You've read between the lines slimebeast, I'm a little bit proud of you. I thougth the last two or three minutes of that video were complete rubbish too.

And his opinion is according to the Bible. We Christians try to have our opinion according to the Bible. Your (implicit) opinion that Paulicianism mustn't be judged as incorrect ISN'T according to the Bible. Paulicianism is a supposedly Christian branch, so it must be judged according to the Bible.

Paulicianism isn't supported by the Bible and Paul of Samosata wasn't prior to the New Testament. The New Testament, at different spots and books, says that Jesus is God and was with God since the foundation of the World. Hence, he wasn't adopted by God. That is a clear statement, and a different approach at this point is a heresy, according to the Bible.

It's like saying:

- B is the biological son of A.

- B proclaims that. So do their friends and a lot people more, throughout decades.

- Two centuries later, C says that believes in B, but that B wasn't the biological son of A, hence C says that B was lying.

- Some people complain about C's incongruity.

- You say "Hey! You can't say that C's opinion is wrong".

You're an intelligent user, but I don't understand why you're following this line of thinking.

By your interpretation of the bible.  Which is just that. 

Your interpretation of it.

As was said before.  No where in the bible is it directly stated... and it is stupid to try and directly literally interpret statements in an era where speach wasn't as directly literal... espiecally when it comes to things like holy sermons.

Using metaphors was the standard.

By your interpretation of the bible.  Which is just that. 

Your interpretation of it.

As was said before.  No where in the bible is it directly stated... and it is stupid to try and directly literally interpret statements in an era where speach wasn't as directly literal... espiecally when it comes to things like holy sermons.

Using metaphors was the standard.

And his opinion is according to the Bible. We Christians try to have our opinion according to the Bible. Your (implicit) opinion that Paulicianism mustn't be judged as incorrect ISN'T according to the Bible. Paulicianism is a supposedly Christian branch, so it must be judged according to the Bible.

Paulicianism isn't supported by the Bible and Paul of Samosata wasn't prior to the New Testament. The New Testament, at different spots and books, says that Jesus is God and was with God since the foundation of the World. Hence, he wasn't adopted by God. That is a clear statement, and a different approach at this point is a heresy, according to the Bible.

Christianity isnt judged by your version of the Bible, there are several gospels that didnt make it into the Bible and Christian sects like the Mormons have created new books for Christianity.  Paul of Simosata is only wrong in regards to your idea of the Christianity, which is only one of many.

Where does the Bible say Jesus is god?  The Bible refers to him being the Son of God and the Way to Heaven, but that doesnt mean he was divine.  The Bible (New and Old Testament) states that there are many other sons of God.  Even Jesus says that peacemakers are the Son of God.  Obviosly, there is some ambiguity there, and I can see why pagan Romans could confuse the literal and symbolic meaning of the term 'Son of God.'

And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. - Genesis 6

Most likely, Jesus was one of the many prophets in Roman occupied Judea that claimed to be the messiah and preached the liberation of Israel from Rome, this being the reason he was executed.  I highly doubt that Jesus himself ever claimed to be a god, but this and many other aspects of Christianity where changed after Paul molded Christianity to make it more popular with non-Jews in the Roman Empire.  Paul, who is responsible for the Christianity we know today, is responsible for almost all Christian dogma even though he never met Jesus and split from the 'mother church' in Jerusalem.

I replied to this in my previous posts (we weren't engaged in an argument, yet. ). You can read them or ignore them. Anyway, we will not agree, so... You set out your point of view, I set out mine.

In this passage, Jesus initially refuses to help a woman because she is not Hebrew.  Obviosly, Jesus was mostly concerned with the well-being of Jews, and cared little for other ethnic groups.  Not exactly the god that loved of all mankind that Paul made him out to be.

And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.   But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.  But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.  Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.  But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs.  And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table.  Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour. - Matthew 15

This must be understood the right way. The final objective of that incident was to praise that woman's attitude and faith over the lack of faith and criticism that Christ got from his own people.

This must be understood the right way. The final objective of that incident was to praise that woman's attitude and faith over the lack of faith and criticism that Christ got from his own people.

Jesus calls a woman a dog and makes it clear that he is only concerned with the well being of Hebrews, highlighting Jesus' actual intentions of liberating Israel from its Roman occupiers.  This is not the Christianity that Paul spread throughout the Roman Empire.

It would be like me trying to spread Communism and giving you Adam Smith's 'The Wealth of Nations' to read.