Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Saul of Tarsus. The first heretic?

Options
135

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Soul Winner
    Registered Users Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    SubjectSean wrote: »
    This garbage, as you have it, is from Acts. You are wrong to say there was no community of followers attatched to Stephen. If you read Acts 6 you will see that Stephen is chosen foremost from amongst the party of Grecian Jews. It is these people who are his followers.



    Exactly. The closest friends and family of Jesus were left alone.



    You asked me if I thought it was a righteous path.



    Sorry, you misunderstand me I think, I'm saying that even if you are correct and Jesus did not care for his mother and brothers, the Jerusalem Church led by James was made up of the Apostles and not just his family.



    Again this is all Pauline and you may as well tell me about the mechanism by which Santy delivers presents. It is made up nonsense that the people Jesus left behind were in clear opposition to.



    Surely Pauls less stringent requirement to follow Jesus is the real 'man-pleasing' in all of this. Concentrating on the cruxifix, mere faith instead of acts, it's a broad path and there are millions on it.



    Josephus indicates that James was killed for political reasons and his death was protested by all kinds of Jews. I don't think his death had anything to do with his brother directly. It was their shared outlook that got them both killed IMO. The rich don't like the poor if they demand justice. The men who will demand it even to death, that's my kind of men.



    Of course Judas was the right man, there'd be no story without Judas.



    As you say, Mathias! Who? Not a word of him after that little episode at the start of Acts. Many people consider that this is a redaction to the original source material and that it is the election of James, not Mathias, that was originally recorded. The faith that would have said: "The Lord knows what he is doing, he doesn't need us to choose for Him" was simply not there on account of the fact they did not think that Jesus was God. That would be a most greivous blasphemy to Jews of this nature. However the Grecian Jews, who were in large part apostate from their original religions, had no such qualms about making things up. Saul, for whatever reason, saw he would be best employed in ministering to them. The spooky man!

    Praise God

    I’m not getting anywhere with you am I? Maybe it would be better for us to just agree to disagree. You stick James and I'll stick with Paul. One final note though. If you're gonna try and gain entry to life by the Law then you better check yourself to see if you’ve ever broken any of it. The Law requires that you keep it perfectly, perpetually and ignorance is not an excuse, you cannot say that because you didn't know about some thing in the law that that gets you off, it doesn't. You must know it perfectly, do it perfectly all the time. Not one miss in your life time is allowed. If you can do that they you're laughing. If you haven't then I feel sorry for you, but heck, you're the one who wants to be judged by that standard. The only way you can say that the way of faith is an easy road is because you don’t practice it much. The way of Faith is easier than the the way of Law because the Law is impossible. You cheapen and belittle the Law if you believe otherwise. That does not mean that having faith in God is easy. Believe me I know, I've been practising it for 18 years now.


    I leave you with a word from Paul:

    “Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband. Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.” Gal 4 21-31


  • Options
    #63
    SubjectSean
    Registered Users Posts: 458 ✭✭SubjectSean


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I thought you believed that the whole Bible was nonsense. So what purpose do you have in confining your statement to the Gospel of John can I ask?

    I don't thnk you ever heard me say the Bible was nonsense. It's a valuable document, precious to our species. I confine my statement to John because it is almost exclusively full of Greek notions that don't come from Hebrews.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    His blood was of the "new covenant". Do you understand what the word new means?

    I do. This all comes down to whether you believe the 'new covenant' that Jesus and John the Baptist talked about was either the same 'new covenant' that the Essenes talked about; or if it was the 'new covenant' that Paul made up.


  • Options
    #64
    SubjectSean
    Registered Users Posts: 458 ✭✭SubjectSean


    Soul Winner wrote: »
    I’m not getting anywhere with you am I? Maybe it would be better for us to just agree to disagree. You stick James and I'll stick with Paul.

    :) No we aren't getting anywhere but you're the first Christian I've ever met that even admits to a split so at least that was something new for me.
    Soul Winner wrote: »
    I leave you with a word from Paul:

    I suppose to repay the favour I'll leave you with a word from the straight talking pseudo-James

    "Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world."


  • Options
    #65
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    SubjectSean wrote:
    I don't thnk you ever heard me say the Bible was nonsense. It's a valuable document, precious to our species. I confine my statement to John because it is almost exclusively full of Greek notions that don't come from Hebrews.

    Or notions that he had recieved from Christ. Most of these things come through dialogue that Christ had said to others.


  • Options
    #66
    SubjectSean
    Registered Users Posts: 458 ✭✭SubjectSean


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Was Isaiah of the Essenes?

    No hardly, but they were abundantly aware of him, one of their major prophets AFAIK. They read him in the original Hebrew and saw no indication whatsoever that the messiah was to be God. This they hold in common with all of the Jewish faith.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    SubjectSean
    Registered Users Posts: 458 ✭✭SubjectSean


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Or notions that he had recieved from Christ. Most of these things come through dialogue that Christ had said to others.

    I doubt it, most of these ideas come from Greek philosophy. Perhaps you are one of the people who think Jesus was a Stoic or Sceptic?


  • Options
    #68
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    SubjectSean wrote: »
    I doubt it, most of these ideas come from Greek philosophy. Perhaps you are one of the people who think Jesus was a Stoic or Sceptic?

    If you look to John 14:9 it comes from Jesus' dialogue. "Whoever has seen me has seen the father". It's not whether I think, it's there on the page.


  • Options
    #69
    SubjectSean
    Registered Users Posts: 458 ✭✭SubjectSean


    Jakkass wrote: »
    If you look to John 14:9 it comes from Jesus' dialogue. "Whoever has seen me has seen the father". It's not whether I think, it's there on the page.

    But only in John and nowhere else, why is it nowhere else in the earlier Gospels? It is because it is not true.


  • Options
    #70
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    If that is your belief you have to deal with Isaiahs prophesy? Was Isaiah wrong?


  • Options
    #71
    Soul Winner
    Registered Users Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    SubjectSean wrote: »
    But only in John and nowhere else, why is it nowhere else in the earlier Gospels? It is because it is not true.


    Can I ask you a question? What books of the New Testament in your view are reliable historical documents?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Soul Winner wrote: »
    Can I ask you a question? What books of the New Testament in your view are reliable historical documents?


    Very few if you take out John and Paul's works.


  • Options
    #73
    SubjectSean
    Registered Users Posts: 458 ✭✭SubjectSean


    Soul Winner wrote: »
    Can I ask you a question? What books of the New Testament in your view are reliable historical documents?

    They are all reliable historical documents. However, you would want to beware of taking them at face value. Men wrote them. Men rewrote them. For some unknown reason you do not think this could have possibly happened. Yet there is ample evidence. You need to beware of the scribes if you want to get to the truth.


  • Options
    #74
    SubjectSean
    Registered Users Posts: 458 ✭✭SubjectSean


    Jakkass wrote: »
    If that is your belief you have to deal with Isaiahs prophesy? Was Isaiah wrong?

    I don't read Hebrew so really I just don't know how Isaiah reads. I know that your 'prophecy' only reads the way you read it in the Septuagint and not in the original Hebrew. Have you read the original? Are you even aware of the differences between the original and the Septuagint? If you follow this link it will show you why you need to be aware of the original and not just take the claims of the Evangelists on face value because there are numerous times in the NT when Jewish scripture is badly interpreted.

    http://www.truthseeker.com/truth-seeker/1993archive/120_2/ts202g.html

    [EDIT] The question you should be asking is not if I think the prophecy is wrong, but if your interpretation of it stands up to scrutiny.


  • Options
    #75
    BrianCalgary
    Registered Users Posts: 3,196 ✭✭✭BrianCalgary


    SubjectSean wrote: »
    But only in John and nowhere else, why is it nowhere else in the earlier Gospels? It is because it is not true.

    You know Sean, I did an exercise once, and found it to be quite enlightening and have done it a few times since.

    I took reports on football matches from different sources and compared them. The differences, if you focussed on them were quite astounding.

    Your argument here is that: since only John recorded the statement of Christ and no one else did , then Christ didn't say it?

    Before I go on, can you confirm my interpretation of what you are saying is correct, or correct me?


  • Options
    #76
    SubjectSean
    Registered Users Posts: 458 ✭✭SubjectSean


    SubjectSean wrote: »
    there are numerous times in the NT when Jewish scripture is badly interpreted.

    I think my favourite example of the duplicitous intent of the scribes has to be Matt 21:7 where the evangelist has misunderstood Zechariah 9:9

    "Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion! Shout in triumph, O daughter of Jerusalem! Behold, your king is coming to you; He is just and endowed with salvation, Humble, and mounted on a donkey, Even on a colt, the foal of a donkey"

    And has conjured up the ridiculous notion of Jesus riding two beasts of burden simultaneously as if he were some type of circus performer.

    "They brought the donkey and the colt, placed their cloaks on them and Jesus sat on them" Matt 21:7

    You who say our scripture is entirely God-given, do you really think God makes this kind of error?


  • Options
    #77
    Soul Winner
    Registered Users Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    SubjectSean wrote: »
    They are all reliable historical documents. However, you would want to beware of taking them at face value. Men wrote them. Men rewrote them. For some unknown reason you do not think this could have possibly happened. Yet there is ample evidence. You need to beware of the scribes if you want to get to the truth.

    It would appear that you and you alone have secret access this truth. Please let us in on the truth so we can too!!!

    If you believe that all the documents are reliable then why do you harshly reject Paul who wrote two thirds of the New Testament and then at a glance accept the one epistle of James who wasn't added to the cannon until 500AD? You're basis for rejecting Paul is what I would really like to get at. Is it really because you just don't like him as a man? Or do you have information nobody else has that he was of the devil? Do you even believe in the devil? What does Jesus mean to you? Is He your Lord and Saviour or just and intriguing Historical figure?

    I do believe men wrote them and for the most part under the inspiration of the holy spirit. The ones we have in the cannon were added there by the early church fathers. Sure they were re-written by men but very little modification form the oldest available manuscripts. Through the centuries there have been bad translation from the original languages but this was down the theological understanding at the time. Take Ephesian 2:1 for instance: "And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;” Eph 2:1 The "hath he quickened" in this verse was added by the translators, it is not in the oldest manuscripts. And the same goes for Romans 8:1 "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." The "who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit " part here was also added by the translators? Why because they just couldn't believe that you can be saved without adding some of you own works to the mix.

    There is a lot of this especially in the KJV but other than that kind of thing there is very little difference. For the most part the translations probably aren't strong due to the limitations of certain languages but the meaning can still be gleaned with enough research into the original language. Take Ephesians 1:4 for example: “According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world” if you were to go back into he Greek and read this and then translate it back into English as best you could then it would read something like this: “According as God had chosen us out from among others not chosen in Him for Himself before the foundation of the world” You see the difference? The Greek is a much more precise language than the English as it does not allow for as much ambiguity.

    The Greek has what’s known as a middle voice which English does not have. The middle voice in the Greek is when the subject of the verb is doing the action of the verb for himself. If he were doing it for someone else then you would use different voice. The English still retains certain voices like passive voice or active voice but has no middle voice. In Greek there are three words for love (Eros, Phileo and Agapao) where as in English these is only one word word fro all three types Eros erotic love, Phileo is brotherly love (I do for you and you do for me) and Agapao is the total giving of ones self to another without any thought of anything in return kind of love. The kind Jesus said we are to have for each other. In Greek if you are under something then you would use one word whereas if you where under something that was falling you word use a different word. No wonder God in the fullness of time sent forth His Son at a time when a language like this ruled.

    Anyway I would like you to answer my other questions please.


  • Options
    #78
    SubjectSean
    Registered Users Posts: 458 ✭✭SubjectSean


    BrianCalgary wrote: »
    You know Sean, I did an exercise once, and found it to be quite enlightening and have done it a few times since.

    I took reports on football matches from different sources and compared them. The differences, if you focussed on them were quite astounding.

    Your argument here is that: since only John recorded the statement of Christ and no one else did , then Christ didn't say it?

    Before I go on, can you confirm my interpretation of what you are saying is correct, or correct me?

    Yes Brian that's correct, I think the document was produced to counter the 'heresy' of the Jewish Christian church who did not profess a belief in the divinity of Jesus. The main reason I think this is that it contains ideas that would be alien to the first followers of Jesus in Jerusalem but not at all alien to followers of Jesus in lands to the north.


  • Options
    #79
    Soul Winner
    Registered Users Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Very few if you take out John and Paul's works.

    You're left with less than one third even if you leave James in :confused::confused:


  • Options
    #80
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    What I find interesting is the dispute about the book of James. Is it really disputed as containing falsehoods by christians? It seems Soul Winner is saying its a tad spurious? Would many people find it spurious?


  • Options
    #81
    Soul Winner
    Registered Users Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    JimiTime wrote: »
    What I find interesting is the dispute about the book of James. Is it really disputed as containing falsehoods by christians? It seems Soul Winner is saying its a tad spurious? Would many people find it spurious?

    If you read the epistle of James and then read Paul’s letter to the Galatians for instance you will find that the two are diametrically apposed to one another. James says you are saved by your works and Paul says you are saved by Faith alone. The epistle of James was not added to the cannon for five centuries after the New Testament whereas Paul's letters were there from the get go. The question must be asked, why was James added so late in the day? I can only surmise that it had to do with a balancing act for the believers of the Faith with works doctrine at that time. They just couldn't believe that God could work through them by faith alone and produce the good works they wanted to achieve by fleshly effort. At least SubjectSean can see the rift (as he calls) a lot of Christians are ignorant to it. They see James and Paul as being in agreement with each other. But if you read them you will see that they are not. And as Paul was picked by Christ himself to go to the Gentiles (or non Jew of which I'm one) then I must side with Paul. And even if I wanted to side with James (which I don't) I would still have to go with Paul because James himself says that Paul and Barnabas are the Apostles to the Gentiles. Plus James only wrote to the twelve tribes scattered abroad. Paul wrote to the saints which means the committed ones to God be they of the twelve tribes or not. Paul speaks more to me than James, he is more consistent and better trained on the Old Testament that James was and that becomes very apparent as you read both of them. Don't take my word for it, read them yourself.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    JimiTime wrote: »
    What I find interesting is the dispute about the book of James. Is it really disputed as containing falsehoods by christians? It seems Soul Winner is saying its a tad spurious? Would many people find it spurious?

    Soul Winner's view of the Epistle of James would not be shared by most Christians. Luther did indeed call it "an epistle of straw" - but we would all be arrested if we followed Luther in everything he said and did.


  • Options
    #83
    Soul Winner
    Registered Users Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    PDN wrote: »
    Soul Winner's view of the Epistle of James would not be shared by most Christians. Luther did indeed call it "an epistle of straw" - but we would all be arrested if we followed Luther in everything he said and did.

    The only time being arrested is bad is when its for doing something good. What was Luther arrested for that was so bad? Wasn't St Paul the Apostle arrested? Wasn’t John the Baptist arrested and beheaded? The Apostles in Acts 5 were arrested and sure wasn't even Jesus arrested?


  • Options
    #84
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Soul Winner wrote: »
    The only time being arrested is bad is when its for doing something good. What was Luther arrested for that was so bad? Wasn't St Paul the Apostle arrested? Wasn’t John the Baptist arrested and beheaded? The Apostles in Acts 5 were arrested and sure wasn't even Jesus arrested?

    I didn't say that Luther was arrested. I said that we would be arrested if we followed Luther's example in everything. I was thinking specifically of his anti-Semitic diatribes, which were certainly not good at all. Also, Luther's urging that those who believed in Baptism by immersion (the anabaptists) should be drowned for their heresy would probably get you in the clink today for incitement to violence.


  • Options
    #85
    Soul Winner
    Registered Users Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    PDN wrote: »
    I didn't say that Luther was arrested. I said that we would be arrested if we followed Luther's example in everything. I was thinking specifically of his anti-Semitic diatribes, which were certainly not good at all. Also, Luther's urging that those who believed in Baptism by immersion (the anabaptists) should be drowned for their heresy would probably get you in the clink today for incitement to violence.

    Agreed that is not good at all but calling James strawy would be ok wouldn't it? :)


  • Options
    #86
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Soul Winner wrote: »
    Agreed that is not good at all but calling James strawy would be ok wouldn't it? :)

    Mistaken, but hardly criminal. There's some great teaching in James.


  • Options
    #87
    SubjectSean
    Registered Users Posts: 458 ✭✭SubjectSean


    Soul Winner wrote: »
    It would appear that you and you alone have secret access this truth. Please let us in on the truth so we can too!!!

    Hey you're the one who knows they have found the whole of truth and have stopped looking. I'm just a seeker after it.
    Soul Winner wrote: »
    If you believe that all the documents are reliable then why do you harshly reject Paul who wrote two thirds of the New Testament and then at a glance accept the one epistle of James who wasn't added to the cannon until 500AD?

    I believe they are reliable as historical documents but I don't take their contents in isolation and allow them to stand as testimony to themselves. This would be to deny the gift of critical reasoning, it would also deny the injuctions to listen very carefully and beware of the scribes. I accept pseudo-James because I believe it to be an accurate reflection of the type of religion followed by the very earliest followers of Jesus but I do so for reasons that are extraneous to the NT, it does not come down to one glace.
    Soul Winner wrote: »
    You're basis for rejecting Paul is what I would really like to get at. Is it really because you just don't like him as a man?

    I think he was most likely a Herodian. Murderous, sly and manipulative. All things to all men. I think his teachings are opposed to those of Jesus as we have discussed.
    Soul Winner wrote: »
    Or do you have information nobody else has that he was of the devil? Do you even believe in the devil?

    Ha-Satan is hebrew for 'adversay'. I believe what you call the devil is the adversarial forces that exist within all the myriad systems of the universe and indeed at some level are even vital to their function. I believe that if these forces reach a point where they become dominant within a system then it becomes dysfunctional. I believe the central nervous system of Saul of Tarsus was dysfunctional, I believe this is his illness he talks of. You see the manner in which I blame your devil?
    Soul Winner wrote: »
    What does Jesus mean to you? Is He your Lord and Saviour or just and intriguing Historical figure?

    If everybody did as Jesus said instead of just believing in him then humanity would be evolving away from our animal past towards the Kingdom by now and it might even already have arrived. I believe the only ethic that can put humanity on the right track is the one practiced by Jesus and his early followers, Francis of Assisi, Ghandi and certain other men and women. Still we are far from critical mass.
    Soul Winner wrote: »
    I do believe men wrote them and for the most part under the inspiration of the holy spirit. The ones we have in the cannon were added there by the early church fathers. Sure they were re-written by men but very little modification form the oldest available manuscripts.

    Seriously you cannot say that there has been very little modification because the oldest manuscripts are not the originals or anything like. Given the nature of man and the history of the early movement it would be foolhardy to accept what we have as being a truly representative of the originals.


  • Options
    #88
    BrianCalgary
    Registered Users Posts: 3,196 ✭✭✭BrianCalgary


    SubjectSean wrote: »
    Yes Brian that's correct, I think the document was produced to counter the 'heresy' of the Jewish Christian church who did not profess a belief in the divinity of Jesus. The main reason I think this is that it contains ideas that would be alien to the first followers of Jesus in Jerusalem but not at all alien to followers of Jesus in lands to the north.

    Now we can get to the football analogy.

    If you read two accounts of a match, let's say last weekends Man U - Liverpool match. Read the accounts from each website, you will find differences.

    The Man U site may mention Owen Hargreaves contribution to the match, Liverpool may not. A Calgary reporter would definitely mention Owen's contribution, since he is from here.

    So if both the Liverpool report and the Man U report do not mention Owens name in them and the Calgary one does, would you then be dismissing the fact that Owen did play because of the bias of the Calgary report?


  • Options
    #89
    Soul Winner
    Registered Users Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    SubjectSean wrote: »
    Hey you're the one who knows they have found the whole of truth and have stopped looking. I'm just a seeker after it.

    Are you though? I must read more of your posts then, maybe there's something I missed.


    SubjectSean wrote: »
    I believe they are reliable as historical documents but I don't take their contents in isolation and allow them to stand as testimony to themselves. This would be to deny the gift of critical reasoning, it would also deny the injuctions to listen very carefully and beware of the scribes. I accept pseudo-James because I believe it to be an accurate reflection of the type of religion followed by the very earliest followers of Jesus but I do so for reasons that are extraneous to the NT, it does not come down to one glace.

    Can't argue with that which is why I'm puzzled as to why you reject Paul.
    SubjectSean wrote: »
    I think he was most likely a Herodian. Murderous, sly and manipulative. All things to all men. I think his teachings are opposed to those of Jesus as we have discussed.

    Even after his conversion? When did he actually murder after his conversion? God became a man for all men. It was what was necessary for us to relate to him. Paul's burning passion was to win souls for Christ not for himself. He was all things to all men in order to relate to them where they lived. What's so wrong with that? And your explanation as to how his teachings differ from Jesus did not hold much water. Can you expound please?
    SubjectSean wrote: »
    Ha-Satan is hebrew for 'adversay'. I believe what you call the devil is the adversarial forces that exist within all the myriad systems of the universe and indeed at some level are even vital to their function. I believe that if these forces reach a point where they become dominant within a system then it becomes dysfunctional. I believe the central nervous system of Saul of Tarsus was dysfunctional, I believe this is his illness he talks of. You see the manner in which I blame your devil?


    :confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused:



    SubjectSean wrote: »
    If everybody did as Jesus said instead of just believing in him then humanity would be evolving away from our animal past towards the Kingdom by now and it might even already have arrived. I believe the only ethic that can put humanity on the right track is the one practiced by Jesus and his early followers, Francis of Assisi, Ghandi and certain other men and women. Still we are far from critical mass.

    That is not what I asked. Please answer the question. What does Jesus mean to you? Is He Lord of your life or just an interesting person? Or both? Or neither?


    SubjectSean wrote: »
    Seriously you cannot say that there has been very little modification because the oldest manuscripts are not the originals or anything like. Given the nature of man and the history of the early movement it would be foolhardy to accept what we have as being a truly representative of the originals.

    So you've seen the originals then? Cool where are they? Would like to see them myself. Many people died over the centuries since Christ to preserve as best they could the record. Burnt at the stake, and tortured to death. These men would hardly have paid such a terrible price if their intention were to change God's word for their own ends would they?


  • Options
    #90
    Soul Winner
    Registered Users Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    PDN wrote: »
    Mistaken, but hardly criminal. There's some great teaching in James.

    I really like his tongue and bridal analogy I have to say. Great if people could get that one down pat. Especially this poster :D


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Soul Winner wrote: »
    If you read the epistle of James and then read Paul’s letter to the Galatians for instance you will find that the two are diametrically apposed to one another.

    From my belief, correct me if I'm wrong. By faith we welcome the Spirit into our lives and this enables us to be put right with the Lord. Also the Spirit leads us towards righteous deeds, or works. Thus I believe they are totally compatible dependent on interpretation.


Advertisement