DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Love God Only
HTML https://lovegodonly.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Things of the Spirit
*****************************************************
#Post#: 8547--------------------------------------------------
Paul is anti-christ
By: meshak Date: July 18, 2014, 9:09 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Got some more anti-Paul wonderful quotes from famous intelligent
people including Ghandi and even some preachers!!! ... thought
you may appreciate them coz we are in good company :)
In Christ or Paul?, by Rev. V.A. Holmes-Gore:
"Let the reader contrast the true Christian standard with that
of Paul and he will see the terrible betrayal of all that the
Master taught. . . . For the surest way to betray a great
Teacher is to misrepresent his message. . . . That is what Paul
and his followers did, and because the Church has followed Paul
in his error it has failed lamentably to redeem the world. . . .
The teachings given by the blessed Master Christ, which the
disciples John and Peter and James, the brother of the Master,
tried in vain to defend and preserve intact were as utterly
opposed to the Pauline Gospel as the light is opposed to the
darkness."
The great theologian Soren Kierkegaard, in The Journals:
"In the teachings of Christ, religion is completely present
tense: Jesus is the prototype and our task is to imitate him,
become a disciple. But then through Paul came a basic
alteration. Paul draws attention away from imitating Christ and
fixes attention on the death of Christ The Atoner. What Martin
Luther, in his reformation, failed to realize is that even
before Catholicism, Christianity had become degenerate at the
hands of Paul. Paul made Christianity the religion of Paul, not
of Christ. Paul threw the Christianity of Christ away,
completely turning it upside down, making it just the opposite
of the original proclamation of Christ"
The brilliant theologian Ernest Renan, in his book Saint Paul:
"True Christianity, which will last forever, comes from the
gospel words of Christ not from the epistles of Paul. The
writings of Paul have been a danger and a hidden rock, the
causes of the principal defects of Christian theology."
Will Durant, in his Caesar and Christ:
"Paul created a theology of which none but the vaguest warrants
can be found in the words of Christ. . . . Through these
interpretations Paul could neglect the actual life and sayings
of Jesus, which he had not directly known. . . . Paul replaced
conduct with creed as the test of virtue. It was a tragic
change."
Robert Frost, winner of the Pulitzer prize for poetry in
1924,1931,1937 and 1943, in his "A Masque of Mercy":
"Paul he's in the Bible too. He is the fellow who theologized
Christ almost out of Christianity. Look out for him."
James Baldwin, the most noted black American author of this
century, in his book The Fire Next Time:
"The real architect of the Christian church was not the
disreputable, sunbaked Hebrew (Jesus Christ) who gave it its
name but rather the mercilessly fanatical and self-righteous
Paul."
Martin Buber, the most respected Jewish philosopher of this
century, in Two Types of Faith:
"The Jesus of the Sermon on the Mount is completely opposed to
Paul."
The famous mystic, poet and author, Kahlil Gibran, in Jesus the
Son of Man:
"This Paul is indeed a strange man. His soul is not the soul of
a free man. He speaks not of Jesus nor does he repeat His Words.
He would strike with his own hammer upon the anvil in the Name
of One whom he does not know."
The famous theologian, Helmut Koester, in his The Theological
Aspects of Primitive Christian Heresy:
"Paul himself stands in the twilight zone of heresy. In reading
Paul, one immediately encounters a major difficulty. Whatever
Jesus had preached did not become the content of the missionary
proclamation of Paul. . . . Sayings of Jesus do not play a role
in Paul 's understanding of the event of salvation. . . . Paul
did not care at all what Jesus had said. . . . Had Paul been
completely successful very little of the sayings of Jesus would
have survived."
Thomas Jefferson, third president of the United States and
author of the Declaration of Independence in his "Letter to
William Short":
"Paul was the first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus."
Renowned English philosopher Jeremy Bentham, in his Not Paul
But Jesus:
"It rests with every professor of the religion of Jesus to
settle within himself to which of the two religions, that of
Jesus or that of Paul, he will adhere."
The eminent theologian Ferdinand Christian Baur, in his Church
History of the First Three Centuries:
"What kind of authority can there be for an 'apostle' who,
unlike the other apostles, had never been prepared for the
apostolic office in Jesus' own school but had only later dared
to claim the apostolic office on the basis on his own authority?
The only question comes to be how the apostle Paul appears in
his Epistles to be so indifferent to the historical facts of the
life of Jesus. . . . He bears himself but little like a disciple
who has received the doctrines and the principles which he
preaches from the Master whose name he bears."
The great Mahatma Gandhi, the prophet of nonviolence who won
freedom from England for India in an essay titled "Discussion on
Fellowship":
"I draw a great distinction between the Sermon on the Mount of
Jesus and the Letters of Paul. Paul's Letters are a graft on
Christ's teachings, Paul's own gloss apart from Christ's own
experience."
Carl Jung, the famous Swiss psychiatrist, in his essay "A
Psychological Approach to Dogma":
"Saul's [Paul's name before his conversion] fanatical resistance
to Christianity. . . . was never entirely overcome. It is
frankly disappointing to see how Paul hardly ever allows the
real Jesus of Nazareth to get a word in."
George Bernard Shaw, winner of the Nobel Prize for Literature
in 1925; in his Androcles and the Lion:
"There is not one word of Pauline Christianity in the
characteristic utterances of Jesus. . . . There has really never
been a more monstrous imposition perpetrated than the imposition
of Paul's soul upon the soul of Jesus. . . . It is now easy to
understand how the Christianity of Jesus. . . . was suppressed
by the police and the Church, while Paulinism overran the whole
western civilized world, which was at that time the Roman
Empire, and was adopted by it as its official faith."
Albert Schweitzer, winner of the 1952 Nobel Peace Prize, called
"one of the greatest Christians of his time," philosopher,
physician, musician, clergyman, missionary, and theologian in
his The Quest for the Historical Jesus and his Mysticism of
Paul:
"Paul. . . . did not desire to know Christ. . . . Paul shows us
with what complete indifference the earthly life of Jesus was
regarded. . . . What is the significance for our faith and for
our religious life, the fact that the Gospel of Paul is
different from the Gospel of Jesus?. . . . The attitude which
Paul himself takes up towards the Gospel of Jesus is that he
does not repeat it in the words of Jesus, and does not appeal to
its authority. . . . The fateful thing is that the Greek, the
Catholic, and the Protestant theologies all contain the Gospel
of Paul in a form which does not continue the Gospel of Jesus,
but displaces it."
William Wrede, in his excellent book, Paul:
"The oblivious contradictions in the three accounts given by
Paul in regard to his conversion are enough to arouse distrust.
. . . The moral majesty of Jesus, his purity and piety, his
ministry among his people, his manner as a prophet, the whole
concrete ethical-religious content of his earthly life,
signifies for Paul's Christology nothing whatever. . . . The
name 'disciple of Jesus' has little applicability to Paul. . . .
Jesus or Paul: this alternative characterizes, at least in part,
the religious and theological warfare of the present day"
Rudolf Bultman, one of the most respected theologians of this
century, in his Significance of the Historical Jesus for the
Theology of Paul:
"It is most obvious that Paul does not appeal to the words of
the Lord in support of his. . . . views. when the essentially
Pauline conceptions are considered, it is clear that Paul is not
dependent on Jesus. Jesus' teaching is -- to all intents and
purposes -- irrelevant for Paul."
Walter Bauer, another eminent theologian, in his Orthodoxy and
Heresy in Earliest Christianity:
"If one may be allowed to speak rather pointedly the Apostle
Paul was the only Arch-Heretic known to the apostolic age."
H.L. Mencken, called one of the most influential American
writers of the first half of the 20th century, in his Notes on
Democracy:
"Is it argued by any rational man that the debased Christianity
cherished by the mob in all the Christian countries of today,
has any colourable likeness to the body of ideas preached by
Christ?
"The plain fact is that this bogus Christianity has no more
relation to the system of Christ than it has to Aristotle. It is
the invention of Paul and his attendant rabble-rousers--a body
of men exactly comparable to the corps of evangelical pastors of
today, which is to say, a body devoid of sense and lamentably
indifferent to common honesty. The mob, having heard Christ,
turned against Him. His theological ideas were too logical and
plausible for it, and His ethical ideas were enormously too
austere. What it yearned for was the old comfortable balderdash
under a new and gaudy name, and that is prescisely what Paul
offered it. He borrowed from all the wandering dervishes and
body-snatchers of Asia Minor, and flavoured the stew with
remnants of Greek demonology. The result was a code of doctrines
so discordant and so nonsensical that no two men since,
examining it at length, have ever agreed upon its prescise
meaning. Paul remains the arch theologian of the mob. His turgid
and witless metaphysics make Christianity bearable to men who
would otherwise be repelled by Christ's simple and magnificent
reduction of the duties of man to the duties of a gentle-man."
#Post#: 8548--------------------------------------------------
Re: Paul is anti-christ
By: meshak Date: July 18, 2014, 9:10 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I was discussing about Paul with my Christian sister. She sent
to me above information.
#Post#: 8549--------------------------------------------------
Re: Paul is anti-christ
By: Brad Date: July 19, 2014, 7:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Jesus has no personally recorded writing. You either accept
what others wrote about him or not. If it pleases you to
ignore pauls writing, then do so. Its between you and God.
#Post#: 8550--------------------------------------------------
Re: Paul is anti-christ
By: coldwar Date: July 19, 2014, 7:40 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Brad is correct. But Meshak - it must be noted that Paul's
letters were the earliest things written down for the earliest
Gentile Christians, and James, the brother of Jesus, wrote an
Epistle to the Israelites a couple of years previous to Paul.
Paul was instructed by countless visions of the ascended Christ
- he had not heard any of Jesus' teachings while He walked the
earth as a man, so how could he possibly have corrupted what he
did not hear or read? What's more, Peter, Paul, James, Jude and
John had established congregations among the Jews and Gentiles
several years before the Gospels attributed to Matthew, Mark,
Luke and John (with the last one, I believe, actually written by
Lazarus - the Disciple who Jesus loved).
Christian congregations were rapidly springing up everywhere,
and they needed instruction in the faith, and also to be given a
way to organize themselves regarding leadership - they had no
Gospels written to help them. Years later, the Gospels finally
were written, which added the further blessing of the words of
Jesus himself, as some of the Disciples who walked with Him,
along with Luke the Greek, recalled the words and events. I've
been reading the Bible for 38 years, and I've never seen any big
conflict between the Apostles Letters especially - nor between
the Epistles and the Gospels. If Paul is anti-Christ, then all
of the other early pre-Gospel writers who were his companion
writers and are in agreement with him must also be.
The way I see it, the Apostles' writings first established the
churches, then the Gospels came along and aided the Christian
movement further along.
But, if you wish to stick to reading only the Gospels, that's
fine. Just keep in mind that all of the schisms and corruptions
we're seeing today within Christianity are not the fault of
Paul, or his companion writers.
#Post#: 8551--------------------------------------------------
Re: Paul is anti-christ
By: meshak Date: July 19, 2014, 7:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Paul is full of himself. He does not mention about Jesus too
much. His teachings are so different from other of His
apostles.
Jesus emphasize on being faithful to Him yet Paul is opposite of
what He says. He emphasize on "faith only" or "Grace alone" or
"your works cannot save you".
this is clearly anti-Christ.
#Post#: 8552--------------------------------------------------
Re: Paul is anti-christ
By: coldwar Date: July 19, 2014, 9:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
^ "Paul is full of himself. He does not mention about Jesus too
much"
I just did a word count - Paul mentions "Jesus Christ" with the
exclusion of himself over 350 times in all of his letters, and I
did not count Hebrews, because I don't believe he wrote that
one. Occasionally, Paul wrote of Jesus in connection with
himself, such as in the salutations of his letters - "Paul, a
servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ" - he does this
about 24 times - I did not count those.
Now, you seem to think that Paul was against "Law", and was
anti-Christ because he told people they no longer had to keep
it. But it was James, not Paul who wrote "For whosoever shall
keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of
all". How are you making out with keeping the whole Law in your
life, without offending in one point?
And what about when the Jewish Christians decided to tell the
Gentiles "For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to
lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;
That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and
from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye
keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well."
Did Paul write that? No, once again it was James, the brother of
Jesus leading the charge on that one too (Acts 15:13 as recorded
by Luke). Other Apostles, including Paul, were in full agreement
with James about it, and delivered this rule in the form of a
letter to all of the Gentile Churches (Acts 15:25). Notice also
that James called Paul "beloved", again as written down by Luke.
^ " His teachings are so different from other of His apostles"
I would ask you to give me some examples, but don't bother.
^ "He emphasize on "faith only" or "Grace alone" or "your works
cannot save you"."
Paul frequently warns Christians of the importance of works, and
how that, in perfect harmony with James, Jesus and the Book of
Revelation, on the Judgment Day, everybody will be judged
according to our works. Perhaps it was Martin Luther who put the
emphasis on faith and grace. Paul, along with the other writers
of the entire Bible, including the Old Testament, always held
grace and works in the proper balance. For instance, why do you
suppose King David was not put to death when he committed
adultery with Bathsheba, and after that, murdered her husband?
The Law commands that adulterers and murderers be put to death.
But by God's Grace, King David was spared this death penalty.
#Post#: 8553--------------------------------------------------
Re: Paul is anti-christ
By: Kerry Date: July 19, 2014, 9:15 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=meshak link=topic=833.msg8551#msg8551
date=1405774758]
Paul is full of himself. He does not mention about Jesus too
much. His teachings are so different from other of His
apostles.
Jesus emphasize on being faithful to Him yet Paul is opposite of
what He says. He emphasize on "faith only" or "Grace alone" or
"your works cannot save you".
this is clearly anti-Christ.
[/quote]I'd say Paul was too full of "logic" when writing.
When he drops the long lines of reasoning, sometimes I
understand him. I doubt he preached like that. I also doubt
he thought anyone would ever consider his books "inspired"
writings. In fact, once or twice he says what he's writing is
not authoritative but his own opinion.
Inspired books contain very little logic. What a person is
saying something inspired, he isn't trying to prove it. He
says it and some people will hear it and say, "Yes, that's it!"
Others will hear it and say, "What nonsense!" Paul is almost
desperate at times trying to prove something. He is writing to
people he already preached the Gospel to. In his letters, he's
doing something else. Sometimes he's trying to talk them out of
errors they've fallen into so he goes into the rather long
arguments.
He also seldom uses symbols the way most prophets do, where a
thing is mentioned but it stands for something else. Paul does
at times -- for example when he talks about Jews and Gentiles,
he talks about an olive tree -- that is in line with how all the
other prophets talked about trees.
#Post#: 8554--------------------------------------------------
Re: Paul is anti-christ
By: coldwar Date: July 19, 2014, 10:29 am
---------------------------------------------------------
That's all very true Kerry and a good point to be made here.
John especially was very "spiritual" in comparison - in fact if
you don't read all 3 of John's epistles with the Holy Spirit,
they would not be understood at any level. Peter is somewhere
between John and Paul (makes me feel like we're talking about
The Beatles ;D - sometimes George stood between John and Paul
when he wrote the song, heheh). Hebrews is full of Hebrew
spiritual truth, but we really don't know who wrote it.
But what about James? in my opinion, he relied just as fully on
logic as Paul did, and they both occasionally wrote from the
Holy Spirit as well. Paul says he had frequent visions from God
- would that be to merely bolster his logic? I think the point
I'm trying to make here is that not all logic is necessarily
human logic, and that just because James and Paul appear to use
human reasoning sometimes, does this mean that they're writings
are not inspired scripture? The Gentiles especially had to be
"migrated" from a totally humanist and pagan mindset - would
Paul not have to use an "inspired logic" to reach them at their
own level? He said " I am made all things to all men, that I
might by all means save some." I think this verse goes a long
way to explaining Paul's peculiar form of inspiration.
#Post#: 8555--------------------------------------------------
Re: Paul is anti-christ
By: Kerry Date: July 19, 2014, 12:18 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=coldwar link=topic=833.msg8554#msg8554
date=1405783766]
That's all very true Kerry and a good point to be made here.
John especially was very "spiritual" in comparison - in fact if
you don't read all 3 of John's epistles with the Holy Spirit,
they would not be understood at any level. Peter is somewhere
between John and Paul (makes me feel like we're talking about
The Beatles ;D - sometimes George stood between John and Paul
when he wrote the song, heheh). Hebrews is full of Hebrew
spiritual truth, but we really don't know who wrote it.
But what about James? in my opinion, he relied just as fully on
logic as Paul did, and they both occasionally wrote from the
Holy Spirit as well. Paul says he had frequent visions from God
- would that be to merely bolster his logic?[/quote]I am not an
expert on Paul. Where does he say that? He mentioned being
caught up to Heaven and said he couldn't talk about that.
[quote]I think the point I'm trying to make here is that not all
logic is necessarily human logic, and that just because James
and Paul appear to use human reasoning sometimes, does this mean
that they're writings are not inspired scripture? The Gentiles
especially had to be "migrated" from a totally humanist and
pagan mindset - would Paul not have to use an "inspired logic"
to reach them at their own level? He said " I am made all things
to all men, that I might by all means save some." I think this
verse goes a long way to explaining Paul's peculiar form of
inspiration.[/quote]
Compare these three passages about grass.
James 1:10 But the rich, in that he is made low: because as the
flower of the grass he shall pass away.
11 For the sun is no sooner risen with a burning heat, but it
withereth the grass, and the flower thereof falleth, and the
grace of the fashion of it perisheth: so also shall the rich man
fade away in his ways.
1 Peter 1:24 For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man
as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower
thereof falleth away:
Revelation 8:7 The first angel sounded, and there followed hail
and fire mingled with blood, and they were cast upon the earth:
and the third part of trees was burnt up, and all green grass
was burnt up.
Then go back and refer to the parable of the mustard seed where
it first becomes a herb and then a tree.
Grass is often used as a symbol for that part of man that can
perish as worthless if it fails to become a tree. Jesus did a
variation on it. David does both grass and herb here:
Psalm 37:1 Fret not thyself because of evildoers, neither be
thou envious against the workers of iniquity.
2 For they shall soon be cut down like the grass, and wither as
the green herb.
More:
Isaiah 37:27 Therefore their inhabitants were of small power,
they were dismayed and confounded: they were as the grass of the
field, and as the green herb, as the grass on the housetops, and
as corn blasted before it be grown up.
Isaiah seems to have in mind something like the mustard plant
here when first he talks about grass and then willows.
Isaiah 44:3 For I will pour water upon him that is thirsty, and
floods upon the dry ground: I will pour my spirit upon thy seed,
and my blessing upon thine offspring:
4 And they shall spring up as among the grass, as willows by the
water courses.
I think it you go back to Genesis 1, it is really talking about
"man" when it says the grass, the herb and the tree were made
on day 4.
James gets quite spiritual talking about the "tongue." If
people grasped him better, they would know Spirit filled
Christians always speak "with" other or new tongues. They may
or may not speak "in" tongues.
How can we be judged by our words as Jesus said -- and also by
our deeds? I rely on Genesis and the story of Cain and what
James says. If the tongue is bridled, so will our deeds. Mind
the pence, and the pounds take care of themselves.
I don't necessarily read James literally when he says to wash
the hands. Yes, the Jews had that practice; but it's a rather
pointless practice unless the spiritual hands are also washed.
The physical practice is very good if it reminds people to do it
spiritually.
Much of the New Testament resembles "the Writings" of the Old
Testament. Lots of it is a record of events people saw with
their physical eyes or heard with their physical ears.
Don't forget that even prophets can err. If God had to wait for
perfect men to be prophets, nothing would get done. If they
can enough of the message right that it resonates properly and
gets the job done, God can use them. I'd say Jonah heard
wrong; but he got the job done. The Jews will tell you that
prophets can see inaccurately at times. So the books that fall
within "the Prophets" are not of equal quality to the Torah.
The books in "the Writings" are of even lesser quality.
You can see how things are not perfectly recorded in the
Gospels. Four Gospels and each one has the placard above Jesus
on the cross saying something different. Who's right? I rate
the Gospel of John to be of the best quality of the four -- and
he was also there I think. The first letters of the four words
also spell YHVH, and that would have annoyed the Jews.
To quote the rabbinical student I knew, "the New Testament is a
mess." So it is. There is more than one way to read the story
of the wheat and tares.
I think I understand what Meshak meant; but I wouldn't go as far
as she did. He does talk about himself too much. Paul did get
defensive about his role. Why would that be? If he had
founded a church by preaching the Gospel in a particular place,
why would he need to explain who he was and what his credentials
were to them? I find the claim he made about Peter dubious.
While I can believe the Apostles may have had discussions that
could have gotten hot at times, I can't see an Apostle writing
the way Paul did about Peter. It's as if he was feeling he had
to prove something, and he was a tough guy who hadn't been
afraid to stand up to Peter.
Did he go up to Jerusalem as Acts says or didn't he as he claims
in Galatians? The claim he makes in Galatians is an attempt to
show that Jesus picked him and he didn't need the approval of
the other Apostles. I find that childish.
I also find him hypocritical at times if in fact he wrote all
the books people say are his. According to Acts, Paul had
Timothy circumcised.
Acts 16:3 Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and
circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those
quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek.
Really? And he then criticized Peter for being afraid of the
Jews? Can this be the same Paul that said if you are
circumcised you are obliged to keep all the law of Moses? Why
put Timothy under such a burden?
Or might that detail in Acts be a forgery? Beats me. Then we
have this:
Romans 1:10 Making request, if by any means now at length I
might have a prosperous journey by the will of God to come unto
you.
11 For I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some
spiritual gift, to the end ye may be established;
12 That is, that I may be comforted together with you by the
mutual faith both of you and me.
13 Now I would not have you ignorant, brethren, that oftentimes
I purposed to come unto you, (but was let hitherto,) that I
might have some fruit among you also, even as among other
Gentiles.
14 I am debtor both to the Greeks, and to the Barbarians; both
to the wise, and to the unwise.
15 So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to
you that are at Rome also.
And later in the same book:
15:20 Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where
Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man's
foundation:
21 But as it is written, To whom he was not spoken of, they
shall see: and they that have not heard shall understand.
22 For which cause also I have been much hindered from coming to
you.
If Peter was in Rome, what was Paul doing?
These things confuse me. I can't even be sure Paul wrote all
of the book of Romans when he seems to be contradicting himself.
#Post#: 8556--------------------------------------------------
Re: Paul is anti-christ
By: coldwar Date: July 19, 2014, 2:03 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
^ "I am not an expert on Paul. Where does he say that? He
mentioned being caught up to Heaven and said he couldn't talk
about that. "
Same text - 2 Cor. 12:7 "And lest I should be exalted above
measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was
given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to
buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure."
^ "Did he go up to Jerusalem as Acts says or didn't he as he
claims in Galatians? The claim he makes in Galatians is an
attempt to show that Jesus picked him and he didn't need the
approval of the other Apostles. I find that childish."
Galatians is an early book, Acts is several years later, so in
Galatians he had not yet gone to Jerusalem, but by the time Acts
was written, he had gone.
^ "I also find him hypocritical at times [i]if in fact he wrote
all the books people say are his. According to Acts, Paul had
Timothy circumcised"[/i]
This is probably not very helpful, but if we go with the more
Liberal Christian Scholars, Paul only wrote the following for
certain - 1 Thess., Galatians, Philippians, Philemon, 1&2
Corinthians and Romans.
Concerning circumcision, are you talking about the bit in Romans
2? Paul was not a fan of it after his conversion, but spoke of
it spiritually, not physically - Rom. 2:29 "But he is a Jew,
which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in
the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men,
but of God". Was his motivation for circumcision of Timothy
perhaps earlier? Also, he certainly was a man of much duplicity
- pretty much admitted when he said he tries to be all things to
all people, in the hope that he might gain some. This might have
been his modus operendi, until Christ instructed him otherwise,
but I don't know that of course.
^ "If Peter was in Rome, what was Paul doing?"
Peter didn't spend much time in Rome - he died there, but most
of his Christian ministry was spent in Jerusalem.
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page