Ah, but some Christians do worship Paul, though they name Christ. There are others who worship Mary, though they pay Christ lip service as well. As for indoctrination, I was indoctrinated. Almost every Christian, Moslem and other religious persons of my acquaintance came out of a background of religious indoctrination. That's the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition. To imply that most of the religious aren't indoctrinated in their beliefs is just laughable. The world itself, the daily news, tells you different. It is simply what it is. Calling me Scientist A or B or Z does not change that. I did not invent the fact of indoctrination.

I may be wrong, but I don't think you get what AIO is saying.

Faith does not require blind belief or belief without proof. Only a certain kind of faith requires that. And there are all sorts of proof, some of which can't be taken to a laboratory.  But salvation isn't dependent on all that. Christ knows what He did, and He did it flawlessly. He saves us all.

Whoa!! This thread has turned to a war-zone.

@ everone that has contributed. Thanks for all the responses. I need to go and read big book before i can even start to respond because some of the stuff wey i read dey heavy well well. I wasn't expecting u guys to get all dug in like this. Nice.


@ MadMax. . . If u do not mind me asking. . How do u know Christ saved you. What are your sources and why/how are they more credible than Paul?

JeSoul:

Krayo, wassup?  

I like Karo's comments and I have a few pithy ones to add.

I fail to see how Paul's little to no commentary on the life and times of Jesus is problematic - well at least to the christian. I would imagine that the details of Jesus life (seeing how He was such a popular figure) was plastered all over the front pages of the 'Jerusalem Times' and popular fodder for the masses, and therefore was familiar to Paul's audience. But even if that weren't the case, I don't think Paul was overly interested in giving a history lesson on the person of Christ, but rather
1. expounding on & shedding theological and practical light on the gospel that He preached, and the reason for His death and resurrection
2. expressing and establishing godly guidelines and principles by which the church should operate

 Cheers.

Hello my sista. 

Paul's silence on the life of Jesus is not necessarily problematic, it's just kinda odd IMO.  I agree his focus was on the risen Christ though, so maybe he didn't need to discuss his life.

noetic17:

There were no written messages of Jesus at that time. its like asking why was Paul not quoting the scriptures in his letters? Actaually Paul's letters are 50% contents of the old testament.

Pretty much every time people talk about Jesus, they mention his teachings, his birth, and his death and resurrection. Paul writes about Jesus for decades and mentions nothing of his teachings and birth. NOTHING, except mentioning the last supper.   Again, I agree that isn't enough to completely discredit him cause there are some somewhat plausible explanations, like the ones u guys have put forward, but there are also good counter arguments like the ones others have put forward.

But, I hope u admit it is reason to be skeptical. . . people that doubt Paul's message have, IMO, good reason to do so.

It's not a war-zone. JS is lovely.

YES! I am MAD[/b]LY in love with [b]MAD Max. I hope she doesn't turn out to be a man _{like Inesqor.}

Ya gat a great mind, madam.

Mad_Max:



See that? He's an 'apostle' elsewhere, a Pharisee in Rome. Busy telling lies and sowing discord.

How does being a Pharisee stop one from being an apostle?

Mad_Max:

And that's not even the beginning. As for his 'conversion' story, it keeps changing depending on who's listening. And he names no witnesses ever. Christ says by the word of two or three witnesses is a thing established. The 'Lord' is always appearing to him when none of the real apostles are there or when he's alone. Christ showed himself to his apostles when He rose, and promised them the Holy Spirit and power. They had these, and waited for His return. There is no evidence that they ever saw Him again. Oh but Paul sees 'The Lord' regularly. A light is either falling from heaven or He is appearing only to him when no one else is there.He is the FALSE APOSTLE, the wolf Christ warned his true apostles about. Modern Jews know he's a fake and laugh Christians to scorn.

I don't get it. Paul is a liar because he had no witnesses?


@ MadMax. . . If u do not mind me asking. .  How do u know Christ saved you? What are your sources and why/how are they more credible than Paul?

@madmax_you have totaly finished paul(only God knows where you guys met)so i want you to list those things which paul taught wrongly for whilst i am not interested in defending your accusations against him,i believe that he neither taught in contrast to jesus nor was at war with the discipples.at worst his understanding of the gospel was different.

His writings, rejected by the Church might be revealing, Apocrypha books are generally revealing.

Mad_Max:

The messages of Christ were there. The apostles Christ appointed were spreading them. Paul does not buttress his teachings with the teachings of Jesus because he refused to learn from the apostles. He merely propagated his own teachings. Where did he get his teachings? He says Christ was revealed in him. (Whatever that means).Don't take my word for it. He said so himself. Galatians 1 :11-12, 16-17.

I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ. Yeah, right.

But when God, who set me apart from birth and called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not consult any man, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was

This is what u get when u choose to isolate scriptures to suit preconceived ignorance.  There is absolutely no where in the entire bible (NT) where Paul shared the message of the gospel that he did not in detail mention the life and sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Let us now examine the biblical accounts of Paul's preachings.

1. As soon as Paul received his sight in Damascus, he went into the synagogue and preached that Jesus is the Son of God. This was even before he learnt about the full life details of JC. Acts 9:20-22. What other part of the gospel is as essential as the divinity and purpose of Jesus Christ?

2. The bible records that Paul was with the disciples, coming in and going out with them in Jerusalem as soon as he returned from Damascus (Acts 20:28) would he not have learnt all about the life of Jesus from this encounter with the apostles? since he was presented before Peter and the other apostles for acceptance, is it not permissible to submit that he submitted himself to the authority of the church?

3. The holy spirit asked that Paul and Barnabas be separated for the work of God in Acts 13. But before this event . . . .what was the role of Paul in the church? was he a preacher? prophet? or a fellow brethren? for how long was he in the church before the HS made this demand?
One thing is obvious, from  Acts 20:28, we know that Paul learnt about the life and deeds of Jesus Christ from the apostles. And before the HS asked for the separation, we also note that Paul must have been an ordinary member of the congregation learning at the feet of the apostles.
Paul and barnabas were dismissed after the church had prayed and fasted and laid hands on them. . . . . .implying that Paul's missionary journey had the blessings of the apostles.

4. The best account of Paul's style of sharing the gospel is recorded in Acts 13:15-41. There Paul talks about the gospel of Jesus Christ, the gospel of the fore-runner (John the baptist), the messiahship of Jesus, His death, ressurection, sacrifice, ontology and the promises of God by the prophets fulfilled in Christ Jesus. No present day pastor could illustrate the gospel better than Paul expounded it here. As every intricate part of the salvation subject was preached here.

He was constantly at war with the genuine apostles, who rejected him. Always sowing discord, always boasting and defending himself against accusations of lying.

1. Which of the apostles did Paul war against? what was the purpose of their disagreement? what was the exchanges between them?

2. What discord did Paul sow? when? how? what were the casualties? did u ever read Paul's writings on the case of Paul and Apollo's disciples warring?

3. where did Paul boast?

4. where did he accuse anyone of lying?

And his letters were written in Greek. The apostles spoke and wrote Aramaic.  Paul could speak and write in Aramaic but wrote his letters in Greek, which the apostles of Christ could not read.  Interesting possibilities as to why.  27 books in the New Testament. Only 8 written by the genuine apostles: Mattew, John, James, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, and Revelations. The rest was made up of the writings of Paul and his descendant disciples. And no, they, not Peter, wrote 1 and 2 Peter. Their little fraud was exposed by scholars, and the stylistic similarities between the Peter letters and Pauline writing are too overwhelming for doubt. Not only that, but 2 Peter promotes whatever Paul teaches, even if you don't understand it.  2 Peter 3: 15-16

Simply put, u lack the basic understanding to make sense of the early years of discipleship.

1. Paul was the apostle God appointed to minister EXCLUSIVELY to the gentiles and non-jewish nations all over the world.

2. The choice of God is best illustrated in Peter's refusal to eat of any forbidden meat, even after God had purified it and the refusal of the apostles to eat with the gentiles.

3. Since Paul was multilingual and very educated, and since he had churches in multiple destinations, is it misplaced to expect that Paul would write his letters in the languages of his readers? why then is it a problem that he wrote his letters in greek? do u actually understand the purpose for which the letters were written?

4. You ridiculously err on a wide margin. To whom did Peter or John address their letters? was peter called to be a missionary? what missionary mission did any of the 12 apostles take? was there any need for them to often write letters? what other church was peter known to have founded? how many cities did John or James visit to plant churches? if they visited none, was their any need for them to write letters to non-existent churches?

15Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
17Therefore, dear friends, since you already know this, be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of lawless men and fall from your secure position.

You sound confused  . .  ,  or rather you are confused.

1. the apostles were busy simply winning souls for the kingdom and praying for the church and the establishment of God's kingdom, while also teaching the church.

2. Paul on the other hand was planting churches and teaching these churches in absentia how to live a Godly life via letters to them.

3. Paul's letters contained many PROPHETIC words which the apostles never expounded about.
a. God revealed through Paul the pattern of the resurrection to life and rapture. Paul was actually expounding on what Jesus had initially said.
b. God revealed through Paul the very essence of a walk through faith. Teaching that the just shall walk by faith and that through faith the fathers received a great report.
c. God revealed through Paul the fruits of salvation/ fruits of the spirit born through grace and faith.
d. Through Paul God revealed that circumcision is not essential to eternity.
. . . . . I could go and on.

Paul's letter was prophetic in details, the apostles understood and believed him. But since they were not the ones sending the letters, Peter encouraged believers to believe in their contents as revelation from the Lord. What u have failed to show is how Peter's endorsement is a forgery by Paul

5. Since it was the apostles who laid hands on Paul and Barnabas and sent them forth on their missionary journey, is it not proper for Peter to send letters to these churches encouraging them to embrace Paul's message?

Christ HIMSELF taught Peter. What teachings could Paul have that he would not understand? And PETER would tell the churches to follow paul's teachings instead of Christ? To accept no deviation from the teachings of Paul, so you won't lose your salvation? IMPOSSIBLE.

This is quite DUMB.

How many of the church members met Jesus? so why would peter tell the church to follow Jesus teachings (whom they never met)  and ignore Paul' teachings (whom they see and hear)? would that not amount to a division since the Peter and the other disciples had already accepted Paul as on of their own and were the ones that sent him forth on his missionary journey?

But PAUL's letters are full of exhortations to follow him, to disregard any teachings and gospels apart from his. He is the ONLY 'apostle' who says his teachings are 'Commandments of the Lord'. You will NOT find any of the genuine apostles saying this. But Christ warned them before he died that a wolf in sheep's clothing would come. Paul is very clever. He writes 'sweet things' and then carefully puts his poison within them. Here and there. So he writes of faith and love. What do you expect? He's purporting that Christ sent him. He can't be expected to tell the churches to go out and murder.

This is both naive, ignorant, dumb and unfounded. Go and read the book of Acts and stop exhibiting avoidable ignorance.

But this is what Christ says of his apostles, the ones to whom Paul would not subject himself to their teaching [/b]and who rejected him, even though 'Christ' sent him: John 17: 1-25

and where did u make this deductions from?

THESE are the true apostles of Christ, NOT AND NEVER PAUL. He is a liar, a boaster and a false apostle.[b] As for where his teachings departs from Christ and God's, they are LEGION. Before any of the true apostles had written a word, he'd begun propagating his own teachings and writimg letters to churches.  So insidous is his influence and his teachings that some people believe he was never converted, but infilterated the church so he could destroy it from within. There ws no other way he could get them. They were all in hiding. That's what wolves in sheep clothing do.

You are a COWARD.

I have asked u on multiple occasions on myjoe's thread to list how EXACTLY Paul's messages differ from the teachings of Jesus Christ. you keep running helter skelter with ur tails behind ur legs, making false and ridiculous assertions.

It seems his church grew, as they courted the Romans and seduced them with teachings that say it was God who made them kings and conquerors and Jews should subject themselves. The apostles were in Jerusalem and weren't interested in temporal power and riches but spreading the teachings of Christ. After a while the Pauline disciples attacked the Jerusalem church,as their teachings differed from Paul's, and they fled. Pauline Christianity grew, and when they composed a New Testament, his teachings and those of his cronies and disciples naturally dominated it. Of course they added stuff to these ones too. They're liars and godless men. Why wouldn't they.

The above is Just an opinion . . . . .a very worthless one.

Mad_Max:

Isn't it better for them to know the truth than to wallow in deception? But they don't want to know. The truth is too scary. More comforting and familiar for them to continue deceiving themselves. It won't change the fact that Paul is a liar and a false apostle, and that Christ had warned his apostles to beware. All this isn't new. Many Christians have long known and have long liberated themselves. Let them stay in bondage if they wish. It's always a choice.

There u are sitting behind ur computer casting aspersions on another man and his works. what makes Paul a liar? what makes him a false apostle? and what is the truth?

I ask again . . . .what part of Paul's gospel differs from that of Jesus Christ?

Mad_Max:

Lunatic.

Paul's status as a liar and a fake is based on proof, though.I could show you the guy's a LIAR and a sower of discord WITHOUT going outside the Bible. The surface hasn't even been scratched. We could let his own words and actions alone condemn him, and not refer to a single thing OUTSIDE the Bible. But not today. Perhaps he wanted to destroy the church from within, but he was also seduced by by the thought of having a movement of his own followers, and worked tirelessly on his own behalf. When it suited him he would declare he was a Pharisee and not a Christian. When the danger is past, he would suddenly remember he is an 'apostle'. Check out your main guy in Acts 23 1-7

You are helplessly ignorant.

1. Do u know what it means to be a pharisee? is it a crime to be a pharisee? Paul was a pharisee who knew the law back to back and lived by it. Paul was trained by the best brains of that generation in the laws of moses.

2. how does Paul being a pharisee affect his being an apostle? The bible records MANY pharisees who would later believe and give their lives to Jesus Christ. read Acts 15:5 to educate ur ignorance.

1Paul looked straight at the Sanhedrin and said, "My brothers, I have fulfilled my duty to God in all good conscience to this day." 2At this the high priest Ananias ordered those standing near Paul to strike him on the mouth. 3Then Paul said to him, "God will strike you, you whitewashed wall! You sit there to judge me according to the law, yet you yourself violate the law by commanding that I be struck!"

4Those who were standing near Paul said, "You dare to insult God's high priest?"

5Paul replied, "Brothers, I did not realize that he was the high priest; for it is written: 'Do not speak evil about the ruler of your people.'[a]"

6Then Paul, knowing that some of them were Sadducees and the others Pharisees, called out in the Sanhedrin, "My brothers, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee. I stand on trial because of my hope in the resurrection of the dead." 7When he said this, a dispute broke out between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and the assembly was divided.

See that? He's an 'apostle' elsewhere, a Pharisee in Rome. Busy telling lies and sowing discord. And that's not even the beginning. As for his 'conversion' story, it keeps changing depending on who's listening. And he names no witnesses ever. Christ says by the word of two or three witnesses is a thing established. The 'Lord' is always appearing to him when none of the real apostles are there or when he's alone. Christ showed himself to his apostles when He rose, and promised them the Holy Spirit and power. They had these, and waited for His return. There is no evidence that they ever saw Him again. Oh but Paul sees 'The Lord' regularly. A light is either falling from heaven or He is appearing only to him when no one else is there.He is the FALSE APOSTLE, the wolf Christ warned his true apostles about. Modern Jews know he's a fake and laugh Christians to scorn.

Don't imagine people didn't know down the ages. They did. But if they talked, they were hustled to the stake by The Inquisition and burned to death for 'heresy', according to the doctrine Paul and his disciples lay down for 'sinners' in 1 Corinthians 5:4-5.

When you are assembled in the name of our Lord Jesus and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, hand this man over to Satan, so that the flesh may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord.

WHERE OH WHERE DID CHRIST OR ANY OF THE APOSTLES TEACH THAT? To kill sinners and 'heretics' by destroying their flesh (burning them) so they can be 'saved'?

To die by fire is a terrible thing. You know when the Roman Church finally dismantled the stake and the rack and The Inquisition? THE 19TH CENTURY! Do you have any idea how many people were burned at the stake over hundreds of years? Millions! People lived in terror for centuries and kept their mouth shut. Modern Jews simply don't take Christians seriously. No reason why they should.

Officially one of the most uninformed opinions I have had the misfortune of reading in a long time.

mazaje:

Who really was Paul of Trasus?. . . .

Apostel?
Disciple?
Believer?
Fraud?
Crazy  end of day zealot?
Opportunist?
Charlatan?

Good questions . . . . .I hope u have the courage to honestly answer it. . . , but before u do, please ponder over the following.

1. Paul was imprisoned and later beheaded for embracing this new gospel from a carpenter who claims to be the messiah. This excludes the numerous beatings, trials and public humiliations he received.

2. Paul was unlike the other apostles, very educated, rich and enlightened. Paul was also knowledgeable in the scriptures and an adherent practitioner of the laws of moses before he met Jesus.

3. Since Paul was a pharisee, it is safe to state that this new gospel Paul embraced must have led to his excommunication from his clique and his social isolation as a result of his missionary journeys.

what would Paul have intended to gain by deceiving and teaching a false and counter message in lieu of the 3 points stated above? . . . . . .unless and until u answer this question, u cannot objectively answer the poser u raised above.

In my opinion . . .

mazaje:

Who really was Paul of Trasus?. . . .
Apostel? . . . Yes (I don't think anyone can endure what he did unless he seriously believed in what he was doing. His life was HELL. I think he was sincere)
Disciple? . . No (not of Jesus, maybe he was a disciple of the pharisees at some point
Believer? . . . Yes
Fraud? . . .  .No
Crazy  end of day zealot? . . . Very likely (I'll take off the "crazy" though . . maybe fanatical)
Opportunist? . . . . Possibly
Charlatan?. . . . .  No

Mad_Max:

Ah, but some Christians do worship Paul, though they name Christ. There are others who worship Mary, though they pay Christ lip service as well.

  Point noted and appreciated

As for indoctrination, I was indoctrinated. Almost every Christian, Moslem and other religious persons of my acquaintance came out of a background of religious indoctrination. That's the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition. To imply that most of the religious aren't indoctrinated in their beliefs is just laughable. The world itself, the daily news, tells you different. It is simply what it is. Calling me Scientist A or B or Z does not change that. I did not invent the fact of indoctrination.

Indoctrination can go for pretty much any belief held - be they religious or not - I don't dispute that.

What I dispute is that all religious belief - and particularly those sympathetic to Paul - are as a result of indoctrination. Or that it is somehow an indictment on the reasoning capacities of we who hold an affectionate estimation of the man. Hope that makes sense?

and oh, the Scientist B label was not meant to be a left hand, but to simply show your differing negative opinion on exhibit Z, in contrast to mine.

Faith does not require blind belief or belief without proof. Only a certain kind of faith requires that. And there are all sorts of proof, some of which can't be taken to a laboratory.  But salvation isn't dependent on all that. Christ knows what He did, and He did it flawlessly. He saves us all.

and hence you will note why I chose my words carefully and said

JeSoul:

  In matters of Faith, proof is over-rated.

. . . not irrelevant.

Cheerios.

Krayola:

Hello my sista. 

  Oga I'm trying to find your instrumental track oh . . .

Paul's silence on the life of Jesus is not necessarily problematic, it's just kinda odd IMO.  I agree his focus was on the risen Christ though, so maybe he didn't need to discuss his life.

Pretty much articulately sums up my position on the matter
 

Pretty much every time people talk about Jesus, they mention his teachings, his birth, and his death and resurrection. Paul writes about Jesus for decades and mentions nothing of his teachings and birth. NOTHING, except mentioning the last supper.   Again, I agree that isn't enough to completely discredit him cause there are some somewhat plausible explanations, like the ones u guys have put forward, but there are also good counter arguments like the ones others have put forward.

But, I hope u admit it is reason it be skeptical. . . people that doubt Paul's message have, IMO, good reason to do so.

Admit? absolutely.
Gosh I'm full of anecdotes today lol anyways . . .
  So the Campus Minister is narrating his experience of coming to Faith in Jesus. He recalled how the first time he read about the Ark of the Covenant and that poor dude that tried to steady it as it was about to fall. And God struck him down. When he first read that part, he got up from his couch and threw his bible away. What kind of God would kill someone who was just trying to help? And there it lay on the floor for weeks. Until he felt prompted to pick it back and keep reading.

My point. There are tons of scriptures I don't understand and will not pretend otherwise. Some are just . . . wow, God, really? and I leave scratching my head. I know there is more to it, more than just face value, more than our physical brains can compute at the moment and understanding evades me many a time. But I am 1000% okay with that. It matters little in the grand scheme. I already have everything I need to live right - to love God and to love my neighbor as myself. A temporal grasp (as if that were even possible) of the meaning of Numbers and Leviticus and Lamentations or Revelations - to me is icing on the cake. Like I mentioned, I scarcely take an "intellectual" approach to these matters.

So those who doubt in sincerity I first commend for investigating the matter. I only pray and hope that all who seek, may truly find. That afterall, is one of the promises of God . . . in the other less inflamatory part of the bible 

Go and learn some manners, noetic. You're the only person here who truly needs to.

karo93:

@madmax_you have totaly finished paul(only God knows where you guys met)so i want you to list those things which paul taught wrongly for whilst i am not interested in defending your accusations against him,i believe that he neither taught in contrast to jesus nor was at war with the discipples.at worst his understanding of the gospel was different.

I've written enough about Paul. There's such a thing as finding out things for oneself.  But here's the thing. Paul has nothing to do with your salvation, so theological differences matter little. You can know him to be false and be Christ's. You can believe him to be true and still be Christ's. In some ways it does matter, but not where salvation is concerned.

Understand that we have free will. WE HAVE FREE WILL. God does not see the future, because there is no future, only possibilities. The choice of which school to go, the choice of which job to take, the choice of whom you marry; we constantly make choices, leaving one thing for another, and different futures result from the different choices we make. What God sees are ALL the choices there are, and every possible outcome there can be. I guess, that's seeing the future too.

Every single creature in heaven with God is there by choice. Every thing God made has a will that it expresses in its choices. Our will can thwart the wishes of God, and grieve Him, because our choice and the outcome of that choice was not what He intended. Notice how many times Christ says, Not my will but Your will be done? God will not stop any creature from expressing its will.     

God made a glorious, beautiful, powerful angelic being called 'Lucifer', which has something to do with  light, not darkness. He wasn't the only being of this kind God made, but like all God's creations he was fiercely loved and expected to be a certain way. But this creature chose, because it could, to express its own will in unlovely ways that are oppposed to who and what God is. It became something else: the devil.  Realise that the devil may not be evil in his own eyes. He may see himself as 'good' and what he does as 'right' according to his own ideas of right and wrong. It is only in relation to GOD's ideas of right and wrong that he is evil. That's the nature of evil, and that is how every evil creature is. That's how evil human beings are. They are opposed to what God stands for, but they will not see themselves as evil. What they do will be perfectly reasonable and just in their own eyes. Ask Hitler. Ask Stalin. Ask Papa Doc and Mao. They will go to their graves convinced of their greatness and their vision, the goodness and rightness of their actions, and despair that those lesser than they did not understand them.

There are people that God 'calls', though He calls us all. But let's use the accepted meaning and say, called for a particular purpose. Their origins  may be humble and rooted in God. And then something happens. The lure of power, vanity, pride, of self-worship and having a following, comes calling, and they become something else, something that God did not intend. And these people will not, of course, realise that they have changed. These are the very things that made the devil what it is, and they are the things that make evil people what they become, whatever their origins.  These are the things that the devil reportedly offered to Christ, like he offers it to us all. Christ said No. 

Some people think Paul infilterated the church to destroy it. It's a compelling argument, but it might not be so. Though his conversion story changes, depending on who he's talking to, which is the mark of a liar who can't keep his story straight, the possibility exists that he might have been called. It is possible that the lure of power and pride came calling, and unlike Christ, he yielded. 

There is a spirit in Stephen, in Mary Madgalene, in Lazarus and his sisters, in Joseph of Arimathea, in Peter, James, John and the apostles of Christ. It is the spirit of Christ. He stamps you. You will not be perfect, but you will undeniably be his. This spirit is not in Paul. A different spirit resides in him that is not in the apostles. His work, his teaching, his very person is not of God. Perhaps it did not begin that way. But that is how it turned out. His
is a spirit of untruth, of a  lack of real love, of chaos and discord, of pride, endless boasting, appropriating undue power and self-worship. This is not the spirit of Christ. But these are qualities a certain opposer of Christ is quite infamous for.

Anything that springs from such a foundation can only produce deception and evil: bad fruit. However long such a thing exists in human time, it is false and rests on thorns and will not last. This present system of things SHALL pass away. It really, really will.

After all this here thread is about Paul. He's one odd fellow this Paul. Grandiose. I'm not sure if he had good motives or not because it seems the case against him are as strong as those for him. I think either way, he has a holier-than-thou complex.

Oh, Noetic. I understand your frustrations more than you'd know but you shouldn't be calling Max names. That's very unchristian like. Besides it's counter productive cuz now you might never get a reply from her again. Coward? That's going too far! I don't wanna be like you when I grow up.

JeSoul sweetie, na here you come hide? Sometimes I forget to simply check people's last posts to locate them. How you dey?

Max is somewhat like me in the sense that I know I'll live once and I can't take a chance and believe what's a lie. I detest lies. JeSoul is like me in another sense. I wanna feel warm inside all the time. Sometimes, I agonize over whether I'm doing the right thing. Often I get paralyzed into inaction cuz I dunno what I'm doing. I like to follow an invisible compass. My spiritual guts.
But there's an obvious point of divergence. There are instances where an empirical Max-like reasoning will do. There are others where only a Book-of-Eli JeSoul-like reasoning will do. One or the other. In my experience, most people will believe without question what is written if that thing aligns with the person's already formed ideas. Conversely, when there's a clash of views the person usually then seeks proof or dismisses that part altogether without even bothering.

I think faith and proof should not be mutually exclusive. If I tell you I have faith in something, it is because I have demanded proof before and I am satisfied enough times and no longer require proof for other scenarios. You can't just come and say

Hey, dude. Here are a few things for you to believe

But they don't make any sense

Yeah, I know. You gotta have faith. That's the way it works.

Oh?

Mad_Max:

Go and learn some manners, noetic. You're the only person here who truly needs to.

I will ASAP. . . , very typical when ur ignorance has been exposed

Till then, dont cast aspersions on Paul and dont exhibit ignorance by making statements u cannot buttress with facts and analyses.

vescucci:

Oh, Noetic. I understand your frustrations more than you'd know but you shouldn't be calling Max names. That's very unchristian like. Besides it's counter productive cuz now you might never get a reply from her again. Coward? That's going too far! I don't wanna be like you when I grow up.

I dont need responses from max. all he/she has done is to litter the thread with opinions and glibly masquerading such as facts.

COWARDS are those who shy away from reality and responsibility. If anyone makes a claim, he/she should be bold enough to back them up with facts or analyses. If anyone asserts that Paul's gospel differs from that of Christ . . .he/she should state explicitly what parts of the gospel differs? if Paul is a liar, what lie did he tell? to whom? if Paul caused divisions, against whom was he divided?

What we have here are RIDICULOUS anti-Christ notions presented by an atheist disguising to be a Christian. I refused to be fooled by max's malady.

I think it is fine to question people's actions, but questioning their motives, and labeling people as evil, liars, etc, because we disagree with them is a lil over the top IMO. The faith we are debating even condemns such. We do not see all. . . we do not see peoples hearts, we do not know the whole story. All we have are little bits of info here and there and we are trying to understand what people, over 2000 years ago, thought and did. If we are accusing Paul of letting his own convictions and pride get the best of him, we should, IMO, be careful not to conduct ourselves in a similar manner.

I don't think Paul's message is EXACTLY the same as Jesus', but i think the differences may be minor (exclusive vs inclusive . . . aight. . I'm not sure of the whole remission of sins thing. I don't think Jesus thought he was doing any such thing. But that is another story entirely ). I think he may have tried too hard to make the message understandable and appealing to the Gentile world. But IMO he believed he was being used by the Holy Spirit, and playing his part in fulfilling certain Old Testament prophecies, and he had to do what he was doing in order to usher in the coming of the Messiah that would reclaim the earth.

Some Jews believed in an exclusive, Jew only, kingdom of God. It is very likely even Jesus and his disciples did (hence the dispute between Paul and others over the importance of circumcision and purity laws for interested Gentiles . .  - what some like to call letter vs spirit). Some believed one had to fully become a Jew to be part of the Kingdom and be saved. But some, like Paul and his team, believed non-Jews could be part of the kingdom even while remaining Gentiles. The apocalyptic (end-times) Old Testament texts  were quite ambiguous in the descriptions of the nature of the coming Kingdom, so it is not surprising, IMO, that both sides were convinced they were doing the will of God, as both views were believed to be backed by scripture. Which is why I appeal to people that we can disagree with what certain people did, but we should be careful not to label their intentions "malicious", or "evil". It is unfair, IMO.

If u read Isiah 49:23, Micah 7:16,  you will see that Gentiles will be conquered, captured, and held in Jerusalem, with their kings "licking dust off Israel's feet". If u read Isiah 54:3  and  Zeph 2:1-3:8 you will see that Gentile cities will be ravaged and be repopulated by Israel. If u read Micah 5:9, 15 u will see that Gentile nations and gods will be destroyed by God. Some Jesus believers saw texts like these and believed that to be truly saved, and become part of the Kingdom when it came, Gentiles that had come to know Jesus had to make the full conversion and become Jews. Including keeping kosher, circumcision, sabbath, etc etc

Now, if read Isiah 2:2-4 you will see that nations will come together to worship God in his temple. If u read Isiah 25:6 you will see that nations feast together, on the temple mount, on the meal God has prepared for them. And if u read Zech  , you will see Gentiles ABANDONING THEIR IDOLS AND ACCOMPANYING JEWS on their journey home. (Notice that both Gentiles and Jews are included in the kingdom).

20"Thus says the LORD of hosts, 'It will yet be that peoples will come, even the inhabitants of many cities. 21'The inhabitants of one will go to another, saying, "Let us go at once to entreat the favor of the LORD, and to seek the LORD of hosts; I will also go." 22'So many peoples and mighty nations will come to seek the LORD of hosts in Jerusalem and to entreat the favor of the LORD.' 23"Thus says the LORD of hosts, 'In those days ten men from all the nations will grasp the garment of a Jew, saying, "Let us go with you, for we have heard that God is with you."'" (Zechariah 8:20-23)

^^ As u can see there were both exclusively Jewish expectations of the Kingdom (Paul's opponents), and inclusive expectations of the Kingdom (Paul). Paul felt him mission was to get the Gentiles to abandon their gods, and come to his God, and he did not feel they had to become Jews, so he was willing to compromise on the matters of Jewish law. He, IMO, felt he was being used by the Holy Spirit for a noble cause, and he went about his business as passionately as he could. He was, after all, only human. . .

I kinda had to rush to close this off cause I have to run. There is a little more I could have added but i think this should be able to get what I'm trying to say across. . . .  We can be skeptical without throwing all these wild charges of people being "evil" and whatever around.

^^ All these wise people like Krayola self, making sense all over the place    . I am coming . . .

 And speaking of Wise, the Wizard Vesc. I am thoroughly pleased to be greeted by your input here.

vescucci:

After all this here thread is about Paul. He's one odd fellow this Paul. Grandiose. I'm not sure if he had good motives or not because it seems the case against him are as strong as those for him. I think either way, he has a holier-than-thou complex.

 You know, I can certainly see why many would reach that conclusion. And in my many years of reading his letters, that association has not crossed my mind. Honest.

Oh, Noetic. I understand your frustrations more than you'd know but you shouldn't be calling Max names. That's very unchristian like. Besides it's counter productive cuz now you might never get a reply from her again. Coward? That's going too far! I don't wanna be like you when I grow up.

Lol. Noetic is passionate and sometimes he lets that make him come off as gruff and aggressive. I think behind that computer screen is really a nice guy.

JeSoul sweetie, na here you come hide? Sometimes I forget to simply check people's last posts to locate them. How you dey?

lol . . . you can almost always find me in the sports section. If I desert everywhere else, na there I go be. In either case, it's been a listening season, and was even very reluctant to post at all, had Krayola not specifically solicited my input. Infact I hope "debates" will be a thing of the past for me. But for you Vesc, I will ramble here

Max is somewhat like me in the sense that I know I'll live once and I can't take a chance and believe what's a lie. I detest lies. JeSoul is like me in another sense. I wanna feel warm inside all the time. Sometimes, I agonize over whether I'm doing the right thing. Often I get paralyzed into inaction cuz I dunno what I'm doing. I like to follow an invisible compass. My spiritual guts.
But there's an obvious point of divergence. There are instances where an empirical Max-like reasoning will do. There are others where only a Book-of-Eli JeSoul-like reasoning will do. One or the other. In my experience, most people will believe without question what is written if that thing aligns with the person's already formed ideas. Conversely, when there's a clash of views the person usually then seeks proof or dismisses that part altogether without even bothering.

 The Wise Wizard does it again. It's all about balance I think. Perhaps somewhere between a "Max" and a "Jesoul" lies the absolute truth, and its up to each one of us to figure it out for ourselves - if that is even possible, and I don't think it is. A total grasp of The Truth is impossible in my mind, as long as we are still here on earth. And I dunno about a "warm inside feeling" lol, but I know about a peace that surpasses understanding, that has walked with me since I was yay high, and quiets my heart in the midst of a storm of "likely & probably" and "does not make sense". This is why I continue to believe - not because I was indoctrinated and letting go of a long held belief is hard etc etc.

In regard to your spiritual guts - I like and I wonder if you realize how biblical that is?

Rom 2:14 Some people naturally obey the Law's commands, even though they don't have the Law. This proves that the conscience is like a law written in the human heart. And it will show whether we are forgiven or condemned, when God appoints Jesus Christ to judge everyone's secret thoughts, just as my message says.

I think faith and proof should not be mutually exclusive. If I tell you I have faith in something, it is because I have demanded proof before and I am satisfied enough times and no longer require proof for other scenarios.

And the truth is they aren't!

And I'm glad you mentioned Book of Eli. Lets use that as a case study:

-Eli had an experience. A "voice" spoke to him and told him to just walk west
-He got up and walked, for 30 years, he just walked west
-When confronted by Solara on this blind journey he said "I just know, by faith"
-Solara "what is Faith?"
-Eli "it's something you know, though you don't know it"

Eli didn't have a blind faith - he had had an experience first which resulted in faith. If Eli had resorted to just "empirical reasoning" after he heard the voice he wouldn't have ever taken a step. And if Eli had never had an experience, he wouldn't have taken a step either. Which brings me back to this: Perhaps somewhere between a "Max" and a "Jesoul" lies the absolute truth. The only thing I will shove in anyone's direction - Go and Seek, and Ye shall find.

Great thread. _{I am just a tad concerned about JeSoul's well-known position that she doesn't really claim to know and cannot "prove" it but she believes it all the same. You were born a Christian and grew up believing. So, like most people, you learnt by rote. So the basis of belief here is this "inner peace"? Since most religious people feel this under the belief they are pleasing God, is it not worthwhile to take some time aside to question EVERYTHING from A-Z and . . .} Just musing  How's you, JeSoul?

Related to the musings above, it is noted that even Max did not respond to Krayola's question about the sources of Christ speak, since she rejects Paul's teachings on the basis of perceived differences between them and those of Christ. How do we know what Jesus taught which Paul is said to differ from? What Matthew, John and the others wrote. But Max does not know they reported Christ accurately such that they are to be used as yardstick for dismissing another "called" one, or does she? To put that differently, in the face of the well-known controversies surrounding the gospels how reasonable is it to hold them as standard for Paul? 

Is there really a point between a 'max' and a' Jesoul'? There's just whatever each person finds. There are no 'wrongs' or 'rights' there.

@ Krayola, I'm not labelling a person evil because I disgree with him. I disagree with people sometimes. From what someone did to what to have for dinner. How on earth does that make them evil? There are people I disagree theologically with. They're not evil, they're not right or wrong. I defined what I consider 'evil' itself to be. Whatever is opposed to what God clearly expresses that He wants. Another person may define evil as whatever God enjoys and approves. You started a thread asking what a person's opinion of Paul is. I gave mine. Anyone is welcome to state a case for him and clear him of these things. That would simply be great!

Anyone can issue an alternative opinion. Right or wrong, true or false, Paul's just one man in the long stream of men that have come before and after him. He's not God, except to those who mistake him for God and have wrapped their faith around him. He's simply unimportant. I'd state my case for or againt any man this thread had happened to be about: Mandela, Churchhill, Son of Sam, Ghandi, Charles Manson, George Russell, Ted Bundy, OJ, Einstein, Mohammed, Newton, Peter or Planck. Must be off.

Hey there, Myjoe.

Un-subed

MyJoe:

I am just a tad concerned about JeSoul's well-known position that she doesn't really claim to know and cannot "prove" it but she believes it all the same. You were born a Christian and grew up believing. So, like most people, you learnt by rote. Is it not worthwhile to take some time aside to question EVERYTHING from A-Z and . . . Just musing  How's you, JeSoul?

Jesoul's well. And thankful for MyJoe today . Let me clarify. Cos I just realized my entries can be a tad confusing.

I have remarked over my NL life that every man's walk to God is unique. There is no one universal template that can be applied evenly across the board and will produce the same results. Case in point - we have drastically differing views on a single character Paul. I see a hero, Max sees a villian. Now when I say I cannot prove it - its because I can't and more importantly, I'm not even trying to. Because my proof - which is in my experiences - matters to only me. Is significant to only me. Cannot be bottled and reproduced for others to experience alike and hence believe alike. See the "Book of Eli" bit - I believe because I have had an experience (and continue to) and that is what fuels my faith to keep on believing. So I know, but only unto myself - does that make sense?

So Joe, I will not claim to "know". "Know" is a packed, loaded word and I do not know it all - not by any stretch of the imagination and I cannot dare present myself as an authority on spiritual matters that are ever so complex and are scarcely identical from one soul to another. Only God knows. Which is why I then proceeded to say "seek and ye shall find" from Him who truly knows.

One important assertion I want to strongly clamp down on is that "I believe because I was raised to" - indoctrination - nothing could be further from the truth. I believe because I had an experience as a child - this caused me to search and I found, and I have been holding on to the heart of what I found since then. Have there been tertiary beliefs I have let go and modified and gathered along the way? absolutely. I am a thinker and analyze everything - you have no idea. So if anyone thinks that I have not, do not and will not continue to critically think, soberly consider and humbly evaluate all that I believe - all the while weighing it all against the balance of faith - then such a soul is sorely mistaken - and I say that with the warmest of affection

Related to the musings above, it is noted that even Max did not respond to Krayola's question about the sources of Christ speak, since she rejects Paul's teachings on the basis of perceived differences between them and those of Christ. How do we know what Jesus taught which Paul is said to differ from? What Matthew, John and the others wrote. But Max does not know they reported Christ accurately such that they are to be used as yardstick for dismissing another "called" one, or does she? To put that differently, in the face of the well-known controversies surrounding the gospels how reasonable is it to hold them as standard for Paul? 

You know I was going to ask this very same thing of Max, but was just to lazy to do so. Thanks Joe. Max, I look forward to your response on this.

Mad_Max:

Is there really a point between a 'max' and a' Jesoul'? There's just whatever each person finds. There are no 'wrongs' or 'rights' there.

This is too kumbaya-ish. There are spiritual wrongs and rights Max. If not then Jesus would've said everyone would go to heaven. But He says "only few will find the right road".

Quote from Jesoul -

One important assertion I want to strongly clamp down on is that "I believe because I was raised to" - indoctrination - nothing could be further from the truth.

Really? Does this explain why 95% of people remain in the religion of their births?

Did they all have Damascus Experiences to affirm their faith?

Come on.

^^ Deepsight, I speak only for myself, not for 95% of people who remain in their religion of birth.

Too easy. Each person too will speak for himself and we still end up with almost everybody clinging to the religion of their birth and childhood.

This proves conclusively that the biggest and most important element in people's choice of religion is simply the religion they were born into.

This is iron cast.

Look, if southern nigeria had been conquered by an Islamic Power and not a christian power, the FACT is that 95% of today's southern christians would be muslims.

That is the unavoidable TRUTH.

^ your opinion on the matter and it is very much respected. Like I said, I speak only for myself as I will on that great day before God.

Hey there, too, Max. Quite an informative thesis you wrote there!

JeSoul:

Un-subed Jesoul's well. And thankful for MyJoe today . Let me clarify. Cos I just realized my entries can be a tad confusing.

I have remarked over my NL life that every man's walk to God is unique. There is no one universal template that can be applied evenly across the board and will produce the same results. Case in point - we have drastically differing views on a single character Paul. I see a hero, Max sees a villian. Now when I say I cannot prove it - its because I can't and more importantly, I'm not even trying to. Because my proof - which is in my experiences - matters to only me. Is significant to only me. Cannot be bottled and reproduced for others to experience alike and hence believe alike. See the "Book of Eli" bit - I believe because I have had an experience (and continue to) and that is what fuels my faith to keep on believing. So I know, but only unto myself - does that make sense?

So Joe, I will not claim to "know". "Know" is a packed, loaded word and I do not know it all - not by any stretch of the imagination and I cannot dare present myself as an authority on spiritual matters that are ever so complex and are scarcely identical from one soul to another. Only God knows. Which is why I then proceeded to say "seek and ye shall find" from Him who truly knows.

One important assertion I want to strongly clamp down on is that "I believe because I was raised to" - indoctrination - nothing could be further from the truth. I believe because I had an experience as a child - this caused me to search and I found, and I have been holding on to the heart of what I found since then. Have there been tertiary beliefs I have let go and modified and gathered along the way? absolutely. I am a thinker and analyze everything - you have no idea. So if anyone thinks that I have not, do not and will not continue to critically think, soberly consider and humbly evaluate all that I believe - all the while weighing it all against the balance of faith - then such a soul is sorely mistaken - and I say that with the warmest of affection
You know I was going to ask this very same thing of Max, but was just to lazy to do so. Thanks Joe. Max, I look forward to your response on this.

Thanks for your response and good to know you constantly pause to evaluate. I think it would be worth everyone's while to do that. Concerning experiences, you probably read the thread I opened on that and know why I do not consider them objective. Fact remains that before your experiences, and then before JeSoul's highly developed scientific mind bloomed, you had already learned something by rote. This applies to all us. So my invitation to religious folk to evaluate EVERYTHING  - first with the intellect before proceeding to the spiritual - stands. I mean, it should make sense to me first.   I am in no position to know you haven't done this - examine everything without making reference to the received Bible since you aren't sure about the book, question if Jesus really came to die for people as told or if someone made it up - of course, so these are general thoughts I hope anyone might give a second thought to.

JeSoul:

This is too kumbaya-ish. There are spiritual wrongs and rights Max. If not then Jesus would've said everyone would go to heaven. But He says "only few will find the right road".

The rate at which you churn out New Words and Phrases I haven't a clue what they mean. . . I think I will start compiling a book out of them to be titled – The Mysterious Phrases of JeSoul.  

Thesis lol.

JeSoul:

This is too kumbaya-ish. There are spiritual wrongs and rights Max. If not then Jesus would've said everyone would go to heaven. But He says "only few will find the right road".

I'm talking about the usual biblical/ doctrinal/ theological differences here, not 'spiritual right and wrong'. I'm sorry, I have no idea what that means. As for how I find my way on issues of the bible, doctrine,etc, that's something someone has asked in Myjoe's thread, and which I took the trouble to answer in two very long posts. It was relevant to the discussion on that thread. Here, not so much. If I have to answer that here, then so does everyone else. But then, I have answered that. Merely on another thread.