Paul The First Heretic

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Akragon

 

Paul taught heresies in his epistles? Interesting...

What do you think about Peter? Do you think Peter knew false doctrine from true doctrine? Yes or no?

Again...and for the last time this isn't about me or my beliefs...

Gesus does anyone read...

:bnghd:

reply to post by Akragon


Yes, I read. Can I not ask you what your opinion is on the apostle Peter?

Do you think Peter knew Christ's teachings, parables, et cetra? Do you think Peter knew false doctrine from true doctrine concerning Christ?

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Yes of course...i'll actually have to get back to you on that one...

If the bible says he spoke of Christ and understood his teachings why would i argue?

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Yes of course...i'll actually have to get back to you on that one...

If the bible says he spoke of Christ and understood his teachings why would i argue?

Well, the reason I asked is because if anyone on Earth would know false doctrine and the true teachings of Christ it would be the apostle Peter.

Would you agree with that conjecture?

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Yes of course...i'll actually have to get back to you on that one...

If the bible says he spoke of Christ and understood his teachings why would i argue?

Well, the reason I asked is because if anyone on Earth would know false doctrine and the true teachings of Christ it would be the apostle Peter.

Would you agree with that conjecture?

edit on 3-4-2011 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)

If the bible said that i would agree, but im finding passages that don't agree as i read... for instance.

15He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

16And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

17And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

19And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

20Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.

21From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.

22Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.

23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

24Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.

25For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.

26For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?

One minute he calls him the rock, the next Peter is questioning the one man that did not sin... mind you im not saying that He's satan of course not... but he's leaning towards the physical and not the spiritual.

And this...

12Then came his disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended, after they heard this saying?

13But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up.

14Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.

15Then answered Peter and said unto him, Declare unto us this parable.

16And Jesus said, Are ye also yet without understanding?

17Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?

18But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.

19For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:

20These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.

And earlier in the chapter they misunderstand him and even jesus is like...whats up guys why don't you clue in?

5And when his disciples were come to the other side, they had forgotten to take bread.

6Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.

7And they reasoned among themselves, saying, It is because we have taken no bread.

8Which when Jesus perceived, he said unto them, O ye of little faith, why reason ye among yourselves, because ye have brought no bread?

9Do ye not yet understand, neither remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets ye took up?

10Neither the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many baskets ye took up?

11How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees?

12Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.

interesting....

Well, the reason I asked you is because after Paul's martyrdom, and while in prison just prior to his execution for the gospel of Jesus Christ Peter wrote the book of 2 Peter with his own hands and not by the pen of his amanuensis Silvanus: In 2 Peter he speaks of Paul, all his letters to the churches, and the doctrine Paul taught others. Here it is:

15 "And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction." ~ 2 Peter 3:15-16

Peter affirms several things:

1. Paul was viewed by him and the apostles as a "beloved brother" in Jesus Christ.
2. Paul was given the same wisdom as himself and the other apostles.
3. Paul was speaking truth "in all his epistles".
4. Peter claims Paul's epistles are "scripture" on par with the other scriptures.


If anyone on the face of the Earth would know about false teachers and doctrines it would be Peter, the book of 2 Peter was his final letter, a pastoral one that specifically dealt with false doctrine and false teachers.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

1. Paul was viewed by him and the apostles as a "beloved brother" in Jesus Christ.
2. Paul was given the same wisdom as himself and the other apostles.
3. Paul was speaking truth "in all his epistles".
4. Peter claims Paul's epistles are "scripture" on par with the other scriptures.

Well for one everyone is a beloved brother to Jesus... secondly im not sure if they understood the wisdom they were given and i've given references to only a few examples. Im not sure if that #4 you wrote is technically right... It seemed to be saying to me that what he taught was hard for people to understand because they considererd other scriptures valid he didn't....to their own destruction. Im sure there were other "holy texts" around back then other then what you'll find in the bible...who knows

I'd also consider church and state were one and the same back then so... who ever didn't follow what the church said would have probably been charged and killed.... even as paul was

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Paul also opposed peter in Galatians 2...

11But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

12For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.

13And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.

14But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

He seems to be showing a bit of prejudice here wouldn't you say?

Not to mention the idea spreading amongst his peers, even barnabas followed...

One focus of Peter's attention in 2 Peter is the return of the Lord, particularly in chapters 2 and 3 in which Peter deals with false teachers who deny the reality of the second coming of Jesus Christ. False teachers scoff at the concept that Christ will come again and that He will deal in judgment. False teachers often teach that since God is a God of love, the focus of teaching should be on what God wants to do in peoples' lives today rather than on what the Bible says about the future and scaring people by teaching about sin and judgment and hell.

The real motivation of false teachers in not wanting to confront the reality of the second coming of Christ, however, is that they want to avoid and deny the concept of judgment. They don't want to face the reality that there is coming a day when every single person will stand before the judgment throne of Jesus Christ Himself. By denying the reality of the second coming of Christ, they negate the concept of judgment which is associated with the second coming. In doing away with the concept of judgment and the consequences of sin, there is no longer a fear of indulging in sin, and people are free to turn their attention from the future to the present and to turn their attention from God to themselves. They are free to concentrate on self-indulgent thoughts such as: "What would I want; what would I enjoy; what would please me; what would make my life most meaningful today and how do I get the pleasure of the moment." False teachers indulge themselves and encourage others to follow their example.

Be Diligent in Faith and Truth

Originally posted by Akragon
Do you know which parts of the bible Paul supposedly wrote? Or dictated...

I don't worry so much about who wrote what, because I take a holistic view of the Bible. My concerns arise where contradictions exist, and there is none between Jesus and Paul, apart from to whom they are speaking, and if one accepts that Jesus converted Saul on the road to Damascus and then reviews Christ's words in the Gospels, the Gentile piece emerges. But without Paul, it does not.

Why is there no point? It was an artical i read, i was interested in others opinions on it... i don't see the problem my friend. And i take no offence to what is said about it... I do when people attack me for no reason though...

I didn't even comment on the artical... Perhaps everyone should stop jumping down my throat and read what i said... Do i really need a disclaimer in stars and brackets? Perhaps a cascading warning?

Posting an article that claims that Paul was a heretic is inflammatory, so either you are posting it to "stir up the Christians", or because you're confused by it and are looking for clarification. I gave you that clarification, showing that, if Paul is a heretic, then Christ is purposeless, and you got all defensive about it.

Again, posting someone else's work, without your own comments on it, is not encouraged on ATS -- read the guidelines when you go to post something in the "Breaking Alternative News" forum. The reason is that we want to stir debate (and we can't debate an author who is not here,) not anger other ATS members and start a flame war.

At any rate, Paul, by definition, cannot be a heretic, because a heretic is one who promotes false teachings, and as the Christian church has adopted Paul's teachings since he made them, it cannot be heresy. Ironically enough, claiming Paul to be a heretic is, by definition, heresy.

One minute he calls him the rock, the next Peter is questioning the one man that did not sin... mind you im not saying that He's satan of course not... but he's leaning towards the physical and not the spiritual.

I posted this elsewhere, but if you examine Jesus' ministry, it begins by him being tempted in the wilderness by Satan for 40 days. The temptation was to give up his mission and settle on worldly things. Jesus fights off the temptation and sends Satan packing.

So, what happens in the passage you're citing? Peter is not expecting (or wanting) a suffering Messiah, he wants the King who is going to ride into Jerusalem, kick out the Romans and reestablish the Judaic kingdom. He wants Jesus to give up his mission and settle on worldly things.

Get it?

Peter did eventually come around to what Jesus was on about (see the first half of the Acts of the Apostles) but, for a moment there, he was doing exactly what Christ had fought against in the wilderness.

Paul also opposed peter in Galatians 2...

I'm guessing that you're not aware of the controversy. The early church was all Jewish, and once the Gentiles started coming in, the question arose as to whether they needed to become Jewish (circumcision, adherence to the Law, etc) in order to be Christian. For a while, the answer was "yes".

Paul argued (quite well, if you take the time to read it) the point that I have made -- in Christ there is no Jew / non-Jew, and if you can be saved by circumcision and the Law, then what was the point of Jesus? It is a compelling argument, rooted in Judaic scripture and impeccable logic, that convinced the early church leaders (including Peter) that this was the case.

However, the Jewish part of the Christian church continued to live under the Law and, because of parts of it, they avoided the Gentiles who did not -- they would not, for example, eat with them. Peter bowed to peer pressure from other Jews and also did this, hence the comments by Paul. He was fairly radical about it, to the point of saying that if you did try to live under the Law (with the belief that it would save you, not just because you thought it was a good idea) that you were rejecting Christ and, again, it's not an easy argument to disprove.

reply to post by adjensen


You wrote:

["....and if one accepts that Jesus converted Saul on the road to Damascus and then reviews Christ's words in the Gospels, the Gentile piece emerges. But without Paul, it does not."]

Well, that IF (...one accepts etc) is a moot-point. And it can be considered from a non-biblical perspective.

Quote: ["Posting an article that claims that Paul was a heretic is inflammatory, so either you are posting it to "stir up the Christians", or because you're confused by it and are looking for clarification."]

It could also just be a statement supporting an alternative understanding of the bible-Jesus-'god' constellation.

Quote: ["I gave you that clarification, showing that, if Paul is a heretic, then Christ is purposeless, and you got all defensive about it."]

Christ is not necessarily purposeless in alternative understandings, even if Paul is a 'heretic'.

Quote: ["Again, posting someone else's work, without your own comments on it, is not encouraged on ATS -- read the guidelines when you go to post something in the "Breaking Alternative News" forum."]

I'll agree with you on that one.

Quote: ["At any rate, Paul, by definition, cannot be a heretic, because a heretic is one who promotes false teachings, and as the Christian church has adopted Paul's teachings since he made them, it cannot be heresy. Ironically enough, claiming Paul to be a heretic is, by definition, heresy."]

This argument is based on authority.

Quote: ["I'm guessing that you're not aware of the controversy. The early church was all Jewish, and once the Gentiles started coming in, the question arose as to whether they needed to become Jewish (circumcision, adherence to the Law, etc) in order to be Christian. For a while, the answer was "yes".

Paul argued (quite well, if you take the time to read it) the point that I have made -- in Christ there is no Jew / non-Jew, and if you can be saved by circumcision and the Law, then what was the point of Jesus? It is a compelling argument, rooted in Judaic scripture and impeccable logic, that convinced the early church leaders (including Peter) that this was the case."]

There may be more options than these two for a holistic interpretation.

PS On an interested sidenote, relevant to this thread. Didn't you recently in one of your own authored threads write, that it's commonly considered amongst bible-scolars, that Peter II wasn't written by Peter himself?

Well, that source is pretty one sided, IMO.

Yes, absolutely: Paul taught salvation through grace. But his epistles go into more detail than that selective article. His epistles refer to turning away from sin, what is expected of Christ's followers, what sins are the 'biggies' we need to watch out for, etc.

There are 13 Pauline epistles so get busy.

Originally posted by bogomil
Quote: ["Posting an article that claims that Paul was a heretic is inflammatory, so either you are posting it to "stir up the Christians", or because you're confused by it and are looking for clarification."]

It could also just be a statement supporting an alternative understanding of the bible-Jesus-'god' constellation.

Except that it's not simply alternative -- it is an absolute refutation of Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Protestant theology and doctrine, so if one accepts that Christianity is what Christians make it, it cannot be viewed as a Christian perspective.

Christ is not necessarily purposeless in alternative understandings, even if Paul is a 'heretic'.

As regards salvation, yes he is, because if you can be saved by the Law, then what do you need Christ for?

Quote: ["At any rate, Paul, by definition, cannot be a heretic, because a heretic is one who promotes false teachings, and as the Christian church has adopted Paul's teachings since he made them, it cannot be heresy. Ironically enough, claiming Paul to be a heretic is, by definition, heresy."]

This argument is based on authority.

Well, of course it is. If heresy is defined as teaching which is contrary to church doctrine, then the authority for determining whether something is contrary or not is church doctrine. Since church doctrine is based on Paul, he cannot be viewed as a Christian heretic.

If one was to make the same argument, as a Gnostic, and say that Paul is a heretic by the Gnostic way of thinking, I'd agree with it. But that's not what is being pitched here.

There may be more options than these two for a holistic interpretation.

Well, I'm always open to hearing other perspectives.

PS On an interested sidenote, relevant to this thread. Didn't you recently in one of your own authored threads write, that it's commonly considered amongst bible-scolars, that Peter II wasn't written by Peter himself?

That is the book which is most often cited as being a potential forgery, though there are, as our friend NOTurTypical points out, reasonable explanations for the criticisms laid by modern scholars. Which is where I get back to my "I'm not quite so concerned about who wrote what, so much as what is being written."

Second Peter, however, presents a special case, because the nature of the text makes refutation of Peter's authorship of great importance for those who want to deny Christ's supernatural nature. Curiously, the works that tend that way (the Gospels, particularly John, the letters of Peter and James) are the ones that are most often attacked as to the authenticity of the authorship.

Colour me jaded, but I've developed a distrust of the "historical Jesus" movement, because I understand what they were really looking for, as well as modern scholars who find controversy in 2,000 year old texts, because their jobs often hinge on having to find new and unique things to say about books that have been scrutinized and analyzed by millions since they were first issued.

reply to post by adjensen

Posting an article that claims that Paul was a heretic is inflammatory, so either you are posting it to "stir up the Christians", or because you're confused by it and are looking for clarification. I gave you that clarification, showing that, if Paul is a heretic, then Christ is purposeless, and you got all defensive about it.

Why do you continously thinking im either getting upset or wondering why people don't believe me... as you said here?

rather than swearing and complaining that people don't agree with you.

Im not mad nor am i getting defensive, perhaps you're just used to people taking offence to your posts? Really man er lady whatever you are try to read my responces alright... don't make things up! I've clearly told you i could care less if people believe me, and this is the second time you've thrown this garbage at me and its completely fabricated nonsence....so just stop ok?

I've already told you why i posted this artical....i don't understand why you need me to clarify again and again
I don't get angry, though i do when someone attacks me for no reason like you already did. Im not looking for clarifcation nor am i confused in the least...im looking for opinions. I've actually been looking over the artical myself and noticing Paul did not say much of what the writer said. At least according to the KJV...

Maybe if you relax and let things progress you might find im not against you... clearly you're used to attacking those who disargee with you...typical chistian But i haven't disagreed with you yet aside from those quotes so Wtf is your deal? Again its a shame people don't know how to have a rational discussion on religious matters..... kinda sad really...but whatever.

Again, posting someone else's work, without your own comments on it, is not encouraged on ATS -- read the guidelines when you go to post something in the "Breaking Alternative News" forum. The reason is that we want to stir debate (and we can't debate an author who is not here,) not anger other ATS members and start a flame war.

wait didn't you just post an artical a few posts back with no comments...as a reply? OR wait that only counts when its a thread....ahhh i see the hypocrisy..

EDIT: Whup sorry that wasn't you it was NOTurTypical

You seem to think i care if people get angry... I guess you haven't noticed what kind of threads i ususally start...eh?

At any rate, Paul, by definition, cannot be a heretic, because a heretic is one who promotes false teachings, and as the Christian church has adopted Paul's teachings since he made them, it cannot be heresy. Ironically enough, claiming Paul to be a heretic is, by definition, heresy.

Great thats an opinion which is what im looking for... Im sure any church would consider me a heretic anyways... im good with that honestly... i consider all churches heretic so *shrug* Cest la vie

Peter did eventually come around to what Jesus was on about

Perhaps, if i find otherwise i'll let you know

I'm guessing that you're not aware of the controversy. The early church was all Jewish, and once the Gentiles started coming in, the question arose as to whether they needed to become Jewish (circumcision, adherence to the Law, etc) in order to be Christian. For a while, the answer was "yes".

Paul argued (quite well, if you take the time to read it) the point that I have made -- in Christ there is no Jew / non-Jew, and if you can be saved by circumcision and the Law, then what was the point of Jesus? It is a compelling argument, rooted in Judaic scripture and impeccable logic, that convinced the early church leaders (including Peter) that this was the case.

However, the Jewish part of the Christian church continued to live under the Law and, because of parts of it, they avoided the Gentiles who did not -- they would not, for example, eat with them. Peter bowed to peer pressure from other Jews and also did this, hence the comments by Paul. He was fairly radical about it, to the point of saying that if you did try to live under the Law (with the belief that it would save you, not just because you thought it was a good idea) that you were rejecting Christ and, again, it's not an easy argument to disprove.

Thank you for that information, i did already know that but again i love to hear others perspectives

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by adjensen

 

Posting an article that claims that Paul was a heretic is inflammatory, so either you are posting it to "stir up the Christians", or because you're confused by it and are looking for clarification. I gave you that clarification, showing that, if Paul is a heretic, then Christ is purposeless, and you got all defensive about it.

Why do you continously thinking im either getting upset or wondering why people don't believe me... as you said here?

I suppose because you write stuff like:

so Wtf is your deal?

That isn't really something that I would consider to be a polite comment.

Nevertheless, I will again point out that you asked what people thought, and I said that if you're not Jewish, circumcised and follow the Law, then if you think Paul is wrong, then Jesus is not for you. I never said you were Jewish or followed the Law, so your response of "I don't like being labelled" is fine, but irrelevant.

Again, posting someone else's work, without your own comments on it, is not encouraged on ATS -- read the guidelines when you go to post something in the "Breaking Alternative News" forum. The reason is that we want to stir debate (and we can't debate an author who is not here,) not anger other ATS members and start a flame war.

wait didn't you just post an articall a few posts back with no comments...as a reply? OR wait that only counts when its a thread....ahhh i see the hypocrisy..

You seem to think i care if people get angry...

I don't believe that I posted just an article with no comments as a reply, and I would welcome a link to such a post. I rarely even reference off site material unless it's relevant and, to the best of my knowledge, I always try to put it into a personal context.

Great thats an opinion which is what im looking for... Im sure any church would consider me a heretic anyways... im good with that honestly... i consider all churches heretic so *shrug* Cest la vie

That is the benefit of setting a standard -- you're perfectly within you rights to define what does and doesn't meet your standards. However, one needs to be abundantly clear what standard one is measuring -- which is why the original article is wrong in calling Paul a Christian heretic. Even if he's 100% off base and totally incorrect, because Christian theology is based on his teachings, he cannot be a heretic.

NOTurTypical can correct or back me up on this, because I think I've seen him note it as well, but if you are not a Christian, you cannot be considered a heretic, and you cannot commit heresy. Blasphemy, yes, and you can be called a pagan or a heathen or some other euphemism, but I think you're off the hook for heresy.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


I must ask is this your church? www.biblebb.com... ??

Interesting artical, unfortunatly i don't buy into the "You're going to hell if you don't believe us"...garbage. It makes no logical sence. Though if im not mistaken you also posted a reply in a different thread saying:

"Christs teachings will be taught to everyone world wide regardless of their beliefs" with a one line quote to back it up... to which i will say once again...Good luck with that.

There are people who do not read the bible. There are people that know nothing of religious matters. There are people who are not spiritual or religious at all, yet they're still good people. There are children who grow up to be very good people yet know nothing of christ. Yet in this artical you'll see this...

They were not delivering a popular message. Believers need to settle whether they really believe that Jesus Christ is coming again,. They have to decide whether they believe that women, men, young people -- even some of our own children -- are lost and on their way to hell...

Anyone claiming that those people are lost do not understand the message... Children going to hell?!? CHILDREN?.... The ones that do not judge anyone because they don't understand judgement... The innocent ones still new to this life....are going to hell...

Words from your savior about this issue...

1 At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?

2 And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them,

3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

4 Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

5 And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me.

6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

You don't think telling a child "if you don't believe what we do, you're going to hell" is an offence to them?

Instilling what will probably be a life long fear isn't an offence?

Can you see now what i say... I know truth my friend....the doctrine of hell isn't truth... its nothing but a fear tactic used to recruit followers.

Regardless of how true that artical might be... there is a hidden agenda. Its clear as day to some... i will never be blind to the truth regardless of where it comes from.

This Gil Rugh in your artical has his own agenda and those who follow him are subject to whatever that might be...

adjensen

Curiously, the works that tend that way (the Gospels, particularly John, the letters of Peter and James) are the ones that are most often attacked as to the authenticity of the authorship.

I don't think it's curious at all, adj. What lays them open for criticism is that they seem late. And the divinity cum humanity of Jesus, beyond a sense in which we humans are all arguably divine, may be a late idea, or at least late to overtake finally all competing christologies, which apparently were numerous early on among sincere believers.

In any event, it's enough of an innocent correspondence to render the coincidence unsuspect, in my view.

OP

Anyway, the subject article is pathetic. Knowledge of Reality magazine is hardly a scholarly journal, and this is an excerpt from a Jesus in India thing. Oh, yeah.

The "back up" for the Paul material is non-existent. 4Q266 is a piece of the so-called "Damascus Document," which was known before the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered. It is probably First Century BCE, not to be confused with the next century, when Paul and James were around. It is true that Eisenman and Wise discussed Acts in connection the Damascus Document and 4Q266, but not in the context of a refutation of Acts. If their book isn't on your shelf, then it's on scribd for free.

As to the other supports, my text of Acts 9 has neither "of Nazareth" nor "the Nazarene." That solves that problem. Jesus, the Son of Man is a novel by Kahlil Gibran.

gutenberg.net.au...

The other thing is an opinion piece, without historical foundation.

Zip for four, and at least one of them intentionally or negligently misrrepresented. No sale.

reply to post by adjensen

I suppose because you write stuff like:


so Wtf is your deal?


That isn't really something that I would consider to be a polite comment

heh, i never claimed to be perfect my friend... i use foul language, i drink, i smoke(unfortunatly) i enjoy women... I get frustrated at times when people say things about me that arn't true, for instance you saying im getting defensive when i was clearly not... or telling me i said something that i clearly didn't...

i only take offence when someone offends me.. ie. attacks me for no reason

Nevertheless, I will again point out that you asked what people thought, and I said that if you're not Jewish, circumcised and follow the Law, then if you think Paul is wrong, then Jesus is not for you. I never said you were Jewish or followed the Law, so your response of "I don't like being labelled" is fine, but irrelevant.

Was it not in that same reply i pointed out that Jesus didn't come to just israel, but to the world?

I don't believe that I posted just an article with no comments as a reply, and I would welcome a link to such a post. I rarely even reference off site material unless it's relevant and, to the best of my knowledge, I always try to put it into a personal context.

No it wasn't you, if you look back on that reply i edited it accordingly...

That is the benefit of setting a standard -- you're perfectly within you rights to define what does and doesn't meet your standards. However, one needs to be abundantly clear what standard one is measuring -- which is why the original article is wrong in calling Paul a Christian heretic. Even if he's 100% off base and totally incorrect, because Christian theology is based on his teachings, he cannot be a heretic.

As i've stated i've also looked through the artical and compared it to the KJV, it seems the writer has misquoted paul on several occasions... and as i've pointed out...If we let things progress naturally instead of attacking before reading, things get accomplished.

Isn't it better to prove this artical is wrong rather then bash it all to hell and ruin a good discussion? Again i realize some people don't know how to handle rational discussion but after you finished bashing on me...you're now doing great. Which i commend you for

NOTurTypical can correct or back me up on this, because I think I've seen him note it as well, but if you are not a Christian, you cannot be considered a heretic, and you cannot commit heresy. Blasphemy, yes, and you can be called a pagan or a heathen or some other euphemism, but I think you're off the hook for heresy.

See what happens when you just relax and let things progress... On that note i could care less what people think of me, and even less about what they call me.

But thank you i didn't know that

reply to post by eight bits


Perhaps you might have noticed i didn't comment on the artical, i take a neutral approach and let things develope as they will...

Thank you for your opinion by the way... i have two questions for you...

1. Do you not believe jesus traveled to india and many other places in his 17 year disapearance? I believe its very possible how about you?

2. Why do you think im trying to sell you something?

reply to post by Akragon

Great thats an opinion which is what im looking for... Im sure any church would consider me a heretic anyways... im good with that honestly... i consider all churches heretic so *shrug* Cest la vie

No friend, you're not a heretic. A heretic is someone who claims to be a believer yet teaches contrary to the gospel. You're simply an "unbeliever", and I don't mean that in a derogatory sense so please take no offense.

Also, I did post a snippet of an article, but the rule on not posting a part of an article without your own interpretation or commentary is for starting new threads.

P.S. No, that's not my church, I live in Indianapolis, Indiana. My church is this one.