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

[sojourner]

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

Then why is it called "Christianity" instead of "Marianism?"
Protestants don't buy into the veneration of Mary as deeply as do the Romans -- and, BTW, neither do the Anglicans or the Orthodox. One can't understand Xy without Jesus. One can understand Xy without Mary.

BTW: I don't see how you can claim to be Catholic, when you espouse something that Catholicism claims to be heresy. You can't be Catholic and anti-Catholic at the same time.

 

[sojourner]

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?

You're assuming that Augustine is lifted directly and totally from Paul. He isn't. You're also misrepresenting Pelagius, who promoted grace.

 

[sojourner]

I am not misrepresenting him. I didn't make the table. I found it on google.

And, of course, if it's on the 'net, it has to be true, right?

Pelagius wrote that we are born naturally within God's grace -- that's why we're created "very good."

A lot of people say the same things as Paul without being totally the same thing.

if Paul sound irrational, don't you think that he's worth a second tumble? How is rejecting him "rational research?" No disrespect intended, but you ought to at least wrestle with him, rather than rejecting him out of hand.

 

[Estro Felino]

if Paul sound irrational, don't you think that he's worth a second tumble? How is rejecting him "rational research?" No disrespect intended, but you ought to at least wrestle with him, rather than rejecting him out of hand.

I believe that Paul was certainly a holy man.
But I believe in freewill and in man's absolute autonomy from God. So I believe in man, first, and then in God. I would like to make you understand what my feelings towards mankind are. I want all men to be saved: because I trust our human nature and want that evil is totally and definitively erased from human nature.
But I am sure that God wants the same things. But I am not obeying Him...my desire is autonomous from His.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The writer of the account about Paul perpetrated a lie if Jesus never spoke to him.

... or maybe we're the liars when we say that the writer perpetuated a lie if Jesus never spoke to him.

There's no law of interpretation that states that everything a writer says must be strictly 'true', 'factual,' or 'historical' in order for it to be true.

If that were the case, truth would be a simple matter of black and white and completely inapplicable to the complexities of human experience.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

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

How you know what God knows -- that would be an interesting story to tell.

What else do you know that God knows? ... and how do you know it?

 

[Estro Felino]

How you know what God knows -- that would be an interesting story to tell.

What else do you know that God knows? ... and how do you know it?

Did God know when apes would have become humans?
let me guess: you are a creationist, aren't you?

 

[savagewind]

... or maybe we're the liars when we say that the writer perpetuated a lie if Jesus never spoke to him.

There's no law of interpretation that states that everything a writer says must be strictly 'true', 'factual,' or 'historical' in order for it to be true.

If that were the case, truth would be a simple matter of black and white and completely inapplicable to the complexities of human experience.

Not black and white. It happened or it didn't happen. Not Jesus speaking happened (which is for interpretation) but that Paul saw a light, heard a voice, went blind and was healed happened. If it didn't happen then the account of it happening is a lie.

 

[outhouse]

Did God know the exact moment in which apes would become humans?
let me guess: you are a creationist, aren't you?

Your blatant ignorance is getting to be overwhelming

 

[outhouse]

Not black and white. It happened or it didn't happen. Not Jesus speaking happened (which is for interpretation) but that Paul saw a light, heard a voice, went blind and was healed happened. If it didn't happen then the account of it happening is a lie.

If you were not ignorant to the NT you would understand what Paul said and what later unknown authors said far removed from any actual event.


Paul claims he had a feeling within him. That is how he converted by his own words, not that of acts.

he states he viewed Jesus but in this time day dreams and visions were considered real to these people.

 

[savagewind]

If you were not ignorant to the NT you would understand what Paul said and what later unknown authors said far removed from any actual event.


Paul claims he had a feeling within him. That is how he converted by his own words, not that of acts.

he states he viewed Jesus but in this time day dreams and visions were considered real to these people.

UUGGGG OK Listen closely. Just pretend I am important. If Paul had a daydream it was a daydream he had and the account is the truth. If he had no daydream the account is a fabrication.

 

[outhouse]

UUGGGG OK Listen closely. Just pretend I am important. If Paul had a daydream it was a daydream he had and the account is the truth. If he had no daydream the account is a fabrication.

Understood, we don't know.

What we do know is he did wrote in rhetorical prose, so there is a good case for both.

Where I caught your mistake was quoting Acts for Paul himself

 

[outhouse]

Your blatant ignorance is getting to be overwhelming

No one is hating you. Its the errors your producing by making comments you have little education in.

 

[sojourner]

Did God know when apes would become humans?
let me guess: you are a creationist, aren't you?

You don't know him well at all, do you!

 

[Shad]

No one is hating you. Its the errors your producing by making comments you have little education in.

Fix your quote as you are quoting and responding to yourself.

 

[outhouse]

Fix your quote as you are quoting and responding to yourself.

he knows who it is addressed to, he frubaled me for that reply, and asked when I would quit hating him.

I don't.

 

[savagewind]

I think the idea can be more properly stated The Apostle Paul was the anti-christ according to my view of the first Christians' writings.

Outhouse might think he knows the minds of dead people but it is not really possible. It is hard enough know living peoples' minds.

 

[sojourner]

I think the idea can be more properly stated The Apostle Paul was the anti-christ according to my view of the first Christians' writings.

Outhouse might think he knows the minds of dead people but it is not really possible. It is hard enough know living peoples' minds.

Fortunately, one can't really make such concrete statement based upon one's personal opinion of the texts.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

UUGGGG OK Listen closely. Just pretend I am important. If Paul had a daydream it was a daydream he had and the account is the truth. If he had no daydream the account is a fabrication.

I'm game for that.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I think the idea can be more properly stated The Apostle Paul was the anti-christ according to my view of the first Christians' writings.

Outhouse might think he knows the minds of dead people but it is not really possible. It is hard enough know living peoples' minds.

So in your view, it's likely from the first Christians' writings, which mention nothing of the anti-Christ until conservatively 45 years after Paul's death actually viewed him as the anti-Christ. This means that for Paul's entire ministry, while none of the literature written by himself and other Christians from about 45CE to 100CE mention him as the anti-Christ... he was still received as the anti-Christ by all the non-Pauline churches.

You realize of course that this means that the Christian communities that produced all of the canonical and non-canonical Gospels, the Gnostics or other heretical groups, and the Christian literature that actually introduces and later mentions the anti-Christ --- all of the evidence, in other words -- all (most, or some) of these writers would had to have believed that Paul was the anti-Christ yet wrote nothing about it. None of the material mentions or even remotely alludes to Paul as the anti-Christ.

This is walking in the street eating one's poop crazy. Loony toons. Peeing on the carpet.