I'm having quite the case of apoplexy regarding Apostle Paul and his heresy.
Found and interesting discussion about the definition of heresy too. Quite a few of the earliest sects of Christianity were portrayed as heretical after they were displaced by 'orthodox' Christianity, however, heresy is based on knowing the truth and turning away from it with false doctrine. It is tough making the argument early early Christians receiving word of mouth witnessing from the original 12 (11 if you want Judas out) were actual heretics especially when the accusation is made by followers of Saul/Paul as they were receiving a retconned version of Christianity that was much more Paul flavored than Jesus flavored.
The actual heretics and the actual orthodoxers were defined by the winners of the doctrinal debates, the orthodoxers. Putting on my 'impartial observer glasses' of their various cases, I'm having grave concerns with the followers of Paul. Had Paul hewn closer to Jesus (and further from Paul) there wouldn't be any 'there' there. But even the Bible, edited by the winning faction, contains some pretty heady stuff, enough to devastatingly impugn Paul and his successors. Paul changing clear doctrinal points Jesus made is a very good example of heresy, not actual orthodoxy, no matter how fervently Paul wished it to be otherwise.
I used to consider "Jews for Jesus" as a ludicrous group with specious and foolish dogma, in light of Ehrman, they are far closer to True Christianity® than any Catholic or Protestant sect, schism or denom could possibly be.
This should definitely be food for lengthy (years) reflection by all contemporary folks who think they are following Christ. Paul's misconduct has shaken the very foundations of Christianity to a degree orders of magnitude more than almost any number of atheist could ever hope to.
Found and interesting discussion about the definition of heresy too. Quite a few of the earliest sects of Christianity were portrayed as heretical after they were displaced by 'orthodox' Christianity, however, heresy is based on knowing the truth and turning away from it with false doctrine. It is tough making the argument early early Christians receiving word of mouth witnessing from the original 12 (11 if you want Judas out) were actual heretics especially when the accusation is made by followers of Saul/Paul as they were receiving a retconned version of Christianity that was much more Paul flavored than Jesus flavored.
The actual heretics and the actual orthodoxers were defined by the winners of the doctrinal debates, the orthodoxers. Putting on my 'impartial observer glasses' of their various cases, I'm having grave concerns with the followers of Paul. Had Paul hewn closer to Jesus (and further from Paul) there wouldn't be any 'there' there. But even the Bible, edited by the winning faction, contains some pretty heady stuff, enough to devastatingly impugn Paul and his successors. Paul changing clear doctrinal points Jesus made is a very good example of heresy, not actual orthodoxy, no matter how fervently Paul wished it to be otherwise.
I used to consider "Jews for Jesus" as a ludicrous group with specious and foolish dogma, in light of Ehrman, they are far closer to True Christianity® than any Catholic or Protestant sect, schism or denom could possibly be.
This should definitely be food for lengthy (years) reflection by all contemporary folks who think they are following Christ. Paul's misconduct has shaken the very foundations of Christianity to a degree orders of magnitude more than almost any number of atheist could ever hope to.
The granting of a pardon is an imputation of guilt, and the acceptance a confession of it.
