The point was, Barnabas, who travelled with Paul, wrote that Jesus was NOT the Messiah.
Abi the problem with this (that I have after reading through the link) is there are some scholars who question the authenticity of this Gospel being written by Barnabas. To conclude that it is authentic without considering what other scholars say about it is problematic. It tends to imply that you (not you personally) only want to believe what supports your thesis.
For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.
Comment: What natural branches?
The branch of David and the Islamic branch (of the male). Instead God became Jesus' father and the natural branch is the sins of the fathers carried on through the progeny that was severed by God's intervention within the seed of life. That the natural branch came from Adam ultimately. The "branch" is the Y chromosome...
Abi the problem with this (that I have after reading through the link) is there are some scholars who question the authenticity of this Gospel being written by Barnabas. To conclude that it is authentic without considering what other scholars say about it is problematic. It tends to imply that you (not you personally) only want to believe what supports your thesis.
Larry, I understand and agree with what you are saying. I likewise think Shifra is intelligent enough to see the same. I was not trying to imply that the writings of Barnabas are legitimate or illegitimate, I was simply trying to clarify to DWW the point Shifra was making.
I am not Christian, ultimately it really makes no difference to me one way or another if Shifra's theory is proven to be correct or incorrect. What I do think is great is that she is questioning. That she is using the brain God gave her. That she is not limiting herself to a single source but is investigating multiple sources and will ultimately form her own conclusions as God works in her heart to do so.
I know Roy in particular, also reads a lot of the writings from the Dead Sea Scrolls and other sources that never made it into the Christian bible. I think it is fantastic when he shares those bits and pieces that move and inspire him. Not because I necessarily agree or disagree, but because he is studying, learning, allowing God to show him things.
John was certainly not Paul or are you attrributing all Christian writings to Paul now?
So was John a spy too?
I am not attributing the Christian writings to any one person in particular. Nor have I said John was a spy, or even that Paul was a spy for that matter. I have pretty neutral on the entire issue. What I was pointing out was that your logic was circiular. Just because someone says something is so, doesn't make it so. I could say the grass is orange, I could write it down 6 trillion times, it still doesn't make the grass orange.
I am just stating that his "father" in regard to those who believe in the inspired word, was God..
Now according to Matthew not Paul, his mother was of the lineage of David not Ishmael. The Jewish handmaid Mary his mother is also revered in the Qu'ran
I am somewhat aware of the Islamic view of Mary. I trust Shifra could find this information as well, should she need to.
And your logic is all over the place...
It is like anything goes when you don't at least consider the scriptural canon sacred.
I tend to think anything goes when one insists the "scriptural canon" is sacred and perfect and contains no errors and leaves nothing out. The books of the bible were decided upon by men who had political and monetary agendas of their own. The result is a book that often leaves people twisting and turning all over the place in order to make sense of it. THAT defies logic, in my mind.
I could write that Barnabas had two green toes and in a thousand years someone like you would take it as fact.
You obviously don't know me very well yet and/or your temper is showinig. See my response to Larry, which I posted prior to this.
The quandary still stands that Jesus cannot be of Jewish descent or Islamic descent if God was his father.
Only through the mother can any decent be traced and both religions consider the mother's descent of no consequence...
Only when we are born within the body of Jesus will we bear his genetic characteristic of God and his earthly mother.
Larry, I understand and agree with what you are saying. I likewise think Shifra is intelligent enough to see the same. I was not trying to imply that the writings of Barnabas are legitimate or illegitimate, I was simply trying to clarify to DWW the point Shifra was making.
I am not Christian, ultimately it really makes no difference to me one way or another if Shifra's theory is proven to be correct or incorrect. What I do think is great is that she is questioning. That she is using the brain God gave her. That she is not limiting herself to a single source but is investigating multiple sources and will ultimately form her own conclusions as God works in her heart to do so.
I know Roy in particular, also reads a lot of the writings from the Dead Sea Scrolls and other sources that never made it into the Christian bible. I think it is fantastic when he shares those bits and pieces that move and inspire him. Not because I necessarily agree or disagree, but because he is studying, learning, allowing God to show him things.
Abi, I can agree with you on many points but I honestly have to disagree with you on the point that Shifra is taking a unbiased approach to examining Paul's motives. She has made it known (re-read her OP and subsequent posts) that she's always disliked Paul. What I see her doing is attempting to buttress the dislike she's ALWAYS had regarding Paul.
Now, she's definitely a sweet person -- of that I have no doubt -- but it would be dishonest of me to praise her for embarking on her "quest" without pointing out that she has already determined where it should lead -- that being -- Paul is a man not to be liked or praised.
How can someone use the writings of one questionable source to attack the writings of another questionable source? Do you see what I mean?
Abi, I can agree with you on many points but I honestly have to disagree with you on the point that Shifra is taking a unbiased approach to examining Paul's motives. She has made it known (re-read her OP and subsequent posts) that she's always disliked Paul. What I see her doing is attempting to buttress the dislike she's ALWAYS had regarding Paul.
Now, she's definitely a sweet person -- of that I have no doubt -- but it would be dishonest of me to praise her for embarking on her "quest" without pointing out that she has already determined where it should lead -- that being -- Paul is a man not to be liked or praised.
How can someone use the writings of one questionable source to attack the writings of another questionable source? Do you see what I mean?
Yes I see what you mean, I simply have a somewhat different perspective on it. Shifra, I apoligize for discussing you like this but am thankful that we are doing it in front of you and not behind your back. :)
What I see is that Shifra saw things in Paul's writings that did not sit well in her heart and instead of trying to "force" herself to accept that which her heart does not accept, she is thinking through possible options. From that, she formed a theory that perhaps Paul was a spy. Now she is doing research to try to prove that theory. She is using a source you find questionable. Well, I would question the source too and I strongly suspect if Shifra has not yet questioned it, she will at some point down the road.
I guess, in the end, I trust that Shifra's ultimate goal is to learn more about God and His will. I likewise trust that ultimately God will show her what she needs to see.
I will add, it is also entirely possible that all of the arguments and possibilities presented by everyone in this thread is simply a part of that process.
I guess, in the end, I trust that Shifra's ultimate goal is to learn more about God and His will. I likewise trust that ultimately God will show her what she needs to see.
Abi, you have a wonderful heart! Although I realize I come across as unsympathetic or intolerant of others' quests I too ultimately hope God will show her what she needs to see.
So considering that Paul has in fact told us that the entire "male" Judean line has been considered null and void severd in the coming of Christ and that technically Jesus (contrary to what Dr Wierwill taught us) would be none other than his mothers genes which were according to Matthew, pure semitic. So Jesus would not have necessarily been pure semitic.
So if Paul was a spy and zealous for the law why would he write something that completely obliterates (other than Mary's side) the lineage of Jewish male ancestry?
The very supposition that Paul was secretly a Jew after his conversion is to me shockingly unlearned of how the world was liberated by the major apostles and Paul.
Paul's writings agree with those of the other apostles and most disagreements are only in our understanding of the spirit and the confusion of our standing and state.
Even those scriptures that seem to condemn the flesh do not condemn the spirit.
For to condemn the spirit would be to condemn the holiness created by God in us. This is the doctrine the apostles all agree upon. To not agree would be being a false prophet. (possibly as Barnabas?)
And yes a person can be dead spiritually but not because the spirit is dead but because the mind no longer has the ability to allow the light of God it shine in this world. That does not negate that the spirit is still present within as a "gift".
For we may all become old an senile and forget where we left our teeth, but the spirit will still be there to guide us though to the other side without our glasses... :)
I see the darker seemingly condemning writings of Paul an attempt on his part to reconcile his own daemons. We all think out loud and show that our lives are that delicate balance between trying to please God and trying to find some pleasure of our own life before our lives climax and fade into near obscurity.
For there are many forms or pleasure both good and evil and it is the death that comes along with pleasure that Paul cannot be faulted for. He is NOT saying this pleasure will stop you from going to heaven. No but he tells us we will not live a happy life in promiscuity and people will end up "sick" and die... plain and simple. So he emancipates us completely and then says we are "like" the evil people when we do not love others in a reasonable way... and he leaves it up to our own conscience and the walk of spirit through the law of liberty. Is that aspect of life really his fault? He seems to be the scapegoat that people need to hang their own "personal" fears upon. They enter a room and turn on the light. they see a snake in the room and blame the appearance of the fact that the light was turned on. So they turn the light off and the snake seems to disappear. But the snake has greater senses in the dark than we do. Denying Paul is simply turning off the light when we perceive possible danger... When it is the light that we require to fulfill our gnosis.
We cannot blame the old testament law on Paul for he spoke CLEARLY of us being free from it.
And we cannot with conscience blame the sickness of soul and disease on Paul because he tried to give us a way to heal ourselves from "spiritual" forms of tyranny through God's help.
As for diseases... are they really devil spirits as Jesus demonstrated?
Is a virus a spirit? Is leprosy a spirit? Are germs spirits too?
Is it better to kill a virus with prayer or disinfectant?
Hebrews 7:3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.
Comment: Paul preached Jesus Christ as the SON OF GOD this in my book would exonerate his intent from any serious doctrinal misgivings.
Abi, you have a wonderful heart! Although I realize I come across as unsympathetic or intolerant of others' quests I too ultimately hope God will show her what she needs to see.
Shifra -- I apologize if I have offended you.
:wub: Awwwe, thanks Larry. You're alright in my book too. I only take the position I do, because I know the many paths my quest has taken me on. I have traveled the road of TWI, agnosticsm, paganism, Native American religions, etc. etc. Currently I have found a home with my heritage. Who knows, one day maybe I will once again call myself Christian. I leave that in God's hands and trust He will direct my path.
Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
I also wonder if some have considered that Paul was Christ spiritually and gnostically returning to the world in the form of the holy spirit. So we love both Christ (the first born) and Paul with the same love, for ultimately they stand in the very same image and fingerprint of God represented by a walk in the spirit of grace and liberty.
Just as Christ is present within in us today in the church through the new birth first and secondly the word of God.
For the mind of Christ is not an instantaneous and static thing. If that was the case psychologists would be out of a job. The mind of Christ is a wrestling of the spirit with the conscience coupled with the five senses capacity to understand. The mind of Christ is a day to day walk where spirituality is a reality that is static and cannot be corrupted, subtracted from, slain, darkened or diminished in any way, shape or form.
Lunch hour again, so I'm checking in to see how this discussion is moving along. Wow! Such fascinating people on this thread!
WW ... It's important to me to say this, especially to you today: I am a Christian. I am not a Christian who excludes other religions, meaning that I love learning about many beliefs and SIFTING through them to keep for myself the parts that I like ... and meaning too that I don't believe Christianity is the ONLY way to goodness or to etenrnal life or to receiving love from God. I am a Christian, but different than you, and that's OK.
But I am a Christian.
I really love Jesus, and the stuff he taught. I am absolutely certain that TWI screwed up a lot of his teachings, and I am still trying to understand them in a more pure way. I also am certain that TWI practiced and pushed "Paul-ism", building much more of their doctrine around the Epistles than the Gospels.
Paul had an alliance with Barnabus. I am scrutinizing Paul's trek - I am doing this in DEFENSE OF Jesus - and so it only makes sense to scrutinize Barnabus too. When I read about the "Gospel of Barnabus", and its connections to Islam ...
... It STRENGTHENED my developing theory that Barnabus (and his pal, Paul) might have been ENEMIES of Jesus, undercover "plants" with a mission to mess things up.
I am definitely NOT suggesting that Barnabus' writings were correct. Just the opposite ! I hope this makes things more clear.
Shifra, as you know I respectfully disagree with you regarding Paul.
If you consider Jesus appearing to him as magic, then I think you must discount:
The burning bush to Moses
The donkey speaking to the prophet
Angels appearing
all the different appearances of God in the OT.
Christ's transfiguration to Peter and the other apostles
Christ appearing to the disciples after his resurrection, to the 500 - to all who saw him - it must merely magic.
St. John who wrote Revelation - magic - maybe on a magic mushroom :)
any place where one met God, his spirit, or Christ - it must all be discounted as merely - Magic.
I wonder though, if you do believe the other appearances, why you would discount Paul's vision?
The book of Barnabas - there were many "epistles" written all over the place under different people's names. It was a common occurence. Interesting to read though.
If I didn't agree with you people over here, I could write an epistle saying I was Timothy, or whoever, and hope you'd take the advice I preached.
There's a great book I have, I got it on Amazon, regarding the history of Christianity, its fascinating. On where we got our Bible and the various books and why whats in it is, and what isn't, is not. Fascinating.
And about that "magic" ... well, first of all "magic" is sorta a bad word for TWI people, but I don't speak that language anymore. If that specific word offends you, please know that I mean no offense, but also that I am no longer bound and gagged by the Way Ministry. Nowadays, I use the words that fit - for me. I personally don't think of "magic" as being something dark, but rather something unexplainably delightful.
You ask about the other magical events in the Bible, and yes, I believe those things happened ... or something similar.
Heck, I've seen God's magic myself, haven't you?
I'm just suggesting that Paul might have faked it. Paul knew about the many supernatural occurences that were associated with Jesus and his disciples, so could it be that he just staged one himself?
Any of us who spent any time with TWI certainly saw some fake revelations and "healings", as well as the real thing. This is nothing new.
I really appreciate all of the input here, and I ask that you come with me to a place outside of the limitations we have all been taught. I believe we can honor the scripture even more fully if/when we think of all the possibilities. Please understand I am NOT against the Bible.
" there are some scholars who question the authenticity of this Gospel being written by Barnabas."
Uh, yeah. And there are NUMEROUS scholars who question the authenticity and attribution of all the rest of the gospels (and the church and pastoral epistles and a good portion of the old testament) as well.
So where does that leave us? With a collection of spurious, dubious, and outright mistaken sto-ries, as in "Tell me a sto-ry Daddy!"
My question still goes unanswered though. What is it about "The Bible" that generates such respect and veneration? How can one claim it MUST be The Truth, but other holy writings are not?
Anyone catch any of "A Brief History of Unbelief" on PBS? Some great thoughts to ponder there...
" there are some scholars who question the authenticity of this Gospel being written by Barnabas."
Uh, yeah. And there are NUMEROUS scholars who question the authenticity and attribution of all the rest of the gospels (and the church and pastoral epistles and a good portion of the old testament) as well.
So where does that leave us? With a collection of spurious, dubious, and outright mistaken sto-ries, as in "Tell me a sto-ry Daddy!"
My question still goes unanswered though. What is it about "The Bible" that generates such respect and veneration? How can one claim it MUST be The Truth, but other holy writings are not?
Anyone catch any of "A Brief History of Unbelief" on PBS? Some great thoughts to ponder there...
:) Well, there ya have it George.
Oh and George -- you asked two questions, not one. ;)
"Among the sayings and discourses imputed to [Jesus] by His biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others, again, of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same Being. I separate, therefore, the gold from the dross; restore to Him the former, and leave the latter to the stupidity of some, and roguery of others of His disciples. Of this band of dupes and impostors, Paul was the great Coryphaeus, and first corruptor of the doctrines of Jesus. These palpable interpolations and falsifications of His doctrines, led me to try to sift them apart. I found the work obvious and easy, and that His past composed the most beautiful morsel of morality which has been given to us by man."
"Among the sayings and discourses imputed to [Jesus] by His biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others, again, of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same Being. I separate, therefore, the gold from the dross; restore to Him the former, and leave the latter to the stupidity of some, and roguery of others of His disciples. Of this band of dupes and impostors, Paul was the great Coryphaeus, and first corruptor of the doctrines of Jesus. These palpable interpolations and falsifications of His doctrines, led me to try to sift them apart. I found the work obvious and easy, and that His past composed the most beautiful morsel of morality which has been given to us by man."
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
34
23
45
50
Popular Days
Jul 25
48
Jul 27
32
Jul 22
22
Jul 24
16
Top Posters In This Topic
Abigail 34 posts
Shifra 23 posts
Larry N Moore 45 posts
DrWearWord 50 posts
Popular Days
Jul 25 2007
48 posts
Jul 27 2007
32 posts
Jul 22 2007
22 posts
Jul 24 2007
16 posts
Larry N Moore
Abi the problem with this (that I have after reading through the link) is there are some scholars who question the authenticity of this Gospel being written by Barnabas. To conclude that it is authentic without considering what other scholars say about it is problematic. It tends to imply that you (not you personally) only want to believe what supports your thesis.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrWearWord
Romans 11:21
For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.
Comment: What natural branches?
The branch of David and the Islamic branch (of the male). Instead God became Jesus' father and the natural branch is the sins of the fathers carried on through the progeny that was severed by God's intervention within the seed of life. That the natural branch came from Adam ultimately. The "branch" is the Y chromosome...
Peace with God
Edited by DrWearWordLink to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Larry, I understand and agree with what you are saying. I likewise think Shifra is intelligent enough to see the same. I was not trying to imply that the writings of Barnabas are legitimate or illegitimate, I was simply trying to clarify to DWW the point Shifra was making.
I am not Christian, ultimately it really makes no difference to me one way or another if Shifra's theory is proven to be correct or incorrect. What I do think is great is that she is questioning. That she is using the brain God gave her. That she is not limiting herself to a single source but is investigating multiple sources and will ultimately form her own conclusions as God works in her heart to do so.
I know Roy in particular, also reads a lot of the writings from the Dead Sea Scrolls and other sources that never made it into the Christian bible. I think it is fantastic when he shares those bits and pieces that move and inspire him. Not because I necessarily agree or disagree, but because he is studying, learning, allowing God to show him things.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
Abi, I can agree with you on many points but I honestly have to disagree with you on the point that Shifra is taking a unbiased approach to examining Paul's motives. She has made it known (re-read her OP and subsequent posts) that she's always disliked Paul. What I see her doing is attempting to buttress the dislike she's ALWAYS had regarding Paul.
Now, she's definitely a sweet person -- of that I have no doubt -- but it would be dishonest of me to praise her for embarking on her "quest" without pointing out that she has already determined where it should lead -- that being -- Paul is a man not to be liked or praised.
How can someone use the writings of one questionable source to attack the writings of another questionable source? Do you see what I mean?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Yes I see what you mean, I simply have a somewhat different perspective on it. Shifra, I apoligize for discussing you like this but am thankful that we are doing it in front of you and not behind your back. :)
What I see is that Shifra saw things in Paul's writings that did not sit well in her heart and instead of trying to "force" herself to accept that which her heart does not accept, she is thinking through possible options. From that, she formed a theory that perhaps Paul was a spy. Now she is doing research to try to prove that theory. She is using a source you find questionable. Well, I would question the source too and I strongly suspect if Shifra has not yet questioned it, she will at some point down the road.
I guess, in the end, I trust that Shifra's ultimate goal is to learn more about God and His will. I likewise trust that ultimately God will show her what she needs to see.
I will add, it is also entirely possible that all of the arguments and possibilities presented by everyone in this thread is simply a part of that process.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
Abi, you have a wonderful heart! Although I realize I come across as unsympathetic or intolerant of others' quests I too ultimately hope God will show her what she needs to see.
Shifra -- I apologize if I have offended you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
You don't know what I'm doing or saying. dww
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrWearWord
So considering that Paul has in fact told us that the entire "male" Judean line has been considered null and void severd in the coming of Christ and that technically Jesus (contrary to what Dr Wierwill taught us) would be none other than his mothers genes which were according to Matthew, pure semitic. So Jesus would not have necessarily been pure semitic.
So if Paul was a spy and zealous for the law why would he write something that completely obliterates (other than Mary's side) the lineage of Jewish male ancestry?
The very supposition that Paul was secretly a Jew after his conversion is to me shockingly unlearned of how the world was liberated by the major apostles and Paul.
Paul's writings agree with those of the other apostles and most disagreements are only in our understanding of the spirit and the confusion of our standing and state.
Even those scriptures that seem to condemn the flesh do not condemn the spirit.
For to condemn the spirit would be to condemn the holiness created by God in us. This is the doctrine the apostles all agree upon. To not agree would be being a false prophet. (possibly as Barnabas?)
And yes a person can be dead spiritually but not because the spirit is dead but because the mind no longer has the ability to allow the light of God it shine in this world. That does not negate that the spirit is still present within as a "gift".
For we may all become old an senile and forget where we left our teeth, but the spirit will still be there to guide us though to the other side without our glasses... :)
I see the darker seemingly condemning writings of Paul an attempt on his part to reconcile his own daemons. We all think out loud and show that our lives are that delicate balance between trying to please God and trying to find some pleasure of our own life before our lives climax and fade into near obscurity.
For there are many forms or pleasure both good and evil and it is the death that comes along with pleasure that Paul cannot be faulted for. He is NOT saying this pleasure will stop you from going to heaven. No but he tells us we will not live a happy life in promiscuity and people will end up "sick" and die... plain and simple. So he emancipates us completely and then says we are "like" the evil people when we do not love others in a reasonable way... and he leaves it up to our own conscience and the walk of spirit through the law of liberty. Is that aspect of life really his fault? He seems to be the scapegoat that people need to hang their own "personal" fears upon. They enter a room and turn on the light. they see a snake in the room and blame the appearance of the fact that the light was turned on. So they turn the light off and the snake seems to disappear. But the snake has greater senses in the dark than we do. Denying Paul is simply turning off the light when we perceive possible danger... When it is the light that we require to fulfill our gnosis.
We cannot blame the old testament law on Paul for he spoke CLEARLY of us being free from it.
And we cannot with conscience blame the sickness of soul and disease on Paul because he tried to give us a way to heal ourselves from "spiritual" forms of tyranny through God's help.
As for diseases... are they really devil spirits as Jesus demonstrated?
Is a virus a spirit? Is leprosy a spirit? Are germs spirits too?
Is it better to kill a virus with prayer or disinfectant?
Hebrews 7:3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.
Comment: Paul preached Jesus Christ as the SON OF GOD this in my book would exonerate his intent from any serious doctrinal misgivings.
Edited by DrWearWordLink to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
:wub: Awwwe, thanks Larry. You're alright in my book too. I only take the position I do, because I know the many paths my quest has taken me on. I have traveled the road of TWI, agnosticsm, paganism, Native American religions, etc. etc. Currently I have found a home with my heritage. Who knows, one day maybe I will once again call myself Christian. I leave that in God's hands and trust He will direct my path.
Edited by AbigailLink to comment
Share on other sites
DrWearWord
Well you appear honest and frank that is the best attitude for sure...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrWearWord
Hebrews 10:29
Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrWearWord
I also wonder if some have considered that Paul was Christ spiritually and gnostically returning to the world in the form of the holy spirit. So we love both Christ (the first born) and Paul with the same love, for ultimately they stand in the very same image and fingerprint of God represented by a walk in the spirit of grace and liberty.
Just as Christ is present within in us today in the church through the new birth first and secondly the word of God.
For the mind of Christ is not an instantaneous and static thing. If that was the case psychologists would be out of a job. The mind of Christ is a wrestling of the spirit with the conscience coupled with the five senses capacity to understand. The mind of Christ is a day to day walk where spirituality is a reality that is static and cannot be corrupted, subtracted from, slain, darkened or diminished in any way, shape or form.
Edited by DrWearWordLink to comment
Share on other sites
Shifra
Lunch hour again, so I'm checking in to see how this discussion is moving along. Wow! Such fascinating people on this thread!
WW ... It's important to me to say this, especially to you today: I am a Christian. I am not a Christian who excludes other religions, meaning that I love learning about many beliefs and SIFTING through them to keep for myself the parts that I like ... and meaning too that I don't believe Christianity is the ONLY way to goodness or to etenrnal life or to receiving love from God. I am a Christian, but different than you, and that's OK.
But I am a Christian.
I really love Jesus, and the stuff he taught. I am absolutely certain that TWI screwed up a lot of his teachings, and I am still trying to understand them in a more pure way. I also am certain that TWI practiced and pushed "Paul-ism", building much more of their doctrine around the Epistles than the Gospels.
Paul had an alliance with Barnabus. I am scrutinizing Paul's trek - I am doing this in DEFENSE OF Jesus - and so it only makes sense to scrutinize Barnabus too. When I read about the "Gospel of Barnabus", and its connections to Islam ...
... It STRENGTHENED my developing theory that Barnabus (and his pal, Paul) might have been ENEMIES of Jesus, undercover "plants" with a mission to mess things up.
I am definitely NOT suggesting that Barnabus' writings were correct. Just the opposite ! I hope this makes things more clear.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrWearWord
I love you all...
If it came to a toss up between arguing the various interpretations of the scriptures or just loving you all I would surely pick the latter. :)
Edited by DrWearWordLink to comment
Share on other sites
Sunesis
Shifra, as you know I respectfully disagree with you regarding Paul.
If you consider Jesus appearing to him as magic, then I think you must discount:
The burning bush to Moses
The donkey speaking to the prophet
Angels appearing
all the different appearances of God in the OT.
Christ's transfiguration to Peter and the other apostles
Christ appearing to the disciples after his resurrection, to the 500 - to all who saw him - it must merely magic.
St. John who wrote Revelation - magic - maybe on a magic mushroom :)
any place where one met God, his spirit, or Christ - it must all be discounted as merely - Magic.
I wonder though, if you do believe the other appearances, why you would discount Paul's vision?
The book of Barnabas - there were many "epistles" written all over the place under different people's names. It was a common occurence. Interesting to read though.
If I didn't agree with you people over here, I could write an epistle saying I was Timothy, or whoever, and hope you'd take the advice I preached.
There's a great book I have, I got it on Amazon, regarding the history of Christianity, its fascinating. On where we got our Bible and the various books and why whats in it is, and what isn't, is not. Fascinating.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Shifra
Cool, Sunesis! What's the name of the book?
And about that "magic" ... well, first of all "magic" is sorta a bad word for TWI people, but I don't speak that language anymore. If that specific word offends you, please know that I mean no offense, but also that I am no longer bound and gagged by the Way Ministry. Nowadays, I use the words that fit - for me. I personally don't think of "magic" as being something dark, but rather something unexplainably delightful.
You ask about the other magical events in the Bible, and yes, I believe those things happened ... or something similar.
Heck, I've seen God's magic myself, haven't you?
I'm just suggesting that Paul might have faked it. Paul knew about the many supernatural occurences that were associated with Jesus and his disciples, so could it be that he just staged one himself?
Any of us who spent any time with TWI certainly saw some fake revelations and "healings", as well as the real thing. This is nothing new.
I really appreciate all of the input here, and I ask that you come with me to a place outside of the limitations we have all been taught. I believe we can honor the scripture even more fully if/when we think of all the possibilities. Please understand I am NOT against the Bible.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
that was sweet DWW. And ya know, it's possible to do both. Well, instead of arguing with anger, simply present a perspective with respect. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
" there are some scholars who question the authenticity of this Gospel being written by Barnabas."
Uh, yeah. And there are NUMEROUS scholars who question the authenticity and attribution of all the rest of the gospels (and the church and pastoral epistles and a good portion of the old testament) as well.
So where does that leave us? With a collection of spurious, dubious, and outright mistaken sto-ries, as in "Tell me a sto-ry Daddy!"
My question still goes unanswered though. What is it about "The Bible" that generates such respect and veneration? How can one claim it MUST be The Truth, but other holy writings are not?
Anyone catch any of "A Brief History of Unbelief" on PBS? Some great thoughts to ponder there...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
:) Well, there ya have it George.
Oh and George -- you asked two questions, not one. ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Well, actually, I asked FOUR questions...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
True but, only two that are related to the same issue. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
"Among the sayings and discourses imputed to [Jesus] by His biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others, again, of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same Being. I separate, therefore, the gold from the dross; restore to Him the former, and leave the latter to the stupidity of some, and roguery of others of His disciples. Of this band of dupes and impostors, Paul was the great Coryphaeus, and first corruptor of the doctrines of Jesus. These palpable interpolations and falsifications of His doctrines, led me to try to sift them apart. I found the work obvious and easy, and that His past composed the most beautiful morsel of morality which has been given to us by man."
- Thomas Jefferson
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
Thomas Jefferson. Great man. Too bad he was a slave owner though.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.