Namaste arunma,
thank you for the post.
arunma said:
Sorry Vaj, but as far as I know, there is no such group called the Paulinists (at least no such group that has gained enough noteriety to be widely recognized). The sect that you're talking about does not exist.
no need to be sorry.
as i explained, it is a descriptive term to denote beings that value the teachings of Paul more than the teachings of the Apostles and Jesus. these beings can be found in all flavors of the Christian paradigm, especially the Catholic and Protestant sects.
"What's in a name?" If you wish to call Christianity 'The Way,' then be my guest.
indeed.
Whatever it is, the label of Christianity refers to the religion that Christ Jesus founded, and which his servant Paul preached. And since Paul was an Apostle of Christ, the term "Apostolic Christianity" is useless.
Paul wasn't present at Pentecost and Paul never saw Jesus to become one of the 12. it is only Pauls, varying, statements that lay claim to him being an Apostle. moreover, Paul also claims to be a Nazarite. want to guess who the only being in the Bible is a Nazarite besides Paul?
One cannot be a Christian and reject the teachings of Paul, anymore than one can be a Christian without believing that Jesus Christ is God.
of course they can. if not, then you are specifically stating that the Jerusalem Church is not Christian. i.e. that James and all the rest are not Christian. whilst i personally have little concern there, it does not bode well for a Christian.
There is no contradiction between the teachings of Paul, and the teachings of any other Apostle, or Christ Jesus himself (whose teachings we only have by way of the Apostles). I've examined your arguments in the past, and they are based on unnatural interpretations that are forced on the Scriptures in question.
Jesus clearly states that not one jot or tittle will pass from the Law (which is the Law of Moses, as you well know) yet Paul tells the Gentiles they don't have to adhere to the Law. in point of fact, Paul says that nobody can.
it is, of course, your opinion that my arguments are not grounded upon Pauls very words in the Bible. the documentation of my argument, however, demonstrates otherwise.
as i have said, if you would like to present a scholarly defense that addresses all the points in the essay, we are happy to host it on our site to present a more balanced argument.
You may be using an incorrect terminology here. A Nazirite is not a Christian, but rather a person who has taken a vow, as prescribed by Moses, for a specific amount of time. The appropriate Scripture is Numbers 6:1-21. I'm guessing you meant to say that the Jerusalem Church existed before Paul became a Christian.
that is correct.
there are two examples in the Hewbrew scriptures of Nazarites, Samson and Samuel. in both cases, their mothers made this vow for them prior to their being born and it required to live an asectic lifestyle and, in return, they recieved extraordinary gifts.
This is true, but Judaism is also said to have existed before Moses was ever born, and Muslims believe that Islam existed before Mohammad became a Muslim. So then, it is entirely conceivable for a religion to precede an essential teacher. That the church under Bishop Saint James existed before the conversion of Saint Paul does not negate the latter's great importance to Christianity.
it is clear that much of the theology of Christianity was developed by Paul. of this there is no dispute. the question is, why is Paul given more authority than James the Just and the other Apostles that actually travelled with Jesus, spoke with him and comitted his words to memory and writing?
heck, Paul wasn't even consistent in explaning his "conversion" on the road to Damacus. how have you determined that Paul is not a 5th Column?
metta,
~v