What's the deal with Paul?

[Full O Beans]

That little website is handy for you eh? Hehe.

It sure is. Hehe.


Actually the whole basis for what people who are anti-Paul or are Red Letter "believers" teach is false.

Anti-Paul sentiment is anti-Christ sentiment and is extremely clueless, not to mention harmful to the Body of Christ.

 

[Alithis]

You need to look at the statements in context, Alithis. I'm talking about authority of teachings between the two, that they are assumed equal, not the individuals themselves, and when questioned I made that point clear.

Even the assumed authority doesn't pass muster. Most people calling themselves Christian quote almost exclusively from Saul/Paul, not Yeshua.

im looking at what you say in context with what you say .. you don't believe in the bible ,you're not a chrsitian . you're opposed to the word of God on so many levels . you entire motive for being here is to cast doubt on the word of God .

 

[Full O Beans]

im looking at what you say in context with what you say .. you don't believe in the bible ,you're not a chrsitian . you're opposed to the word of God on so many levels . you entire motive for being here is to cast doubt on the word of God .

Personally, I am shocked that his views are allowed on a Christian forum.

 

[Stravinsk]

im looking at what you say in context with what you say .. you don't believe in the bible ,you're not a chrsitian . you're opposed to the word of God on so many levels . you entire motive for being here is to cast doubt on the word of God .

Maybe you are confused. The context I refer to is the immediate response I gave to fullofbeans with regards to what you quoted, as she also raised the same issue. Perhaps you missed it.

 

[Stravinsk]

Personally, I am shocked that his views are allowed on a Christian forum.

Maybe you should not post in this section - it is called speculative theology for a reason and you don't seem to be able to handle any postings that don't fit your particular definition of what is or isn't "Christian". I noticed this when you went after Hamster in another thread and a few other places that are designed for Christians only.

The OP - in CASE YOU HAVEN'T NOTICED - FLIPPING DUHH!!! Is asking about non-Pauline views.

You are OBVIOUSLY in love with Paul's teachings - so why don't you just scoot because the very subject of the thread is likely to offend you.

 

[Full O Beans]

Maybe you should not post in this section - it is called speculative theology for a reason and you don't seem to be able to handle any postings that don't fit your particular definition of what is or isn't "Christian". I noticed this when you went after Hamster in another thread and a few other places that are designed for Christians only.

The OP - in CASE YOU HAVEN'T NOTICED - FLIPPING DUHH!!! Is asking about non-Pauline views.

You are OBVIOUSLY in love with Paul's teachings - so why don't you just scoot because the very subject of the thread is likely to offend you.

I am obviously in love with Jesus, and His precious word. This truth offends some.

 

[Alithis]

Maybe you are confused. The context I refer to is the immediate response I gave to fullofbeans with regards to what you quoted, as she also raised the same issue. Perhaps you missed it.

and in context with the bigger picture you motive is none other then to cast doubt and unbelief on scripture .. that is clear because in all your threads that is what you attempt to do -so no im not at all confused , nor fooled .

you've confined it to world religion and speculative theology .. but its not even speculative theology .. your simply saying .. the scripture is in error and false . and you do so because you are an unbeliever .

 

[psalms 91]

Personally, I am shocked that his views are allowed on a Christian forum.

And I am shocked that your views are allowed but hey

 

[psalms 91]

and in context with the bigger picture you motive is none other then to cast doubt and unbelief on scripture .. that is clear because in all your threads that is what you attempt to do -so no im not at all confused , nor fooled .

you've confined it to world religion and speculative theology .. but its not even speculative theology .. your simply saying .. the scripture is in error and false . and you do so because you are an unbeliever .

Bingo

 

[Stravinsk]

I am obviously in love with Jesus, and His precious word. This truth offends some.

Lol, I think you are in love with what most Pharisees are in love with. Themselves. In Christ's day showing this was fasting, praying 3 times a day and making dang sure everyone else was aware of just how observant a Jew you really were. The Christian context is a little different, but in many ways it's the same, with the focuses changed somewhat, but the grand show and stinky religious vanity the same.

 

[psalms 91]

Lol, I think you are in love with what most Pharisees are in love with. Themselves. In Christ's day showing this was fasting, praying 3 times a day and making dang sure everyone else was aware of just how observant a Jew you really were. The Christian context is a little different, but in many ways it's the same, with the focuses changed somewhat, but the grand show and stinky religious vanity the same.

And I think you are in love with your intellect, that is called pride

 

[Full O Beans]

And I am shocked that your views are allowed but hey

What? LOL!

 

[Stravinsk]

and in context with the bigger picture you motive is none other then to cast doubt and unbelief on scripture .. that is clear because in all your threads that is what you attempt to do -so no im not at all confused , nor fooled .

you've confined it to world religion and speculative theology .. but its not even speculative theology .. your simply saying .. the scripture is in error and false . and you do so because you are an unbeliever .

I'm not hiding the fact that I don't believe Saul/Paul is not who most Christians think he is, and I have made this plain from the beginning. This thread in particular is asking for beliefs related to this position, and as I fit the criteria in this respect, have provided some links and some of my views.

Whether you like the views or think them "Christian" is not really the issue. Most Christians take Saul/Paul's words at face value, so asking for the opposite view is controversial to put it lightly, but if this thread is to be of any use to the OP, who I assume is sincere in asking the question and not just seeking biased confirmation from yes men who bow to Saul/Paul, then it requires input from one or more people who have some knowledge of the view that they seek to explore.

That view - is obviously at odds with faith in the complete cannon of the NT, and of course does not treat doubt of parts of it as some sort of sin or vice. I'm sorry if this is a problem for you. Just better not to read the thread if you are going to have an issue with these kinds of things.

 

[Full O Beans]

That view - is obviously at odds with faith in the complete cannon of the NT, and of course does not treat doubt of parts of it as some sort of sin or vice.

Deliberate doubt of God's word---any part of it, and trying to promote it---is sin.

 

[Stravinsk]

And I think you are in love with your intellect, that is called pride

I'm in love with logic, reason and truth. If you define the 3rd by blindly accepting revealed religion without questioning it as "pride", then don't pity the poor kid in Afghanistan for being taught Islam from birth and never to question their belief systems, because it might be exercising something outside their faith and they might be in danger of another calling them an intellectual rebel full of "pride", just because they choose to question and explore and reason rather than repeat what they have been taught like a robot.

 

[YESLORDIWILL]

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

Deliberate doubt of God's word---any part of it, and trying to promote it---is sin.

You know, 'Stravinsk' really does have a point. The OP asked for evidence for non-Pauline views, and he's tried to give it. I disagree with any premise that the writings of Paul are not inspired of the Holy Spirit, but I am curious as to why the non-Pauline sect reject his writings. So, if you please, can the thread just carry on?

 

[Stravinsk]

You know, 'Stravinsk' really does have a point. The OP asked for evidence for non-Pauline views, and he's tried to give it. I disagree with any premise that the writings of Paul are not inspired of the Holy Spirit, but I am curious as to why the non-Pauline sect reject his writings. So, if you please, can the thread just carry on?

Thank you.

Your curiosity (as well as the OP's and anyone else who happens to read this thread) can be satisfied reading through the two links I have provided in this thread. Being non-Pauline is not a popular position within most of Christianity but it is not new. The earliest groups that I am aware of were early Jewish Christians, the Nazarines and the Ebionites.

Personally, I believe that no one becomes non-Pauline from a Christian background with enthusiasm, but at an honest look at his writings, and especially because if it is within a Christian context, it is a marginalized position and no pastor is likely to be a fan - for without Saul/Paul - there is no organized churches with leaders,pastors, deacons and so forth. Everyone is on exactly the same footing, even prophets.

 

[Full O Beans]

it is a marginalized position and no pastor is likely to be a fan - for without Saul/Paul - there is no organized churches with leaders,pastors, deacons and so forth. Everyone is on exactly the same footing, even prophets.

That is ultimately the reason why this is a demonic doctrine. The devil's desire is to cause division with his distortions. We are commanded to be diligent and to be watchful that we are not deceived---not listen to every wind of doctrine that comes down the pike!

Ephesians 4:!4
Then we will no longer be immature like children. We won’t be tossed and blown about by every wind of new teaching. We will not be influenced when people try to trick us with lies so clever they sound like the truth.

 

[Stravinsk]

That is ultimately the reason why this is a demonic doctrine. The devil's desire is to cause division with his distortions. We are commanded to be diligent and to be watchful that we are not deceived---not listen to every wind of doctrine that comes down the pike!

Ephesians 4:!4
Then we will no longer be immature like children. We won’t be tossed and blown about by every wind of new teaching. We will not be influenced when people try to trick us with lies so clever they sound like the truth.

If a hallmark of the devil was divisions, and schisms, then you have a problem with Yeshua, again:

Whole chapter of Matthew 10, with emphasis on verse 34 and beyond.

I'd be careful, if I were you. I'm sure I wouldn't want to stand before my creator and have to explain why I called him the devil simply because I associated it with divisions in people because of differing beliefs.

Edit: To say nothing of the fact that Yeshua said the path was narrow and only a few find it.

Damascus Road=very wide. Wide road. Desert Road.