The Original Christians were vegetarian/vegan

[shrewsbury]

wickabee, that is officially true!!

[Wickabee]

wickabee, that is officially true!!

But is it truly official?

[centrehice]

hey, something we agree on!!

veggie, you will be wasting your time, Catholics were the first organized religion under roman law, but not the first christians. Though many would love to label him as such, but Peter was not Catholic nor a Pope, not ever recognized himself as one.

Jay:

Don't get overwhelmed by Peter. He was nowhere near Rome. That's all codswallop. Paul was the Christian Salesman, above and beyond all others, in leaps and bounds.

Peter's glorification is all nonsense. The reason that Constantine looked at Chrisitanity and changed the World, was due to the hard yards put in years earlier by Paul. This is actual history, and not biblical by the way.

[shrewsbury]

cent, something else we can agree on. without a doubt Paul's views on Christianity and his spreading of this view is what set Christianity on fire, created the churches and it consists of 95% of all Christian ideas and teachings, and he never met Jesus!!! without Paul who knows what would have happened to the teachings of Jesus. even when you strip the religious nature of His teachings away, they still are a great inspiration and a wonderful way to view life and how to live it.

This is one of the reasons I have personally stripped the NT to only the words of Jesus, trying to keep them in context. the other things, to me, are more of a history of the Jews, which some neat stuff, but not my real interests.

this is why I have also vested some time in alternate sources for the teachings of Jesus. trying to figure out their validity in history, text, and what the difference in Jesus' teachings are and how I feel about this and what it means to me.

[Wickabee]

cent, something else we can agree on. without a doubt Paul's views on Christianity and his spreading of this view is what set Christianity on fire, created the churches and it consists of 95% of all Christian ideas and teachings, and he never met Jesus!!! without Paul who knows what would have happened to the teachings of Jesus. even when you strip the religious nature of His teachings away, they still are a great inspiration and a wonderful way to view life and how to live it.

This is one of the reasons I have personally stripped the NT to only the words of Jesus, trying to keep them in context. the other things, to me, are more of a history of the Jews, which some neat stuff, but not my real interests.

this is why I have also vested some time in alternate sources for the teachings of Jesus. trying to figure out their validity in history, text, and what the difference in Jesus' teachings are and how I feel about this and what it means to me.

I find it interesting that you follow the teachings of Jesus, but aren't concerned with the history that ultimately produced him, according to many foretold him and that he referenced so often.

[shrewsbury]

if I had 5 lifetimes I would spend more time understanding the OT

[Wickabee]

if I had 5 lifetimes I would spend more time understanding the OT

It's a lot more intimidating than it deserves. Other than Psalms and Proverbs, it's actually not a bad read.

[shrewsbury]

I have read it numerous times as well as the NT, but just not as interested in those as I am with the teachings of Jesus.

I believe someone can easily spend a lifetime studying, researching, and realizing what the teachings of Jesus were from Jesus Himself, no offense against Paul and the guys, just the words of Jesus is more important than the thoughts of the apostles.

[Wickabee]

I have read it numerous times as well as the NT, but just not as interested in those as I am with the teachings of Jesus.

I believe someone can easily spend a lifetime studying, researching, and realizing what the teachings of Jesus were from Jesus Himself, no offense against Paul and the guys, just the words of Jesus is more important than the thoughts of the apostles.

I agree well enough with that, but for the OT, how can you understand his teachings if you don't put time into where he and said teachings come from.
Like it or not, the OT is important to even our brand of Christ.

[shrewsbury]

I somewhat disagree, someone does not need to know the past to understand the teachings of the present. the old covenant is not even close to the new. no chosen people, and the laws are are much different as well.

Others issues include authorship and how may translations have occurred in the OT, to know how altered it really is. Another issue is translation of Hebrew into English, and for the most part it is pretty poor. I have taken some time with Exodus, and the Exodus us English speaking people know and the story of Exodus in Hebrew are quite different.

To me there are only two real requirements for someone to be a follower of Jesus, when these two are met, the rest fall in place.

now on the other hand I do agree with you, seeing how Jesus fulfilled the prophecies of the OT shows how He was brought about. But there were others before Him, the big difference is the two things I think are the true foundation of believing Jesus was the true one and not the others.

you can understand His teachings, only via His teachings, this is apparent when we see what Paul and Peter have to say compared to what Jesus taught. I have been digging around in the Gospel of Thomas lately, some interesting stuff in there. I am not 100% sure if it is real, but so far I have found little to prove it is not. but it is a short and good read, and makes a lot of sense to me thus far, but i am undecided on it right now.