pauline Christianity.

How did Paul get on with Yeshua’s disciples and family? Let’s turn to Galatians:
“Then god who had specially chosen me while I was still in my mother’s womb, called me through his grace and chose to reveal his son in me, so that I might preach the Good News about him to the pagans. I did not stop to discuss this with any human being nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were already apostles before me, but I went off to Arabia at once and later went straight back from there to Damascus. Even when after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and stayed with him for fifteen days, I did not see any of the other apostles; I only saw James, the brother of the Lord, and I swear before God that what I have just written is the literal truth” (Gal. 1:15–20, NJB.)

Paul was bragging about the fact that his personal God, a character only he had contact with, was the source of his ideas. That may have impressed naïve people two thousand years ago, but it shouldn’t impress today’s rationalists who can read the accounts of hundreds of people who claim they’ve talked to God.

After having the Son of God revealed to him, Paul more or less snubbed Yeshua’s family and supporters by shooting off to Arabia for three years. If he’d suddenly “seen the light” and become a believer in Yeshua, surely he would have jolted to Jerusalem to meet James, the son of God’s half brother, and Peter and Mary. Surely he would’ve been anxious to meet the other Mary, Yeshua’s mum, the mother of God! Apparently not! Something more important enticed him to Arabia.
Three years later, he visited Jerusalem again, but still didn’t meet Yeshua’s family or disciples, except for James and Peter.

What you did here is simply dump a verse that half way supports your commentary, and just start spouting off whatever it is you 'think.'

This is the perfect example, and sums up the body of your 'work.' what you have left me above, is proof positive that you are completely ignorant of not only what the bible says but you are guilty of ignoring what you do not want to hear.

In the example above you go one and on for a few sentences about how Jesus did not see James, when in fact in verse 19 Paul clears says he did.

(Pay attention to how I pair my statement/Claim with a proper Primary source so that the opposition can not refute my rebuke) t
19 But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?sea...rsion=NKJV

This is how you properly quote something, to support what you have said.. When you 'quoted' Gal 1:15-20 you paired your own personal commentary, with an actual a source. The two do not agree with each other. This is a 'reference dump.' A reference dump is based on a 'proof by verbosity' arguement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_verbosity
I can see it was your hope by just dumping a bunch of empty sources it would silence me... If that was your intent know it is about to go very bad for you.

Quote:The Gospel stories are sadly short of genuine historical facts about Jesus. Things could’ve been different. Paul, who was educated and literate, could’ve saved much of the painstaking guesswork of historians over the last three hundred years ( Jesus’ historicity has only been seriously studied in this time) by jotting down some facts as related by his family and disciples. Paul should have outshone the Gospels and made them redundant. He didn’t. He only wrote about things he thought were important: his own Christ, and his own ethics. I suspect this wasn’t a deliberate omission on Paul’s part; he was obviously totally unaware that people in the future might be interested in Jesus. Interestingly, the author of the epistle of James, who may have been Jesus’ brother, also neglected to document a single fact about Jesus. Neither Paul or James knew Jesus was going to become a hero-figure…because the gospels hadn’t been written yet.

Again empty commentary without source or reference. I am assuming it was your intention to pair this commentary with the source you mention in Gal, 1 and was hoping to build off of that. The problem there is two fold. One, your initial commentary did not match with the conclusions of the source material, and this sumation clearly does not support anything you have made claim to. So all of this can be dismissed with a "Shoo fly.'
Smartass


Quote:“It was not until fourteen years had passed that I went up to Jerusalem again. I went with Barnabas and took Titus with me. I went there as a result of a revelation, and privately I laid before the leading men the Good News as I proclaim it among the pagans; I did so for fear the course I was adopting or had already adopted would not be allowed. And what happened? Even though Titus who had come with me is a Greek, he was not obliged to be circumcised. The question came up only because some who do not really belong to the brotherhood have furtively crept in to spy on the liberty we enjoy in Jesus Christ, and want to reduce us all to slavery. I was so determined to safeguard for you the true meaning of the Good News, that I refused even out of deference to yield to such people for one moment. As a result, these people who are acknowledged leaders—not that their importance matters much to me, since God has no favorites—these leaders, as I say, had nothing to add to the Good News as I preach it. On the contrary, they recognized I had been commissioned to preach the Good News to the uncircumcised just as Peter had been commissioned to preach it to the circumcised. The same person whose action had made Peter the apostle of the circumcised had given me a similar mission to the pagans. So James, Cephas and John, these leaders, these pillars, shook hands with Barnabas and me as a sign of partnership: we were to go to the pagans and they to the circumcised. The only thing they insisted on was that we should remember to help the poor, as indeed I was anxious to do. When Cephas came to Antioch, however, I opposed him to his face, since he was manifestly in the wrong. His custom had been to eat with the pagans, but after certain friends of James arrived he stopped doing this and kept away from them altogether for fear of the group that insisted on circumcision. The other Jews joined him in this pretence, and even Barnabas felt himself obliged to copy their behavior. When I saw they were not respecting the true meaning of the Good News, I said to Cephas in front of everyone, ‘In spite of being a Jew, you live like the pagans and not like the Jews, so you have no right to make the pagans copy Jewish ways.’” (Gal. 2:1–15 JB.)

Quote:Each sentence reveals a facet of a very strained relationship. Paul was clearly intimidated by James,’ John’s and Peter’s authority. He referred to them as “Pillars,” and “leading men,” and was well aware they mightn’t accept his proclamation of “Good News” as preached to gentiles:
“I laid before the leading men the Good News as I proclaim it among the pagans; I did so for fear the course I was adopting or had already adopted would not be allowed.”
What’s more, he barely concealed the fact he begrudged their authority:
“Not that their importance matters much to me.” Can anyone imagine him writing that about someone (James) he thought was the half brother of the son of God! He quite clearly regarded them as competition:
“I was so determined to safeguard for you the true meaning of the Good News, that I refused even out of deference to yield to such people for one moment.”
Paul mistrusted them. They didn’t
“belong to the brotherhood.” He accused them of spying on
“the liberty we enjoy in Christ Jesus.” He said they had
“nothing to add to the Good News I preach.” He believed they
“want to reduce us all to slavery.” He thought that the
“good news” he, and only he, preached, entitled people to be part of his brotherhood. He thought he was freeing people from the
“slavery” of the Judaic Law.
Then, he and Peter, allegedly stalwarts of the fledgling Christian movement (who the Vatican claim founded a Christian church in Rome together,) bickered with each other. Paul claimed (probably quite correctly) that Peter didn’t respect his
“good news.” He claimed he publically challenged Peter directly by accusing him of hypocrisy.

What an intriguing snippet of scripture! Paul, the first founder of Christianity, was personally and philosophically at odds with Jesus’ brother and disciples!
Which further proves what I said in the beginning, that Their is not one way to worship under Christianity.

Quote:He was angry and frustrated that they’d been undermining him, and he didn’t hold back his vindictive retort. Why the churlish, hostile attitude?
He explains the the orginal 11 were needlessly binding themselves to the Law by making new converts go through the steps of Judaism first then convert to Christianity. Even though they themselves had witnessed a sucessful conversion without having to first go through said conversion (will quote the scripture later on in my response.)

Quote: Weren’t they all preaching the same message?
No, The orginal disciples were interested in first honoring thier Jewish Heritage and then allowing one to convert to Christianity, while Paul preached a message of freedom from the law/Judaism.

Quote:The reason for his antagonism becomes clear when we gain a deeper understanding of Paul’s plan.
Paul the Salesman
I think Paul was a salesman with an ambitious agenda.

Not true Paul was a Pharisee. Some even speculate that he was also a weaver/net/tent maker after He left the temple..

Quote:He hoped to sell his interpretation of Judaism to the Roman world.
As a trained Prarisee He would have been able to do this if this was His goal, but as you pointed out in Galations Paul was seperating Himself from Judaism.

Quote:I think he had a plan to undermine those dangerous messianic Nazarene beliefs that roused rebellion against Roman rule.
Then why did he preach those beliefs and made them accessiable to the Romans? It was the orginal 11 who preached of a salvation that excluded all non jewish people. That anyone who wanted salvation would have to be first become a Jew then a Christian. When Paul was able to preach a doctrine that had anyone (Jew or Gentile) come to God just as they were.

Quote:He wrote to various groups scattered throughout the Empire, and desperately insisted they believe only his theology.
Absolutly not true. For the Jew He acted like and held fast to Jewish tradition to help them understand and ease into freedom from the Law as a means to righteousness, but for the gentile He acted as if He were free from the law so that He could bring salvation to them.

1Cor 9:19 For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; 20 and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law,[c] that I might win those who are under the law; 21 to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God,[d] but under law toward Christ[e]), that I might win those who are without law; 22 to the weak I became as[f] weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. 23 Now this I do for the gospel’s sake, that I may be partaker of it with you.


Quote:He was so obsessed with snaring converts that little else in his life mattered. In Romans 15:16, he wrote that Gentiles were an offering he would bring to God.
“That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost.”
Laugh out load
14 Now I myself am confident concerning you, my brethren, that you also are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, able also to admonish one another.[g] 15 Nevertheless, brethren, I have written more boldly to you on some points, as reminding you, because of the grace given to me by God, 16 that I might be a minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering of the Gentiles might be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit. 17 Therefore I have reason to glory in Christ Jesus in the things which pertain to God. 18 For I will not dare to speak of any of those things which Christ has not accomplished through me, in word and deed, to make the Gentiles obedient— 19 in mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God, so that from Jerusalem and round about to Illyricum I have fully preached the gospel of Christ. 20 And so I have made it my aim to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build on another man’s foundation, 21 but as it is written:

“To whom He was not announced, they shall see;
And those who have not heard shall understand.”[h]

You know when you read only the snipit you isolated from the actual context you have a valid point. But, when one looks at the whole context of that passage it shows that at best your being intentionally deceptive.

Quote:Most of the people he wrote to were Gentiles (pagans) associated with Jewish synagogues, (“God-fearing Gentiles,”) although he wrote to some Jews in the diaspora too. From Paul’s perspective, his patrons were in desperate need of direction and an authoritative, charismatic leader to look up to. He considered himself just the man. He knew how to win the hearts, minds, and souls of people, as he imagined himself as one of the few god fearers (i.e. Jews) who understood Gentile cultures.
So?

Quote:Paul’s theology probably had a long and carefully thought out gestation. He knew In order to appeal to his customers. he needed a product very different to traditional Judaism, because Judaism required obedience to cumbersome dictates. The Jews believed one had to be circumcised, a painful and embarrassing procedure, not easy to sell to an adult man. They worshipped Yahweh, who is portrayed in Jewish scripture as a thunderous and violent pro-Jewish anti-gentile God. They could only eat kosher food, marry only fellow Jews, and had to stop work on the Sabbath. Jewish heritage and history were regarded as superior, and all Jews were expected to take part in the fasts and feasts celebrating the ancient epic of Israel. Many Jews thought they were one day going to be the masters of the world. Their messianic dreams were an obstacle to the peace Rome imposed on the people of the empire. Paul knew that gentiles found all this inconvenient, irksome and out of touch with reality, so he labeled these Jewish rules and beliefs as a type of “slavery.” He had to jettison the old rules, so he did, by reinventing Judaism so that it was more to the gentile world’s liking.
Again, your commentary/thoughts are not consistant with what Paul taught or preached. In addition to 1cor 9 where Paul tells us to the Jew he acted and work with them under the law (which is in direct contradiction to what you have claimed) Paul also talks about "eating Meat offered to idols."
In romans 14:14-20
Also note the Larger message of Romans 14 is to not allow one's freedoms in Christ obstruct the faith of a weaker brother who need bind himself to the Law.
Followed by 1 cor 8 (the whole chapter) and 1 cor 10:23-33

It seems like EVERYTHING you know and have said about Paul is completely untrue to this point... Almost like you've ONLY read a few websites who's views were slanted against paul, and you've just piled on your own empty thoughts... Otherwise you would have seen at least one or two of the passages I have pointed out that disproves your personal version of the anti Paul/God commentary you have been spouting thus far. So tell me again of that decade long study you immersed yourself with on this subject..Rolleyes

Quote:According to Paul, there was now no need for circumcision or to stop work on the Sabbath. The dietary kosher rules were out; bacon was back on the breakfast menu.
Either your a practice fool who pretends to be something he is not or your a liar.
Paul was not the one who did any of these things. It was Peter
The lift of Dietary restrictions:http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+10&version=NKJV start at verse 9.

The lift of the bann of circumcision was also first instituted by peter in Chapter 10 as well:44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word. 45 And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. 46 For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God.

Then Peter answered, 47 “Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then they asked him to stay a few days.
The Jewish converts believed all who were saved through Christ must first be a Jew. (That it what it identifies them as those of the circumcision)

Then as peter preached they were endowed by the Holy Spirit. It was because the Same Holy Spirit indewelled the Apstoles indewelled the GENTILES Peter declared them saved, and had them baptized in the Church.

The change of the Sabbath to the first day of the week was spear headed by Peter as he taught the first church service on sunday. Here are the other reason we worship on sunday as well:
Jesus rose on the first day of the week not the Sabbath: Mk 16:9
All 6 appearances of Jesus happen on two Sundays, none on Sabbath. Mk 16:9; Mt 28:5-9; Lk 24:34; Lk 24:13-15; Lk 24:33,36 + Jn 20:19; Jn 20:26
Christians are recorded assembling three times on Sunday after resurrection and before ascension, never on the Sabbath. Jn 20:19 Jn 20:26 Acts 2:1 (We do not claim that these were worship services, just the early starting point of Sunday gatherings)
The only time Christians are recorded to have assembled together was on a Sunday in Acts 20:7, never does it say the disciples assembled on the Sabbath.
The only day ever mentioned when Christians broke bread was on Sunday: Acts 20:7
Christians are commanded every Sunday to give into a common treasury of the church: 1 Cor 16:1-2
Jesus was declared the Son of God on Sunday: Rom 1:4
Ps 2:7 "Today I have begotten thee" was fulfilled on Sunday when he rose: Acts 13:33
The sign that Jesus was glorified was given on Sunday: Jn 7:39 + Acts 2:1,32
The church officially began on Pentecost Sunday: Acts 2:1
Jesus was crowned king on a Sunday: Acts 2:33-36
The disciples reception of the promise of the Father on Sunday: Acts 1:4-5; 2:1-4
The Holy Spirit first fell upon the apostles on a Sunday: Acts 2:1-4
Salvation first preached by Peter on Sunday: Mt 16:19; Acts 2:1,38,40-41
The Keys to the Kingdom of God were first used on Sunday: Mt 16:19
The great "Triumphal entry" (also called "Palm Sunday") happened on the first day: Luke 13:32
The time between the Lord's resurrection (sheaf waving day) and Pentecost was Sunday to Sunday counting of 50 days. The starting and stopping time was on the 1st day.
First time Jesus worshiped after resurrection was on the first day by Thomas (Jn. 20:26).
The first time we could be born again to a living hope was on a Sunday: 1 Pet. 1:3
The first time Jesus had communion after his resurrection with His disciples, was on a Sunday: (Lk. 24:1, 13, 28-35)
Pentecost was a Sunday - Sunday duration of 50 days. The starting point and stopping point of counting the 50 days was a Sunday - Sunday period!
http://www.bible.ca/7-sunday-significanc...stians.htm


Quote:He downplayed the importance of the Jewish Temple, and replaced the Jews’ hope for a political messiah of their own with Christ, the spiritual savior of all mankind. The “kingdom of God,” according to Paul, became a place in heaven, not in Israel. He declared Yahweh was such a decent deity he’d sent his own precious son, the Christ, to earth. He alleged gentiles were descendants of Abraham too, and that the centuries-old Jewish Law was a “curse.” All that was now required was faith in his claims about Christ. Voilà! The Christ myth and Christian theology were born.
Again empty commentary with out proper documentation.

Quote:Paul was one of history’s first examples of an ambitious cult leader who, when the rules of the established religion were no longer convenient, simply invented new ones to suit himself. He replaced the so-called “old covenant” of the Jews with his entirely fabricated “new covenant.” He was trying to reinvent Judaism and I think doing his best to dampen down Jewish messianic dreams. He was bending over backwards to infiltrate Judaism with Gentiles and Gentile ideas. He had no idea he was creating an almost entirely new religion, yet that’s precisely what his writings helped do many years later.
Flat out not true. Christ introduced the "New Covenant" himself in the Last supper when He directed the disciples to drink the wine which repersented His blood and eat of the Bread that was to repersent His broken body.

Again How do you not know this stuff? Or is it your hope by the simple verbosity of your reply i would not read your misrepersentation of Scripture/Christianity?

Again Everything to this point has been across the board flat out untrue. It seems you have little to NO Understanding of biblical Christianity.

Quote:To help realize this remodeling of belief, he undermined Yeshua’s family and disciples behind their backs. He was surprised and angry to find himself competing with them for people’s allegiance. They were treading on what he considered his turf. How dare they preach old-fashioned Jewish theology and disrupt his mission to set up communities of believers! Those annoying war-mongering Jews were full of subversive fantasies about a messiah, but God had revealed to him the real Christ, the up-to-date modern Christ! He, not them, was plugging the “good news.” He knew what the newly flexible, expansionist, less violent, less Judaic God expected in these modern, pro-Roman times. He was an educated, savvy, Greek-speaking sophisticate who knew a stack more about selling religion to the subjects of the Empire than the anti-Roman bumpkins from the backwater of Galilee!

This opinionated, manipulative, over imaginative weazel of a man was the true founder of Christian theology....a religion that has poisoned man's thinking for nearly 2000 years now.
Without source material your commentary can be dismissed as wishful thinking.. Shoo fly..

Quote:References;
Cupitt, D. 1979 “The Debate About Christ”. SCM Press Limited. London
Murphy-O’Connor, J. 1996 “Paul A Critical Life”. Oxford University Press. Oxford.
Schonfield, H. 1977 “The Passover Plot”. Futura Publications. London
Schonfield, H. 1969 “Those Incredible Christians”. Bantam. New York.
Stourton, E. 1994 “Paul Of Tarsus”. Hodder and Stoughton. London.
Tabor, J. 2006 “The Jesus Dynasty”. Harper Collins. London.
Cresswell, Peter 2010 “Jesus the Terrorist” O books, Winchester, UK.
http://www.philipharland.com/Blog/2009/0...ollection/
http://www.philipharland.com/Blog/2007/1...ssalonica/
http://www.sullivan-county.com/id2/paul_problem.htm
http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/paul/paul.htm
http://armageddonconspiracy.co.uk/The-Mi...53794).htm
http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/supp06.htm
http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/supp08.htm
http://paulproblem.faithweb.com/paul_odd...acts15.htm
http://books.google.com/books?id=3VFnsDu...&q&f=false
http://feeds.feedburner.com/feedburner/APRP
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-h5L1Js9e...re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmmcyX4HHfc
http://www.askwhy.co.uk/christianity/064...nFraud.php
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFXVR8W5N...re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPhKmRmCSoE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlYL9C24rHI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8HFMoyl6SY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_Vg9HNlRLM
http://askwhy.co.uk/christianity/0580Paul.php
http://www.askwhy.co.uk/questioningbelie...essiah.php
http://askwhy.co.uk/christianity/0589PaulJudaizers.php
All of this is at BEST is tertiary source material, that MAY only loosly reference secondary source material. The VAST Majority of it is empty conjecture and pointless commentary based on personal 'feeling' and general hatred of christianity..

That like quoting a Nazi propagandist about Jewish culture and history as a legitmate source material.. You can't be seriously present this hot mess as anything other than a joke right? Or do you really not know any better?Drinking Beverage

You write
"This is a 'reference dump.' A reference dump is based on a 'proof by verbosity' argument."
No. You're making stuff up. You're accusing me of being verbose because it takes a little effort to understand what I'm saying, and you either don't have the intellectual capacity or the willpower to make the effort.

You write
"He explains the the orginal 11 were needlessly binding themselves to the Law by making new converts go through the steps of Judaism first then convert to Christianity."
Yes...true... but you just don't get what is being revealed here. The original family and disciples of Jesus were Jews, not Christians! Forget what's written in Acts about Paul being good mates with Jesus' disciples and family. Acts is an over imaginative early second century Christian product that tried to draw a connection between the Jewish followers of Jesus and Paul (and his entirely fabricated theology.) Consider the silliness of the "road to Damascus" story that tried to fabricate a link between Jesus and Paul. If Paul had really met Jesus' ghost on the road to Damascus he would've mentioned it in his letters, and he doesn't. If the "penny drops" for you, you will realise that there is no connection between an historical Jesus and Paul's proto-Christian theology.

The writings of Paul are the only (usually) dependable primary source that we have, and they clearly describe an antagonistic relationship between him and the Nazarenes. Remember the gospels were probably first written between 70 and 110 by we don't know who, and then interpolated for the next few centuries. So any suggestions of a Christian Jesus in the Gospels is nonsense. Christian theology was invented by Paul... and Jesus was long dead before Paul even appeared on the scene.

Just look at the bare facts of Jesus' life. If he ever even existed, he was born a Jew in patriotic unsettled Galilee, he was raised as a Jew, his cousin John the Baptist was executed by Herod because he was a political threat to the peace, Jesus gathered a group of diehard Jews around him, went to Jerusalem, was captured by a cohort (600) Roman soldiers, and was executed as a zealot by the Roman army.

Christianity was something else; divorced from Judaism; a new religion designed to appeal to Gentiles and to undermine Judaism. The Christians borrowed the identity of this wannabe messiah Jesus and turned him into a sometimes pacifist who turned the other cheek and paid his taxes to Rome. What balderdash! It's the equivalent of claiming that Osama bin Laden was a Christian!
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-03-2014, 11:01 PM (This post was last modified: 20-03-2014 11:06 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Christians must follow the old testament.
(20-03-2014 04:18 PM)Drich Wrote:  
(19-03-2014 06:24 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Drich, you've accused me of not referencing my work.
the accusation is well founded. The following is a sad attempt to try and save face by simply dumping references... The very next topic is a perfect example of that.

Quote:Here is more about Paul's relationship with the Jews, including Jesus' family and disciples. It is well referenced. It touches on the very legitimacy of Pauline Christianity.

How did Paul get on with Yeshua’s disciples and family? Let’s turn to Galatians:
“Then god who had specially chosen me while I was still in my mother’s womb, called me through his grace and chose to reveal his son in me, so that I might preach the Good News about him to the pagans. I did not stop to discuss this with any human being nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were already apostles before me, but I went off to Arabia at once and later went straight back from there to Damascus. Even when after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and stayed with him for fifteen days, I did not see any of the other apostles; I only saw James, the brother of the Lord, and I swear before God that what I have just written is the literal truth” (Gal. 1:15–20, NJB.)

Paul was bragging about the fact that his personal God, a character only he had contact with, was the source of his ideas. That may have impressed naïve people two thousand years ago, but it shouldn’t impress today’s rationalists who can read the accounts of hundreds of people who claim they’ve talked to God.

After having the Son of God revealed to him, Paul more or less snubbed Yeshua’s family and supporters by shooting off to Arabia for three years. If he’d suddenly “seen the light” and become a believer in Yeshua, surely he would have jolted to Jerusalem to meet James, the son of God’s half brother, and Peter and Mary. Surely he would’ve been anxious to meet the other Mary, Yeshua’s mum, the mother of God! Apparently not! Something more important enticed him to Arabia.
Three years later, he visited Jerusalem again, but still didn’t meet Yeshua’s family or disciples, except for James and Peter.

What you did here is simply dump a verse that half way supports your commentary, and just start spouting off whatever it is you 'think.'

This is the perfect example, and sums up the body of your 'work.' what you have left me above, is proof positive that you are completely ignorant of not only what the bible says but you are guilty of ignoring what you do not want to hear.

In the example above you go one and on for a few sentences about how Jesus did not see James, when in fact in verse 19 Paul clears says he did.

(Pay attention to how I pair my statement/Claim with a proper Primary source so that the opposition can not refute my rebuke) t
19 But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?sea...rsion=NKJV

This is how you properly quote something, to support what you have said.. When you 'quoted' Gal 1:15-20 you paired your own personal commentary, with an actual a source. The two do not agree with each other. This is a 'reference dump.' A reference dump is based on a 'proof by verbosity' arguement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_verbosity
I can see it was your hope by just dumping a bunch of empty sources it would silence me... If that was your intent know it is about to go very bad for you.

Quote:The Gospel stories are sadly short of genuine historical facts about Jesus. Things could’ve been different. Paul, who was educated and literate, could’ve saved much of the painstaking guesswork of historians over the last three hundred years ( Jesus’ historicity has only been seriously studied in this time) by jotting down some facts as related by his family and disciples. Paul should have outshone the Gospels and made them redundant. He didn’t. He only wrote about things he thought were important: his own Christ, and his own ethics. I suspect this wasn’t a deliberate omission on Paul’s part; he was obviously totally unaware that people in the future might be interested in Jesus. Interestingly, the author of the epistle of James, who may have been Jesus’ brother, also neglected to document a single fact about Jesus. Neither Paul or James knew Jesus was going to become a hero-figure…because the gospels hadn’t been written yet.

Again empty commentary without source or reference. I am assuming it was your intention to pair this commentary with the source you mention in Gal, 1 and was hoping to build off of that. The problem there is two fold. One, your initial commentary did not match with the conclusions of the source material, and this sumation clearly does not support anything you have made claim to. So all of this can be dismissed with a "Shoo fly.'
Smartass


Quote:“It was not until fourteen years had passed that I went up to Jerusalem again. I went with Barnabas and took Titus with me. I went there as a result of a revelation, and privately I laid before the leading men the Good News as I proclaim it among the pagans; I did so for fear the course I was adopting or had already adopted would not be allowed. And what happened? Even though Titus who had come with me is a Greek, he was not obliged to be circumcised. The question came up only because some who do not really belong to the brotherhood have furtively crept in to spy on the liberty we enjoy in Jesus Christ, and want to reduce us all to slavery. I was so determined to safeguard for you the true meaning of the Good News, that I refused even out of deference to yield to such people for one moment. As a result, these people who are acknowledged leaders—not that their importance matters much to me, since God has no favorites—these leaders, as I say, had nothing to add to the Good News as I preach it. On the contrary, they recognized I had been commissioned to preach the Good News to the uncircumcised just as Peter had been commissioned to preach it to the circumcised. The same person whose action had made Peter the apostle of the circumcised had given me a similar mission to the pagans. So James, Cephas and John, these leaders, these pillars, shook hands with Barnabas and me as a sign of partnership: we were to go to the pagans and they to the circumcised. The only thing they insisted on was that we should remember to help the poor, as indeed I was anxious to do. When Cephas came to Antioch, however, I opposed him to his face, since he was manifestly in the wrong. His custom had been to eat with the pagans, but after certain friends of James arrived he stopped doing this and kept away from them altogether for fear of the group that insisted on circumcision. The other Jews joined him in this pretence, and even Barnabas felt himself obliged to copy their behavior. When I saw they were not respecting the true meaning of the Good News, I said to Cephas in front of everyone, ‘In spite of being a Jew, you live like the pagans and not like the Jews, so you have no right to make the pagans copy Jewish ways.’” (Gal. 2:1–15 JB.)

Quote:Each sentence reveals a facet of a very strained relationship. Paul was clearly intimidated by James,’ John’s and Peter’s authority. He referred to them as “Pillars,” and “leading men,” and was well aware they mightn’t accept his proclamation of “Good News” as preached to gentiles:
“I laid before the leading men the Good News as I proclaim it among the pagans; I did so for fear the course I was adopting or had already adopted would not be allowed.”
What’s more, he barely concealed the fact he begrudged their authority:
“Not that their importance matters much to me.” Can anyone imagine him writing that about someone (James) he thought was the half brother of the son of God! He quite clearly regarded them as competition:
“I was so determined to safeguard for you the true meaning of the Good News, that I refused even out of deference to yield to such people for one moment.”
Paul mistrusted them. They didn’t
“belong to the brotherhood.” He accused them of spying on
“the liberty we enjoy in Christ Jesus.” He said they had
“nothing to add to the Good News I preach.” He believed they
“want to reduce us all to slavery.” He thought that the
“good news” he, and only he, preached, entitled people to be part of his brotherhood. He thought he was freeing people from the
“slavery” of the Judaic Law.
Then, he and Peter, allegedly stalwarts of the fledgling Christian movement (who the Vatican claim founded a Christian church in Rome together,) bickered with each other. Paul claimed (probably quite correctly) that Peter didn’t respect his
“good news.” He claimed he publically challenged Peter directly by accusing him of hypocrisy.

What an intriguing snippet of scripture! Paul, the first founder of Christianity, was personally and philosophically at odds with Jesus’ brother and disciples!
Which further proves what I said in the beginning, that Their is not one way to worship under Christianity.

Quote:He was angry and frustrated that they’d been undermining him, and he didn’t hold back his vindictive retort. Why the churlish, hostile attitude?
He explains the the orginal 11 were needlessly binding themselves to the Law by making new converts go through the steps of Judaism first then convert to Christianity. Even though they themselves had witnessed a sucessful conversion without having to first go through said conversion (will quote the scripture later on in my response.)

Quote: Weren’t they all preaching the same message?
No, The orginal disciples were interested in first honoring thier Jewish Heritage and then allowing one to convert to Christianity, while Paul preached a message of freedom from the law/Judaism.

Quote:The reason for his antagonism becomes clear when we gain a deeper understanding of Paul’s plan.
Paul the Salesman
I think Paul was a salesman with an ambitious agenda.

Not true Paul was a Pharisee. Some even speculate that he was also a weaver/net/tent maker after He left the temple..

Quote:He hoped to sell his interpretation of Judaism to the Roman world.
As a trained Prarisee He would have been able to do this if this was His goal, but as you pointed out in Galations Paul was seperating Himself from Judaism.

Quote:I think he had a plan to undermine those dangerous messianic Nazarene beliefs that roused rebellion against Roman rule.
Then why did he preach those beliefs and made them accessiable to the Romans? It was the orginal 11 who preached of a salvation that excluded all non jewish people. That anyone who wanted salvation would have to be first become a Jew then a Christian. When Paul was able to preach a doctrine that had anyone (Jew or Gentile) come to God just as they were.

Quote:He wrote to various groups scattered throughout the Empire, and desperately insisted they believe only his theology.
Absolutly not true. For the Jew He acted like and held fast to Jewish tradition to help them understand and ease into freedom from the Law as a means to righteousness, but for the gentile He acted as if He were free from the law so that He could bring salvation to them.

1Cor 9:19 For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; 20 and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law,[c] that I might win those who are under the law; 21 to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God,[d] but under law toward Christ[e]), that I might win those who are without law; 22 to the weak I became as[f] weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. 23 Now this I do for the gospel’s sake, that I may be partaker of it with you.


Quote:He was so obsessed with snaring converts that little else in his life mattered. In Romans 15:16, he wrote that Gentiles were an offering he would bring to God.
“That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost.”
Laugh out load
14 Now I myself am confident concerning you, my brethren, that you also are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, able also to admonish one another.[g] 15 Nevertheless, brethren, I have written more boldly to you on some points, as reminding you, because of the grace given to me by God, 16 that I might be a minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering of the Gentiles might be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit. 17 Therefore I have reason to glory in Christ Jesus in the things which pertain to God. 18 For I will not dare to speak of any of those things which Christ has not accomplished through me, in word and deed, to make the Gentiles obedient— 19 in mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God, so that from Jerusalem and round about to Illyricum I have fully preached the gospel of Christ. 20 And so I have made it my aim to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build on another man’s foundation, 21 but as it is written:

“To whom He was not announced, they shall see;
And those who have not heard shall understand.”[h]

You know when you read only the snipit you isolated from the actual context you have a valid point. But, when one looks at the whole context of that passage it shows that at best your being intentionally deceptive.

Quote:Most of the people he wrote to were Gentiles (pagans) associated with Jewish synagogues, (“God-fearing Gentiles,”) although he wrote to some Jews in the diaspora too. From Paul’s perspective, his patrons were in desperate need of direction and an authoritative, charismatic leader to look up to. He considered himself just the man. He knew how to win the hearts, minds, and souls of people, as he imagined himself as one of the few god fearers (i.e. Jews) who understood Gentile cultures.
So?

Quote:Paul’s theology probably had a long and carefully thought out gestation. He knew In order to appeal to his customers. he needed a product very different to traditional Judaism, because Judaism required obedience to cumbersome dictates. The Jews believed one had to be circumcised, a painful and embarrassing procedure, not easy to sell to an adult man. They worshipped Yahweh, who is portrayed in Jewish scripture as a thunderous and violent pro-Jewish anti-gentile God. They could only eat kosher food, marry only fellow Jews, and had to stop work on the Sabbath. Jewish heritage and history were regarded as superior, and all Jews were expected to take part in the fasts and feasts celebrating the ancient epic of Israel. Many Jews thought they were one day going to be the masters of the world. Their messianic dreams were an obstacle to the peace Rome imposed on the people of the empire. Paul knew that gentiles found all this inconvenient, irksome and out of touch with reality, so he labeled these Jewish rules and beliefs as a type of “slavery.” He had to jettison the old rules, so he did, by reinventing Judaism so that it was more to the gentile world’s liking.
Again, your commentary/thoughts are not consistant with what Paul taught or preached. In addition to 1cor 9 where Paul tells us to the Jew he acted and work with them under the law (which is in direct contradiction to what you have claimed) Paul also talks about "eating Meat offered to idols."
In romans 14:14-20
Also note the Larger message of Romans 14 is to not allow one's freedoms in Christ obstruct the faith of a weaker brother who need bind himself to the Law.
Followed by 1 cor 8 (the whole chapter) and 1 cor 10:23-33

It seems like EVERYTHING you know and have said about Paul is completely untrue to this point... Almost like you've ONLY read a few websites who's views were slanted against paul, and you've just piled on your own empty thoughts... Otherwise you would have seen at least one or two of the passages I have pointed out that disproves your personal version of the anti Paul/God commentary you have been spouting thus far. So tell me again of that decade long study you immersed yourself with on this subject..Rolleyes

Quote:According to Paul, there was now no need for circumcision or to stop work on the Sabbath. The dietary kosher rules were out; bacon was back on the breakfast menu.
Either your a practice fool who pretends to be something he is not or your a liar.
Paul was not the one who did any of these things. It was Peter
The lift of Dietary restrictions:http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+10&version=NKJV start at verse 9.

The lift of the bann of circumcision was also first instituted by peter in Chapter 10 as well:44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word. 45 And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. 46 For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God.

Then Peter answered, 47 “Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then they asked him to stay a few days.
The Jewish converts believed all who were saved through Christ must first be a Jew. (That it what it identifies them as those of the circumcision)

Then as peter preached they were endowed by the Holy Spirit. It was because the Same Holy Spirit indewelled the Apstoles indewelled the GENTILES Peter declared them saved, and had them baptized in the Church.

The change of the Sabbath to the first day of the week was spear headed by Peter as he taught the first church service on sunday. Here are the other reason we worship on sunday as well:
Jesus rose on the first day of the week not the Sabbath: Mk 16:9
All 6 appearances of Jesus happen on two Sundays, none on Sabbath. Mk 16:9; Mt 28:5-9; Lk 24:34; Lk 24:13-15; Lk 24:33,36 + Jn 20:19; Jn 20:26
Christians are recorded assembling three times on Sunday after resurrection and before ascension, never on the Sabbath. Jn 20:19 Jn 20:26 Acts 2:1 (We do not claim that these were worship services, just the early starting point of Sunday gatherings)
The only time Christians are recorded to have assembled together was on a Sunday in Acts 20:7, never does it say the disciples assembled on the Sabbath.
The only day ever mentioned when Christians broke bread was on Sunday: Acts 20:7
Christians are commanded every Sunday to give into a common treasury of the church: 1 Cor 16:1-2
Jesus was declared the Son of God on Sunday: Rom 1:4
Ps 2:7 "Today I have begotten thee" was fulfilled on Sunday when he rose: Acts 13:33
The sign that Jesus was glorified was given on Sunday: Jn 7:39 + Acts 2:1,32
The church officially began on Pentecost Sunday: Acts 2:1
Jesus was crowned king on a Sunday: Acts 2:33-36
The disciples reception of the promise of the Father on Sunday: Acts 1:4-5; 2:1-4
The Holy Spirit first fell upon the apostles on a Sunday: Acts 2:1-4
Salvation first preached by Peter on Sunday: Mt 16:19; Acts 2:1,38,40-41
The Keys to the Kingdom of God were first used on Sunday: Mt 16:19
The great "Triumphal entry" (also called "Palm Sunday") happened on the first day: Luke 13:32
The time between the Lord's resurrection (sheaf waving day) and Pentecost was Sunday to Sunday counting of 50 days. The starting and stopping time was on the 1st day.
First time Jesus worshiped after resurrection was on the first day by Thomas (Jn. 20:26).
The first time we could be born again to a living hope was on a Sunday: 1 Pet. 1:3
The first time Jesus had communion after his resurrection with His disciples, was on a Sunday: (Lk. 24:1, 13, 28-35)
Pentecost was a Sunday - Sunday duration of 50 days. The starting point and stopping point of counting the 50 days was a Sunday - Sunday period!
http://www.bible.ca/7-sunday-significanc...stians.htm


Quote:He downplayed the importance of the Jewish Temple, and replaced the Jews’ hope for a political messiah of their own with Christ, the spiritual savior of all mankind. The “kingdom of God,” according to Paul, became a place in heaven, not in Israel. He declared Yahweh was such a decent deity he’d sent his own precious son, the Christ, to earth. He alleged gentiles were descendants of Abraham too, and that the centuries-old Jewish Law was a “curse.” All that was now required was faith in his claims about Christ. Voilà! The Christ myth and Christian theology were born.
Again empty commentary with out proper documentation.

Quote:Paul was one of history’s first examples of an ambitious cult leader who, when the rules of the established religion were no longer convenient, simply invented new ones to suit himself. He replaced the so-called “old covenant” of the Jews with his entirely fabricated “new covenant.” He was trying to reinvent Judaism and I think doing his best to dampen down Jewish messianic dreams. He was bending over backwards to infiltrate Judaism with Gentiles and Gentile ideas. He had no idea he was creating an almost entirely new religion, yet that’s precisely what his writings helped do many years later.
Flat out not true. Christ introduced the "New Covenant" himself in the Last supper when He directed the disciples to drink the wine which repersented His blood and eat of the Bread that was to repersent His broken body.

Again How do you not know this stuff? Or is it your hope by the simple verbosity of your reply i would not read your misrepersentation of Scripture/Christianity?

Again Everything to this point has been across the board flat out untrue. It seems you have little to NO Understanding of biblical Christianity.

Quote:To help realize this remodeling of belief, he undermined Yeshua’s family and disciples behind their backs. He was surprised and angry to find himself competing with them for people’s allegiance. They were treading on what he considered his turf. How dare they preach old-fashioned Jewish theology and disrupt his mission to set up communities of believers! Those annoying war-mongering Jews were full of subversive fantasies about a messiah, but God had revealed to him the real Christ, the up-to-date modern Christ! He, not them, was plugging the “good news.” He knew what the newly flexible, expansionist, less violent, less Judaic God expected in these modern, pro-Roman times. He was an educated, savvy, Greek-speaking sophisticate who knew a stack more about selling religion to the subjects of the Empire than the anti-Roman bumpkins from the backwater of Galilee!

This opinionated, manipulative, over imaginative weazel of a man was the true founder of Christian theology....a religion that has poisoned man's thinking for nearly 2000 years now.
Without source material your commentary can be dismissed as wishful thinking.. Shoo fly..

Quote:References;
Cupitt, D. 1979 “The Debate About Christ”. SCM Press Limited. London
Murphy-O’Connor, J. 1996 “Paul A Critical Life”. Oxford University Press. Oxford.
Schonfield, H. 1977 “The Passover Plot”. Futura Publications. London
Schonfield, H. 1969 “Those Incredible Christians”. Bantam. New York.
Stourton, E. 1994 “Paul Of Tarsus”. Hodder and Stoughton. London.
Tabor, J. 2006 “The Jesus Dynasty”. Harper Collins. London.
Cresswell, Peter 2010 “Jesus the Terrorist” O books, Winchester, UK.
http://www.philipharland.com/Blog/2009/0...ollection/
http://www.philipharland.com/Blog/2007/1...ssalonica/
http://www.sullivan-county.com/id2/paul_problem.htm
http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/paul/paul.htm
http://armageddonconspiracy.co.uk/The-Mi...53794).htm
http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/supp06.htm
http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/supp08.htm
http://paulproblem.faithweb.com/paul_odd...acts15.htm
http://books.google.com/books?id=3VFnsDu...&q&f=false
http://feeds.feedburner.com/feedburner/APRP
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-h5L1Js9e...re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmmcyX4HHfc
http://www.askwhy.co.uk/christianity/064...nFraud.php
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFXVR8W5N...re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPhKmRmCSoE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlYL9C24rHI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8HFMoyl6SY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_Vg9HNlRLM
http://askwhy.co.uk/christianity/0580Paul.php
http://www.askwhy.co.uk/questioningbelie...essiah.php
http://askwhy.co.uk/christianity/0589PaulJudaizers.php
All of this is at BEST is tertiary source material, that MAY only loosly reference secondary source material. The VAST Majority of it is empty conjecture and pointless commentary based on personal 'feeling' and general hatred of christianity..

That like quoting a Nazi propagandist about Jewish culture and history as a legitmate source material.. You can't be seriously present this hot mess as anything other than a joke right? Or do you really not know any better?Drinking Beverage

You write
"Again, your commentary/thoughts are not consistant with what Paul taught or preached. In addition to 1cor 9 where Paul tells us to the Jew he acted and work with them under the law (which is in direct contradiction to what you have claimed) Paul also talks about "eating Meat offered to idols." "

NO! Paul is the inconsistent one. Allow me to elaborate

The Source of Paul’s Theology
One might assume that Paul had a legitimate and verifiable source for his hypotheses, but he didn’t. I’ve imagined going back in time to ask him what he thought it was. He got anxious when his credibility was questioned, so his answer would be intense. He frequently wrote at length about himself, so he’d probably tell me how hard he works, how genuine he is, how he’s suffered for his beliefs, and how sure he is that what he preaches is the truth. The actual answer to the question would be a long time arriving.

Paul wrote,
“The fact is, brothers, and I want you to realize this, the Good News I preached is not a human message that I was given by men, it is something I learned only through a revelation of Jesus Christ. You must have heard of my career as a practicing Jew, how merciless I was in persecuting the Church of God, how much damage I did to it, how I stood out among other Jews of my generation, and how enthusiastic I was for the traditions of my ancestors. Then God, who had specifically chosen me while I was still in my mother's womb, called me through his grace and chose to reveal his son in me, so that I may preach the Good News about him to the pagans” (Gal. 1:11–24, NJB.) This is from one of his best-known letters. He specifically stated that the message he preached came not from human sources, but from God, “through a revelation of Jesus Christ.”

This was not the only occasion he said God inspired him;
“I, Paul, appointed by God to be an apostle” (1 Cor. 1:1, NJB) and
“But our sufficiency is from God” (2 Cor. 3:5 NKJB.)

What he meant was that he thought he had a God given talent enabling him to interpret scripture. That was, after all, the job description for a Pharisee. He bragged that his God, a character he thought he had a special relationship with, was the source of his “Good News.” That may have impressed naïve people two thousand years ago, but today we can read any number of over imaginative accounts from people who also claim, without evidence, that they’ve talked to God. Some of them are mentally unwell. Paul had no more credibility than them.

Paul took things one step further than his more traditional colleagues when interpreting scripture. He thought he alone had a divine mandate from God. Consider the opening lines of his letter to the Romans:
“From Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus who has been called to be an apostle, and specially chosen to preach the Good News that God promised long ago through his prophets in the scriptures” (Rom. 1:1–3, NJB.) He promoted himself as a uniquely special interpreter of scripture, and he bad-mouthed anyone who happened to disagree with him (see 1 Corinthians 15:1–3, http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?sea...sion=KJV).

Yet Jewish scholars are adamant that Paul’s “good news” isn’t in scripture. (http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articl...f-tarsus). Moreover, Paul often changed the meaning of scripture to suit himself. For example, he wrote,
“so that all beings in the heavens, on earth and in the underworld, should bend the knee at the name of Jesus and that every tongue should acclaim Jesus Christ as Lord to the glory of the Father” (Phil. 2:10–11, NJB.) The source of this was
“Before me every knee shall bend, by me every tongue shall swear, saying ‘From Yahweh alone come victory and strength.’” (Isa. 45:23–24, NJB.) Paul replaced Yahweh with Christ, to fit with his own manufactured theology. One of Paul’s main themes was that Gentiles could be God’s special people too. He wrote,
“Well, we are those people; whether we were Jews or pagans we are the ones he has called. That is exactly what God says in Hosea: ‘I shall say to a people that was not mine, ‘you are my people,’ and to a nation I never loved ‘I love you’” (Rom. 9:24, NJB.) However a reading of chapters one and two of Hosea (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?sea...rsion=KJV) reveals that “God” wasn’t referring to Gentiles, but Jews whom he was accepting back under his wing after a misdemeanor. Paul changed the meaning of scripture to sell his own story to Gentiles living in Rome.

Just why “God” would need to talk to Paul via “a revelation of Jesus Christ,” when Jesus could speak for himself, is never explained in today’s Christian circles.
Mithras, the pagan god of an ancient Persian cult, (discussed in chapter 7) had remarkable similarities with Paul’s Christ, and Paul’s home town was a major center of Mithraic belief. (http://jdstone.org/cr/files/paulandthepa...ism.html).
I think Paul manufactured his Christ to counter the dreams of the Nazarenes, who were hoping for a political messiah.

Paul’s theology was the product of a complex mishmash of concepts from other cults, innovative interpretations of Jewish scripture, his personal ambitions, his desire to undermine messianic Judaism, his own imagination, and maybe elsewhere (explained later.) He was clearly a master confabulator, inventing fictions and interpretations to support his own views. I don’t think any of his possible sources add any credibility to his theology.

He must have known he was fabricating, but didn’t let that niggle at his conscience. He was on a mission to snare converts, and the end justified the means. I suspect the more he thought and talked about the divinity of Christ, his sacrificial death, and his resurrection, the more real and useful these ideas became to him. I think it either didn’t bother him, or he wasn’t aware, that his ideas were fundamentally odd. He wouldn’t have wasted time questioning his own themes. He was too busy for that, too obsessed with winning people over. He wouldn’t have known his letters would one day be critically examined and compared with each other.

He was preaching and writing to people who, judged by today’s standards, were naïve, unsophisticated, isolated, and unread. Most of them would have had Paul’s epistles read to them. A well-written letter must have been impressive. When he appeared in person he was probably a self-righteous and confident teacher, which would have been enough to give him some credibility. He presumed his readers would be impressed by his claims that God inspired him, yet there’s clearly no objective reason why modern readers should be.

You write
"Also note the Larger message of Romans 14 is to not allow one's freedoms in Christ obstruct the faith of a weaker brother who need bind himself to the Law."

Agreed. Yet you don't understand the following. Paul just made it all up. I'll repeat that again slowly for your benefit. Paul… just… made… it… all… up. The "freedom" he talks about is the freedom from having to obey the dictates of the Jewish law.

Paul said that the key tenets of Judaism no longer existed. Jesus, Peter, James John and all the disciples of Jesus would've been repulsed by that thought. Being Jewish was all about obeying "the law"... "the law" that had allegedly been given to the Jewish people on Mount Sinai by God, to Moses. Ask any traditional Jew today about this and they'll tell you nothing has changed. Paul knew he couldn't change traditional Jewish thinking, so he let them be.

Paul was a "big picture" man. He wanted his version of Judaism spread throughout the Roman Empire. He knew he had to make that version attractive for Gentiles. So he said there was no need for circumcision, no need to follow the dietary kosher rules, no need to stop working on the sabbath, no need to marry only other Jews, and no need for the kingdom of Israel. He downplayed the importance of being Jewish and he downplayed the importance of the Temple in Jerusalem. He wanted everyone in the Empire obeying the government i.e. his Roman masters. He didn't want patriotic Jews causing trouble. The guy was a propagandist. He was employed by the Roman government to spread propaganda and to try to prevent a war. He was spectacularly unsuccessful, as a large-scale war broke out in Palestine in 66 CE. That war was inspired by messianic patriotic Jews such as the real Jesus (had been) and his followers. Paul was trying to undermine them.

Has the penny dropped for you yet?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-03-2014, 11:35 PM (This post was last modified: 21-03-2014 12:28 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Christians must follow the old testament.
(20-03-2014 04:18 PM)Drich Wrote:  
(19-03-2014 06:24 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Drich, you've accused me of not referencing my work.
the accusation is well founded. The following is a sad attempt to try and save face by simply dumping references... The very next topic is a perfect example of that.

Quote:Here is more about Paul's relationship with the Jews, including Jesus' family and disciples. It is well referenced. It touches on the very legitimacy of Pauline Christianity.

How did Paul get on with Yeshua’s disciples and family? Let’s turn to Galatians:
“Then god who had specially chosen me while I was still in my mother’s womb, called me through his grace and chose to reveal his son in me, so that I might preach the Good News about him to the pagans. I did not stop to discuss this with any human being nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were already apostles before me, but I went off to Arabia at once and later went straight back from there to Damascus. Even when after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and stayed with him for fifteen days, I did not see any of the other apostles; I only saw James, the brother of the Lord, and I swear before God that what I have just written is the literal truth” (Gal. 1:15–20, NJB.)

Paul was bragging about the fact that his personal God, a character only he had contact with, was the source of his ideas. That may have impressed naïve people two thousand years ago, but it shouldn’t impress today’s rationalists who can read the accounts of hundreds of people who claim they’ve talked to God.

After having the Son of God revealed to him, Paul more or less snubbed Yeshua’s family and supporters by shooting off to Arabia for three years. If he’d suddenly “seen the light” and become a believer in Yeshua, surely he would have jolted to Jerusalem to meet James, the son of God’s half brother, and Peter and Mary. Surely he would’ve been anxious to meet the other Mary, Yeshua’s mum, the mother of God! Apparently not! Something more important enticed him to Arabia.
Three years later, he visited Jerusalem again, but still didn’t meet Yeshua’s family or disciples, except for James and Peter.

What you did here is simply dump a verse that half way supports your commentary, and just start spouting off whatever it is you 'think.'

This is the perfect example, and sums up the body of your 'work.' what you have left me above, is proof positive that you are completely ignorant of not only what the bible says but you are guilty of ignoring what you do not want to hear.

In the example above you go one and on for a few sentences about how Jesus did not see James, when in fact in verse 19 Paul clears says he did.

(Pay attention to how I pair my statement/Claim with a proper Primary source so that the opposition can not refute my rebuke) t
19 But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?sea...rsion=NKJV

This is how you properly quote something, to support what you have said.. When you 'quoted' Gal 1:15-20 you paired your own personal commentary, with an actual a source. The two do not agree with each other. This is a 'reference dump.' A reference dump is based on a 'proof by verbosity' arguement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_verbosity
I can see it was your hope by just dumping a bunch of empty sources it would silence me... If that was your intent know it is about to go very bad for you.

Quote:The Gospel stories are sadly short of genuine historical facts about Jesus. Things could’ve been different. Paul, who was educated and literate, could’ve saved much of the painstaking guesswork of historians over the last three hundred years ( Jesus’ historicity has only been seriously studied in this time) by jotting down some facts as related by his family and disciples. Paul should have outshone the Gospels and made them redundant. He didn’t. He only wrote about things he thought were important: his own Christ, and his own ethics. I suspect this wasn’t a deliberate omission on Paul’s part; he was obviously totally unaware that people in the future might be interested in Jesus. Interestingly, the author of the epistle of James, who may have been Jesus’ brother, also neglected to document a single fact about Jesus. Neither Paul or James knew Jesus was going to become a hero-figure…because the gospels hadn’t been written yet.

Again empty commentary without source or reference. I am assuming it was your intention to pair this commentary with the source you mention in Gal, 1 and was hoping to build off of that. The problem there is two fold. One, your initial commentary did not match with the conclusions of the source material, and this sumation clearly does not support anything you have made claim to. So all of this can be dismissed with a "Shoo fly.'
Smartass


Quote:“It was not until fourteen years had passed that I went up to Jerusalem again. I went with Barnabas and took Titus with me. I went there as a result of a revelation, and privately I laid before the leading men the Good News as I proclaim it among the pagans; I did so for fear the course I was adopting or had already adopted would not be allowed. And what happened? Even though Titus who had come with me is a Greek, he was not obliged to be circumcised. The question came up only because some who do not really belong to the brotherhood have furtively crept in to spy on the liberty we enjoy in Jesus Christ, and want to reduce us all to slavery. I was so determined to safeguard for you the true meaning of the Good News, that I refused even out of deference to yield to such people for one moment. As a result, these people who are acknowledged leaders—not that their importance matters much to me, since God has no favorites—these leaders, as I say, had nothing to add to the Good News as I preach it. On the contrary, they recognized I had been commissioned to preach the Good News to the uncircumcised just as Peter had been commissioned to preach it to the circumcised. The same person whose action had made Peter the apostle of the circumcised had given me a similar mission to the pagans. So James, Cephas and John, these leaders, these pillars, shook hands with Barnabas and me as a sign of partnership: we were to go to the pagans and they to the circumcised. The only thing they insisted on was that we should remember to help the poor, as indeed I was anxious to do. When Cephas came to Antioch, however, I opposed him to his face, since he was manifestly in the wrong. His custom had been to eat with the pagans, but after certain friends of James arrived he stopped doing this and kept away from them altogether for fear of the group that insisted on circumcision. The other Jews joined him in this pretence, and even Barnabas felt himself obliged to copy their behavior. When I saw they were not respecting the true meaning of the Good News, I said to Cephas in front of everyone, ‘In spite of being a Jew, you live like the pagans and not like the Jews, so you have no right to make the pagans copy Jewish ways.’” (Gal. 2:1–15 JB.)

Quote:Each sentence reveals a facet of a very strained relationship. Paul was clearly intimidated by James,’ John’s and Peter’s authority. He referred to them as “Pillars,” and “leading men,” and was well aware they mightn’t accept his proclamation of “Good News” as preached to gentiles:
“I laid before the leading men the Good News as I proclaim it among the pagans; I did so for fear the course I was adopting or had already adopted would not be allowed.”
What’s more, he barely concealed the fact he begrudged their authority:
“Not that their importance matters much to me.” Can anyone imagine him writing that about someone (James) he thought was the half brother of the son of God! He quite clearly regarded them as competition:
“I was so determined to safeguard for you the true meaning of the Good News, that I refused even out of deference to yield to such people for one moment.”
Paul mistrusted them. They didn’t
“belong to the brotherhood.” He accused them of spying on
“the liberty we enjoy in Christ Jesus.” He said they had
“nothing to add to the Good News I preach.” He believed they
“want to reduce us all to slavery.” He thought that the
“good news” he, and only he, preached, entitled people to be part of his brotherhood. He thought he was freeing people from the
“slavery” of the Judaic Law.
Then, he and Peter, allegedly stalwarts of the fledgling Christian movement (who the Vatican claim founded a Christian church in Rome together,) bickered with each other. Paul claimed (probably quite correctly) that Peter didn’t respect his
“good news.” He claimed he publically challenged Peter directly by accusing him of hypocrisy.

What an intriguing snippet of scripture! Paul, the first founder of Christianity, was personally and philosophically at odds with Jesus’ brother and disciples!
Which further proves what I said in the beginning, that Their is not one way to worship under Christianity.

Quote:He was angry and frustrated that they’d been undermining him, and he didn’t hold back his vindictive retort. Why the churlish, hostile attitude?
He explains the the orginal 11 were needlessly binding themselves to the Law by making new converts go through the steps of Judaism first then convert to Christianity. Even though they themselves had witnessed a sucessful conversion without having to first go through said conversion (will quote the scripture later on in my response.)

Quote: Weren’t they all preaching the same message?
No, The orginal disciples were interested in first honoring thier Jewish Heritage and then allowing one to convert to Christianity, while Paul preached a message of freedom from the law/Judaism.

Quote:The reason for his antagonism becomes clear when we gain a deeper understanding of Paul’s plan.
Paul the Salesman
I think Paul was a salesman with an ambitious agenda.

Not true Paul was a Pharisee. Some even speculate that he was also a weaver/net/tent maker after He left the temple..

Quote:He hoped to sell his interpretation of Judaism to the Roman world.
As a trained Prarisee He would have been able to do this if this was His goal, but as you pointed out in Galations Paul was seperating Himself from Judaism.

Quote:I think he had a plan to undermine those dangerous messianic Nazarene beliefs that roused rebellion against Roman rule.
Then why did he preach those beliefs and made them accessiable to the Romans? It was the orginal 11 who preached of a salvation that excluded all non jewish people. That anyone who wanted salvation would have to be first become a Jew then a Christian. When Paul was able to preach a doctrine that had anyone (Jew or Gentile) come to God just as they were.

Quote:He wrote to various groups scattered throughout the Empire, and desperately insisted they believe only his theology.
Absolutly not true. For the Jew He acted like and held fast to Jewish tradition to help them understand and ease into freedom from the Law as a means to righteousness, but for the gentile He acted as if He were free from the law so that He could bring salvation to them.

1Cor 9:19 For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; 20 and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law,[c] that I might win those who are under the law; 21 to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God,[d] but under law toward Christ[e]), that I might win those who are without law; 22 to the weak I became as[f] weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. 23 Now this I do for the gospel’s sake, that I may be partaker of it with you.


Quote:He was so obsessed with snaring converts that little else in his life mattered. In Romans 15:16, he wrote that Gentiles were an offering he would bring to God.
“That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost.”
Laugh out load
14 Now I myself am confident concerning you, my brethren, that you also are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, able also to admonish one another.[g] 15 Nevertheless, brethren, I have written more boldly to you on some points, as reminding you, because of the grace given to me by God, 16 that I might be a minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering of the Gentiles might be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit. 17 Therefore I have reason to glory in Christ Jesus in the things which pertain to God. 18 For I will not dare to speak of any of those things which Christ has not accomplished through me, in word and deed, to make the Gentiles obedient— 19 in mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God, so that from Jerusalem and round about to Illyricum I have fully preached the gospel of Christ. 20 And so I have made it my aim to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build on another man’s foundation, 21 but as it is written:

“To whom He was not announced, they shall see;
And those who have not heard shall understand.”[h]

You know when you read only the snipit you isolated from the actual context you have a valid point. But, when one looks at the whole context of that passage it shows that at best your being intentionally deceptive.

Quote:Most of the people he wrote to were Gentiles (pagans) associated with Jewish synagogues, (“God-fearing Gentiles,”) although he wrote to some Jews in the diaspora too. From Paul’s perspective, his patrons were in desperate need of direction and an authoritative, charismatic leader to look up to. He considered himself just the man. He knew how to win the hearts, minds, and souls of people, as he imagined himself as one of the few god fearers (i.e. Jews) who understood Gentile cultures.
So?

Quote:Paul’s theology probably had a long and carefully thought out gestation. He knew In order to appeal to his customers. he needed a product very different to traditional Judaism, because Judaism required obedience to cumbersome dictates. The Jews believed one had to be circumcised, a painful and embarrassing procedure, not easy to sell to an adult man. They worshipped Yahweh, who is portrayed in Jewish scripture as a thunderous and violent pro-Jewish anti-gentile God. They could only eat kosher food, marry only fellow Jews, and had to stop work on the Sabbath. Jewish heritage and history were regarded as superior, and all Jews were expected to take part in the fasts and feasts celebrating the ancient epic of Israel. Many Jews thought they were one day going to be the masters of the world. Their messianic dreams were an obstacle to the peace Rome imposed on the people of the empire. Paul knew that gentiles found all this inconvenient, irksome and out of touch with reality, so he labeled these Jewish rules and beliefs as a type of “slavery.” He had to jettison the old rules, so he did, by reinventing Judaism so that it was more to the gentile world’s liking.
Again, your commentary/thoughts are not consistant with what Paul taught or preached. In addition to 1cor 9 where Paul tells us to the Jew he acted and work with them under the law (which is in direct contradiction to what you have claimed) Paul also talks about "eating Meat offered to idols."
In romans 14:14-20
Also note the Larger message of Romans 14 is to not allow one's freedoms in Christ obstruct the faith of a weaker brother who need bind himself to the Law.
Followed by 1 cor 8 (the whole chapter) and 1 cor 10:23-33

It seems like EVERYTHING you know and have said about Paul is completely untrue to this point... Almost like you've ONLY read a few websites who's views were slanted against paul, and you've just piled on your own empty thoughts... Otherwise you would have seen at least one or two of the passages I have pointed out that disproves your personal version of the anti Paul/God commentary you have been spouting thus far. So tell me again of that decade long study you immersed yourself with on this subject..Rolleyes

Quote:According to Paul, there was now no need for circumcision or to stop work on the Sabbath. The dietary kosher rules were out; bacon was back on the breakfast menu.
Either your a practice fool who pretends to be something he is not or your a liar.
Paul was not the one who did any of these things. It was Peter
The lift of Dietary restrictions:http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+10&version=NKJV start at verse 9.

The lift of the bann of circumcision was also first instituted by peter in Chapter 10 as well:44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word. 45 And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. 46 For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God.

Then Peter answered, 47 “Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then they asked him to stay a few days.
The Jewish converts believed all who were saved through Christ must first be a Jew. (That it what it identifies them as those of the circumcision)

Then as peter preached they were endowed by the Holy Spirit. It was because the Same Holy Spirit indewelled the Apstoles indewelled the GENTILES Peter declared them saved, and had them baptized in the Church.

The change of the Sabbath to the first day of the week was spear headed by Peter as he taught the first church service on sunday. Here are the other reason we worship on sunday as well:
Jesus rose on the first day of the week not the Sabbath: Mk 16:9
All 6 appearances of Jesus happen on two Sundays, none on Sabbath. Mk 16:9; Mt 28:5-9; Lk 24:34; Lk 24:13-15; Lk 24:33,36 + Jn 20:19; Jn 20:26
Christians are recorded assembling three times on Sunday after resurrection and before ascension, never on the Sabbath. Jn 20:19 Jn 20:26 Acts 2:1 (We do not claim that these were worship services, just the early starting point of Sunday gatherings)
The only time Christians are recorded to have assembled together was on a Sunday in Acts 20:7, never does it say the disciples assembled on the Sabbath.
The only day ever mentioned when Christians broke bread was on Sunday: Acts 20:7
Christians are commanded every Sunday to give into a common treasury of the church: 1 Cor 16:1-2
Jesus was declared the Son of God on Sunday: Rom 1:4
Ps 2:7 "Today I have begotten thee" was fulfilled on Sunday when he rose: Acts 13:33
The sign that Jesus was glorified was given on Sunday: Jn 7:39 + Acts 2:1,32
The church officially began on Pentecost Sunday: Acts 2:1
Jesus was crowned king on a Sunday: Acts 2:33-36
The disciples reception of the promise of the Father on Sunday: Acts 1:4-5; 2:1-4
The Holy Spirit first fell upon the apostles on a Sunday: Acts 2:1-4
Salvation first preached by Peter on Sunday: Mt 16:19; Acts 2:1,38,40-41
The Keys to the Kingdom of God were first used on Sunday: Mt 16:19
The great "Triumphal entry" (also called "Palm Sunday") happened on the first day: Luke 13:32
The time between the Lord's resurrection (sheaf waving day) and Pentecost was Sunday to Sunday counting of 50 days. The starting and stopping time was on the 1st day.
First time Jesus worshiped after resurrection was on the first day by Thomas (Jn. 20:26).
The first time we could be born again to a living hope was on a Sunday: 1 Pet. 1:3
The first time Jesus had communion after his resurrection with His disciples, was on a Sunday: (Lk. 24:1, 13, 28-35)
Pentecost was a Sunday - Sunday duration of 50 days. The starting point and stopping point of counting the 50 days was a Sunday - Sunday period!
http://www.bible.ca/7-sunday-significanc...stians.htm


Quote:He downplayed the importance of the Jewish Temple, and replaced the Jews’ hope for a political messiah of their own with Christ, the spiritual savior of all mankind. The “kingdom of God,” according to Paul, became a place in heaven, not in Israel. He declared Yahweh was such a decent deity he’d sent his own precious son, the Christ, to earth. He alleged gentiles were descendants of Abraham too, and that the centuries-old Jewish Law was a “curse.” All that was now required was faith in his claims about Christ. Voilà! The Christ myth and Christian theology were born.
Again empty commentary with out proper documentation.

Quote:Paul was one of history’s first examples of an ambitious cult leader who, when the rules of the established religion were no longer convenient, simply invented new ones to suit himself. He replaced the so-called “old covenant” of the Jews with his entirely fabricated “new covenant.” He was trying to reinvent Judaism and I think doing his best to dampen down Jewish messianic dreams. He was bending over backwards to infiltrate Judaism with Gentiles and Gentile ideas. He had no idea he was creating an almost entirely new religion, yet that’s precisely what his writings helped do many years later.
Flat out not true. Christ introduced the "New Covenant" himself in the Last supper when He directed the disciples to drink the wine which repersented His blood and eat of the Bread that was to repersent His broken body.

Again How do you not know this stuff? Or is it your hope by the simple verbosity of your reply i would not read your misrepersentation of Scripture/Christianity?

Again Everything to this point has been across the board flat out untrue. It seems you have little to NO Understanding of biblical Christianity.

Quote:To help realize this remodeling of belief, he undermined Yeshua’s family and disciples behind their backs. He was surprised and angry to find himself competing with them for people’s allegiance. They were treading on what he considered his turf. How dare they preach old-fashioned Jewish theology and disrupt his mission to set up communities of believers! Those annoying war-mongering Jews were full of subversive fantasies about a messiah, but God had revealed to him the real Christ, the up-to-date modern Christ! He, not them, was plugging the “good news.” He knew what the newly flexible, expansionist, less violent, less Judaic God expected in these modern, pro-Roman times. He was an educated, savvy, Greek-speaking sophisticate who knew a stack more about selling religion to the subjects of the Empire than the anti-Roman bumpkins from the backwater of Galilee!

This opinionated, manipulative, over imaginative weazel of a man was the true founder of Christian theology....a religion that has poisoned man's thinking for nearly 2000 years now.
Without source material your commentary can be dismissed as wishful thinking.. Shoo fly..

Quote:References;
Cupitt, D. 1979 “The Debate About Christ”. SCM Press Limited. London
Murphy-O’Connor, J. 1996 “Paul A Critical Life”. Oxford University Press. Oxford.
Schonfield, H. 1977 “The Passover Plot”. Futura Publications. London
Schonfield, H. 1969 “Those Incredible Christians”. Bantam. New York.
Stourton, E. 1994 “Paul Of Tarsus”. Hodder and Stoughton. London.
Tabor, J. 2006 “The Jesus Dynasty”. Harper Collins. London.
Cresswell, Peter 2010 “Jesus the Terrorist” O books, Winchester, UK.
http://www.philipharland.com/Blog/2009/0...ollection/
http://www.philipharland.com/Blog/2007/1...ssalonica/
http://www.sullivan-county.com/id2/paul_problem.htm
http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/paul/paul.htm
http://armageddonconspiracy.co.uk/The-Mi...53794).htm
http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/supp06.htm
http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/supp08.htm
http://paulproblem.faithweb.com/paul_odd...acts15.htm
http://books.google.com/books?id=3VFnsDu...&q&f=false
http://feeds.feedburner.com/feedburner/APRP
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-h5L1Js9e...re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmmcyX4HHfc
http://www.askwhy.co.uk/christianity/064...nFraud.php
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFXVR8W5N...re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPhKmRmCSoE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlYL9C24rHI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8HFMoyl6SY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_Vg9HNlRLM
http://askwhy.co.uk/christianity/0580Paul.php
http://www.askwhy.co.uk/questioningbelie...essiah.php
http://askwhy.co.uk/christianity/0589PaulJudaizers.php
All of this is at BEST is tertiary source material, that MAY only loosly reference secondary source material. The VAST Majority of it is empty conjecture and pointless commentary based on personal 'feeling' and general hatred of christianity..

That like quoting a Nazi propagandist about Jewish culture and history as a legitmate source material.. You can't be seriously present this hot mess as anything other than a joke right? Or do you really not know any better?Drinking Beverage

You write
"Either your a practice fool who pretends to be something he is not or your a liar.
Paul was not the one who did any of these things. It was Peter" ( I think you must mean "you're"....your editor must be dyslexic too!)

HOLD IT RIGHT THERE!!!!
We have not one authentic word written by Peter the disciple of Jesus. As mentioned, the only primary sources we have from this time on the topic are the writings of Paul. You go on in some depth quoting the gospels and the book of Acts in an attempt to justify your beliefs about Peter. Stop for a moment and think about the historical reality.

Peter, if he ever even existed, was a peasant Galilean fisherman. He spoke Aramaic. He couldn't read or write. He was bought up as a Jew. He would've hated the Romans. If there's any truth to the Garden of Gethsemane story he cut off someone's ear when a cohort of soldiers came to arrest Jesus. His main man, jesus, was knocked off by the Romans for being a political insurgent. Peter was left behind in Jerusalem under the leadership of Jesus' brother, James, who was a fundamentalist Jew (just like his brother.) We know from Paul's writings that he argued with Paul. Despite what the Vatican claims there is absolutely no contemporary evidence that he ever went to Rome. So Peter was a peasant fundamentalist Jew, just like Jesus. and not a Christian.

The first gospel, Mark's, was probably written at the earliest in the 70s, and Peter was probably dead by then. This Gospel was interpolated for many centuries afterwards. There is no valid connection between the Gospel of Mark and the Nazarene community. The other gospels added their own floss to the story of Mark. My point is that the gospels are unreliable as history. You can quote them as much as you like and pretend to yourself that it's all true but that doesn't make it so. I don't believe anything the gospels say about Peter.

The book of Acts is even worse. It's an early second century invention, also with an unknown author, and one who had no known connection with the genuine Nazarene community. The book of Acts was written primarily as propaganda to create some sort of connection between the Jewish Nazarenes and Paul's prattle. For example, the author of Acts wrote that Peter
“fell into a trance and saw heaven opened and an object like a great sheet bound at the four corners descending to him and let down to the earth. In it were all kinds of four-footed animals of the earth, wild beasts, creeping things and birds of the air. And a voice came to him: ’Now Peter; kill and eat!’ but Peter answered, ‘Certainly not, Lord; I have never yet eaten anything profane or unclean.’ Again a second time, the voice spoke to him: ‘What God has made clean, you have no right to call profane.’ This was repeated three times and then suddenly the container was drawn up into heaven again” (Acts 10:11–16, NJB.) The only person who could have told anyone about these visions was Peter himself, and he would hardly have admitted he questioned Yahweh! This was a bumbling attempt to portray that Yahweh told Peter, a Jew, how to be a good Christian by giving up his kosher diet. The obstinate Peter needed to be told three times, by God! Those damn Jews, even those who’d (allegedly) become Christians, were sticklers for tradition!

I don't believe anything that Acts claims about Peter is history.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-03-2014, 11:44 PM
RE: Christians must follow the old testament.
Drich, you write
"Christ introduced the "New Covenant" himself in the Last supper when He directed the disciples to drink the wine which repersented His blood and eat of the Bread that was to repersent His broken body."

Oh come on, please get real and grow up!

The Last Supper

Paul had almost nothing to say about Jesus the person. There is, however, one notable exception, (although it may be an interpolation) when in the first letter to the Corinthians, the author claimed he knew what Jesus said on the night he was betrayed. He had just finished lecturing women on what they should wear and what to do with their hair, when he turned to instructing the community on when to eat and drink. He used a story about Jesus at the Last Supper, and even claimed to quote him, in an attempt to get the Corinthians to eat their meals together.
“For this is what I received from the Lord, and in turn passed on to you: that on the same night he was betrayed, the Lord Jesus took some bread, and thanked God for it and broke it, and he said, ‘This is my body, which is for you; do this as a memorial of me.’ In the same way he took the cup after supper, and said, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Whenever you drink it, do this as a memorial of me.’ Until the Lord comes, therefore, every time you eat this bread and drink this cup, you are proclaiming his death, and so anyone who eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will be behaving unworthily toward the body and blood of the Lord.
Everyone is to recollect himself before eating this bread and drinking this cup; because a person who eats and drinks without recognizing the Body is eating and drinking his own condemnation. In fact that is why many of you are weak and ill and some of you have died. If only we recollected ourselves, we should not be punished like that. But when the Lord does punish us like that, it is to correct us and stop us from being condemned with the world. So to sum up, my dear brothers, when you meet for the Meal, wait for one another” (1 Cor. 11:23–34, NJB.)

If Paul actually wrote this, he was attempting to change some of the social habits of the community, perhaps to foster unity between different classes of people who finished work at different times, and invented a weak story about the Lord to do it. What’s surprising is that he acknowledged that a flesh-and-blood person ate and drank with others; nowhere else do any of the genuine Pauline letters discuss what Jesus supposedly said, which is why I suspect this passage was an interpolation.
There are three compelling reasons why this story isn’t historical.

No sane person would predict his own impending death as part of a covenant with his god/dad. Yeshua would have had no intention of dying, and most definitely not as a sacrifice to save sinners.

He was Jewish, as were his disciples, and they obeyed the Torah. To them, eating human flesh or drinking blood, even in a symbolic sense, would have broken the strict kosher dietary rules. Even today Jews still insist on draining blood from slaughtered animals, as written in scriptures, (Lev. 7:26–27, 17:10–14) and will only eat the meat from animals that chew cud and have cloven hooves (Lev. 11:3, Deut. 14:6.) Yeshua would’ve been repulsed by the thought of anyone drinking his blood or eating his body.

This Last Supper scene wasn’t something new. It was borrowed from Mithraism, a religion that had existed for two thousand years before Jesus, and with which Paul was familiar. Mithraic initiates believed that by eating a bull's flesh and drinking its blood they would be born again. (http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False Religions/Roman Catholicism/rcc14-transubstantiation.htm). This was supposed to give physical strength, and bring salvation to the soul. Yeshua wouldn’t have copied these concepts from a competing cult. Paul, or one of his interpolators, made this up to mimic a popular pagan practice.

The synoptic Gospels have similar verses, and their inspiration was probably Paul’s letter.

The reenactment of this scenario is part of some modern Masses in which bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ, yet it has no truthful basis.
Christianity blends guilt, dependence and ceremony. The ritual that Paul discusses here brings people together to do something. Communion commemorates the sacrifice of a man dying because you’re a sinner. By participating in the event, people are repeatedly reminded they’re flawed and need Christ and the church to be redeemed. That promotes power; and priests know it.
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTTwSJK_XMI).
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-03-2014, 12:11 AM (This post was last modified: 21-03-2014 12:15 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Christians must follow the old testament.
You write

"Again How do you not know this stuff? Or is it your hope by the simple verbosity of your reply i would not read your misrepersentation of Scripture/Christianity?"

I know what I know because I've spent many years researching the topic. I don't think you really know what that means. It means I've gone to the effort of actually educating myself about the real history of the times. And I've done it to help out poor brainless sods like yourself. I've done it because the truth is pure and real and sets people free.

I strongly suspect all you have done is read the goddamn Bible and numerous interpretations of it, simply accepting everything written there as truth. You have no nuanced, informed understanding of how the Bible came to be.

You also have your head in the clouds. Do you really think Jesus sacrificed himself to himself to save (get into heaven) a bunch of Gentile sinners who happen to "believe in him?" Get real! Stop thinking mythical nonsense! Anyone, such as Jesus, who could believe this contrived mumbo-jumbo would be psychiatrically unwell, both now and 2000 years ago.

Come back down to planet Earth. Your religion is an embarrassment to common sense. It may have fooled a whole lot of uneducated people in the Roman Empire, but it just doesn't cut the mustard today.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Mark Fulton's post
21-03-2014, 03:25 AM
RE: Christians must follow the old testament.
get'em, Mark!

Atheism is the only way to truly be free from sin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-03-2014, 06:02 AM
RE: Christians must follow the old testament.
(21-03-2014 03:25 AM)Colourcraze Wrote:  get'em, Mark!

Hey thanks.

I'm well aware my posts are long and involved.....but here's the thing....they unravel the guts of Christianity....and expose it as fabricated nonsense, so I think they're pretty important. Thanks for reading them.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: