The foundations of Christianity

[Elijah John]

It seems to me that the whole foundation of what we know as Trinitarian Christianity
is built on a literal reading of the "fall of man" as told in the Genesis tale of the Garden of Eden and Adam and Eve eating a "forbidden fruit".

And also on the supposed "vision" of self-appointed "apostle" Paul.

And the theological speculations of the poet and mystic evangelist "John", and folks who take John's speculations and poetry literally.

Seems the whole of what we know as "Christianity" today is derived mainly from these three things, and very little from (what little we know of) the actual teachings of Jesus ie the Golden Rule and the Lord's prayer.

Evidence of this assertion? The Creeds, the Apostle's Creed and the Nicean Creed. They have been called "hollow creeds" by some scholars, meaning they have no center. They begin with Jesus supposed miraculous birth, and end with the supposed meaning of his crucifixion and resurrection.

NOTHING in Creeds about Jesus life or teachings.

Is it any WONDER that literalists will make such statements as "Christianity is not about morality?"

Anyway, the question for debate is this, do you think the myth of Eden, Paul's vision and John's theological speculations are a solid or a shaky foundation for one of the worlds major religions?

[1213]

Anyway, the question for debate is this, do you think the myth of Eden, Paul's vision and John's theological speculations are a solid or a shaky foundation for one of the worlds major religions?

I think Paul’s teachings are based on the teachings that Jesus told. But they have to be understood spiritually.

Which things also we speak, not in words which man's wisdom teaches, but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual things.
1 Cor. 2:13

I think the foundation should be the words that Jesus allegedly said. If Paul is in contradiction with them, then disciples of Jesus should rather remain in words that Jesus told.

[Realworldjack]

It seems to me that the whole foundation of what we know as Trinitarian Christianity
is built on a literal reading of the "fall of man" as told in the Genesis tale of the Garden of Eden and Adam and Eve eating a "forbidden fruit".

And also on the supposed "vision" of self-appointed "apostle" Paul.

And the theological speculations of the poet and mystic evangelist "John", and folks who take John's speculations and poetry literally.

Seems the whole of what we know as "Christianity" today is derived mainly from these three things, and very little from (what little we know of) the actual teachings of Jesus ie the Golden Rule and the Lord's prayer.

Evidence of this assertion? The Creeds, the Apostle's Creed and the Nicean Creed. They have been called "hollow creeds" by some scholars, meaning they have no center. They begin with Jesus supposed miraculous birth, and end with the supposed meaning of his crucifixion and resurrection.

NOTHING in Creeds about Jesus life or teachings.

Is it any WONDER that literalists will make such statements as "Christianity is not about morality?"

Anyway, the question for debate is this, do you think the myth of Eden, Paul's vision and John's theological speculations are a solid or a shaky foundation for one of the worlds major religions?

You say,

And also on the supposed "vision" of self-appointed "apostle" Paul.

This is an incorrect statement. The Apostle Paul was not self appointed. Lets look at what the Apostle Peter had to say of Paul and his writings.

15 Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

So, here is Peter, the leader of the Apostles, saying Paul had wisdom from God. HE also equates Paul's writings, with Scripture. The point is, if Paul was self appointed, then it would seem as if, the other Apostles would have rejected him, and his teachings! They certainly would not place his teachings on par with the rest of Scripture. Also the Jerusalem council gave Paul, and Barnabas, their blessing, and sent them off with to preach to the Gentiles. How can you say, he was SELF appointed. We can really get into talking about this, and I look forward to it. You also say,

Is it any WONDER that literalists will make such statements as "Christianity is not about morality?"

I have made this statement. Allow me to clarify just a bit. What I mean, and what I have also said is that, "Christianity, is not interested in making me, or any of us moral people. Rather, Christianity tells us we are immoral, which is the bad news. It goes on to tell us the Good News, of how God has made a plan to save the immoral. This Good News, is then allowed to have an effect on us, so that we can now go out and serve God, as we serve our neighbor. I have also said, "none of these good works that I may perform in any way, make me a moral person, I am still immoral, and no better off than the worst of sinners, as far as morality."

At any rate, I assume you are a Christian. By your comment, I would also assume you believe Christianity is about making moral people. If this is the case, I would ask. Is it working? Are you a moral person? If so, can you give us some examples of your morality?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 3 by Realworldjack]

This is an incorrect statement. The Apostle Paul was not self appointed. Lets look at what the Apostle Peter had to say of Paul and his writings.

Of course Paul was not "self appointed." He was appointed by Jesus himself, years after Jesus was executed. According to Paul, at least. In actual fact Paul converted to Christianity and appointed himself to be an apostle "born of due time," and therefore the equal of any of the other apostles, founded on on his delirium based delusions of meeting with and speaking with Jesus during a time when Paul was gravely ill, and when Jesus had in fact been dead for several years.

15 Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

So, here is Peter, the leader of the Apostles, saying Paul had wisdom from God. HE also equates Paul's writings, with Scripture. The point is, if Paul was self appointed, then it would seem as if, the other Apostles would have rejected him, and his teachings! They certainly would not place his teachings on par with the rest of Scripture. Also the Jerusalem council gave Paul, and Barnabas, their blessing, and sent them off with to preach to the Gentiles. How can you say, he was SELF appointed. We can really get into talking about this, and I look forward to it.

This is Christian mythology at work. Christian mythology, like the mythology of any religious belief, is the tenancy to create the features of the belief as necessary, and to then incorporate them into the doctrine. 2 Peter is very much an example of Christian mythology in action. No one really knows who wrote 2 Peter.

***

Second Epistle of Peter
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Second Epistle of Peter, often referred to as Second Peter and written 2 Peter or in Roman numerals II Peter (especially in older references), is a book of the New Testament of the Bible, written in the name of Saint Peter, although the vast majority of modern scholars regard it as pseudepigraphical.[1]
It is the first New Testament book to treat other New Testament writings as scripture, 2 Peter was one of the last letters included in the New Testament canon and is part of the Antilegomena; it quotes from and adapts Jude extensively, identifies Jesus with God, and addresses a threatening heresy which had arisen because the anticipated Second Coming of Christ had not yet occurred.

Challenging authorship[edit]
Main article: Authorship of the Petrine epistles

Two sides of the Papyrus Bodmer VIII. This Papyrus today is the oldest source to the Second Epistle of Peter
Raymond E Brown and Bart Ehrman, among others, state that most biblical scholars have concluded Peter is not the author, and consider the epistle pseudepigraphical.[3] [4] Reasons for this include its linguistic differences from 1 Peter, its apparent use of Jude, possible allusions to 2nd-century gnosticism, encouragement in the wake of a delayed parousia, and weak external support.[5]
The questions of authorship and date are closely related. For Petrine authorship to be authentic, it must have been written prior to Peter's death in c 65–67AD. The letter refers to the Pauline epistles and so must post-date at least some of them, regardless of authorship, thus a date before 60 is not probable.
Chester & Martin say scholars consider the epistle to be written between c 100–150AD[6] and so contend that it is pseudepigraphical. For an argument for a late date see Harris.[7] For a 'middle date' see Bauckham who opts for a date between 80–90AD as most probable.[8] For an early date and (usually) for a defense of the Apostle Peter's authorship see Kruger,[9] Zahn,[10] Spitta,[11] Bigg,[12] and Green.[13] Jeremy Duff argues that the various strands of evidence "point towards the period 60–130 CE, with some reason to favour 80–90 CE."[14]

Acceptance of the letter into the canon did not occur without some difficulty; however, "nowhere did doubts about the letter's authorship take the form of definitive rejection."[15] The earliest record of doubts concerning the authorship of the letter were recorded by Origen (c. 185 – 254), though Origen mentioned no explanation for the doubts, nor did he give any indication concerning the extent or location. As D. Guthrie put it, “It is fair to assume, therefore, that he saw no reason to treat these doubts as serious, and this would mean to imply that in his time the epistle was widely regarded as canonical.�[15] Origen, in another passage, has been interpreted as considering the letter to be Petrine in authorship.[16] Before Origen's time, the evidence is inconclusive;[17] there is a lack of definite early quotations from the letter in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, though possible use or influence has been located in the works of Clement of Alexandria (d. c. 211), Theophilius (d. c. 183), Aristides (d. c. 134), Polycarp (d. 155), and Justin (d. 165).[18] Eusebius (c. 275 – 339) professed his own doubts, see also Antilegomena, and is the earliest direct testimony of such, though he stated that the majority supported the text, and by the time of Jerome (c. 346–420) it had been mostly accepted as canonical. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2_Peter

***

This quote is from Wikipedia and as we all know, Wikipedia necessarily should be taken with a grain of salt. This Wikipedia article does however accurately reflect the very real debate over the authenticity and authorship of 2 Peter. It is very widely regarded as inauthentic, and was widely regarded as inauthentic even as it was being incorporated into the NT. But 2 Peter serves what has become modern Christian doctrine, most especially on the subject of the parousia, the promised second coming of Christ, which by the fourth century was already far too late to be "soon." And so 2 Peter was included into the canon of the NT by the early Catholic church. So, as long as one does not look at the various pieces of Christian claims with an eye towards criticism, and as long as one does not examine everything too thoroughly, the big picture can be made to seem exactly what Christians prefer to believe that it is. Which is certainly their right. But when Christians bring their system of suppositions out into a public forum, they shouldn't be too surprised when the whole thing begins to fall apart like a cheap sweater.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 3 by Realworldjack]

The point is, if Paul was self appointed, then it would seem as if, the other Apostles would have rejected him, and his teachings! They certainly would not place his teachings on par with the rest of Scripture. Also the Jerusalem council gave Paul, and Barnabas, their blessing, and sent them off with to preach to the Gentiles. How can you say, he was SELF appointed. We can really get into talking about this, and I look forward to it.

Peter in fact does challenge Paul's authority, as noted in Galations 2:11-14.

***
Incident at Antioch
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
According to the Epistle to the Galatians chapter 2, Peter had traveled to Antioch and there was a dispute between him and Paul. The Epistle does not exactly say if this happened after the Council of Jerusalem or before it, but the incident is mentioned in Paul's letter as his next subject after describing a meeting in Jerusalem which scholars often consider to be the council. Galatians 2:11-13 says:
When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group.
To Paul's dismay, the rest of the Jewish Christians in Antioch sided with Peter, including Paul's long-time associate Barnabas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incident_at_Antioch

***

But Paul is eventually accepted as one of them. Why? BECAUSE HE BROUGHT THEM MONEY ATTAINED FROM HIS PREACHING AND MINISTERING TO THE GENTILES!

Rom.15
[25] But now I go unto Jerusalem to minister unto the saints.
[26] For it hath pleased them of Macedonia and Achaia to make a certain contribution for the poor saints which are at Jerusalem.
[27] It hath pleased them verily; and their debtors they are. For if the Gentiles have been made partakers of their spiritual things, their duty is also to minister unto them in carnal things.

[Zzyzx]

.

You say,

In honorable debate if one disagrees with a statement they present sound opposing argument. When / if they cannot, the original position is undisputed.

And also on the supposed "vision" of self-appointed "apostle" Paul.

This is an incorrect statement. The Apostle Paul was not self appointed. Lets look at what the Apostle Peter had to say of Paul and his writings.

According to unverifiable tales, Paul/Saul had a "vision" (or delusion or hallucination or whatever it was) that "appointed" him spokesman (or whatever). Writings attributed to Paul/Saul say almost nothing about the supposed incident but it is detailed by the anonymous author of Acts.

A number of people have "visions" and consider themselves to be "appointed by god" – many are institutionalized.

So, here is Peter, the leader of the Apostles, saying Paul had wisdom from God. HE also equates Paul's writings, with Scripture.

Writings from decades, generations or centuries later say whatever religion promoters of the era wished to have said on behalf of their chosen dogma.

The point is, if Paul was self appointed, then it would seem as if, the other Apostles would have rejected him, and his teachings! They certainly would not place his teachings on par with the rest of Scripture. Also the Jerusalem council gave Paul, and Barnabas, their blessing, and sent them off with to preach to the Gentiles.

So goes the tale.

Is it any WONDER that literalists will make such statements as "Christianity is not about morality?"

I have made this statement. Allow me to clarify just a bit. What I mean, and what I have also said is that, "Christianity, is not interested in making me, or any of us moral people.

What, then is the objective of Christianity? Is it nothing more than to promote worship of one of the "gods" in order to achieve rewards in a supposed "afterlife?"

Rather, Christianity tells us we are immoral, which is the bad news. It goes on to tell us the Good News, of how God has made a plan to save the immoral.

Let's go over how this works. A "god" (with supposedly unlimited knowledge and ability) is said to have made people who are immoral – then offers some of them a chance to become moral and thereby qualify for rewards in a proposed "afterlife."

Is that about how the story goes?

This Good News, is then allowed to have an effect on us, so that we can now go out and serve God, as we serve our neighbor.

The actual good news is that none of the above can be shown to be anything more than imagination.

People adopt a personal moral code based upon a number of factors including genetics, environment, society, earlier decisions, etc. Some choose to include religion among their influences – others choose to be religion-free. It doesn't seem to make any difference whether religion is a factor in morality – although religionists claim that it is (but show no evidence).

I have also said, "none of these good works that I may perform in any way, make me a moral person, I am still immoral, and no better off than the worst of sinners, as far as morality."

One is free to consider themselves as immoral as they wish.

Many of us prefer to think and act as a moral, ethical, honorable people and to consider ourselves as such.

[dukekenha]

[Replying to post 6 by Zzyzx]

Zzyzx wrote :

Realworldjack wrote:

Rather, Christianity tells us we are immoral, which is the bad news. It goes on to tell us the Good News, of how God has made a plan to save the immoral.

Let's go over how this works. A "god" (with supposedly unlimited knowledge and ability) is said to have made people who are immoral

I saw "made a plan to save the immoral", but didn't see made people who are immoral.

Realworldjack wrote:

What I mean, and what I have also said is that, "Christianity, is not interested in making me, or any of us moral people.

This Good News, is then allowed to have an effect on us, so that we can now go out and serve God, as we serve our neighbor.

then Zzyzx wrote :

then offers some of them a chance to become moral and thereby qualify for rewards in a proposed "afterlife."

I think your story is different from what is being told.

then Realworldjack wrote:

I have also said, "none of these good works that I may perform in any way, make me a moral person, I am still immoral, and no better off than the worst of sinners, as far as morality."

so you say

Is that about how the story goes?

I think not.

[Zzyzx]

.

Let's go over how this works. A "god" (with supposedly unlimited knowledge and ability) is said to have made people who are immoral

I saw "made a plan to save immoral", but didn't see made people who are immoral.

1) Did a god make humans (according to the bible)?

2) Is the statement by RWJ correct? "Christianity tells us we are immoral, which is the bad news"

If the answer to both questions is "yes", the god MUST be credited with making people who are immoral.

If statement #2 is incorrect, RWJ has misrepresented Christianity.

then offers some of them a chance to become moral and thereby qualify for rewards in a proposed "afterlife."

I think your story is different from what is being told.

Perhaps you can clarify the story?

[dukekenha]

[Replying to post 8 by Zzyzx]

1) Did a god make humans (according to the bible)?

If it will be according to the bible your question is wrong. But I know you know that in the scripture it is written that God is our Creator.

2) Is the statement by RWJ correct? "Christianity tells us we are immoral, which is the bad news"

As far as I can see it is in line with the scripture

If the answer to both questions is "yes", the god MUST be credited with making people who are immoral.

There you go again. You conclude something that is not anywhere in the statement. None in the statement shows man was made immoral. But if you will base it in the scripture. "Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions." I hope it answer your question.

If statement #2 is incorrect, RWJ has misrepresented Christianity.

As far as the scripture is concern you misrepresented Christianity.

And so you go on

Perhaps you can clarify the story?

Ok let me quote it again.

RWJ wrote :

I have made this statement. Allow me to clarify just a bit. What I mean, and what I have also said is that, "Christianity, is not interested in making me, or any of us moral people. Rather, Christianity tells us we are immoral, which is the bad news. It goes on to tell us the Good News, of how God has made a plan to save the immoral. This Good News, is then allowed to have an effect on us, so that we can now go out and serve God, as we serve our neighbor. I have also said, "none of these good works that I may perform in any way, make me a moral person, I am still immoral, and no better off than the worst of sinners, as far as morality."

What was said was clear and I can no longer clarify what is clear.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 4 by Tired of the Nonsense]

You say,

In actual fact Paul converted to Christianity and appointed himself to be an apostle "born of due time," and therefore the equal of any of the other apostles, founded on on his delirium based delusions of meeting with and speaking with Jesus during a time when Paul was gravely ill,

You, and I, have had this discussion in the past. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever, that Paul was even ill, so to add to this word, "GRAVELY,"into the mix certainly seems to be a tactic. So, lets do this again. It just so happened that Paul was completely opposed to this movement called Christianity. He was so opposed to this movement, he was out to destroy it through persecution, even agreeing to have Christians, put in prison, and giving his agreement to the death of Stephen. Out of nowhere, Paul makes an about face, from being absolutely opposed to this movement, to becoming it's greatest missionary.

If I recall correctly, your explanation was, Paul suffered the effects of dehydration. Now, as I said last time, I may understand dehydration having this effect for the short term, however, for it to have such a long term effect, (the rest of his life), then you would expect some sign of mental problems, such as memory loss, erratic thinking, and behavior, etc. However, we do not see this in Paul, in fact we see the exact opposite. What we see in Paul is consistency, and sound thinking, and we have two different references to this. One reference is his own letters, the other is the report of Luke, who by the way, had no interest in his letters being read by millions. Luke was simply writing these letters to a friend, to tell his friend of events he himself had witnessed, or had carefully investigated. So you tell me what Luke had to gain from writing, not one, but two, different voluminous letters to a friend? According to Luke, his aim was simply for his friend to know the certainty of what he had been taught. There is no denying the fact that Paul had a complete turn around, and your explanation, has to be on complete assumption, and does not hold up. On top of this, the only reason you even attempt to come up with an explanation for Paul, is because, you realize you have to, there is no getting around this fact, otherwise why even bother. On top of all of this is the fact that Paul, was trained in the Jewish Law, in fact he was a Pharisee, and according to him, he was far ahead of his peers. What a huge coincidence this is, because this would just so happen to mean, Paul would be the perfect man for this job, of preaching the Gospel to the Gentiles. Why? Because, he thoroughly understood the Law, and could clearly understand, and explain, how this new movement tied perfectly into the Law, and how Christ was the fulfilment of the Law. Paul does just that, which blows your explanation of, "GRAVELY ILL," out of the water, so try again!

Now lets talk about Paul's opposition to Peter. Notice, it is not Peter's opposition to Paul, as you say, rather, it is the other way around. Peter does not in any way, according to the Galatian passage, question, or oppose Paul. The whole episode is understandable. Galatians, is said to be one of the first letters written. We also know from the book of Acts, the original Apostles were under the impression, this New Movement was intended for the Jews only. We know this because of the vision received by Peter, to go to a Gentile's home and preach the Gospel to his household. On top of this, the original Apostles were under the impression that the Jewish Law was still in effect. We know all of this because, when Peter arrived at this Gentile's home, he stated that, "it is unlawful for me to enter the house of a Gentile." Peter, even had to give an explanation of his action on his return to Jerusalem. All of this demonstrates, the Jews were continuing to hang unto all the old Jewish Laws. Peter, who is the one who had the vision, and is the one who was responsible for initially preaching to Gentiles, was acting in accordance before those tied to, James, and the Jerusalem Church, came on the scene. Once those from James arrived, Peter drew back from the Gentiles, and it was Paul, who opposed Peter, not the other way around as you say. It also says nothing of a reply from Peter, which suggest Peter understood his hypocrisy.

Now lets talk about the authorship of 2 Peter. I am certainly glad you acknowledge the unreliability of Wikipedia. At any rate, I will agree there is disagreement concerning this matter, however, there is a problem even in the article you cite. It claims that those in opposition to a Petrine authorship, date the writing, from 100-150. The problem is the fact that it goes on to give examples of several of the early Church Fathers, either referring to 2 Peter, or demonstrating being influenced by it. One of those listed would be Polycarp, who was a disciple of the Apostle John, this means, Polycarp, would have actually been alive during this time, and would have known of a new writing, that was not known of before. At any rate, all of this is a bit tedious, you can cite those who favor a late writing, and different author, while I can site those who oppose. Now you go on to say,

But Paul is eventually accepted as one of them. Why? BECAUSE HE BROUGHT THEM MONEY ATTAINED FROM HIS PREACHING AND MINISTERING TO THE GENTILES!

This is comical. First you say, the Apostle's whole motivation, for this whole scam they supposedly dreamed up, only hours after the death of their leader was to make as easy living. You are right to say, Paul gathered money for the Jerusalem Church, but this was simply because the Jerusalem Church was running out of money, and was in need. So, there goes that easy living theory. The evidence you give for the motivation of an easy living for the Apostles, is the passage in Acts which states,

32 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. 33 With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all 34 that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35 and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.

Do you even realize what is happening here? Apparently not. After the Day of Pentecost, we are told, about three thousand people were added to the number of believers. Many of these added were not from Jerusalem. Many of them traveled a great distance to be in Jerusalem on the Day of Pentecost. After hearing the message of the Apostles, many of these people, who were added, chose not to return home, and stayed in Jerusalem. This means many, left their homes and family, and were now in Jerusalem without means of support, or homes. Therefore, the funds being collected, was distributed among those with need, we know this because when we arrive in Acts, chapter 6 we read,

6 In those days when the number of disciples was increasing, the Hellenistic Jews[a] among them complained against the Hebraic Jews because their widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution of food. 2 So the Twelve gathered all the disciples together and said, “It would not be right for us to neglect the ministry of the word of God in order to wait on tables. 3 Brothers and sisters, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. We will turn this responsibility over to them 4 and will give our attention to prayer and the ministry of the word.�

So, as we can see, this would have taken a heavy toll, and there certainly would not be much left over for the Apostles to make an easy living, and this is exactly what happened. The funds began to run dry, and it was because of this, Paul began to ask the Churches that he planted, to gather funds to send in support of the Jerusalem Church. The point is, if all the Apostles were running a scam in order to make an easy living, then you would think, that at least a few of them would have jumped ship, when the money ran low. In other words, you would think, at least some of them would say, "guys, this was fun while it lasted, but I have myself and a family to feed, and I am not going to continue to put myself, and my family at risk, for what we all know is a lie."

You see, your explanations just do not add up. Now, as I have said before, I realize you have reasons for your unbelief. In other words, I can clearly see you have thought through your unbelief, which is more than I can say for most Christians. Now I am absolutely sure your arguments work well with those Christians, who have not really thought through what they believe and why they actually believe it, but these arguments will not work on those Christians who have actually used their reason. The reason for this is, most thinking Christians, have already thought of the arguments you bring to the table themselves. You seem to believe, there is absolutely no way a Christian could have used their reason to come to their conclusions. I can understand this position, because I am convinced most Christians do not use their reason. But, let me assure you there are those who do, even if they are few in number. This means, there are many false, and reckless teachings of the Christian Faith, coming from Christians themselves, which could possibly mean, that what many thinking, and reasonable unbelievers, and Atheist, have rejected is not Christianity in the first place. If I understand you correctly you were influenced by Pentecostalism, which is an extremely false version of Christianity, and is very easy to refute. In fact I will say, the only way to be involved in Pentecostalism, is to turn your mind off, and this goes for others as well.

Now, I have said all of this because, I was brought up in a particular denomination, and as I grew older, like you, I began to question what I had been taught. I was more than willing to reject the Faith altogether. After months of study, and research, that turned into years, I came to embrace the Faith, however, MUCH of what I was taught I have now rejected. My point is, I am not really interested in debating the truth of the Faith. I will, and have done this here, but there are a couple of reasons why I am not interested in this. The first, and foremost reason is, I am not very skilled in this format, as I am sure you can see, it takes me some time to respond when the subject is of such magnitude. Also my belief goes far deeper than I could explain in this format, in other words, there is no way I could give all the reasons here, I would have to write a book, which I am not capable of. Another reason is my work schedule, which does not allow me to respond as I would like, which is the reason for this tardy response. My point is this, if you will go back and look, I believe you will see, I tend to only get involved in discussions having to do with what Christianity actually teaches. In other words, I look for opportunities to challenge people on what their understanding of what Christianity actually teaches. This includes, Atheist, and unbelievers, but I have and will call out Christians on their understanding as well. I attempt to avoid getting involved in the debate of the truth of Christianity, in this format, because the subject is to indepth for someone such as myself to attempt to tackle. Therefore, I look for subjects, that are not so indepth, that I at least believe I can handle with the time I have.

At any rate, if you insist on continuing this discussion, I will be happy to oblige, but it will be some time before I will be able to respond.