Recommended Posts

Interesting that you brought up that scripture. Have you ever wondered why Saul/Paul would say that? let's look at the whole scripture you quoted:

11 I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. 12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

What did Jeshua say he would build his Church upon? The Roman Catholics would have you believe it was Simon/Peter, but was it? Yes Simon/Peter is said to be the first Pope, and that all Popes derive their authority by Apostolic succession. But what if Jeshua wasn't telling Simon/Peter that he would be the head of his Church. But rather, that Divine Revelation would but what his church would be built upon.

Matthew 16:17-19

New International Version (NIV)

17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter,[a] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[b] will not overcome it.19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[c] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[d] loosed in heaven.”

The word for Peter is petros and the word for rock is petra which is the feminine of petros which both mean rock. Jeshua was telling Simon that he had the rock that the Church would be built on. He had Divine Revelation (the rock) and on Divine Revelation(this rock) would the Church be built. There have been many who have changed the face of Christianity since it's early beginnings. These changes always come through Divine Revelation of God to anointed men of God. The Church matures through Divine Revelation. Names like John Wycliffe, John Calvin, Martin Luther, William Tyndale, Petr Chclcicky, even including 20th century ministers such as Martin Luther King, Billy Grahm and Oral Roberts come to mind. I would even go so far as to say there are ministers alive today that I feel will be responsible for changes that will further mature the church.

Saul/Paul was given Divine Revelation of his mission in the Church. The teachings of Jeshua fell out of favor among the Jewish followers for whatever reason. That's not mine to determine. Their covenant with YHVH is still in effect. Paul was to bring the gospel to the gentiles. He has been very successful in his mission. Why my ancestors accepted Christianity over the gods they formerly worshiped is also, not mine to determine. For me, I accept Christianity because I see that through faith in YHVH he exhibits his Grace to me. It saddens me that those who don't accept YHVH as their God will see his wrath but It is the individual's choice to accept or reject him. Had Paul not been successful in his mission I likely would not have a relationship with my loving creator. Instead, I would likely be serving more gods that I care to remember who, played with men's lives as if they were merely pieces on a board game.

Thank God for Paul!

Believe what you will but I will not agree.

Firstly, we only have Paul's word that any such revelation from Jesus took place. Paul never met Jesus whilst alive with the disciples.

We have the story from Acts which is confusing:-

1. Acts 9:7 says they "stood speechless, hearing the voice..."

2. Acts 22:9 says they "did not hear the voice..."

3. Acts 26:14 says "when we had all fallen to the ground..."

We also have Paul never referring to this event.

We have Paul saying he was never taught by any human.

11 I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. 12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

This contradicts Act 9, where is says he spent many days with the disciples.

We have Paul saying he did not go to see the apostles for three years and then went away for forteen years.

Galatian 1

16........ my immediate response was not to consult any human being.

17 I did not go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went into Arabia. Later I returned to Damascus.

18 Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas[b] and stayed with him fifteen days.19 I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother. 20 I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie.

21 Then I went to Syria and Cilicia.

Galatians 2

2 Then after fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem.

Paul then opposed the disciples who knew Jesus because they were living as Jews.

------------------------

I also agree with Reverend V's post that Jesus taught as a Jew and supported Torah observance. Paul did not. The two are very different (IMO).

The central message of Jesus was the kingdom of God. The central message of Paul was the death and resurrection as a sacrifice for sin.

My question is if the messages are so different, did Paul really get any mystical revelation from Jesus other than something that he had considered fro himself.

I think not.

Edited by Pete

Share this post


Link to post

I also agree with Reverend V's post that Jesus taught as a Jew and supported Torah observance. Paul did not. The two are very different (IMO).

The central message of Jesus was the kingdom of God. The central message of Paul was the death and resurrection as a sacrifice for sin.

My question is if the messages are so different, did Paul really get any mystical revelation from Jesus other than something that he had considered fro himself.

Jesus kept all the law, he had to accomplish this in order to be the perfect sacrifice. In doing so, he fulfilled prophecy and the old covenant, bringing in a new covenant. Paul expounded upon what all that meant. The kingdom of God is not obtained by law, but through the death and resurrection of Christ. We are no longer bound by the law because Christ removed the curse of the law. So I see no contradiction, Jesus didn't say that whomsoever kept the law would have eternal life, but that salvation came through him, and Paul consistently reiterated that same message.

Share this post


Link to post

"Just then a man came up to Jesus and asked, 'Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life? 'Why do you ask me about what is good' Jesus replied.'There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.'Which ones' he inquired. Jesus replied, 'You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony,honor your father and mother, and love your neighbor as yourself.''' - Matthew 19: 16-19.

Wow, look at that. Jesus tells him his actions would earn him eternal life. It appears to contradict Paul's teaching that faith alone does this. Jesus' never states faith saves. This is entirely a Pauline invention. Jesus teaches a person is saved through their works and repentance. †?†

Share this post


Link to post

"Just then a man came up to Jesus and asked, 'Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life? 'Why do you ask me about what is good' Jesus replied.'There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.'Which ones' he inquired. Jesus replied, 'You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony,honor your father and mother, and love your neighbor as yourself.''' - Matthew 19: 16-19.

Wow, look at that. Jesus tells him his actions would earn him eternal life. It appears to contradict Paul's teaching that faith alone does this. Jesus' never states faith saves. This is entirely a Pauline invention. Jesus teaches a person is saved through their works and repentance. †?†

Jesus also said that the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath. Matt 2:27. This is not the teaching of the law on the Sabbath. :- http://www.teshuvah.com/articles/shabbat/sabbath1.htm

I am sorry Dan but I still believe Paul and Jesus were very different

http://www.voiceofjesus.org/paulvsjesus.html

Edited by Pete

Share this post


Link to post

Jesus also said that the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath. Matt 2:27. This is not the teaching of the law on the Sabbath. :- http://www.teshuvah.com/articles/shabbat/sabbath1.htm

I am sorry Dan but I still believe Paul and Jesus were very different

http://www.voiceofjesus.org/paulvsjesus.html

Pete,

May I commend a book to your attention which you, Fawzo and others might find interesting - The Reluctant Parting: How The New Testament's Jewish Writers Created A Christian Book by Julie Galambush. It came out 7 or 8 years ago and I suspect it is still in print.

Dr. Galambush, who is a professor of religion at one of the jewels of American higher education, The College of William and Mary, brings a unique perspective to her work. She is a Jewish scholar who prior to her conversion to Judaism was a Baptist minister.

Edited by RabbiO

Share this post


Link to post

I am glad this thread was created. I grew up Christian and did wonder about this very subject.

Paul IMHO did insert his own agenda into the overall message of Jesus of Nazareth.

Edited by FrJohnG

Share this post


Link to post

Thank you, RabbiO, for this book recommendation.
-at-FrJohnG... I agree. Paul and Jesus had different messages.

Share this post


Link to post

Pete,

May I commend a book to your attention which you, Fawzo and others might find interesting - The Reluctant Parting: How The New Testament's Jewish Writers Created A Christian Book by Julie Galambush. It came out 7 or 8 years ago and I suspect it is still in print.

Dr. Galambush, who is a professor of religion at one of the jewels of American higher education, The College of William and Mary, brings a unique perspective to her work. She is a Jewish scholar who prior to her conversion to Judaism was a Baptist minister.

Thanks for the recommendation RabbiO I just ordered my copy from Amazon.

Share this post


Link to post

I have a book recommendation for those interested. It is a classic. It is the best book I have found concerning the true Paul. Its called The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity. †?†

Share this post


Link to post

Believe what you will but I will not agree.

Firstly, we only have Paul's word that any such revelation from Jesus took place.

And Noah's family only had his word it was time to build a boat. The Jews had only Moses word that he was told by God to lead them out of Egypt. We have only John of Patmos word for the entire book of Revelation. You have only my word that I was given a Divine Revelation when I was 12 for which I was called a heritic and told to never repeat that again. That revelation is now widely accepted by most Christian denominations.

I can understand reluctance in believing in divine revelation if you have never experienced such a thing. It was actually years later when the Church started accepting what I had said (not because of me but because God had given the same revelation to others also) that I began to realize I had been given a revelation from God.

"Just then a man came up to Jesus and asked, 'Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life? 'Why do you ask me about what is good' Jesus replied.'There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.'Which ones' he inquired. Jesus replied, 'You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony,honor your father and mother, and love your neighbor as yourself.''' - Matthew 19: 16-19.

Wow, look at that. Jesus tells him his actions would earn him eternal life. It appears to contradict Paul's teaching that faith alone does this. Jesus' never states faith saves. This is entirely a Pauline invention. Jesus teaches a person is saved through their works and repentance. †?†

Matthew 19 20-22 (CJB)

20 The young man said to him, “I have kept all these; where do I still fall short?”

21 Yeshua said to him, “If you are serious about reaching the goal, go and sell your possessions, give to the poor, and you will have riches in heaven. Then come, follow me! 22 But when the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he was wealthy.

It's clear that Jesus knew he wasn't as serious as he seemed. He told him exactly what he expected to hear. When he questioned farther Jesus told him the one thing he still lacked and he went away sad because he was unwilling to go the extra step.

Attempting to discredit Paul is to be expected. At one time I too thought that, since Paul had never met the living Jesus his teachings were suspect. Particularly the ones I didn't like. As I matured in Christ I accepted that Paul had to have revelation or else we (the rest of the world) would not recieve the gospel.

Yes Paul is the one responsible for bringing the teachings of Jesus to the Gentiles along with new teachings that were revealed to him for the gentiles. This in no way invalidates the message. To hear some speak it would seem that they are attempting to say Jesus would not have approved of non Jews receiving the gospel. How did Jesus respond to non Jews who heard of him? The first story that comes to mind is that of the Syrophoenician Woman in Mark 7:24-30

24 Jesus left that place and went to the vicinity of Tyre.[g] He entered a house and did not want anyone to know it; yet he could not keep his presence secret. 25 In fact, as soon as she heard about him, a woman whose little daughter was possessed by an impure spirit came and fell at his feet. 26 The woman was a Greek, born in Syrian Phoenicia. She begged Jesus to drive the demon out of her daughter.

27 “First let the children eat all they want,” he told her, “for it is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.”

28 “Lord,” she replied, “even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs.”

29 Then he told her, “For such a reply, you may go; the demon has left your daughter.”

30 She went home and found her child lying on the bed, and the demon gone.

This woman was a Greek Pagan. Jesus first response is to tell her she must wait until the children have had their fill. It seems clear to me that Jesus implied that after the Jews had their fill that the pagans would be filled too. As she persisted and answered with wit her request was granted. Because she believed and persisted she was granted her petition before the time for the gentiles.

This was not Yeshua's only only contact with a not Jew in the gospels. Let's look at John 4 where Jesus talked with the Samaratin woman.

John 4:4-9

4 And he must needs go through Samaria.

5 Then cometh he to a city of Samaria, which is called Sychar, near to the parcel of ground that Jacob gave to his son Joseph.

6 Now Jacob's well was there. Jesus therefore, being wearied with his journey, sat thus on the well: and it was about the sixth hour.

7 There cometh a woman of Samaria to draw water: Jesus saith unto her, Give me to drink.

8 (For his disciples were gone away unto the city to buy meat.)

9 Then saith the woman of Samaria unto him, How is it that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria? for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans.

Here we see Jesus talking to a Samaratin woman as if it were not a big deal yet she is taken aback because the Jews wouldn't even use the same dishes as Samaritans. The story continues ...

16 Jesus saith unto her, Go, call thy husband, and come hither.

17 The woman answered and said, I have no husband. Jesus said unto her, Thou hast well said, I have no husband:

18 For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly.

Jesus makes it clear that he knows her past. Later in the story ...

25 The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things.

26 Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he.

27 And upon this came his disciples, and marvelled that he talked with the woman: yet no man said, What seekest thou? or, Why talkest thou with her?

28 The woman then left her waterpot, and went her way into the city, and saith to the men,

29 Come, see a man, which told me all things that ever I did: is not this the Christ?

30 Then they went out of the city, and came unto him.

Now, by her testimony, the men of her town come out to hear from Jesus. .....

39 And many of the Samaritans of that city believed on him for the saying of the woman, which testified, He told me all that ever I did.

40 So when the Samaritans were come unto him, they besought him that he would tarry with them: and he abode there two days.

41 And many more believed because of his own word;

42 And said unto the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world.

43 Now after two days he departed thence, and went into Galilee.

So it is quite apparent that because Jesus taught the Samaratins (not Jews) of Sychar many believed. So here we have evidence that Jesus himself taught non Jews and that many believed.

Then we have the healing of the ten from leprosy .....

Luke 17:12-16

12 As he was going into a village, ten men who had leprosy[b](P) met him. They stood at a distance(Q) 13 and called out in a loud voice, “Jesus, Master,(R) have pity on us!”

14 When he saw them, he said, “Go, show yourselves to the priests.”(S) And as they went, they were cleansed.

15 One of them, when he saw he was healed, came back, praising God(T) in a loud voice. 16 He threw himself at Jesus’ feet and thanked him—and he was a Samaritan.(U)

Again Jesus preforms a miracle for a non Jew. It is evident Jesus was not opposed to non Jews being blessed of God. Again I say

Thank God for Paul!

Without Paul I would likely not know YHVH. It is without doubt I believe Yeshua did come to Saul on the road to Damascus. I believe Paul was sent to the gentiles and Peter was sent to the Jews.

Edited by Pastor Dave

Share this post


Link to post

Jesus taught to love your neighbor as you love yourself. That obviously meant more than just Jews. Thats not the argument here. The argument is focused on their teaching differences. Paul's took Jewish ideas and mixed them with Paganism. He invented a new religion that taught Jesus was some type of fertility god that allowed his blood to be spilled to save the world. This idea can be found in virtually every Pagan religion. This idea is 100% Pagan. Paul taught faith in this pagan-Jesus was all that was needed to be saved. In no way can such beliefs be found in the Jewish religion. There are countless verses in the Old Testament that state no one can pay for the sins of another. Jesus' message on the other hand taught actions and repentance is the key to salvation. Jesus' message was 100% Jewish.

Lets take another look at that passage. Matthew 19: 16-22 states, "Just then a man came up to Jesus and asked, 'Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?'

'Why do you ask me about what is good?' Jesus replied. 'There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments. 'Which ones?' he inquired.

Jesus replied, 'You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, honor your father and mother, and love your neighbor as yourself.' 'All these I have kept,' the young man said. 'What do I still lack?' Jesus answered, 'If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.' When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth."

Now is Jesus really saying the rich man needs to follow him to receive salvation? That is not how the passage reads at all. In verses 18 and 19 Jesus tells the man he needs to keep the commandments. Then in verse 21 Jesus tells him he needs to sell his possessions and give to the poor. It is in this same verse, before Jesus tells him to follow him, Jesus states the man would receive his heavenly reward. It is obvious from the placement in the verse that Jesus is not telling the man following him is a requirement. Read it again. †?†

Share this post


Link to post

I would also challenge the point about Paul bringing the gospels to the gentile world. Paul very rarely quotes anything that is in the Gospels.The earlier the Gospel the more it seems to contradict Paul. The later the Gospels the more it shows Paulian influences.

The church collated the writings that it found acceptable to make the bible. I do not think Paul talked about any other gospel but his own.

Share this post


Link to post

Ditto. Thanks Rabbio.

It is odd Rabbio that mention the writer converted from Baptist to Judaism, The writer of the book which I recommend called "How Jesus became Christian" by Barrie Wilson also converted from Christianity to Judaism too.

Edited by Pete

Share this post


Link to post

Paul's took Jewish ideas and mixed them with Paganism. He invented a new religion that taught Jesus was some type of fertility god

It seems that your idea of a fertility god and my understanding of what a fertility god are is quite different. My perception of a fertility god is one associated with sex, fertility, pregnancy, and birth. I just don't see that in any of Paul's teachings.

Paul taught faith in this pagan-Jesus was all that was needed to be saved. In no way can such beliefs be found in the Jewish religion.

Faith is found throughout the Old Testament.

Noah and his family were saved by faith.

Abram left Ur because he had faith in YHVH's word.

Abram had faith in God's word that he would have an innumerable amount of decendants and it was counted to him as righteousness.

Joseph had faith, concerning God's providence in his being sold into Egypt, and the final deliverance of Israel.

It was certainly an act of faith when Aaron declared the mission of himself and Moses.

David exhibited faith when he told Goliath "This day will the Lord deliver thee into mine hand; and I will smite thee, and take thine head from thee"

I would also challenge the point about Paul bringing the gospels to the gentile world. Paul very rarely quotes anything that is in the Gospels.The earlier the Gospel the more it seems to contradict Paul. The later the Gospels the more it shows Paulian influences.

The church collated the writings that it found acceptable to make the bible. I do not think Paul talked about any other gospel but his own.

Slight misunderstanding here Pete. Perhaps that was my fault. I said Paul was responsible for bringing the gospel to the gentiles, not the Gospels. I was referring to the gospel, or the good news, or an even more exact translation of gospel ... the almost too good to be true news.

It is odd Rabbio that mention the writer converted from Baptist to Judaism, The writer of the book which I recommend called "How Jesus became Christian" by Barrie Wilson also converted from Christianity to Judaism too.

Yes, yes, it is interesting as Jews will usually discourage conversion.

Perhaps it is just as gripping that Messianic Rabbi K. A. Schneider often teaches from the epistles of Paul. Rabbi Schneider's stated mission is; To teach the Church the Judaic roots of the Christian faith, fostering in her, a deeper love for Yeshua,

and equipping her to share the Good News of Messiah with both Jew and Gentile alike.

Rabbi Daniel Lapin is a Jewish Rabbi that promotes building bridges between Jews and Christians and I have never heard him speak Ill of Paul.

It seems to me that the only ones attempting to discredit Paul and his teachings are those who have an agenda of their own to turn people away from Christianity.

Share this post


Link to post

The idea that a deity is sacrificed in order that their blood can be used to save "fertilize" the world is a commom pagan concept. Just because Paul did not utilize every aspect of those religions does not make it any less true. This idea is not a Jewish concept in any way. Paul combined this idea with the Jewish idea of temple sacrifice. This is what his pagan Jesus is based on. Faith is a concept found throughout the Old Testament but no where is it given the weight Paul gives it. No where does it say in the Old Testament faith alone saves. Besides, the faith the Old Testament is referring to is trust in God. The faith Paul is referring to has little to do with trusting God. His is faith in the sacrificial death of Jesus. An idea that is contradictory to the many passages in the Old Testament which clearly state no one can pay for another's sin.

Like I said earlier, reread Matthew 19:16-22. It is clear what it is saying if you read it in chronological order as it obviously was meant to be. As for turning people away from Christainity? You are way off the mark! I am a Christian. I try to live according to the teaching of Jesus, not that of Paul. My goal is not to turn people away from the faith but instead to direct them to the truth. †?†

Edited by ReverendV

Share this post


Link to post

The idea that a deity is sacrificed in order that their blood can be used to save "fertilize" the world is a commom pagan concept.

You have said something similar before yet you still fail to give any examples from any religion that back your claim. Without documentation supporting your claims these are simply your words and they hold no authority. BTW; salvation from actions that are detriminal and fertilization of the world are very different concepts to me.

Besides, the faith the Old Testament is referring to is trust in God. The faith Paul is referring to has little to do with trusting God. His is faith in the sacrificial death of Jesus.

It seems you do not believe Luke 22:19-20 or perhaps you have a different interpretation... so be it.

19 And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it,(T) and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.”

20 In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant(U) in my blood, which is poured out for you.[a]

Much like the blood of the sacrificed animals acted as atonement for the sins of the Jewish people, the sacrifice and blood of Jesus acted as an atonement for the world.

As for turning people away from Christainity? You are way off the mark! I am a Christian. I try to live according to the teaching of Jesus, not that of Paul. My goal is not to turn people away from the faith but instead to direct them to the truth. †?†

Ah ha, Now we get to the crux of the biscuit. Your goal! It seems to me that "your goal" is to direct "them" to the truth according to ReverendV. ReverendV who never met the living Yeshua. The ReverendV who, through his vast experience, has learned more about true Christianity than all of the Church fathers for the last 2000+ years. ReverendV's truth which he, of course, did not learn by Devine Revelation, because that is an invalid method for one to find their mission. I'm sorry but Proverbs 18:2 comes to mind.

Share this post


Link to post

I have a book recommendation for those interested. It is a classic. It is the best book I have found concerning the true Paul. Its called The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity. †?†

As a Jew I have a certain admiration for the late Hyam Maccoby - and in The Mythmaker he raises some issues well worth considering, as he does in the other books he wrote regarding regarding the origins and early period of Christianity. Hpwever, in each of the books he demonstrates the same weakness for speculation delivered as fact with little support for his speculation. Furthermore, as a non-Orthodox rabbi, I believe that Maccoby sees continuities in the development of Judaism and its sacred literature that are not there.

I would not dissuade anyone from reading Maccoby, but I would not read Maccoby alone under the assumption that what he presents is, you should pardon the term, gospel.

Edited by RabbiO

Share this post


Link to post

My goal is not to indoctinate, but to get people to think for themselves. Your othodox ideas are not the only way to find truth. Truth is not something either of us own. I guess we see that differently. Truth is something everyone must find for themselves. Just because the orthodox view is prevalent does not mean it is correct. I too once was an othodox Christian. It wasn't until I got the courage to look at other ideas that my beliefs began to change. There were many different views concerning Christianity in its infancy. Not all of them found Paul worthy or credible. It was these other views that got me looking outside the box. The information I found led me to where I am today. The difference between you and me it appears is you obviously walk the othodox line. That type of confinement in my opinion is not conducive to spiritual growth. This idea is exactly what I am trying to help others see. The limitation of orthodoxy does not allow individual perception or free thought. I often tell people that I care less what someone believes than I do why they believe it. This is just my opinion. †?†

"Faith must be enforced by reason. When faith becomes blind it dies." - Mahatma Gandhi

Edited by ReverendV

Share this post


Link to post

My goal is not to indoctinate, but to get people to think for themselves.

As is mine. :friends: I am simply using your comments as a springboard to make sure the orthodox view is getting presented as well.

Your othodox ideas are not the only way to find truth. Truth is not something either of us own. I guess we see that differently. Truth is something everyone must find for themselves. Just because the orthodox view is prevalent does not mean it is correct.

Actually we seem to be in harmony on this point. I have said many times on these forums that, IMO, each persons spiritual path is up to them to find.

There were many different views concerning Christianity in its infancy. Not all of them found Paul worthy or credible. It was these other views that got me looking outside the box. The information I found led me to where I am today.

You'll get no argument from me that during the early years there were many views, some of which were against the teachings of Paul. I have read much of the work found at Nag Hammadi. I felt it was necessary to take each text individually and determine it's merits. Some seemed to me to be very important scriptures, others were easy to see why the Church rejected. Still others were not as clear cut as to whether or not they had merit. None the less, I stand where I stand because of an intimate relationship with YHVH.

The difference between you and me it appears is you obviously walk the othodox line.

I can see how our interaction in this thread could lead you to believe that. On many issues I am very orthodox, this being one. However many here might say I was a radical. Ask Fawzo about my views on hell ... not necessarily mainstream. Ask Coolhand about our differences on Jesus (that was years ago he may not even remember our debate). RabbiO may remember my stance on alcohol, certainly not what you would expect to hear from someone in my denomination. Even my views of Pagan gods is quite different than those of most Christians.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this