@fmf saidI plan on it.
I don't think I am. I think I am getting to the very heart of the point. I've told you what I don't believe. Don't take my word for it. It all comes down to a matter of faith. If you need to research the subject in order to get a clearer idea of what it is exactly what you have faith in, then you should go and do that research.
But here are the scenarios:
1) Paul never had the encounter with Jesus, and essentially fabricated all of his writings.
2) Paul had the encounter, but Jesus never gave him specifics on what to preach.
3) Paul had the encounter, Jesus instructed him what to preach, and he did so accurately.
4) Paul had the encounter, Jesus instructed him what to preach, but instead, Paul preached his own message.
By the way, the 10,000 denominations... or 39,000 denominations... or 40,000 denominations... generally consist of:
Orthodox
Catholic
Anglican
Protestant (+29,000 localized associates)
Reformism (+11,000 localized associates)
Other associated movements (LDS, Jehovah's Witnesses, 7th Day Adventists, and maybe a dozen or so other).
Much fo the Protestant & Reformist sects exist independently either out of philosophical motivation (like the Congregationalists) or due to geography. Many also exist for tax reasons.
Really, there's not that many leading schools of thought and denominations.
@philokalia saidPerhaps you missed the following edit in my post:
The early Church fathers believed in St. Paul. They accepted him as one of them, and his doctrines were clearly compatible. The apparition to him was sincere.
If we believe that God has worked to preserve His Word among us, why would we believe that all of Christianity has been hijacked until the 19th and 20th century when you really start to get these radicals appearin ...[text shortened]... ation from people who either want to radically innovate the Church, or who want to see it destroyed.
"The Bible being what it is, people have no choice to pick and choose. Only the extremely disingenuous claim that they don't. There's a reason that there are so many denominations and that Christians have held and continue to hold completely contrary views on so many subjects."
@chaney3 saidLet us know what happens once you have exposed yourself to the information about this that's out there and tell us what you believe at the end of the process.
I plan on it.
But here are the scenarios:
1) Paul never had the encounter with Jesus, and essentially fabricated all of his writings.
2) Paul had the encounter, but Jesus never gave him specifics on what to preach.
3) Paul had the encounter, Jesus instructed him what to preach, and he did so accurately.
4) Paul had the encounter, Jesus instructed him what to preach, but instead, Paul preached his own message.
@fmf saidSo, you do not believe that God communes with the Saints in any way? And you think that St. Paul did not have a supernatural event that saved him from the path that he was going on?
I don't believe that Paul had any communication with Jesus. It is one of the reasons I am not a Christian.
@philokalia saidYou are acting as if you have never read any of my posts. I am not interested in this 'debating' gimmick.
So, you do not believe that God communes with the Saints in any way? And you think that St. Paul did not have a supernatural event that saved him from the path that he was going on?
@fmf saidI read the first few pages and saw that you had read some book and that you now are suggesting that St. Paul, as Saul of Tarsus, may have merely changed tactics in his persecution of the Chruch, perhaps infiltrating it, based off of some book.
You are acting as if you have never read any of my posts. I am not interested in this 'debating' gimmick.
Is this a relevant factor to you?
@chaney3 saidTake the time to actually read and comprehend the gospel preached by Jesus during His ministry. The vast majority of Christians with whom I've spoken not only haven't taken the time to comprehend Jesus' gospel, they haven't even read all of it.
I plan on it.
But here are the scenarios:
1) Paul never had the encounter with Jesus, and essentially fabricated all of his writings.
2) Paul had the encounter, but Jesus never gave him specifics on what to preach.
3) Paul had the encounter, Jesus instructed him what to preach, and he did so accurately.
4) Paul had the encounter, Jesus instructed him what to preach, but instead, Paul preached his own message.
@thinkofone saidIt's actually really, really hard to comprehend it, so I wouldn'tblame them.
Take the time to actually read and comprehend the gospel preached by Jesus during His ministry. The vast majority of Christians with whom I've spoken not only haven't taken the time to comprehend the Jesus' gospel, they haven't even read it.
The right place to understand it is through the early Christian Saints, and then you can see the rightful heirs to it, and get a grasp of how it is to be comprehended and followed.
@Chaney3
If you are interested, you have to approach the New Testament as completely correct & without error, faithfully recorded, and it is only in this context that you can actually develop the proper systematic understanding of the Bible.
If you do not view the New Testament in this way, then you will not come to the proepr theological grounds, and then you will start slipping away from Christianity because your ego takes over and you will begin to pick & choose what you want from it, and what you want to emphasize.
Those who are closest to the religion from the start clearly formulated the proper beliefs. The Catholic Church did corrupt some of them, and then the Protestants,reacting largely to the errors of the Catholics, overcompensated and innovated outside of tradition, and the results are not that good.
But they do have the Gospel, and the Catholics also do. The rites of the Catholics are also valid. We do have unity .
It's merely that the proper understanding is in the Eastern tradition that was not corrupted by innovation.
@philokalia saidIt's actually really, really hard to comprehend it, so I wouldn't blame them.
It's actually really, really hard to comprehend it, so I wouldn'tblame them.
The right place to understand it is through the early Christian Saints, and then you can see the rightful heirs to it, and get a grasp of how it is to be comprehended and followed.
Those who earnestly seek can comprehend it. The truth is that most can't be bothered.
Perhaps the most prevalent theme of what Jesus taught while He walked the Earth, is the importance of His word:
Understanding His word.
Not just understanding His word, but believing His word.
Not just believing His word, but following His word.
Not just following His word, but keeping His word.
Not just keeping His word, but abiding in His word.
Jesus goes on an on about it.
The right place to understand it is through the early Christian Saints, and then you can see the rightful heirs to it, and get a grasp of how it is to be comprehended and followed.
Yet people call Jesus "Lord" and call themselves "followers of Jesus" when the truth of the matter is that they are "followers" of the dogma that has been set before them.
@philokalia saidI read the "some book" you are referring to about 15 years after I stopped self-identifying as a Christian.
I read the first few pages and saw that you had read some book and that you now are suggesting that St. Paul, as Saul of Tarsus, may have merely changed tactics in his persecution of the Chruch, perhaps infiltrating it, based off of some book.
Is this a relevant factor to you?
@philokalia saidIn other words, one has to start with "It is because it is" and take it from there.
If you are interested, you have to approach the New Testament as completely correct & without error, faithfully recorded, and it is only in this context that you can actually develop the proper systematic understanding of the Bible.