1. Joined
    02 Aug '06
    Moves
    12622
    18 Jun '07 16:082 edits
    Originally posted by ahosyney
    I will answer you with two verses from Quran that describes your position:

    1-
    (Nobel-Translation)(2 - Al-Baqarah)(79. Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands and then say, "This is from Allâh," to purchase with it a little price! Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for that they earn thereby.)
    2-
    (Nob âh," but it is not from Allâh; and they speak a lie against Allâh while they know it.)
    [/b]
    The Apostle Paul is a great model of the normal Christian life. What we can learn from his experience as a disciple is absolutely PRICELESS!

    Page after page of his writings unveil such rich insight into the nature of the life in Christ that we'd be severely handicapped without it.

    I have learned so much about living the Christian life from Paul that I can't imagine not consulting his wisdom.

    I have no comment about your verses from the Quran because that is not my book of faith.

    But, not to sound disrespectful, you have to be CRAZY to think that we Christians can afford to ignore Paul's insight and wisdom into the nature of the Christian life.
  2. Illinois
    Joined
    20 Mar '07
    Moves
    6266
    18 Jun '07 19:05
    Originally posted by jaywill
    The Apostle Paul is a great model of the normal Christian life. What we can learn from his experience as a disciple is absolutely PRICELESS!

    Page after page of his writings unveil such rich insight into the nature of the life in Christ that we'd be severely handicapped without it.

    I have learned so much about living the Christian life from Pa ...[text shortened]... istians can afford to ignore Paul's insight and wisdom into the nature of the Christian life.
    I think the reason non-Christians of all stripes choose not to consider Paul's epistles to be legitimate is because his central teaching is 'grace', God's amazing grace which runs so contrary to the law that it appears to be in conflict with Christ's call to repentance and holiness. But it is no wonder that God chose Saul to be the one to reveal the riches of his grace, as Saul himself was the worst of sinners before the Lord had mercy on him. The whole thrust of Paul's life was a simple building upon his dramatic conversion experience, and reflects the astonishing nature of God's ability to reconcile the worst of sinners to himself. Thus, Paul is central to Christian thought and doctrine for a very good reason indeed...
  3. Joined
    02 Aug '06
    Moves
    12622
    18 Jun '07 19:141 edit
    Originally posted by epiphinehas
    I think the reason non-Christians of all stripes choose not to consider Paul's epistles to be legitimate is because his central teaching is 'grace', God's amazing grace which runs so contrary to the law that it appears to be in conflict with Christ's call to repentance and holiness. But it is no wonder that God chose Saul to be the one to reveal Thus, Paul is central to Christian thought and doctrine for a very good reason indeed...
    I think the reason non-Christians of all stripes choose not to consider Paul's epistles to be legitimate is because his central teaching is 'grace', God's amazing grace which runs so contrary to the law that it appears to be in conflict with Christ's call to repentance and holiness.


    I could hardly agree more.

    The Jesus Christ Who may have lived long ago is somewhat tolerable to the world. The Jesus Christ Who presently lives and can today have Lordship in our lives is a mortal threat to the natural man.

    It is only fitting that this aspect of the Gospel should be testified to strongly. And for the most part the Apostle Paul was to one to testify to it.


    But it is no wonder that God chose Saul to be the one to reveal the riches of his grace, as Saul himself was the worst of sinners before the Lord had mercy on him. The whole thrust of Paul's life was a simple building upon his dramatic conversion experience, and reflects the astonishing nature of God's ability to reconcile the worst of sinners to himself. Thus, Paul is central to Christian thought and doctrine for a very good reason indeed...



    Central and Foundational.

    Christ is not gone. He is not dead. He rose and can be known today. I mean today.

    Paul's last written words to his pupil Timothy - "The Lord be with your spirit. Grace be with you." (2 Tim. 4:22)

    To paraphrase - "Timothy, whatever you do remember this - Jesus the Lord is with your innermost being - your spirit. And because Jesus is with your spirit New Testament Grace is with you. The enjoyment of God as your life and life supply is with you."


    The subjective experience and enjoyment of the living Lord Jesus can be with the one who believes in Christ.
  4. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52693
    18 Jun '07 20:27
    The post that was quoted here has been removed
    Because you pizz him off๐Ÿ™‚
  5. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52693
    18 Jun '07 20:32
    Originally posted by epiphinehas
    I think the reason non-Christians of all stripes choose not to consider Paul's epistles to be legitimate is because his central teaching is 'grace', God's amazing grace which runs so contrary to the law that it appears to be in conflict with Christ's call to repentance and holiness. But it is no wonder that God chose Saul to be the one to reveal ...[text shortened]... Thus, Paul is central to Christian thought and doctrine for a very good reason indeed...
    You've got to be kidding. Paul took it upon himself to create a religion that would have the appearance of being "Chrisitian" but specifically designed to be acceptable to Romans. There had to be miracles, Romans don't like religions that have no miracles and Jesus himself did little in that regard. Paul on the other hand, made a point out of it so the Romans would be impressed. It follows the rule of all religions, to build it up in such a way as to enrich the church elders and build a large following that will ensure the continued employment of those same elders and keep them in the luxury they so wished to become accustomed to and it kept women out, keeping them at the level of cattle, owned by men. Yessiree, a great religion if you happen to be a top dog.
  6. Joined
    02 Aug '06
    Moves
    12622
    18 Jun '07 22:171 edit
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    You've got to be kidding. Paul took it upon himself to create a religion that would have the appearance of being "Chrisitian" but specifically designed to be acceptable to Romans.
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


    One God instead of multiple deities and worship of the Roman Emperors?

    I don't see Paul tailoring the Gospel to be particularly "Roman" in flavor.

    He wanted the whole world to believe in Jesus. That's not particularly Roman.


    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    There had to be miracles, Romans don't like religions that have no miracles and Jesus himself did little in that regard.
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


    So in the book of Acts the miracles performed by Peter were also "specifically designed to be acceptable to Romans" also?

    So if miracles are particularly Roman then in the four Gospels Jesus is tailoring His message to target Romans?

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Paul on the other hand, made a point out of it so the Romans would be impressed.
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


    Paul wanted everyone, Jew and Gentile to become believers in Jesus Christ. Is that what you mean by he tailored the Gospel to be desirable to Romans?

    Ceasar had him beheaded as far as we know. So was the persecution of the Romans any less than that which he received from the Jews?

    The Jews wanted to stone him. And the Romans beheaded him. Do you see the Romans more favorable to his message? It got him KILLED, his preaching the gospel in chains in Rome.


    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=
    It follows the rule of all religions, to build it up in such a way as to enrich the church elders and build a large following that will ensure the continued employment of those same elders and keep them in the luxury they so wished to become accustomed to and it kept women out, keeping them at the level of cattle, owned by men.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++



    A likely excuse for loving the world more than Christ and God.

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Yessiree, a great religion if you happen to be a top dog.
    +++++++++++++++++++++++


    Handy dandy excuse to live on in your cherished sinful life.

    What other handy rationalizations do you have to relish your sinful life in defiance of the Savior Who died for you?
  7. Joined
    02 Aug '06
    Moves
    12622
    18 Jun '07 22:282 edits
    Concerning miraculous works of power sonhouse writes:

    Paul on the other hand, made a point out of it so the Romans would be impressed.


    Sonhouse apparently is not familiar with the First Corinthian Epistle.

    The Jews seeks signs and the Greeks seek wisdom. But Paul decided to know nothing among the Corinthians but Christ and Him crucified. (See 1 Cor. 1:22,23)

    Sonhouse, the epistle to the Romans is the epistle targeting Roman citizens.

    Could you point out to us where in the Roman Epistle Paul makes a big deal about miraculous works of power?
  8. Illinois
    Joined
    20 Mar '07
    Moves
    6266
    18 Jun '07 22:38
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    You've got to be kidding. Paul took it upon himself to create a religion that would have the appearance of being "Chrisitian" but specifically designed to be acceptable to Romans. There had to be miracles, Romans don't like religions that have no miracles and Jesus himself did little in that regard. Paul on the other hand, made a point out of it so the Roma ...[text shortened]... the level of cattle, owned by men. Yessiree, a great religion if you happen to be a top dog.
    Yessiree, a great religion if you happen to be a top dog.

    Rather, if you happen not to be fundamentally misinformed about it.
  9. Joined
    20 Jun '07
    Moves
    0
    20 Jun '07 01:30
    The post that was quoted here has been removed
    How can a loving God watch my life collapse like that and stand by and not help me out?[/b]

    If you want to reassure your faith try learning about St.Augustine's theodicy, infact even atheist can find meaning in Iraneus Christian philosophy
  10. Hmmm . . .
    Joined
    19 Jan '04
    Moves
    22131
    20 Jun '07 05:231 edit
    Originally posted by epiphinehas
    I think the reason non-Christians of all stripes choose not to consider Paul's epistles to be legitimate is because his central teaching is 'grace', God's amazing grace which runs so contrary to the law that it appears to be in conflict with Christ's call to repentance and holiness. But it is no wonder that God chose Saul to be the one to reveal Thus, Paul is central to Christian thought and doctrine for a very good reason indeed...
    As a non-Christian of some “stripe” ๐Ÿ˜‰, I find St. Paul to be spiritually profound. In some mundane matters, he might be a bit curmudgeonly, but he wasn’t necessarily always speaking “in the spirit.” (We could argue about that, but to no point really, except to disagree.)

    Since I don’t believe in so-called “verbal inspiration,” I think that he grappled with problems of language vis-à-vis spiritual experience. I agree with you about his whole effort being built upon his experience on the road to Damascus. For him, that was clearly “translated” into a Christic experience (by that, I do not mean translated later, but a kind of spontaneous translation that occurs in the event, much as my visual cortex translates certain energy wavelengths into a picture in my head of the moon; that is, I do not mean it in any disparaging sense; I have explained my understanding of such “translation” in the mystical experience elsewhere).

    For him, that experience, so translated, became definitive. I find such Christic translation to be valid, but not exclusive. (Again, we can disagree, but it has pretty much all been said before.)

    I really just wanted to say that—however one relates Paul to Jesus—I find no reason to consider Paul “illegitimate.” That would be a bit like saying that Bodhidharma (the first patriarch of Zen) was somehow illegitimate as a Buddhist because he did not speak exactly as the Buddha did.

    EDIT: This was really just intended as a nod of regard to Paul, not for argument.
Back to Top