The Apostle Paul was the anti-christ according to the first Christians

[sojourner]

If Luke didn't walk with the living Jesus and quoted him, what do you think?

None of the gospelers "walked with Jesus." None. By your argument, then, none of the stories and "Jesus saids" are trustworthy; all are "deceptive." Are you ready to go there? I don't think so.

 

[sojourner]

Ah, now you're changing your point.
Yes, I know Luke 10. It doesn't support your proclamation that works saves.

Nope. I haven't "changed my point." My "point" is to refute your claim that there are no scriptures which claim that works save. I point you to Luke 10, where Jesus explicitly says, "Do this, and you will live." (Not "believe this.")

I'm not at all saying that "works save." I'm saying, "Here's a scripture that says 'your act (work) saves.'"

 

[sojourner]

But we all agree that the gospels writers were all defenders of the Hellenistic identity in the Middle East.

Not sure we all agree with that. The preponderance of Jesus quotes in the gospels are Galilean in origin, and point to suspicion against Rome -- but that doesn't make them "hellenistic."

People don't tend to acknowledge that Christianity is a Greek invention.

That's because it isn't. It spread through Greek culture, but it was not a "Greek invention."

 

[sojourner]

Where would you suggest someone go if they were interested in learning more of this history that you're referring to?

A Dan Brown novel would be a good start...

 

[sojourner]

Trying to spank you?
You demonstrate you're incapable of staying on topic, you accuse me of resorting to ad homs, which is a falsehood in itself, just to divert attention away from the fact you're not capable of staying on topic, and now you play victim by accusing me of something as obscene as trying to spank you? Because I won't be bullied or led by someone who can't make a cogent point to support their contention, that they now back peddle from, (that would be you), that works saves?

Something you can never prove? And that fact is what leads you to get defensive and pull the victim card.
We're done here. Do grow up.

Someone needs to get over herself. Rapidly.

You were using Matthew (incorrectly) to bolster your argument. When I pointed that out (with regard to the topic, BTW) you offered the comeback that I "didn't know how to stay on topic." I was offering a valid counter argument to your misuse of Matthew. You, OTOH, countered with a whiney "You don't know how to..." which is an ad hominem. What you should have done, O Best Beloved, was to show how you do, in fact, know what Matthew is all about, rather than attacking me (instead of my argument) for being "off topic."

I'm not playing the victim; your claim about my inability is nothing more than a cheap attempt at condescension, which I called you out on by using the equally condescending term of "spanking." I don't feel spanked; I'm not whining about being spanked. I merely stated that that's what you were attempting to do.

Again: Get over yourself. You're mistaken and you know it.

Now that that's settled, perhaps you can now successfully defend why your use of Matthew is cogent to the topic?

 

[Estro Felino]

That's because it isn't. It spread through Greek culture, but it was not a "Greek invention."

I am sorry...I didn't make myself clear. I didn't mean that Christianity is something made up. I do believe in Jesus as God.
But of course Christ's incarnation is the product of history: that is, his coming in a certain period of history was not casual. But, as the rational and altruistic principles of Hellenism prove, the times were mature and people were ready to welcome and understood Jesus.

 

[sojourner]

Christ's incarnation is the product of history: that is, his coming in a certain period of history was not casual.

"Not casual" =/= "product of history." The Christ Event has two aspects -- the historic Jesus and the mythic Jesus. You're speaking more to the mythic Jesus here, which is not historic -- it's mythic and theological.

 

[Robert.Evans]

...

You said elsewhere in this thread (I can't find it) that you believe that we choose Christ and not the other way round, otherwise there is no freewill. It is an interesting argument, as freewill is imperative. Without it, everything is meaningless. But it is not scriptural is it. And that's the problem. How do you deal with the Word?

 

[Estro Felino]

You said elsewhere in this thread (I can't find it) that you believe that we choose Christ and not the other way round, otherwise there is no freewill. It is an interesting argument, as freewill is imperative. Without it, everything is meaningless. But it is not scriptural is it. And that's the problem. How do you deal with the Word?

Thank you. Precisely: I am a Pelagian (I don't know if you have ever heard of Pelagianism). It is a theological doctrine based upon freewill.
As for your question: well...the parables implicitly say that we earn our salvation through our merits (I can quote the parable of the vineyard and the two sons)....

However...as you justly said, all Paul's writings contradict this vision. I simply believe that Paul didn't possess the truth.
so I simply say that some passages are theologically wrong.

 

[Estro Felino]

"Not casual" =/= "product of history." The Christ Event has two aspects -- the historic Jesus and the mythic Jesus. You're speaking more to the mythic Jesus here, which is not historic -- it's mythic and theological.

Mary's Magnificat proves that she represents the fulfillment of history. That is, she was elected because she was the first one that loved all mankind.
So...in other words, God didn't decide the exact hour and day of Jesus' coming.
Jesus' coming is the product of humans' freewill (and not God's freewill).

God didn't know when and where Mary would be born.

 

[outhouse]

But we all agree that the gospels writers were all defenders of the Hellenistic identity in the Middle East..

No we don't.

Because they were Hellenized does not mean they defended it.

People don't tend to acknowledge that Christianity is a Greek invention.

Because it wasn't.

Judaism invented Christianity. And Hellenized Jews wanted a divorce from Israelite Judaism

Do you doubt that Paul hated the Romans?

Your just like a lost puppy here dude


Paul was a Roman

 

[Estro Felino]

Judaism invented Christianity. And Hellenized Jews wanted a divorce from Israelite Judaism

Dearest....with all due respect ...do you think it is normal to deny my affirmation, and then confirm it two seconds later?
You said: Judaism invented Christianity. And then, two seconds later you say that Hellenized Jews wanted to divorce from Judaism.
By Greeks I mean even Hellenized Jews.
Maybe you ignore that Greek doesn't mean exclusively an inhabitant of Greece. The Greeks lived in Sicily, in Illyria, in the Middle East, including Judaea.
so yes, I repeat it: Christianity is something Greek, or Hellenistic.
Greek and Hellenized is the same thing. Hellenism is the opposite of Judaism: Hellenism supported cosmopolitanism. Judaism supported nationalism

Your just like a lost puppy here dude
Paul was a Roman

really? what makes you think he was a Roman?
Paul was any thing but a Roman.
of course juridically. But not ethnically

 

[sojourner]

Mary's Magnificat proves that she represents the fulfillment of story. That is, she was elected because she was the first one that loved all mankind.
So...in other words, God didn't decide the exact hour and day of Jesus' coming.
Jesus' coming is the product of humans' freewill (and not God's freewill).

God didn't know when and where Mary would be born.

You're not making sense here.

 

[outhouse]

You're not making sense here.

I wrote out the same thing

and then deleted it thinking it wasn't worth it

 

[outhouse]

do you think it is normal to deny my affirmation, and then confirm it two seconds later?

I confirmed nothing in your context. Your context was all wrong.

Christianity is something Greek, or Hellenistic.

yes. but you did not place it in proper context, as it is also Judaism more so then Hellenistic

Its started out 100 Jewish, and only after his death did it evolve in Hellenistic communities who found importance in Judaism

 

[Estro Felino]

I wrote out the same thing

and then deleted it thinking it wasn't worth it

exactly. It isn't worth it. I could try to explain it to you 2...but it would be a waste of time. We Catholics believe that Mary is maybe more important than Jesus to understand Christianity...and you Protestants wouldn't listen to us

 

[outhouse]

We Catholics believe that Mary is maybe more important than Jesus to understand Christianity...and you Protestants wouldn't listen to us

Ridiculous


christianity is wide and diverse, and you do not represent any party, nor have any credibility is stating you do.

 

[Estro Felino]

I would like to post a little scheme so people can realize how illogical (and a bit devilish) Augustine's assumptions are.
and let's not forget that Augustine was totally inspired by St Paul

Honestly...how can people think that Paul's theology is inspired by God?

 

[outhouse]

I would like to post a little scheme so people can realize how illogical (and a bit devilish) Augustine's assumptions are.
and let's not forget that Augustine was totally inspired by St Paul

Honestly...how can people think that Paul's theology is inspired by God?

Apologetic nonsense with no bearing on the topic at hand.


You don't have to like Paul, not everyone does.

That does not mean the importance of pauls epistles will ever be forgotten.

 

[sojourner]

so yes, I repeat it: Christianity is something Greek, or Hellenistic.
Greek and Hellenized is the same thing. Hellenism is the opposite of Judaism: Hellenism supported cosmopolitanism. Judaism supported nationalism

The quotations of Jesus in the synoptics are highly nationalistic -- not cosmopolitan. Xy isn't Hellenistic at first. it becomes hellenistic later.