[weasel]

Well, until you rename the discussion, here goes.....



kgod,

I reread Acts and Romans, to start, and I still don't see evidence of Paul perverting the message of Jesus, though you use a different name I'm assuming you mean the same person.

What I read into Paul's teachings, in these 2 books, is that we are saved IN SPITE of the law, not INSTEAD of the law; that the law still applies, but that Jesus' sacrifice freed mankind from having to follow the law perfectly to be saved.

You said, "Paul says it alright to not be circumcised, its all right to eat pork."

Context: Jewish Christians were going around saying "you HAVE to be circumcised to be saved," and Paul said that was wrong. Jesus paid the ultimate sacrifice - no more killing lambs and wearing sackcloth. If I go to hell for not being circumcised, then why did Jesus die?

And the whole "pork" thing wasn't Paul, it was in relation to Peter - he saw a vision where he was told to eat of many unclean things, and then God told him that nothing was unclean that HE had declared clean. In reference to Peter being sent to preach to a Gentile. The law told the Jews not to associate with Gentiles.



I read Paul's conversion story 2wice in Acts, yes he changed certain parts. I skimmed parts of Romans, but didn't see one there, so I might have missed it. I feel that the crucial details stayed the same, so what's your point? Jesus never used the same story twice.



"it the truth of his glory has abounded by my lie, why im i yet judged a sinner"

Again, because I skimmed parts of Romans, I didn't see this quote. Please respond with the reference, so I can get back to you on it.



Ok, in Acts 13:1 I found your post about Simeon. In a list of Christians, it says "...Simeon, also called Niger..." where Niger is pronounced Nee-ger. The only definition I found was "black." I read it the translation as "Simeon the black", but you could read it as "Simeon, also called 'black'." Why couldn't it be referring to Nigeria? Makes a lot more sense to me. And since Luke wrote Acts, that clears Paul of your accusation anyway.



I'm open to many different ideas, even if they profess to contradict my own theology. So I'd still like to hear your specific thoughts on this subject, with the actual references you said you had. (no malice intended, just sincerely interested)