Paul & Christianity

[MikeDwight]

I looked at your link. Does this mean that the countless other denominations are either not valid or simply an offshoot of another original church? What about Foursquare International, Apostolistic Faiths, Mormons, Amish and countless others? The Mormons cured me of the arrogance of ever thinking I could be part of a denomination and please God. It seems as though NO Pastor or Pastoral organization can rule for God. I've been a slow learner. I repent and ask God for forgiveness through Jesus the Christ.

I still seek out a body at times where I can take the Sacrament of Jesus Christ in obedience to his wishes.

Thinking about the Prophet Hosea who God told to marry a harlot. I wonder if anyone has understood that?

Well I've heard religious people confidently toss aside the Two Kingdoms Doctrine Two kingdoms doctrine - Wikipedia. That's basically just that the Church interacts with government. We're surrounded by Churches not enacted by the government, or not an arm of Law, or not etc. The Feudal model is Nobility, Clergy, Burghers, Peasantry, for politics of course there are 3 branches of government.

Most you will see simply banded together in some religious fervor and personal experience reminiscent of the Second American Great Awakening. That's the start of the Baptists and Methodists and today we "like" high adherence numbers and a Personal Conviction as our Concept of Christianity. Its not our King's property for us to know his good friend the Lord.

As far as this environment being mistaken, I can go that far, because I am so entirely impressed by any European's religion to the reconciling whole of Christianity. I can't possibly see an effort given or cared for otherwise. Baptists firmly believe in no part of the worldly government, again, the "Two Kingdoms" doctrine.
The other problem is an old Anglican one. If there are many Anglican offshoots, then they confidently play at middle-grounds. Well, our Lord said there is no Luke-Warm. I think its baffling. They are All free like the Anglicans toward switching sides and no rulings ever, on anything.

 

[InChrist]

I "FEEL" that the book of acts is a mean spirited change in direction from the four Gospels. Yes, Jesus says some very hard things but I have not doubted his authority to do so. In Acts, Ananias and Sapphira were murdered despite the lack of an Order to give all their belongings away. Some will argue that Jesus gave that order in the Gospels but I do not see it that way.

It is interesting that even after Saul's conversion, it was more than a dozen years before he was accepted, I am told.

I don't see anywhere in the text which indicates that anyone was ordered to give all their possessions away. It simply says that believers were of one mind and shared with each other. It also says... from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.( Acts 4:34).

According to the account Ananias and Sapphira sold their land and then decided to keep part of the money for themselves, but give it to the apostles and lie about it as if it were ALL the money. The land was theirs. The money was theirs. They didn't have to sell their land or give anything. Or they could have honestly said they were giving a part of their money, instead they chose to lie and put on a show of giving ALL. I believe the point is that they were putting on a show to look good as if they were so righteous and giving, yet they were lying hypocrites. They were killed by the Holy Spirit because it was important for the early church to be established in purity, not deceit and hypocrisy. Just my thoughts.

 

[Muffled]

I have a feeling there may be errors in my premise or conclusion, but here goes...

I have thought about the possibility that when Jesus basically gave Peter the keys to heaven, yes I think it's symbolic, that Peter went on to found Catholicism.

When I presented this theory to someone one time, they basically said, to paraphrase: "I fathom you may be right. But other Christianity existed, as Paul founded churches." I think they eventually made the case that Paul's churches were kind of like the Protestanism of today had Protestantism existed back then.

So here's the curveball I present. A couple of people on this forum say that Paul was crazy and not inspired. In doing so, are they unintentionally and indirectly making the argument, if my argument is correct, that if you choose Christianity, the true path is pretty much, more or less Catholicism?

I believe I would doubt that. I believe some people just have personal preferences that blinds them to the truth.

I believe people tend to interpret symbols different ways but in my estimation Heaven is not the Church and neither is the RCC although it likes to claim that it is.

 

[Muffled]

If I was a Christian, I would say Paul followed a false Christ.

I believe I am a Christian and say that Paul followed the true Christ.

 

[Muffled]

I don't think Jesus giving Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven has anything to do with the Roman Catholic church because according to other statements of Jesus the way to heaven was and is the gospel and belief in Him.
So I see that Jesus was giving Peter the commission to spread the gospel which Peter did uniquely as he preached the gospel on day of Pentecost as he opened the door of the gospel to the Jews. Peter was the first to preach the gospel to the Jews, the message that Christ had died for our sins, was buried, and rose again. And again it was Peter in Acts 10, who shared the gospel with Cornelius’ household, the first Gentile that we know of who became a believer. I would say that he used the key to the kingdom of heaven which is the gospel in a unique way, initially for the Jews and initially for the Gentiles.

I believe we all can preach the Gospel but we don't all have the keys to Heaven. Maybe that is why some people picture Peter waiting at the Pearly Gates (Which is not in Heaven but is in the New Jerusalem).

 

[Twilight Hue]

I believe I am a Christian and say that Paul followed the true Christ.

I believe I am a Christian and say that Paul followed the true Christ.

That means the Bible narrative is completely wrong and contradictory then , because Paul believed Christ spoke to him before his return and identified him as Christ.

 

[sojourner]

I have thought about the possibility that when Jesus basically gave Peter the keys to heaven, yes I think it's symbolic

No it’s not. There are actual keys. They’re on display in a small museum in Hoople, North Dakota.

 

[Ellen Brown]

No it’s not. There are actual keys. They’re on display in a small museum in Hoople, North Dakota.

Mormons us the term "Keys" a lot. Not sure of the full implications of it though.

 

[Muffled]

That means the Bible narrative is completely wrong and contradictory then , because Paul believed Christ spoke to him before his return and identified him as Christ.

I believe that is not a return. Jesus speaks as the Holy Spirit. He can also drum up a vision of Himself. Since God is everywhere it isn't necessary for the physical Jesus to be present.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I believe that is not a return. Jesus speaks as the Holy Spirit. He can also drum up a vision of Himself. Since God is everywhere it isn't necessary for the physical Jesus to be present.

So if that's the case , then why even bother mentioning a return? Doesn't that strike you as strange?

Still the instruction remained not to believe anybody saying here / there is Christ.

That's exactly what Paul did, so either Pauline Christianity is a fraud, or the Bible isnt valid.

If I was still Christian I would have said that (Pauline Christianity) was the false Christ that would deceive the very elect.