Apostle Paul and his 'Christianity'

[change1961]

Which Jesus' parable explains existence of books from Acts and further...?

[Kahtar]

Why don't you tell us?

[change1961]

Could anybody imagine Jesus choosing some animal from Peter's vision to eat, maybe roasted cat, dog or some grilled frogs and lizards? And after reported Ananias' death, imagine Jesus Christ asking Peter after all: 'Well, how much do we have now?'

[change1961]

I thought you need some time to think on your own. It is a parable of wheat and the weed on the field.

[Kahtar]

Can you explain how that parable refers to Acts/Revelation? I'm not seeing it.

[shepherdsword]

I get the feeling this thread is going to end up Aeropagus

[episkopos]

I get the feeling this thread is going to end up Aeropagus

It may even end up Erroneous!

[Fenris]

Could anybody imagine Jesus choosing some animal from Peter's vision to eat, maybe roasted cat, dog or some grilled frogs and lizards? And after reported Ananias' death, imagine Jesus Christ asking Peter after all: 'Well, how much do we have now?'

What is this I don't even

[change1961]

Simply as it is, Jesus sow the good seed, and then came Peter, Paul and others to pollute the work. This is why masses of people go to one side, and few of them choose the right way. Of course cats, dogs, rats and bats are not edible things, as Peter's criminal ACT is trying to convince people. And of course Jesus never told any body to bring h i m all the wealth. And of course it is not a shame for men to have a long hair, sometimes it is even a wow. And so on, the list of abominations is too long...Everything 'in the name of love'. Love for what, I wonder?

[shepherdsword]

Simply as it is, Jesus sow the good seed, and then came Peter, Paul and others to pollute the work. This is why masses of people go to one side, and few of them choose the right way. Of course cats, dogs, rats and bats are not edible things, as Peter's criminal ACT is trying to convince people. And of course Jesus never told any body to bring h i m all the wealth. And of course it is not a shame for men to have a long hair, sometimes it is even a wow. And so on, the list of abominations is too long...Everything 'in the name of love'. Love for what, I wonder?

So you are saying that Peter and Paul were in error?

[episkopos]

Simply as it is, Jesus sow the good seed, and then came Peter, Paul and others to pollute the work. This is why masses of people go to one side, and few of them choose the right way. Of course cats, dogs, rats and bats are not edible things, as Peter's criminal ACT is trying to convince people. And of course Jesus never told any body to bring h i m all the wealth. And of course it is not a shame for men to have a long hair, sometimes it is even a wow. And so on, the list of abominations is too long...Everything 'in the name of love'. Love for what, I wonder?

What, pray tell, is the right way in your view? Seeing you reject the teaching and actions of seemingly every follower who actually knew Jesus Christ.

[keck553]

Didn't Jesus say "greater things you will do..." (as in 'more widespread'), and doesn't the Book of Acts begin with "....what Jesus began...?"

[slightlypuzzled]

Simply as it is, Jesus sow the good seed, and then came Peter, Paul and others to pollute the work. This is why masses of people go to one side, and few of them choose the right way. Of course cats, dogs, rats and bats are not edible things, as Peter's criminal ACT is trying to convince people. And of course Jesus never told any body to bring h i m all the wealth. And of course it is not a shame for men to have a long hair, sometimes it is even a wow. And so on, the list of abominations is too long...Everything 'in the name of love'. Love for what, I wonder?

So, I'll play and be your Huckleberry; but are you under the impression that everything Jesus said and did are in the Gospels? Or do you have a twist to it all from a few pet prabales and sayings?
Can you show, somehow that everything after the Gospel of John is totally without any kind of warrant from God???

[change1961]

Even the Gospel of John contains untrue or let me say, false claims, though it also has some exclusive and expensive instructions. Chapter 15 is a brilliant conclusion of the message, but virgin Mary cannot be in no wise a righteous person, after the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, see Luke 2nd chapter and Mark 3rd. The Holy Spirit IS given by measure, contrary of John's sentence. And concerning Acts and Epistles, that work has a multiple purpose. It is ENTIRELY against the law, gathering its audience before the harvest. One detail: 'I am not come to destroy the law and the prophets, but to fulfill.' Is that clear? And that abominable book called ACTS is teaching that all possible animals, creeping creatures and who knows what else is edible. Unclean menu for unclean people. Did Jesus taught Peter to establish the community where entrance is conditioned with giving all the wealth to its ministers? If such crime would be done by some hindu guru or so, it would be an infernal project. Because the whole thing is done in the name of the High Priest, it makes that horrible deception at least seven times heavier case. After all, it is a model for establishing all further 'Christian' churches. A genuine Christian church never existed, really. There is only a choice of the Holy Ghost, and it is a seldom phenomenon which usually results with lots of good fruit enjoyable for people around. There can be 'two or three of you gathered in my name', even the fourth person is not mentioned. Such a dangerous thing, love for lie...

[episkopos]

So Jesus Christ did not come to administer a better covenant? We are still living in the OT are we?