For clarification!

[Thomas Cassidy]

Nope not gonna read it.

I choose to have my head in the sand and believe all 66 books is all God intended for us to have as far as scripture goes. And I also believe all scripture is authoritative.

You don't which boggles my mind.

The article is based on the unsupported a priori assumption that some of the Old Testament was inspired and some of it was not. That assumption is then forced into the understanding of 2 Timothy 3.15-16. Because Paul used two different words, both translated "scripture" the unsupported and unsupportable assumption is that some were inspired and some were not. In verse 15 the "holy scriptures" (ιερα γραμματα) are claimed by the author to be the only inspired portion of the Old Testament

Just reading the verses tells us that Dan's position is heterodox and heretical. The "scriptures" (γραφη) of verse 16, which the author of the article claims to refer to uninspired writings in the Old Testament cannon, are the very ones that are "given by inspiration of God" and are, therefore "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be mature, thoroughly furnished unto all good works" just as the "scriptures" of verse 15 are "able to make you wise unto salvation through faith in Christ Jesus."

 

[praise_yeshua]

Whether you realize this or not.... There are some that combine the practice of homosexuality and pedophilia. Ever heard of NAMBLA? In fact, David Thorstad is the founder of NAMBLA and was the former president of "New York’s Gay Activists Alliance".

Do you know of any Catholics priests that might have a problem with this?

Do not know anyone gay or straight that would not consider David Thorstad or NAMBLA reprehensible.
[/quote]

I can't deny that being "gay" has changed somewhat in the last decade. It has. It had to change in order to gain main stream support. However, I'm probably a little older than you. I can remember a different time. A time in the not too distant past in which homosexuals generally didn't have problem with most anything another gay person choose to do. The raunchier the better.

Do you remember any of this?

 

[subllibrm]

Do not know anyone gay or straight that would not consider David Thorstad or NAMBLA reprehensible.

I can't deny that being "gay" has changed somewhat in the last decade. It has. It had to change in order to gain main stream support. However, I'm probably a little older than you. I can remember a different time. A time in the not too distant past in which homosexuals generally didn't have problem with most anything another gay person choose to do. The raunchier the better.

Do you remember any of this?

I do and it is not gone. The "gay pride" parades are a perfect example of in your face promoting and proselytizing for deviance. All about pushing boundaries.

Of course heterosexual people do the same with Mardi Gras but they are at least honest enough to admit that they are celebrating and promoting debauchery.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Nope not gonna read it.

I choose to have my head in the sand and believe all 66 books is all God intended for us to have as far as scripture goes. And I also believe all scripture is authoritative.

You don't which boggles my mind.

The article is based on the unsupported a priori assumption that some of the Old Testament was inspired and some of it was not. That assumption is then forced into the understanding of 2 Timothy 3.15-16. Because Paul used two different words, both translated "scripture" the unsupported and unsupportable assumption is that some were inspired and some were not. In verse 15 the "holy scriptures" (ιερα γραμματα) are claimed by the author to be the only inspired portion of the Old Testament

Just reading the verses tells us that Dan's position is heterodox and heretical. The "scriptures" (γραφη) of verse 16, which the author of the article claims to refer to uninspired writings in the Old Testament cannon, are the very ones that are "given by inspiration of God" and are, therefore "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be mature, thoroughly furnished unto all good works" just as the "scriptures" of verse 15 are "able to make you wise unto salvation through faith in Christ Jesus."

In juxtaposition, the main inspirational view is supported on the assumption that the 66-book canon is inspired and then goes about using texts to prove itself, making broad application. Bruh has proven an example in his post above. I haven't studied the history enough to corroborate the author's entire premise (FYI, I disagree with him on the authority of Paul) but he seems to take it from how the Scriptures were perceived in Judaism during the time of Christ. Whether he was right or not, that is another issue but I see his starting point is a logical position as it would have been understood as such by the people of that time. In addition, Jesus authenticated Law, Prophets and Psalms but there is no mention of other major portions of the OT.

Doc, I appreciate you addressing the article. I had posted it a couple times before and nobody else critiqued it. Thank you.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Gonner fades back and tosses yet another Hail Mary......
Incomplete....

Tarheel throws out the same cliche....not the least bit embarrassed by his gay bashing.
[/quote]


And you continue to deflect from the real issue.
Homosexuality is declared in Scripture to be sin.
Period.
IF that is gay bashing, then I'm a gay basher!

I am not embarrassed by anything I have posted about this issue.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Smellin, do you worship with others who hold to your belief system?
Who are they and how many are there?

No. I attend a typical evangelical church, probably much like yours.

FWIW, my wife and kids don't hold to my belief system and I don't push mine on them. I simply encourage them to follow Jesus by doing justly, loving mercy and walk humbly with God.

Oh, and yes the pastor knows where I stand as we have discussed it a few times. I attend but am not allowed to be involved in ministering with the church which is fine by me because I have many other avenues in which to serve.

So, you are the only person, to your knowledge, who adheres to 'your belief system'?

 

[praise_yeshua]

Nope not gonna read it.

I choose to have my head in the sand and believe all 66 books is all God intended for us to have as far as scripture goes. And I also believe all scripture is authoritative.

You don't which boggles my mind.

The article is based on the unsupported a priori assumption that some of the Old Testament was inspired and some of it was not. That assumption is then forced into the understanding of 2 Timothy 3.15-16. Because Paul used two different words, both translated "scripture" the unsupported and unsupportable assumption is that some were inspired and some were not. In verse 15 the "holy scriptures" (ιερα γραμματα) are claimed by the author to be the only inspired portion of the Old Testament

Just reading the verses tells us that Dan's position is heterodox and heretical. The "scriptures" (γραφη) of verse 16, which the author of the article claims to refer to uninspired writings in the Old Testament cannon, are the very ones that are "given by inspiration of God" and are, therefore "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be mature, thoroughly furnished unto all good works" just as the "scriptures" of verse 15 are "able to make you wise unto salvation through faith in Christ Jesus."

In juxtaposition, the main inspirational view is supported on the assumption that the 66-book canon is inspired and then goes about using texts to prove itself, making broad application. Bruh has proven an example in his post above. I haven't studied the history enough to corroborate the author's entire premise (FYI, I disagree with him on the authority of Paul) but he seems to take it from how the Scriptures were perceived in Judaism during the time of Christ. Whether he was right or not, that is another issue but I see his starting point is a logical position as it would have been understood as such by the people of that time. In addition, Jesus authenticated Law, Prophets and Psalms but there is no mention of other major portions of the OT.

Doc, I appreciate you addressing the article. I had posted it a couple times before and nobody else critiqued it. Thank you.

I have basically, said the same things. I have long espoused the view that 2 Timothy 3:15-16 was Paul actually expressing a Holy choice in what documents were part of the canon and those that were not. No doubt, Timothy knew which ones Paul believed were Holy and those that were not. Paul did say that Timothy had known them from his childhood. Which would indicate, that the canon of a common Greek Jew..... was the canon of choice. The LXX.

You're doing yourself a great injustice by not learning the material. You can't really say you have a belief if you really haven't done the research. You're just blindly throwing around ideas. I believe you'd change your mind if you really gave your heart to know it. I do believe some of your problem is caused by hating fundamental hypocrisy so much.... that you're throwing out the baby with the bath water. I've been there. Did the same thing. I had to realize that truth is truth. Regardless of the horrible source that presented it to me.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Smellin, do you worship with others who hold to your belief system?
Who are they and how many are there?

No. I attend a typical evangelical church, probably much like yours.

FWIW, my wife and kids don't hold to my belief system and I don't push mine on them. I simply encourage them to follow Jesus by doing justly, loving mercy and walk humbly with God.

Oh, and yes the pastor knows where I stand as we have discussed it a few times. I attend but am not allowed to be involved in ministering with the church which is fine by me because I have many other avenues in which to serve.

So, you are the only person, to your knowledge, who adheres to 'your belief system'?

In honesty, I would have to day 'yes', but there are others throughout history who have held quite similar viewpoints, going back to first century Ebionite theology, led by Zaddik (James the Just). I don't hold completely to Ebionite theology but I do hold to similar views with them concerning Jesus and Paul. Similar views also with Magnes, Kierkegaard, Bonhoeffer, Jefferson (though I disagree with his position of Jesus strictly as a moralist), HG Wells, Tolstoy, etc. There are others of today with similar viewpoints (but none identical) (Ludeman, Buzzard, Holmes-Gore, Butz, Southworth).   

Not that it matters, I also meet with an accountability group of a couple men regularly and sometimes these discussions come up. But with us, it is more about personal accountability and application of the teachings of Jesus in our lives and relationships than it is about discussing theology. It is more about practice than tenet but doctrine is not left out completely.

 

[Bruh]

Nope not gonna read it.

I choose to have my head in the sand and believe all 66 books is all God intended for us to have as far as scripture goes. And I also believe all scripture is authoritative.

You don't which boggles my mind.

The article is based on the unsupported a priori assumption that some of the Old Testament was inspired and some of it was not. That assumption is then forced into the understanding of 2 Timothy 3.15-16. Because Paul used two different words, both translated "scripture" the unsupported and unsupportable assumption is that some were inspired and some were not. In verse 15 the "holy scriptures" (ιερα γραμματα) are claimed by the author to be the only inspired portion of the Old Testament

Just reading the verses tells us that Dan's position is heterodox and heretical. The "scriptures" (γραφη) of verse 16, which the author of the article claims to refer to uninspired writings in the Old Testament cannon, are the very ones that are "given by inspiration of God" and are, therefore "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be mature, thoroughly furnished unto all good works" just as the "scriptures" of verse 15 are "able to make you wise unto salvation through faith in Christ Jesus."

In juxtaposition, the main inspirational view is supported on the assumption that the 66-book canon is inspired and then goes about using texts to prove itself, making broad application. Bruh has proven an example in his post above. I haven't studied the history enough to corroborate the author's entire premise (FYI, I disagree with him on the authority of Paul) but he seems to take it from how the Scriptures were perceived in Judaism during the time of Christ. Whether he was right or not, that is another issue but I see his starting point is a logical position as it would have been understood as such by the people of that time. In addition, Jesus authenticated Law, Prophets and Psalms but there is no mention of other major portions of the OT.

Doc, I appreciate you addressing the article. I had posted it a couple times before and nobody else critiqued it. Thank you.

I guess my point is this, why study wether or not scripture was given by God?

I know many look at this and frown on a view like mine but scripture was given to me, that gave me the message of the gospel.

Why would I need to study wether all scripture was given by God or not? After that.

IMO, any book will be biased to what the author truly believes. My head in the sand was just me being sarcastic.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

I guess my point is this, why study wether or not scripture was given by God?

Why would I need to study wether all scripture was given by God or not? After that.

That's something I can't answer for you. For me, I had a former pastor admit to me that he would eliminate topical passages that seemed contradictory because he needed to maintain purity in Evangelical thought. IOW, he said he doesn't pursue the whole truth from the Bible but rather spin passages and eliminate others to keep the spin, based on Evangelicalism. (Lest one think he didn't know, he has his Ph.D. in Greek and New Testament Studies from a famous Evangelical seminary and has a part-time job as a Greek professor at a local seminary.)

IMO, any book will be biased to what the author truly believes.

I pretty much agree with this. It is our choice as to which "bias" we will believe.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Nope not gonna read it.

I choose to have my head in the sand and believe all 66 books is all God intended for us to have as far as scripture goes. And I also believe all scripture is authoritative.

You don't which boggles my mind.

The article is based on the unsupported a priori assumption that some of the Old Testament was inspired and some of it was not. That assumption is then forced into the understanding of 2 Timothy 3.15-16. Because Paul used two different words, both translated "scripture" the unsupported and unsupportable assumption is that some were inspired and some were not. In verse 15 the "holy scriptures" (ιερα γραμματα) are claimed by the author to be the only inspired portion of the Old Testament

Just reading the verses tells us that Dan's position is heterodox and heretical. The "scriptures" (γραφη) of verse 16, which the author of the article claims to refer to uninspired writings in the Old Testament cannon, are the very ones that are "given by inspiration of God" and are, therefore "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be mature, thoroughly furnished unto all good works" just as the "scriptures" of verse 15 are "able to make you wise unto salvation through faith in Christ Jesus."

In juxtaposition, the main inspirational view is supported on the assumption that the 66-book canon is inspired and then goes about using texts to prove itself, making broad application. Bruh has proven an example in his post above. I haven't studied the history enough to corroborate the author's entire premise (FYI, I disagree with him on the authority of Paul) but he seems to take it from how the Scriptures were perceived in Judaism during the time of Christ. Whether he was right or not, that is another issue but I see his starting point is a logical position as it would have been understood as such by the people of that time. In addition, Jesus authenticated Law, Prophets and Psalms but there is no mention of other major portions of the OT.

Doc, I appreciate you addressing the article. I had posted it a couple times before and nobody else critiqued it. Thank you.

I have basically, said the same things. I have long espoused the view that 2 Timothy 3:15-16 was Paul actually expressing a Holy choice in what documents were part of the canon and those that were not. No doubt, Timothy knew which ones Paul believed were Holy and those that were not. Paul did say that Timothy had known them from his childhood. Which would indicate, that the canon of a common Greek Jew..... was the canon of choice. The LXX.

You're doing yourself a great injustice by not learning the material. You can't really say you have a belief if you really haven't done the research. You're just blindly throwing around ideas. I believe you'd change your mind if you really gave your heart to know it. I do believe some of your problem is caused by hating fundamental hypocrisy so much.... that you're throwing out the baby with the bath water. I've been there. Did the same thing. I had to realize that truth is truth. Regardless of the horrible source that presented it to me.

In all honesty, I HAVE done my homework on Paul, regardless of his position on inspiration. I cannot see how he was a follower of the same Jesus that the Apostles followed. So if I am correct and Paul was a distraction from the truth Jesus wanted to pass to us along through His Great Commission through those specific disciples, then by nature the 66-book canon cannot be inspired of God "as-is". If Paul was a false apostle, then at least much of the New Testament as we know it cannot be inspired of God.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Nope not gonna read it.

I choose to have my head in the sand and believe all 66 books is all God intended for us to have as far as scripture goes. And I also believe all scripture is authoritative.

You don't which boggles my mind.

The article is based on the unsupported a priori assumption that some of the Old Testament was inspired and some of it was not. That assumption is then forced into the understanding of 2 Timothy 3.15-16. Because Paul used two different words, both translated "scripture" the unsupported and unsupportable assumption is that some were inspired and some were not. In verse 15 the "holy scriptures" (ιερα γραμματα) are claimed by the author to be the only inspired portion of the Old Testament

Just reading the verses tells us that Dan's position is heterodox and heretical. The "scriptures" (γραφη) of verse 16, which the author of the article claims to refer to uninspired writings in the Old Testament cannon, are the very ones that are "given by inspiration of God" and are, therefore "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be mature, thoroughly furnished unto all good works" just as the "scriptures" of verse 15 are "able to make you wise unto salvation through faith in Christ Jesus."

In juxtaposition, the main inspirational view is supported on the assumption that the 66-book canon is inspired and then goes about using texts to prove itself, making broad application. Bruh has proven an example in his post above. I haven't studied the history enough to corroborate the author's entire premise (FYI, I disagree with him on the authority of Paul) but he seems to take it from how the Scriptures were perceived in Judaism during the time of Christ. Whether he was right or not, that is another issue but I see his starting point is a logical position as it would have been understood as such by the people of that time. In addition, Jesus authenticated Law, Prophets and Psalms but there is no mention of other major portions of the OT.

Doc, I appreciate you addressing the article. I had posted it a couple times before and nobody else critiqued it. Thank you.

I have basically, said the same things. I have long espoused the view that 2 Timothy 3:15-16 was Paul actually expressing a Holy choice in what documents were part of the canon and those that were not. No doubt, Timothy knew which ones Paul believed were Holy and those that were not. Paul did say that Timothy had known them from his childhood. Which would indicate, that the canon of a common Greek Jew..... was the canon of choice. The LXX.

You're doing yourself a great injustice by not learning the material. You can't really say you have a belief if you really haven't done the research. You're just blindly throwing around ideas. I believe you'd change your mind if you really gave your heart to know it. I do believe some of your problem is caused by hating fundamental hypocrisy so much.... that you're throwing out the baby with the bath water. I've been there. Did the same thing. I had to realize that truth is truth. Regardless of the horrible source that presented it to me.

In all honesty, I HAVE done my homework on Paul, regardless of his position on inspiration. I cannot see how he was a follower of the same Jesus that the Apostles followed. So if I am correct and Paul was a distraction from the truth Jesus wanted to pass to us along through His Great Commission through those specific disciples, then by nature the 66-book canon cannot be inspired of God "as-is". If Paul was a false apostle, then at least much of the New Testament as we know it cannot be inspired of God.

You must feel some empathy for God concerning His plan.
One man, Paul, sidetracked and led the church astray for 2000 years.
Thankfully, you, at least, have seen the light.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Nope not gonna read it.

I choose to have my head in the sand and believe all 66 books is all God intended for us to have as far as scripture goes. And I also believe all scripture is authoritative.

You don't which boggles my mind.

The article is based on the unsupported a priori assumption that some of the Old Testament was inspired and some of it was not. That assumption is then forced into the understanding of 2 Timothy 3.15-16. Because Paul used two different words, both translated "scripture" the unsupported and unsupportable assumption is that some were inspired and some were not. In verse 15 the "holy scriptures" (ιερα γραμματα) are claimed by the author to be the only inspired portion of the Old Testament

Just reading the verses tells us that Dan's position is heterodox and heretical. The "scriptures" (γραφη) of verse 16, which the author of the article claims to refer to uninspired writings in the Old Testament cannon, are the very ones that are "given by inspiration of God" and are, therefore "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be mature, thoroughly furnished unto all good works" just as the "scriptures" of verse 15 are "able to make you wise unto salvation through faith in Christ Jesus."

In juxtaposition, the main inspirational view is supported on the assumption that the 66-book canon is inspired and then goes about using texts to prove itself, making broad application. Bruh has proven an example in his post above. I haven't studied the history enough to corroborate the author's entire premise (FYI, I disagree with him on the authority of Paul) but he seems to take it from how the Scriptures were perceived in Judaism during the time of Christ. Whether he was right or not, that is another issue but I see his starting point is a logical position as it would have been understood as such by the people of that time. In addition, Jesus authenticated Law, Prophets and Psalms but there is no mention of other major portions of the OT.

Doc, I appreciate you addressing the article. I had posted it a couple times before and nobody else critiqued it. Thank you.

I have basically, said the same things. I have long espoused the view that 2 Timothy 3:15-16 was Paul actually expressing a Holy choice in what documents were part of the canon and those that were not. No doubt, Timothy knew which ones Paul believed were Holy and those that were not. Paul did say that Timothy had known them from his childhood. Which would indicate, that the canon of a common Greek Jew..... was the canon of choice. The LXX.

You're doing yourself a great injustice by not learning the material. You can't really say you have a belief if you really haven't done the research. You're just blindly throwing around ideas. I believe you'd change your mind if you really gave your heart to know it. I do believe some of your problem is caused by hating fundamental hypocrisy so much.... that you're throwing out the baby with the bath water. I've been there. Did the same thing. I had to realize that truth is truth. Regardless of the horrible source that presented it to me.

In all honesty, I HAVE done my homework on Paul, regardless of his position on inspiration. I cannot see how he was a follower of the same Jesus that the Apostles followed. So if I am correct and Paul was a distraction from the truth Jesus wanted to pass to us along through His Great Commission through those specific disciples, then by nature the 66-book canon cannot be inspired of God "as-is". If Paul was a false apostle, then at least much of the New Testament as we know it cannot be inspired of God.

You must feel some empathy for God concerning His plan.
One man, Paul, sidetracked and led the church astray for 2000 years.
Thankfully, you, at least, have seen the light.

No need to be snarky. I am not expecting anyone to agree with me. This is my opinion through my study. If I were coming out of Judaism, Catholicism or the Muslim religion, who have had their tenets around about as long (or longer), I would be lauded for getting out of steeped erroneous tradition. Who is to say that Evangelical Christianity hasn't been erroneous since the beginning?

Doubting Paul's authority goes all the way back to the Corinthian church, so it isn't some new-fangled notion. Marcionism in the first two centuries also pervaded Christianity. If there was no conflict of message between Paul and Jesus, why didn't they hold to the same salvific Gospel message?

And "feel empathy for God"? Where the heck does that come from? God can do whatever He pleases, whenever He chooses. If he allowed the deceiver in His creation of the Garden, what makes you think He wouldn't allow it in His creation of the church? Ever read the parable of the wheat and tares? Who are we to determine which is which? Won't God "weed it out" (no pun intended) in the end of His own volition?

And if Christianity is more than merely adhering consent to traditional Christian tenets, then wouldn't it seem reasonable to see people of different belief systems as a part of God's kingdom?

I am not the source of truth by any means. It makes sense that I am wrong in some areas and probably right in others. I would contend that goes for each and every person who ever lived. None of us understand what God is, much less who He is. Nor should we. This is why I will lean on the teachings of Jesus and let everything else run through that filter. I'm sure others will come to a different conclusion and I'm OK with that. That is not my circus, not my monkey.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Tarheel:
You must feel some empathy for God concerning His plan.
One man, Paul, sidetracked and led the church astray for 2000 years.
Thankfully, you, at least, have seen the light.

Smellin:
No need to be snarky. I am not expecting anyone to agree with me. This is my opinion through my study. If I were coming out of Judaism, Catholicism or the Muslim religion, who have had their tenets around about as long (or longer), I would be lauded for getting out of steeped erroneous tradition. Who is to say that Evangelical Christianity hasn't been erroneous since the beginning?

Doubting Paul's authority goes all the way back to the Corinthian church, so it isn't some new-fangled notion. Marcionism in the first two centuries also pervaded Christianity. If there was no conflict of message between Paul and Jesus, why didn't they hold to the same salvific Gospel message?

And "feel empathy for God"? Where the heck does that come from? God can do whatever He pleases, whenever He chooses. If he allowed the deceiver in His creation of the Garden, what makes you think He wouldn't allow it in His creation of the church? Ever read the parable of the wheat and tares? Who are we to determine which is which? Won't God "weed it out" (no pun intended) in the end of His own volition?

And if Christianity is more than merely adhering consent to traditional Christian tenets, then wouldn't it seem reasonable to see people of different belief systems as a part of God's kingdom?

I am not the source of truth by any means. It makes sense that I am wrong in some areas and probably right in others. I would contend that goes for each and every person who ever lived. None of us understand what God is, much less who He is. Nor should we. This is why I will lean on the teachings of Jesus and let everything else run through that filter. I'm sure others will come to a different conclusion and I'm OK with that. That is not my circus, not my monkey.

My intention was not to be 'snarky', but to state the bottom line of what you believe.
God, who I also believe to be sovereign , has...in your estimation...had His message hijacked by Paul.
And the entire leadership of the church have been deceived for generations!

But, you have seen the light.

Where have I misstated your position?

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Tarheel:
You must feel some empathy for God concerning His plan.
One man, Paul, sidetracked and led the church astray for 2000 years.
Thankfully, you, at least, have seen the light.

Smellin:
No need to be snarky. I am not expecting anyone to agree with me. This is my opinion through my study. If I were coming out of Judaism, Catholicism or the Muslim religion, who have had their tenets around about as long (or longer), I would be lauded for getting out of steeped erroneous tradition. Who is to say that Evangelical Christianity hasn't been erroneous since the beginning?

Doubting Paul's authority goes all the way back to the Corinthian church, so it isn't some new-fangled notion. Marcionism in the first two centuries also pervaded Christianity. If there was no conflict of message between Paul and Jesus, why didn't they hold to the same salvific Gospel message?

And "feel empathy for God"? Where the heck does that come from? God can do whatever He pleases, whenever He chooses. If he allowed the deceiver in His creation of the Garden, what makes you think He wouldn't allow it in His creation of the church? Ever read the parable of the wheat and tares? Who are we to determine which is which? Won't God "weed it out" (no pun intended) in the end of His own volition?

And if Christianity is more than merely adhering consent to traditional Christian tenets, then wouldn't it seem reasonable to see people of different belief systems as a part of God's kingdom?

I am not the source of truth by any means. It makes sense that I am wrong in some areas and probably right in others. I would contend that goes for each and every person who ever lived. None of us understand what God is, much less who He is. Nor should we. This is why I will lean on the teachings of Jesus and let everything else run through that filter. I'm sure others will come to a different conclusion and I'm OK with that. That is not my circus, not my monkey.

My intention was not to be 'snarky', but to state the bottom line of what you believe.
God, who I also believe to be sovereign , has...in your estimation...had His message hijacked by Paul.
And the entire leadership of the church have been deceived for generations!

But, you have seen the light.

Where have I misstated your position?

To use your hijack analogy, you must believe God's message has been hijacked by the Pope, by Joseph Smith, etc. and their churches/leadership have also been deceived for generations.

Actually, I don't believe in such a hijack. I believe in the principle found in the wheat and tares, that both will GROW TOGETHER. Could involve Pauline doctrine, but that is merely speculative at best on my part and may not be the case at all. God will take care of it all in the end. He never promised "purity of church doctrine" but asked us for faith to trust Jesus and what He taught and to love one another.

"Seen the light"? I'm not the Illuminati.

 

[Citadel of Truth]

Could involve Pauline doctrine, but that is merely speculative at best on my part and may not be the case at all.

Why are you separating Pauline doctrine from the teachings of Jesus? Paul was very clear that he received his teaching directly from the Lord.

"But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ." (Galatians 1:11-12)

"But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb and called me through His grace, to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately confer with flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went to Arabia, and returned again to Damascus." (Galatians 1:15-17)

 

[Thomas Cassidy]

What we are seeing here is the end result of the Hyles "1, 2, 3, pray after me" evangelism that produces false "conversions." These poor deluded people have no way to understand the bible for the bible is "spiritually discerned" and it is the indwelling Holy Spirit of God, in the saved person, who "will guide you into all truth."  

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Tarheel:
You must feel some empathy for God concerning His plan.
One man, Paul, sidetracked and led the church astray for 2000 years.
Thankfully, you, at least, have seen the light.

Smellin:
No need to be snarky. I am not expecting anyone to agree with me. This is my opinion through my study. If I were coming out of Judaism, Catholicism or the Muslim religion, who have had their tenets around about as long (or longer), I would be lauded for getting out of steeped erroneous tradition. Who is to say that Evangelical Christianity hasn't been erroneous since the beginning?

Doubting Paul's authority goes all the way back to the Corinthian church, so it isn't some new-fangled notion. Marcionism in the first two centuries also pervaded Christianity. If there was no conflict of message between Paul and Jesus, why didn't they hold to the same salvific Gospel message?

And "feel empathy for God"? Where the heck does that come from? God can do whatever He pleases, whenever He chooses. If he allowed the deceiver in His creation of the Garden, what makes you think He wouldn't allow it in His creation of the church? Ever read the parable of the wheat and tares? Who are we to determine which is which? Won't God "weed it out" (no pun intended) in the end of His own volition?

And if Christianity is more than merely adhering consent to traditional Christian tenets, then wouldn't it seem reasonable to see people of different belief systems as a part of God's kingdom?

I am not the source of truth by any means. It makes sense that I am wrong in some areas and probably right in others. I would contend that goes for each and every person who ever lived. None of us understand what God is, much less who He is. Nor should we. This is why I will lean on the teachings of Jesus and let everything else run through that filter. I'm sure others will come to a different conclusion and I'm OK with that. That is not my circus, not my monkey.

My intention was not to be 'snarky', but to state the bottom line of what you believe.
God, who I also believe to be sovereign , has...in your estimation...had His message hijacked by Paul.
And the entire leadership of the church have been deceived for generations!

But, you have seen the light.

Where have I misstated your position?

To use your hijack analogy, you must believe God's message has been hijacked by the Pope, by Joseph Smith, etc. and their churches/leadership have also been deceived for generations.

Actually, I don't believe in such a hijack. I believe in the principle found in the wheat and tares, that both will GROW TOGETHER. Could involve Pauline doctrine, but that is merely speculative at best on my part and may not be the case at all. God will take care of it all in the end. He never promised "purity of church doctrine" but asked us for faith to trust Jesus and what He taught and to love one another.

"Seen the light"? I'm not the Illuminati.

At the risk of being snarky, I'll have to disagree.

To ascribe the doctrine of salvation by grace thru faith alone is hardly the equivalent of Joseph Smith's golden tablets or the Pope selling indulgences. We are referencing orthodox soteriology and foundational truth.

You are the arbiter of truth in your religion.
Luke is spot on in his gospel, but deceived and a deceiver in Acts.

If what you believe is true, there has been no orthodoxy since the resurrection.....if there even was a resurrection.
I think we've said all there is to say about this subject as well as about Homosexuality.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Could involve Pauline doctrine, but that is merely speculative at best on my part and may not be the case at all.

Why are you separating Pauline doctrine from the teachings of Jesus? Paul was very clear that he received his teaching directly from the Lord.

"But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ." (Galatians 1:11-12)

"But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb and called me through His grace, to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately confer with flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went to Arabia, and returned again to Damascus." (Galatians 1:15-17)

So did Joseph Smith, except Joseph Smith had alleged witnesses.

Why would Paul need to be taught from Jesus through visions when Jesus indicated in the Great Commission that His message was to originate through the 11 (later 12)? Why did Paul skirt the disciples after his conversion? Fear of the disciples? Why didn't the "Jesus" from Damascus Road go to Peter or John or even church leader James to tell them that Paul was legit? Why didn't Paul continue tutelage under those who walked with Jesus but instead propagate that which he received from personal visions?

Why did the witness accounts on the Damascus Road differ? Why is it the angels at the Great Commission said that Jesus would be seen next time coming in the clouds like he was taken and yet Paul allegedly saw "Jesus" differently? Why did Jesus say that when you hear He is in the desert, He isn't there yet Paul found him there?

Why did Paul claim to be a voice "to the Gentiles" and say that Peter was to go to the Jews when Peter said that from his (Peter's) mouth the Gentiles were to hear (Acts 15:7)? And if the disciples were to go only to the Jews, why did most of them end up either dying in or at least going to Gentile mission fields?

Why did Paul have to defend his apostleship to the Corinthians and in doing so, neglect witnesses when the twelve all were witnesses to their calling? Why did Paul's apostleship not meet the requirements of the twelve? Why was Paul use sarcasm when mentioning the disciples in his letters? Why did the Ephesian church (among those in Asia Minor) leave Paul? Why was the Ephesian church commended in the Revelation for distancing themselves from those who claimed false apostleship?

Why in Acts 16 did a demonic woman follow Paul for several days, claiming his message of the gospel was true?

Why did Paul defy those who under the influence of the Holy Spirit tell him not to go to Jerusalem? Why in Jerusalem did his buddy Trophimus the Ephesian desecrate the temple with his presence? (See Paul's teaching about the veil in Ephesians.) Why did Paul then lie in court about why he was arrested? But most importantly, why after this entire incident is it not recorded any of the apostles ever interacted with him again?  Why did Paul lie to the Galatians about the commands given by the Apostles at Jerusalem?

Unfortunately I don't have time to go into all my questions as I listed about 80 of them at one point in time. Though some may logically be answered, usually where there is smoke, there is fire and there is a whole lot of smoke when it comes to what Paul claimed and seems to have been the reality, IMHO.

 

[rsc2a]

Why do you accept Luke's gospel but not his early history of the church?