The narrow path

reply to post by jmdewey60


So now you're saying that Paul did demand people to worship Jesus? I thought you said he didn't?

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

He admitted to a conversion in Damascus, he held the coats of those who stoned Stephen.

That is in Acts, which Paul did not write.
His "persecution" of Christians was making arguments against them in religious discussions.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

So now you're saying that Paul did demand people to worship Jesus? I thought you said he didn't?

Why do you keep saying that?
What do you mean?
Please quote where I or Paul say that.
Continuously making weird claims is useless. What is your point?
Are you saying that there is a particular worship taught by Jesus other than loving others?
If you think so, then what is it?

reply to post by jmdewey60


Believe that if you like, but all you're doing is changing the definition of persecution to fit your argument.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Believe that if you like, but all you're doing is changing the definition of persecution to fit your argument.

If you are saying that I am just sitting here making that up on the fly just to be argumentative, then you are wrong.
I got that from a book on the New Testament, and one that I own, which are carefully selected to be straightforward academic scholarly books, which means written by people who are Professors of theology in major universities and has his work subjected to peer review, if even on an unofficial bases.
I on purpose limit my reading in that way because I understand how things I read kind of get put into a big mixer in my mind, once I accept them as being legitimate for whatever reason.
So I don't read too much off the wall sort of books, except for things like what phena was quoting, Caesar's Messiah: The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus by Joseph Atwill. I would read that because it is significant as introducing a new theory on the writing of the Gospels, but I read it in a way of not automatically lending it credence, but keep my skeptical alert turned on.
If there are things that I just think, then I say so. If you look at my post, I am saying it is a fact, which means it has been stated as fact by those reputable sources that I mentioned, and it holds up to serious scholastic scrutiny.

reply to post by jmdewey60


Someone's opinion can NEVER be "fact", especially in a field as subjective as theology. It may be "fact" in your opinion, but it will never be universal fact, because it is an OPINION.

Were the Christian persecutions (aside from what Paul did or didn't do) just people calling each other's opinions wrong? No, they were the killings of thousands of Jesus' true followers.

To assume that him saying he persecuted Christians meant that he just disagreed with them is ignoring the overwhelming evidence of what the persecutions truly were. So yes, you are changing the meaning of the word to fit your argument.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

To each his own I guess.

Let me remind you of how you started the thread.

How can Christians believe that Christianity is the "narrow path" even though it is the largest religion in the world? Jesus said that only a "few" people would find the narrow path, yet the religion he supposedly set up has become the largest path in the world and is steadily growing larger and larger by the day and has been for 2,000 years.

There is a much wider path opening up. Maybe you'll like it. It's based on Judaism. Strict monotheism, moderated through the best rabbinical scholars, especially designed to merge Judaism, Christianity, and Islam into a mutually shared monotheism. It's being fostered through Jewish/Christian dialogs, Jewish/Islamic dialog and Christian/Islamic dialog. (not all of the dialogs, just the heavily funded ones, follow the money)

All the Christians are required to do is "blame it on Paul", that is: adopt Ebionite teachings about Jesus and Messianism, reject that Jesus is God, or a god, or is in any way elevated above being merely a prophet.

Then the monotheist trinity of religions will push for Talmudic Noahide laws, specifically, anti-blasphemy and anti-idolatry laws. So it will be illegal to say anything disparaging about the "one true g.d" and illegal(at least socially taboo) to say Jesus is Lord.

I don't really have a problem with traditional Christianity, whether Trinitarian, Arian, Marcionite, whathave you. I do have a problem with rabbinical council approved Christianity. It just doesn't seem Christian to me.

reply to post by pthena


Nope, I'm not a Jew or a Muslim or a Christian. The Judaic god has been the most popular for almost 3,000 years, and we've been going downhill ever since.

I don't agree with any religion that raises a certain person/peoples above another. We are all equal and the same. There is no such thing as a god that demands people to worship him or else they get eternal hell fire. The idea is ridiculous and goes against god being love. Unconditional love does not create a place where people suffer forever, if it does then it is not unconditional.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Excellent! Just a test. Plus, I was showing my hand on one of my major motivations.

I just looked up religion demographics. 33% Christian. I didn't even know that. Pretty big.

I read a book on comparative religions once that made apology for putting Judaism (.22%) yeah point two two% way before Yaruba (6%). The explanation was that the influence on politics and other religions was just so great that it had to be discussed even before Islam (21%).

That's what I find disturbing.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Someone's opinion can NEVER be "fact", especially in a field as subjective as theology. It may be "fact" in your opinion, but it will never be universal fact, because it is an OPINION.

If you want to get technical, nothing is "fact". I mean in a relative way and stated as if it was fact, vs. me just speculating that maybe he meant it in a certain way.

Were the Christian persecutions (aside from what Paul did or didn't do) just people calling each other's opinions wrong? No, they were the killings of thousands of Jesus' true followers.

No, but hypothetically, it could be.

To assume that him saying he persecuted Christians meant that he just disagreed with them is ignoring the overwhelming evidence of what the persecutions truly were. So yes, you are changing the meaning of the word to fit your argument.

What was this long explanation I just made in my last post? It's not just an assumption. It's called research and something that some people devote their lives to.
The greek word that Paul uses to describe what he did to the church, and is translated into persecute, means to pursue.
You can pursue an argument.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

So why did Paul persecute Jesus' followers if he believed in him?

Can you show a reference where Paul the follower of Jesus is persecuting followers of Jesus?

He admits that he persecuted them in his epistles. He admitted to a conversion in Damascus,

You can imply a conversion in Damascus Galatians 1:17

he held the coats of those who stoned Stephen.

Which is chronologically. inconsistent. He would have still been in Arabia during the alleged stoning of Stephen.

While I think your theory is interesting, I personally don't see how it lines up with the rest of the story.

Right, I'm seeing some flaws in my theory already. Paul didn't go after Peter before conversion. He didn't go into Jerusalem until three years after conversion. My theory is out the window.

It doesn't make sense when you consider his persecution of Christians.

Again with the persecution! Where is Paul the Christian persecuting Christians?

Plus, he taught about stuff that Jesus never even hinted at during his ministry.

Jesus is recorded (according to the "canonical" gospels) in Galilee, Samaria, and Judean provinces of Roman empire. I don't think the question of whether or not to eat food sacrificed to idols would have come up.

Also, in Galatia, there was a large group of non Judaic monotheists who had rejected Judaic proselytizing before Paul went there. He preached Christ to non Yahwist monotheists who accepted Christ. Then the Judaisers came in and started preaching Moses and Yahweh. Paul had a problem with that.

All your objections to Paul still sound like what I could get from any online rabbi.

OP,

The "narrow gate" is the one faith. One Lord, one faith, one baptism (Eph 4:5). The reason Jesus established one Church.

When God shows you personally during the Great Warning, the one holy and Apostolic faith is Roman Catholicism,
believe.

If you can come to believe in the Eucharist, you will make it through the Great Tribulation (all in God's Will), there
will be martyrs.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


factor in free will and your
argument crumbles to dust.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Believe that if you like, but all you're doing is changing the definition of persecution to fit your argument.

Wow! I just finally got it! How powerful is the force of propaganda!

The propagandists have reset the definitions. And we've been arguing on their terms. They don't want people saying it like it really was: Rabbi Saul, out of zeal for Torah and Jewish tradition was persecuting followers of Jesus

No, the propagandists have redefined everything. So they push: Paul the Roman Christian was persecuting Jews. Because hey, weren't the first followers of Jesus Jews?

talk about turning the tables (a Jewish phrase out of Esther)

You claim to love Jesus. You claim to follow his teaching.

Matthew 10:16 “Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves. Therefore be wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. 17 But beware of men: for they will deliver you up to councils, and in their synagogues they will scourge you. 18 Yes, and you will be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony to them and to the nations. 19 But when they deliver you up, don’t be anxious how or what you will say, for it will be given you in that hour what you will say. 20 For it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you.

The height of irony! The author of Acts was aware of this saying of Jesus. He framed his story of Paul to follow this outline!

reply to post by pthena


Just a thought about your observances as to #9, here: Perhaps I am mistaken, but I believe in it was in Isaiah, though I believe it was said supposedly by God on more than one occasion that these were the problems with the covenants He had made: "For ye have done worse than your fathers before you, burned incense to the Baal and Molech, and made cakes for the Queen of Heaven. And eaten of the sacrifices, not indended for this purpose."

This last being one of the most important perceived issues, for the temple became a place of buying, selling and consumption, and was why Jesus destroyed it. Feeding anyone with those sacrifices nullified them. The sacrifice was not about consumption.

I personally believe this is one of the most "changed," perhaps as early as the council of Nicea, parts of the Bible. Or perhaps the two testaments are testaments, actually, to different Gods, entirely.

reply to post by slugger9787


Factor in "unconditional" and your argument falls to dust. A god who unconditionally loves everyone does not set up conditions where you must believe a certain thing to experience his love. Believing Jesus died on the cross is a "condition" that you must fill. That is not unconditional love.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Paul is a wolf in sheep's clothing, one of those Jesus warned us about in Matthew 7:15.

So all the bible books he wrote, that are part of the Bible you ignore and reject.
That's sad because then in essence you reject Jesus, because Paul was one of Jesus "brothers" he talked about in Matthew 25. And what did Jesus say about these ones ?

reply to post by Blue_Jay33


I wasn't aware that Paul ever met Jesus before his death. That's a mighty big assumption to think Jesus was talking about Paul when he said that, especially when you factor in what Paul was supposedly doing during that time or after.

reply to post by Blue_Jay33

because Paul was one of Jesus "brothers" he talked about in Matthew 25.

LOL what?!?

reply to post by pthena


I'd say that Jesus' followers were Jewish BEFORE they started following Jesus. Jesus did point out flaws within the Jewish law on several occasions and even changed them. Jesus was not a Jew, otherwise he wouldn't have corrected the law.