St. Paul never heard Jesus preach, so what gives him the right to speak on J.C. behalf?
954909
Goes to show you that big, powerful personalities have the same influence in every age.  Nothing changes.
746174
Jesus never involved himself in the political landscape. He was more concerned with the spiritual.
1182876
He is said to have a direct line, so to speak, with God.\n(I am not Catholic, but was raised as one.)
443449
Paul often took it on himself to interpted and make rules for the Church in the day. these scriptures come from Paul not God. Seems to me Paul, not Jesus is quoted in the Christian religions all to often. How can we be certain that Paul was not a deciever, one Jesus warned of when He said \n"Take heed lest any man deceive you" Matt. 13:5. Most Christians will not question what in in the "Holy Bible" but have you noticed there is more of Paul than Jesus in the New Testament. Many ancient text are left out of the Bible, but Paul certainly has his say. I serve God not Paul
707088
Only a Pharisee would make this  public\n\n\nThank you
446566
good question , they know something about him just not enough to love him people hear about jesus and yet not belivie in him. lets just pray for all that one day they all will have a ear to hear of his goodness
31354
Yes God speaks directly to us through our ears. john 10;26-30 tells us if we are His sheep we hear His voice and know Him and follow Him. If you don't hear his voice in some form then you don't know Him.
228345
Many feel that Paul prohibited women from speaking publicly to the congregation. However, if this is Paul’s teaching, this is not the proof text for it.\n\nWe must bear in mind that this epistle is addressed ‘to the church of God in Corinth,’ not ‘to anyone who happens to read this.’ (1 Corinthians 1:2) We are reading this epistle, as it were, over the shoulders of the Corinthian church, to which it is immediately addressed. Any interpretation of this passage that applies it directly to us without taking the circumstances in Corinth into account is faulty and—well—unbiblical.\n\nThis passage deals with the general issue of when people are to speak and when they are to defer to other speakers during a worship service. If you are looking for the qualifications for leadership, you have to look in other places, in particular 1 Timothy and Titus.\n\nThe women who are ‘speaking’ in this passage are not addressing the assembly in a leadership role, they were talking while the worship service was in progress, disrupting it with questions about the proceedings.\n\nPaul says that the questions should not be asked during church, but afterwards at home.\n\nThe Greek verb translated here as ‘speak’ is λαλεω, which indicates the activity rather than the content of speech. (It is the verb that regularly introduces quotations.) Thus, we could better translate this as saying that ‘it is a disgrace for women to talk in church’ and ‘they are not allowed to talk.’\n\nThe Greek verb λαλεω appears in the present infinitive, so we could improve on our translation even further by saying, ‘it is a disgrace for women to be talking in church’ and ‘they are not allowed to be talking.’ If Paul had meant to say, ‘it is not permitted for women to preach,’ he would have used a different verb, and would have cast it in the aorist infinitive.\n\nThe Greek verb translated ‘remain silent’ means to refrain from talking out of respect, just as we do not chatter during prayers or the sermon or a choir performance.\n\nAs for the submission, the most we can get out of the passage at hand is that women, like everyone else, have to submit to the general rules of order and decorum. Decorum in worship is in fact one of the main themes of this epistle. The topic here is order in the church, not the intrinsic value of women, not the qualifications for church leadership, and not ordination.\n\nSince the general context is about speaking out of turn in church, we can only conclude that Paul is saying that it is disgraceful for women to disrupt the service by asking questions of the other parishioners. They are not allowed to be talking, they should hold their questions until afterwards. Given that the women of Corinth were disrupting the service with their chatter, hardly anyone would disagree with Paul’s advice. Inserting any other meaning is eisegesis, not exegesis; it fallaciously conflates the text.\n\n\n\n\nPaul is saying that the women who are students in a class must not disrupt the class and they must submit to the teacher—who, by the way, is a woman herself! Of course, all students must do that, but in this case the problem was with the women who were in a situation with which they were unaccustomed. Paul’s advice certainly does not mean that men can learn in rowdiness and insubordination! Men must learn in silence and submission as well, but Timothy obviously did not have a problem with the men’s classes, at least not at the time that Paul wrote this letter
181719
The root of christianity is what Paul taught. It is scary how today's christians will quote Paul and Paul's rules to the church more than Jesus'. Jesus came to fulfill the "Law" not to change it. No where does Jesus call himself a "God" He refers to Himself as the "Son of Man" and reveers the "Father" God.Paul deifies Christ and defines the trinity.\nYou would think If such a thing as the trinity existed, Jesus would have told His diciples the truth of it. Paul walked the earth the same time as Jesus,He was present at the stoning of Stephen, He pursecuted early christians in the name of the Sanhedrian  His conversion would have been as prevalent had Jesus changed his heart while Jesus had been alive, but with Jesus having been crucified Paul conviently makes up laws for christians subverting the faith and deceiving the world
1006488
I would say to be militant about it is a little strong, but Jesus says that we are to go into the world teaching and preaching the gospel, baptizing in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.  So, I would think it should make a great deal of difference to you what someone believes; as he also said I AM the Way, the Truth, and the Light - NO man cometh unto the Father, but by me.  The capitals are not yelling but for emphasis and I don't know how to make emphasis without using capitals - so if you are saved and you don't feel an unction to spread the gospel, then what good is your salvation?  I'm not judging you, I'm simply posing a thought pondering question to you.  I can't tell you what is sin and what is not - Jesus can - a reference you might find helpful is James 4:17.
903491
Jesus spoke in His ministry that a testimony means more if it comes from a witness. Anyone can write their own biography and say whatever they like, but the fact is Jesus made a point of having eyewitnesses to everything He did.
596328
If your Christian you don't need to do anything but believe Jesus is G-d. Ten Commandments Jesus fulfilled them, Sabbath observance Jesus fulfilled, 613 laws Jesus fulfilled.\n\nIt was actually brilliant on Paul's part make a religion that all you have to do is believe. The perfect marketing plan. Want eternal salvation Just believe want eternal damnation don't believe
285698
My understanding is that the law was over, caput, done with when Jesus died on the cross. Jesus said, I came not to abolish the law but to fulfill it. Read the book of Romans, written by Paul, he explains very well. If you are new to scripture, you might want to try the "Word" translation. We human beings are so innately depraved and clueless - (a legacy from Adam - check your scripture crosswalk.com = it has a search engine)- that there was/is *nothing* we could ever *do* that would save us. It required that Jesus become flesh and that *He* take on all of our sins... that's how we're saved. By grace. There is no way to *earn* your way. It is a gift from God - GRACE - and it can't be earned. It;s given when you accept that Jesus is the son of God and that His purpose was to do for us what we could never do for ourselves. The operative word here: "do."\n One more thing: God *always* loves us. The question for us is: "Do we *trust* HIm? Obey? If you're believing, you're "obeying." He left only 2 commandments: Love me as I love you and love your neighbors. That second one is tough... oftentimes impossible. I've got neighbors - or people I just come across that I'd like to take a baseball bat to... then I remember that the commandment wasn't "Love your neighbors - except those who make you want to hit them with a baseball bat." This Christian walk is not easy and it doesn't require you to DO anything to receive God's love. Romans and the letters to the seven churches in teh NT all speak to Christ's intentions: Look at how he behaved: he loved and he acted in love. And that ain't easy to do all the time. I try and get it maybe 30-40% of hte time. And still, He's got me covered. \n Scripture will tell you all you need to know. Prepare and ask to know what God's will is for you... he's not a Fairy Godmother - damn it all - but as you are ready you will be shown. Bless you.
326087
Well, I'll tell you, but first let's clarify what really happened.  A fellow named Cascioli had been determined for some time to make the point that the Church preaches as facts things that can not be entirely and exactly proven by historians.  (For instance, many scholars believe Jesus was actually born in 4BC, though some calendar inconsistencies shouldn't be much of a problem for a person's faith.)  In Italy, there are a couple of laws originally put on the books to deal with con-artists, but not as carefully written as they could have been.  The laws prohibit intentionally telling people falsehoods in order to make money.  Cascioli believes that this law should prohibit the Catholic Church from telling unprovable stories and collecting donations.  To sue the Church, he had to name a particular defendant, and he chose an old, childhood friend, a local parish priest named Rev. Enrico Righi.  (Both are in their 70s.)\n\nThe local court threw out the law suit a couple times before finally agreeing to hear it.  Observers pointed out that the law was clearly not intended to be used in this way, which could even interfere with schools teaching philosophy, because we only know the teachings of Socrates by hearsay (Plato, et al.).  The court agreed.\n\nReverend Righi was never at risk of going to jail or anything dramatic like that.  A case like this couldn't arise in the US, because we don't have those particular laws here, and because the First Amendment protects our free exercise of religion and freedom of speech.  (European law tends to restrict speech more.)  Many American Christians would be surprised to learn that the dreaded ACLU has championed the Christian cause when anyone has tried, like old Cascioli, to misuse the law in this way.  Hope this helps.
1002325
Are you speaking of Jesus Christ? I don't remember anywhere in the New Testament where He made a statement that was similar to that one... where did you see that?
878441
The reason that Christians do not feel obligated to follow the old Levitical Law is because the apostle Paul said that we didn't have to (Such as in his letter to the Romans, for example.).  The same Paul condemned homosexuality in chapter one of the same letter.  \n\nIf you assume that Paul is right, and we gentiles are not bound by the Levitical law, then how can you turn around and argue that Paul was unduly influenced by the same Levitical law regarding human sexuality and dismiss him?  Your argument sounds logically inconsistent.\n\nIf you look at Acts chapter 15, it is clear that it was the apostle Paul who got the original apostles of the Christian church to agree that the only laws gentile Christians need obey are those that are moral in nature, and not those which served to set Israel apart as a nation.  \n\nSo the same Paul who said that Jesus did away with the need to follow Levitical law to please God is the same Paul that you would dismiss as being homophobic.  If you cut Paul out of the New Testament and dismiss him, then what is your rational for ignoring Leviticus?  The very idea that any of the old Law of Moses does not apply to Christians does not seem to come from anyone else but Paul himself.  Take away Paul, and it would seem that we are back to stoning people for sexual sins, including homosexuality, as Moses commanded.
303588
I have not read anywhere that Jesus instructed anyone to write anything. The man was a walking contradiction, and his apostles were divided about what he taught. Jesus was used by others to start a revolution. This happens every so often, and the world needed it to happen at that particular time. I don't believe Jesus taught what the Christian bible says.