peterzale@en.com wrote:
> I for one am pretty interested in what the guy experienced because,
> crazy as it sounds -- and to me it does sound crazy -- it also sounds
> kind of true. I know that's contradictory but any vision (and I'm
> assuming that's what he had) would be considered basically nuts.

Why not take the word of someone we KNOW trustworthy?

Jesus came from Heaven, and has gone back to Heaven.

Further, He told us how to get there.

Anyone who says anything different is a liar.

Jesus is THE WAY, THE TRUTH, and THE LIFE.

All who claim otherwise are either liars, or deceived,
and trying to deceive you.

Gary

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
((( Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post. )))

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 17:24:59 +0000 (UTC), Matthew Johnson
wrote:

>
>
>In article <179.55.08.05.551729000@srcbs.org>, Mike Rhodes says...
>
>>On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 18:41:42 +0000 (UTC), Matthew Johnson
>> wrote:
>
>>>In article <177.29.16.05.574599000@srcbs.org>, Mike Rhodes says...
>
>>>>On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 01:52:13 +0000 (UTC), Matthew Johnson
>>>> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>>>In particular, if you wish to really understand what I was trying to say by
>>>using the driver's distraction as a metaphor, you must understand that I am NOT
>>>assuming it is merely momentary.
>>
>>The discussion about distractions has become one. That was not my
>>intention, Matthew.
>
>Well, of course it was not your intention. Your intention was
>something much worse, to slander the great pillar of the Church, Paul,
>accusing him of 'showmanship'.
>
>Besides: that the discussion became as distraction was your own fault,
>because of your perverse misinterpretation of what I said. But I am
>not surprised, since your misinterpretation of Paul is SO much more
>perverse.
>
>[snip]

Paul's conversion, as written in Acts, was a fake. It was a
conspiracy. And so are at least some of his letters.

But it is possible, even likely, that he converted to Christ later on.
He spent so much time with Christians how could he not be caught up in
it? It seems clearly to be so, from some of his writing.

Peter's comment on "beloved Paul" then makes more sense, as it would
be a way confirming him before the brethren, while warning them to be
seriously careful with what he wrote.

And Christ's warning in Rev 2 about "lying apostles", while stressing
works, (as James did) still holds. If anyone would take it
serisous