A Modern Parable

Originally posted by lucifershammer
LOL. The way you seem to hate Paul makes it look like he killed your mother or something.

(Then again, given your attachment to Gnosticism, maybe he did when he was still Saul.)

The main point behind the Scriptures is morals. W ...[text shortened]... ll deny the limitations of his science. Only pseudo-scientists do.

The disciple Stephen wasn't Gnostic. and Paul wasn't an Apostle.
neither was he God. What Pauline doctrine did kill was the chance that God was giving to the human race for a world of brotherhood and peace.
Considering your view that God's a justication of mass murder and any other crime against humanity that you can't think up, it's simply proves my point the Ireneus et. al. totally didn't understand the kingdom. The view you have of God is a view that diminishes Him to the level of stone-age mentality. And it's that view that comes from the Pauline doctrine , Paul's understanding of scripture was exactly why his career started as a murderous thug.

So dream on about that eternity with that abberation of God that has been fostered on the churches through oppression, thought control, book burning, torture, deception by self-righteous men that force Christ's words of the kingdom into their own hateful world view. The "one true church" turned it's back on Christ 1600 years ago and just as it lusted after worldly power it lost the Kingdom of God.
This is not just my view of that of the Gnostics somebody else thinks so too:
" Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing,
but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them."

I wonder who said that,

Originally posted by frogstomp
The disciple Stephen wasn't Gnostic. and Paul wasn't an Apostle.
neither was he God. What Pauline doctrine did kill was the chance that God was giving to the human race for a world of brotherhood and peace.
Considering your view that God's a justication of mass murder and any other crime against humanity that you can't think up, it's simply ...[text shortened]... nto the fire.
Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them."

I wonder who said that,

I do not see the issues you seem to have with Paul, why don't you
do a Paul vs Jesus thread. I'd like to see your points.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I do not see the issues you seem to have with Paul, why don't you
do a Paul vs Jesus thread. I'd like to see your points.
Kelly

It's not exactly Paul where the problem is, it's elevating a theologian's writing to heights that belong only to Christ.

This is the begining of the Kingdom

Matt. 11:12 And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.
11:13 For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.
and:
Mark 16:19 So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.
16:20 And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working
with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.

This is what closed the canon

When people realize that Christ is the messenger , they realize it God is talking directly to them and don't need an interpreter what they do need is only a faithful translation into their language.Any other view says God is incapable of talking coherently.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Frogstomp, this is what I think: Paul was a power-hungry c^nt whose diktats set the Church on its road to ruin. For example, he gave men authority over women at a stage when this issue was still open for discussion. I firmly his story ...[text shortened]... exactly why Paul was such a c^nt. I for one would be interested.

There's a problem with that , I don't want to be inundated with 60% of the words in the New Testament since Paul is only a perphery issue of what Pauline doctrine is and why religion was and is so anti-science and has been a tool of oppression and would be again if given the chance.

Originally posted by frogstomp
It's not exactly Paul where the problem is, it's elevating a theologian's writing to heights that belong only to Christ.

This is the begining of the Kingdom

Matt. 11:12 And from the days of John the Baptist until now the ...[text shortened]... her view says God is incapable of talking coherently.

I agree with you that God can and does speak to us, yet saying that
I don't see why you think God doesn't enlighten some more than
others, for whatever the reason. If you believe the writter Luke in
the book of Acts, you'd have to accept that God's relationship with
him was somewhat different than your average believer. This is not
saying he was of more worth to God, because I don't believe that even
Peter or John was thought of as more important than any other to
God. Yet the gifts and callings on their lives were of a more important
type as those who taught the church at it's early stages, and if God
through the Holy Spirit teachs you something, why wouldn't that be on
par with Jesus, it is after all the same source?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I agree with you that God can and does speak to us, yet saying that
I don't see why you think God doesn't enlighten some more than
others, for whatever the reason. If you believe the writter Luke in
the book of Acts, you'd have to accept that God's relationship with
him was somewhat different than your average believer. This is not
saying he was of ...[text shortened]... you something, why wouldn't that be on
par with Jesus, it is after all the same source?
Kelly

The answer to your question was answered in the the first part of your post.

you ask "... why wouldn't that be on par with Jesus, it is after all the same source?"

"you'd have to accept that God's relationship with him was somewhat different than your average believer."

Originally posted by frogstomp
The answer to your question was answered in the the first part of your post.

you ask "... why wouldn't that be on par with Jesus, it is after all the same source?"

"you'd have to accept that God's relationship with him was somewhat different than your average believer."

I may not have been as clear as I should have (sorry, my bad), it
isn't that the relationship between the two of them Paul and Jesus is
different, but Paul's calling within the church is different than say
mine or someone else's. Jesus' walk with us throughout when he
spoke he said that he was doing what the Father wanted, when Jesus
left, Jesus said that the Holy Spirit was going to be sent to teach and
guide us.

This is the Spirit of God, and if you look at the lives of many of the
people within Acts you'll see that God was indeed using people to
promote His church, to strenghten it, to show it God's will and so on.
It wasn't just some guys in a fancy suit with pretty hats, but regular
people, and they were being used, the guy sent to heal Saul/Paul
wasn't a giant in the church, but God used Him. The Holy Spirit does
teach and guide as far as God's will is concern, and because of that
I don't see how you can simply reject Paul out of hand, because if
the same Spirit of God was working through Jesus as Paul then you
are dealing with the same God.
Kelly

Originally posted by frogstomp
The answer to your question was answered in the the first part of your post.

you ask "... why wouldn't that be on par with Jesus, it is after all the same source?"

"you'd have to accept that God's relationship with him was somewhat different than your average believer."

Agg, twice now in a few days that for some reason my posts double.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I may not have been as clear as I should have (sorry, my bad), it
isn't that the relationship between the two of them Paul and Jesus is
different, but Paul's calling within the church is different than say
mine or someone else's. Jesus' walk with us throughout when he
spoke he said that he was doing what the Father wanted, when Jesus
left, Jesus s ...[text shortened]... Spirit of God was working through Jesus as Paul then you
are dealing with the same God.
Kelly

KJ, a simpler question - how do we know Jesus did, in fact, say or do anything the Gospels claim He said or did?

Originally posted by KellyJay
I may not have been as clear as I should have (sorry, my bad), it
isn't that the relationship between the two of them Paul and Jesus is
different, but Paul's calling within the church is different than say
mine or someone else's. Jesus' walk with us throughout when he
spoke he said that he was doing what the Father wanted, when Jesus
left, Jesus s ...[text shortened]... Spirit of God was working through Jesus as Paul then you
are dealing with the same God.
Kelly

The Spirit was working through Jesus the same as Paul?

The Spirit is alway here , permeating everything , and so has been the word, mankind however, is a very imperfect receiver of it. This is why Christ came to deliver the word in person so there would be no confusion of what the message was.

However, mankind including Paul, remain imperfect receivers, and can only get the message through the words of Christ.

The people that yelled "Free Barabas" were doing what they thought was God's will, as was Paul when he was inficting suffering and murders on Christians .

The following is why Paul's writings are not on the same level of Christ's words:
Matt. 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 28:20Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.