Am I a Christian?

[Thomas]

Yes I am sure.

Well from Scripture we can surmise this:
Saul of Tarsus is intent on persecuting Christians. On his way to Damascus, he experienced something of a dramatic conversion. He withdraws to Arabia, and then, 14 years later, re-emerges to complete the journey. He is taken in by Ananias and presumably baptised by him. He begins preaching to Jew and Gentile alike. He presents himself to James and the Twelve at a council in Jerusalem, circa 48-50AD, and with Barnabas and Peter, convinces James that Gentile converts are not obliged to undergo circumcision, although other prohibitions remain in place.

So well before the first gospel or epistle was written, Paul was an accepted apostle of the Early Church.

So you may be sure, but I think you're wrong, unless you have evidence to the contrary, in which case I'd be interested to see it.

... and as widely accepted by the current church system that of all considerations and fell directly upon judgements made by Constantine who was a believer in Sol Invictus (Sun god) hence the Sabbath day was changed and the use of solar calendar, the early Church used solar AND lunar principles to denote time keeping of the Sabbath and festival dates.

Well that's nothing to do with Paul, does it?

I have no idea of what you mean by 'current church system', so I don't know where you're getting this (mis)information from.

Also, scholarship today generally agrees that the Sol Invictus cult was never mainstream in Rome, and never had any input on the Christian observance of Sunday, which was well in place 200 years before Constantine came along.

Easter, yes. Constantine asked for the date to be set for common observance across the empire, and he failed, as today West and East calculate the day differently.

Paul was deemed a heretic by the Ebionites and by James.

Well the Ebionites rejected outright the acceptance of Gentiles into the faith, and accepted only one Gospel, that of Matthew, so they were in contention with the Apostles, not just Paul.

I don't know that James deemed Paul a heretic, have you a reference for that?

... Marcionism which borrowed from Pauls epistles ...

You can't condemn Paul because of how someone chooses to interpret his writings. If you could, then Christ would be condemned too ...

There is also links to Paul being more than a simple tent maker from Tarsus, a possible Herodian (Idumaean/Edomite) related to Herod who engaged in infanticide, Paul was able to call upon approximately 470 Roman guards which clearly shows the anomaly of loyalties presented in Acts for a simple preacher or zelout.

Oh dear no, you've got that wrong, I think.

You'll have to show me the source of this 'possible relation' thesis.

As for the escort from Jerusalem, Paul had that because he was a Roman citizen, and because his preaching Christianity, especially his attempt to bring a Gentile into the Temple, caused a riot. That he had such a heavy bodyguard and that he was smuggled out of the city at night, is an indicator of just what a tinderbox Jerusalem was, and the trouble the Romans had with Jewish zealots, who were out to kill Paul.

... and yes anyone who tries to teach puts themselves above their equals...

Christ said go and teach.

... this is why we were told by Jesus to refer to each other as brethren and why we have Jesus at the top of our learning.

No-one disputes that, but that does not say anything about teaching. If no-one is allowed to teach, how is anyone supposed to hear about Christ?

however Paul says the law was abolished

Content, context!

Jesus taught obediance to God (Yahweh) through his divine LAWS and by showing repentance, where as Paul taught once saved always saved by uttering words with your lips only

Don't think so. Show me where he says that.

 

[Cino]

I guess he would probably feel compelled to write about its modern flavour and be fully commited to the speaker circuit if he was alive today, perhaps a fully loaded YT channel but not doing it for the likes, only for the subscribers.

He certainly was critical of authoritarian groups like the Marxist faithful.

"Marxist" was a powerful slur during the Cold War. He pissed off ideologues right and left. Sadly, nowadays when you search for Adorno, all you get is the echo chamber reinforcement of the term "cultural marxism". He had plenty of bile for left-wing authoritarians. There is a priceless letter to a friend of his where he darkly predicts people in the future quoting him to support positions he hated.

 

[Thomas]

I also became aware of anti- Pauline videos on YT ...

And there's loads that will tell you Jesus was in India, an alien, etc.

My advice: Don't take your truth from YouTube.

 

[Cino]

My advice: Don't take your truth from YouTube

It pays to test any source, not just youtube.

 

[usernamed]

Paul was not chosen by Jesus so the claim of apostleship for the early church is dubious at best because you omit Jesus the head of the church having already having chosen his own apostles, re-iterated as the 12 pillars of the faith. Matthias replaced Judas so where does that leave Paul?

The Damascus "incident" lacks ANY evidence due to the clear change in Paul' OWN recollection of the event when you use his own words to compare both statements he gave, in one claim Paul states they heard but did not see Vs the second recollection which differs... they saw but did not hear any voice, Jesus stated you need the witness testimony of two or more to establish an event, care to provide some proof for Paul because he never gave any himself! You took his own word, compare that to Jesus who had 12 witnesses and crowds who saw him in the flesh and also said before he ascended HOW he would be seen at his return.

Im not sure how you came to the conclusion that Paul is an apostle, Peter reffered to him as a brother or friend if you look.

Paul fullfilled the prophecy of Daniel, the abomination unto desolation. I think it was 7 or 8 years after Paul brought Trophimus into the inner sanctuary the temple was no more!!
The biblical and historical accounts provide equally clear evidence of this fact.

"I have no idea of what you mean by 'current church system', so I don't know where you're getting this (mis)information from."

Well I guess if you took paul out of the modern church you might still have the cucumber sandwiches I suppose, but the early church was not some heirachical system of theologians who demand payment for what they were given freely, it was fixed upon Jesus as the head as it says in Matthew.

"Also, scholarship today generally agrees that the Sol Invictus cult was never mainstream in Rome, and never had any input on the Christian observance of Sunday, which was well in place 200 years before Constantine came along."

Scholars eh sounds innocent enough.
Paul actually and clearly states that any day you choose.... that puts it around 60ad but since the sun god is part of the Roman pantheon I disagree it came with Paul, because Paul was used to re-establish its claims upon the new and growing faith spreading throughout Rome.


"Well the Ebionites rejected outright the acceptance of Gentiles into the faith, and accepted only one Gospel, that of Matthew, so they were in contention with the Apostles, not just Paul."

I thought you were claiming Paul was an accepted Apostle?


"I don't know that James deemed Paul a heretic, have you a reference for that?"

"Antinomianism"

See the "contention" you spoke about previously.


"You can't condemn Paul because of how someone chooses to interpret his writings. If you could, then Christ would be condemned too ..."

Paul condemned himself.
He failed the Deuteronomy 13 test for starters...preaching against the LAW which if you subscribe to the flow and consistency of the bible clearly shows Yahweh, all the prophets, Jesus, the 12 Apostles and the followers of the way ALL held onto the Law.


Oh dear no, you've got that wrong, I think.

You'll have to show me the source of this 'possible relation' thesis.

It's contained in the bible, from Acts onwards to Paul' last letter.
Romans 16 11
"Greet Herodion, my kinsman."

"As for the escort from Jerusalem, Paul had that because he was a Roman citizen, and because his preaching Christianity, especially his attempt to bring a Gentile into the Temple, caused a riot. That he had such a heavy bodyguard and that he was smuggled out of the city at night, is an indicator of just what a tinderbox Jerusalem was, and the trouble the Romans had with Jewish zealots, who were out to kill Paul."

So you doubt Pauls own references to Herodians? Make up your mind....either Paul told the truth or he was a liar.


"Christ said go and teach".
To the Gentiles or the lost sheep of Israel?


"No-one disputes that, but that does not say anything about teaching. If no-one is allowed to teach, how is anyone supposed to hear about Christ?"


From one of the 12 Apostles?
How did you yourself hear?

 

[usernamed]

And there's loads that will tell you Jesus was in India, an alien, etc.

My advice: Don't take your truth from YouTube.

I take the truth from where ever it presents itself. I often get things wrong so should you prove me wrong you will get a big thank you from me for the appreciation of correction. I have read it was your namesake "Thomas" that visited India... There might still be clues left by Jesus in India I cannot claim to know this but I find it plausible on account of the temperance of Indians and the event of the Ganges could offer a remnant to baptism.... ?

 

[StevePame]

There is companionship to be found here, despite or because or regardless of our different faiths or lack of faith, and that is something I treasure.

Yes! This is what I hope emerges from our dialogue and, to a lesser extent or at least civil, debate.

 

[Thomas]

Hi usernamed —

Paul was not chosen by Jesus ...

Hang on. Who were chosen? The Twelve. How do we know? Scripture says so. So if you deny one element, there's no reason not to deny the rest.

... so the claim of apostleship for the early church is dubious at best ...

And yet the Twelve accepted him as the Apostle to the Gentiles at the Council of Jerusalem (c49-51AD), somewhere between 14-20 churches were founded by him, his letters were read in the churches, his works are regarded as Scripture in the earliest collections of the NT Canon (Marcionite canon 130AD, Muratorian Fragment 170AD, Codex Vaticanus c300AD, Codex Sinaiticus c330AD, Codex Alexandrinus c400AD), his works are cited extensively by the Fathers ... there's nothing dubious about that.

The Damascus "incident" lacks ANY evidence ...

The whole New Testament lacks ANY evidence, if you look at it that way.

— due to the clear change in Paul' OWN recollection of the event when you use his own words to compare both statements he gave, in one claim Paul states they heard but did not see Vs the second recollection which differs

And scholars are aware of this, but that still does not refute anything about Paul. Personally I prefer his own account in Galations, rather's than Luke's two glosses in Acts, where the error occurs.

As ever, Paul was not an idiot, and now was Luke, so quick how such an error crept into the text is an open question.

Jesus stated you need the witness testimony of two or more to establish an event

So the Annunciation didn't happen, cos there's no witnesses to that? and nothing He said on the cross can be accepted, because there were no witnesses to that? I think you're referring to the Jewish Law, not to God's Law. God speaks through the Prophets in the OT, and there's no witnesses to any of that ...

Im not sure how you came to the conclusion that Paul is an apostle

Paul called himself an apostle. No-one called him a heretic or challenged him. Look at the work he did, founding somewhere between 14 to 20 churches, spreading the Word of the Lord among the Gentiles (which the Twelve were NOT doing), preaching Faith in Christ, Hope in Eternal Life, Love of God and your neighbour ... if that's not an apostle?

I think it was 7 or 8 years after Paul brought Trophimus into the inner sanctuary the temple was no more!!

And yet the Romans crushed Jerusalem not because of the Christians, but because the Jews were in a continual state of rebellion.

Well I guess if you took paul out of the modern church you might still have the cucumber sandwiches I suppose...

You'd have no church at all, unless you were Jewish.

... but the early church was not some heirachical system of theologians who demand payment for what they were given freely, it was fixed upon Jesus as the head as it says in Matthew.

And it also says: "And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Matthew 15:18. The Apostles established the first hierarchy "Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business" (Acts 6:3) and the early Church was a hierarchy of deacons, presbyters and bishops.

Scholars eh sounds innocent enough.

Well they're usually reliable, although there are some I am not sure of.

The test though, really, is that a good scholar does the groundwork. It seems to me you've collected all this stuff from anti-Church sources, there's reams of the stuff out there, and while you reject the opposite view out of hand, you accept all this stuff without question because that's whjat you want to believe.

I thought you were claiming Paul was an accepted Apostle?

I am. The Ebionites were not really accepted as part of the Apostolic Church because of their refusal to accept Scripture.

"Antinomianism"

No, that's a term coined in the 16th century to denote freedom from moral law, the Protestant notion of salvation by faith alone. Paul definitely did not endorse that view.

I think you're referring to Paul's abrogation of the Law. Paul argued that the Gentile convert was not bound by the civil and ceremonial laws that are particular to the Jewish peoples. Rather, Paul argued that the Christian is bound under the Law of Christ and natural moral law written in the heart (Romans 2:15), the Law laid down by Christ when He said "A new commandment I give you" (John 13:34) ... remember that Christ Himself transgressed some of the Law which was how the Pharisees tried to take Him down. It was he who pointed out the distinction between the spirit and the letter.

You can't condemn Paul because of how someone chooses to interpret his writings. If you could, then Christ would be condemned too ..."

Paul condemned himself.
He failed the Deuteronomy 13 test for starters...preaching against the LAW which if you subscribe to the flow and consistency of the bible clearly shows Yahweh, all the prophets, Jesus, the 12 Apostles and the followers of the way ALL held onto the Law.

"Greet Herodion, my kinsman."

Ah, the name, among some twenty or so names of Christian missionaries that Paul wants his reader to greet for him when in Rome. Unlikely therefore that the Herodian in question is actually one of King Herod's extended family.

From one of the 12 Apostles?

Well, we have a Testimony of one Apostle, although many doubt that. I say we have two, but then how do we know Mark, a disciple of Paul, is being truthful about what Peter said? And Luke was a disciple of Paul too, so do we discount him? And we know the Gospel attributed to Matthew was most likely not written by the Apostle Matthew ...

And the Holy Spirit is a teacher, too (John 14:26), but is He ruled out too?

+++

It seems you've built a body of anti-Pauline ideas from the proliferation of anti-Pauline and generally anti-Church material available on the web. Your poor regard for scholarship seems to imply you prefer to believe people who tell you what you want to hear, rather than people who's laboured to test and double-check their material, who offer the argument, the counter-argument, and argue from reason.

In short, you might be anti-Paul, but the Early Church never was. Not one shred of actual evidence, I think, to that end.

Sure, Paul had a tough time, he admits that. He was challenged, He admits that. But no-one ever accused him of preaching a false gospel, far from it. No-one accused him of heresy or blasphemy. he was accepted by the Apostles, by the Early Church, by the Fathers. again, if you can point me at any writings to the contrary, I'd appreciate it, otherwise I read all the above as stuff you've absorbed from those who have an anti-Church agenda.

You don't like Paul? OK. But Christ did say 'You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church' and when Peter challenged two people, they dropped down dead (cf Acts 5). So what does that say?[/QUOTE]

 

[RJM]

Hi usernamed —


Hang on. Who were chosen? The Twelve. How do we know? Scripture says so. So if you deny one element, there's no reason not to deny the rest.


And yet the Twelve accepted him as the Apostle to the Gentiles at the Council of Jerusalem (c49-51AD), somewhere between 14-20 churches were founded by him, his letters were read in the churches, his works are regarded as Scripture in the earliest collections of the NT Canon (Marcionite canon 130AD, Muratorian Fragment 170AD, Codex Vaticanus c300AD, Codex Sinaiticus c330AD, Codex Alexandrinus c400AD), his works are cited extensively by the Fathers ... there's nothing dubious about that.


The whole New Testament lacks ANY evidence, if you look at it that way.


And scholars are aware of this, but that still does not refute anything about Paul. Personally I prefer his own account in Galations, rather's than Luke's two glosses in Acts, where the error occurs.

As ever, Paul was not an idiot, and now was Luke, so quick how such an error crept into the text is an open question.


So the Annunciation didn't happen, cos there's no witnesses to that? and nothing He said on the cross can be accepted, because there were no witnesses to that? I think you're referring to the Jewish Law, not to God's Law. God speaks through the Prophets in the OT, and there's no witnesses to any of that ...


Paul called himself an apostle. No-one called him a heretic or challenged him. Look at the work he did, founding somewhere between 14 to 20 churches, spreading the Word of the Lord among the Gentiles (which the Twelve were NOT doing), preaching Faith in Christ, Hope in Eternal Life, Love of God and your neighbour ... if that's not an apostle?


And yet the Romans crushed Jerusalem not because of the Christians, but because the Jews were in a continual state of rebellion.


You'd have no church at all, unless you were Jewish.


And it also says: "And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Matthew 15:18. The Apostles established the first hierarchy "Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business" (Acts 6:3) and the early Church was a hierarchy of deacons, presbyters and bishops.


Well they're usually reliable, although there are some I am not sure of.

The test though, really, is that a good scholar does the groundwork. It seems to me you've collected all this stuff from anti-Church sources, there's reams of the stuff out there, and while you reject the opposite view out of hand, you accept all this stuff without question because that's whjat you want to believe.


I am. The Ebionites were not really accepted as part of the Apostolic Church because of their refusal to accept Scripture.


No, that's a term coined in the 16th century to denote freedom from moral law, the Protestant notion of salvation by faith alone. Paul definitely did not endorse that view.

I think you're referring to Paul's abrogation of the Law. Paul argued that the Gentile convert was not bound by the civil and ceremonial laws that are particular to the Jewish peoples. Rather, Paul argued that the Christian is bound under the Law of Christ and natural moral law written in the heart (Romans 2:15), the Law laid down by Christ when He said "A new commandment I give you" (John 13:34) ... remember that Christ Himself transgressed some of the Law which was how the Pharisees tried to take Him down. It was he who pointed out the distinction between the spirit and the letter.

You can't condemn Paul because of how someone chooses to interpret his writings. If you could, then Christ would be condemned too ..."

Paul condemned himself.
He failed the Deuteronomy 13 test for starters...preaching against the LAW which if you subscribe to the flow and consistency of the bible clearly shows Yahweh, all the prophets, Jesus, the 12 Apostles and the followers of the way ALL held onto the Law.


Ah, the name, among some twenty or so names of Christian missionaries that Paul wants his reader to greet for him when in Rome. Unlikely therefore that the Herodian in question is actually one of King Herod's extended family.


Well, we have a Testimony of one Apostle, although many doubt that. I say we have two, but then how do we know Mark, a disciple of Paul, is being truthful about what Peter said? And Luke was a disciple of Paul too, so do we discount him? And we know the Gospel attributed to Matthew was most likely not written by the Apostle Matthew ...

And the Holy Spirit is a teacher, too (John 14:26), but is He ruled out too?

+++

It seems you've built a body of anti-Pauline ideas from the proliferation of anti-Pauline and generally anti-Church material available on the web. Your poor regard for scholarship seems to imply you prefer to believe people who tell you what you want to hear, rather than people who's laboured to test and double-check their material, who offer the argument, the counter-argument, and argue from reason.

In short, you might be anti-Paul, but the Early Church never was. Not one shred of actual evidence, I think, to that end.

Sure, Paul had a tough time, he admits that. He was challenged, He admits that. But no-one ever accused him of preaching a false gospel, far from it. No-one accused him of heresy or blasphemy. he was accepted by the Apostles, by the Early Church, by the Fathers. again, if you can point me at any writings to the contrary, I'd appreciate it, otherwise I read all the above as stuff you've absorbed from those who have an anti-Church agenda.

You don't like Paul? OK. But Christ did say 'You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church' and when Peter challenged two people, they dropped down dead (cf Acts 5). So what does that say?

Excellent post. Fully researched and reasoned. Instructive as always. Thank you ...

 

[Thomas]

Maybe a better approach to your original question 'Am I a Christian?' is to look at the 12 propositions of the oldest creed:

1: I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth

2: And in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord

3: Who was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary

4: He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried

5: He descended into hell.The third day he arose again from the dead

6: He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of God the Father Almighty

7: He will come again to judge the living and the dead

8: I believe in the Holy Spirit

9: the holy catholic Church, the Communion of Saints

10: the forgiveness of sins

11: the resurrection of the body

12: And in life everlasting

 

[RJM]

Maybe a better approach to your original question 'Am I a Christian?' is to look at the 12 propositions of the oldest creed:

1: I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth

2: And in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord

3: Who was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary

4: He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried

5: He descended into hell.The third day he arose again from the dead

6: He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of God the Father Almighty

7: He will come again to judge the living and the dead

8: I believe in the Holy Spirit

9: the holy catholic Church, the Communion of Saints

10: the forgiveness of sins

11: the resurrection of the body

12: And in life everlasting

Yes. The Apostles Creed. I can't recite the Nicene Creed. Perhaps as a result of Jesuit education lol. I think the Apostles Creed is still open as an option, to the priest?

 

[Thomas]

Perhaps as a result of Jesuit education lol.

The Jesuits! OMG, you poor b*st*rd!

My mum hankered after me becoming a Jesuit. When I did my degree, I thought the Dominicans would be in evidence, but surprisingly not, but for one notable exception who handled the easy stuff, like The Doctrine of the Trinity ... a few Jesuits though. I liked 'em. There's a North London parish they took on and have really got involved in social action and turned it around. I must say, when we do it right, we're brilliant.

 

[Thomas]

Hi usernamed —

I might add, of the 12 listed above, No9 says 'catholic' which in this context means 'universal', rather than Roman Catholic, which is something that took form later as East and West went their separate ways.

 

[wil]

I read my bible, trying to gain as firm a grasp of the root of it's message and teaching as possible and I'm finding it quite lonely putting it into practice.

I think you over time your understanding will change especially with with continued reading. As your life situation and personal growth change, will your readings

 

[Thomas]

I have read it was your namesake "Thomas" that visited India... There might still be clues left by Jesus in India I cannot claim to know this but I find it plausible on account of the temperance of Indians and the event of the Ganges could offer a remnant to baptism.... ?

Yes, the tradition says Thomas travelled to India, and was eventually martyred there. But Jesus never did, there's always been quite an industry inventing narratives of the missing years (before He began His ministry). It started around the 2nd century. The Jesus-in-India thing is more recent and dates from the West's opening up of trade from the 18th century on.

To be honest I think 'the temperance of Indians' owes more to their own cultural heritage, rather than influences from outside — Buddhism predates Christianity by a long shot. The Ganges has been sacred to India back into antiquity, and again, I think the religious practices predate Christianity by a considerable margin.

 

[usernamed]

I'm struggling to know what you mean. What do you think Christ meant when he said he came to bring a sword?

To avenge.

 

[usernamed]

Depends on your intentions and tone and willingness to see other participants points of view. This is an interfaith forum, after all.

Yes I am very clear about what you say, also your intentions by telling me how to conduct myself could be used or seen in equally the same manner to guide topics that might be deemed taboo (racial, anti semetic etc etc), what your saying at best is that you dont like my tone or willingness to participate in other points of view, because I havent shown anything of the contary or shown otherwise!
Only saying. If get the sense you feel compelled to warn me of that somehow lol, so Ive been pre-judged unless you think I am out of order bringing my admittedly zelous faith to your public forum, I have lots to add that could be beneficial, give me chance!!
Ive spent years watching the way forums are moderated and observed people on internet that are only really there to steer conversations and control narratives purely because they can, but when its all said and done I have MY Faith too, so it might of been interesting to see how far you could develop willingness to participate in that. I love people in general, people generally find me a loving guy until Its known what I believe in, had it all my life. Par of the course hehe

 

[usernamed]

Thanks for the replies guys.

 

[Cino]

Only saying. If get the sense you feel compelled to warn me of that somehow lol, so Ive been pre-judged unless you think I am out of order bringing my admittedly zelous faith to your public forum, I have lots to add that could be beneficial, give me chance!!

You seemed unsure about what is appropriate. I'm a participant here, not a moderator, btw. If you have questions, just chat up a moderator.

 

[StevePame]

Only saying. If get the sense you feel compelled to warn me of that somehow lol, so Ive been pre-judged unless you think I am out of order bringing my admittedly zelous faith to your public forum, I have lots to add that could be beneficial, give me chance!!
Ive spent years watching the way forums are moderated and observed people on internet that are only really there to steer conversations and control narratives purely because they can, but when its all said and done I have MY Faith too, so it might of been interesting to see how far you could develop willingness to participate in that.

I welcome active participants here. You're allowed to have your faith and discuss it, as does every member have a chance to discuss theirs. What isn't allowed here is proselytizing and trying to convert people to a certain faith, or harassing other people's views. If the dialogue and discussion leads nowhere and people are still thinking and feeling the way they did before, that's fine. But the dialogue and discussion needs to be respectful. I encourage you to review the Code of Conduct.

I view this forum, as others have noted in the last few days, as a spot where interfaith ideas really are discussed across the spectrum, in the hopes of providing insights that benefit everyone. We're not interested in creating a new syncretic belief structure here.