|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat Feb 06, 2016 1:09 pm
He confuses me very much, and so does the Church that accepts him. A few months ago I found a few websites that say that Paul is a heretic. This is just one example, since my butt is too lazy to find the rest of them. Seriously, just type "Paul is a heretic" on Google and a bunch of results will pop (you) out. Click here.TL;DR version: they quoted the Bible in which, allegedly, Paul contradicts Jesus (Jesus says that the Law (of Moses) will last forever, Paul says nuh-uh), explained how he wasn't an actual apostle, that he never even actually met Jesus (a "theologian" I know: "But he finished some priestly, or rabbi schools, or whatever, so...y'know. He's totally an apostle, cuz, like, the Church said so.") and that he even said some bad stuff about apostle Peter. Now, I checked and double checked the quotes they posted, since a lot of fake Bible stuff is posted on the internet, and everything matches up. I found out that, apparently, even philosophers like Kierkegaard agreed that he is a total butthole. Now, I'm not someone who believes everything she reads on the internet (and yet I'm here) and I know that it seems like I pretty much made up my mind, but since this priestly robe doesn't make me a priest, and my sources, like my mind, may be faulty, I would like to ask my fellow Gaians, who surely know more than I - what do you think?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 07, 2016 9:17 am
I would not call Paul a heretic, but I would not call him any apostle of Jesus either.
Paul contributed to the idea of "heresy", and as I do not subscribe to his teachings and considers him wrong in too many ways, I cannot use the word "heresy" about him.
Essentially, I would not call him a Heretic, I would call him Wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2016 6:02 pm
Paul calls himself the "least of the Apostles", since he came last, after the resurrection.
The Council of Jerusalem wanted to restrict their preaching and teaching work to Jewish audiences only, but Paul wanted to include the Gentiles; that was the root of the controversy. Then some hard liners insisted that Paul's Gentile converts were nit acceptable unless they got circumcised, which was a dangerous operation for an adult.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 10, 2016 11:13 am
chessiejo Paul calls himself the "least of the Apostles", since he came last, after the resurrection. The Council of Jerusalem wanted to restrict their preaching and teaching work to Jewish audiences only, but Paul wanted to include the Gentiles; that was the root of the controversy. Then some hard liners insisted that Paul's Gentile converts were nit acceptable unless they got circumcised, which was a dangerous operation for an adult. .....Council of Jerusalem? How could they have a council of Jerusalem, considering they were hunted by some that were like Paul used to be as Saul? Would they even have been allowed to enter Jerusalem?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 29, 2016 11:03 am
Tiina Brown chessiejo Paul calls himself the "least of the Apostles", since he came last, after the resurrection. The Council of Jerusalem wanted to restrict their preaching and teaching work to Jewish audiences only, but Paul wanted to include the Gentiles; that was the root of the controversy. Then some hard liners insisted that Paul's Gentile converts were nit acceptable unless they got circumcised, which was a dangerous operation for an adult. .....Council of Jerusalem? How could they have a council of Jerusalem, considering they were hunted by some that were like Paul used to be as Saul? Would they even have been allowed to enter Jerusalem? this article mostly explains it. most believers were still in the Jerusalem area, under Peter's leadership; that was called the "mother church". Yes they were persecuted, but that did not slow them down much! https://www.biblegateway.com/resources/encyclopedia-of-the-bible/Council-Jerusalem
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 01, 2016 8:00 am
chessiejo this article mostly explains it. most believers were still in the Jerusalem area, under Peter's leadership; that was called the "mother church". Yes they were persecuted, but that did not slow them down much! https://www.biblegateway.com/resources/encyclopedia-of-the-bible/Council-Jerusalem It only kind of explains it, but not in the manner you think: It makes it obvious that the Judaic converts that had stayed was no longer as persecuted, partially because they had accepted to follow the "Judaic law", despite the teachings of Jesus. Pragmatism used for survival, simply put. As I see it, the berating of Peter were at best only so that Paul would not have to accept as many of the requirements during the council as he otherwise would have .... And yet. He accepted to two things that were derived from the flawed rules that Jesus supposedly had abolished. That is not so much faith, as it is pragmatism, as it is very possible that rejection of even those two thing could have split the church in half. And that is me interpreting Paul's choices there as positively as I can. Sure I could see it as even more positive if I'd like, but then i'd have to ignore important parts of what is described.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
