1. Likely Paul the self-claimed apostle can explain the Trump phenomenon quite well, actually. 2. Likely the Christianity is a product of Paul and the powerful political leaders. The process by Paul within a short period of time of persecuting and killing many followers of Jesus' theory should be a very terrible history, in today's standard. Given the written history recorded that the famous martyr Justin was allowed to have "15 years of formal, public grievance before the emperor considered Justin as much as a threat to the stability and peace of the empire as Justin did the emperor." 3. A funny thing is Jesus used quite a number of parables to present his theory. However, not too many people would challenge that even when Jesus mentioned some concepts like heaven could be also part of his parables - Not real. There could be no way to prove whether any of Jesus' sayings which one was parable and which is not. That means some, if not all, of the miracles mentioned by Jesus to his followers could be in fact parables/zen-stories - Not real. Such as walking on water, changing water to wine, going to heaven/hell, etc. etc. could be All parables. Whether and how the listeners would interpret is entirely another matter. As Jesus said something like, Not everyone can fully understand his parables. 4. When applying the established theory of Stoics during/prior Jesus' era, God is the universe/nature and everything/all-things is part of God/Universe/Nature, then Jesus said something like "Father God and I is One.", that's completely right and entirely correct, nothing wrong at all! However, some religious people could think or interpret the same sentence quite differently, when they have been told about a human-like personality named God in mind, according to OT/Judaism. 5. imo, the historical Jesus (not the cannonised Jesus) could be just like many of today's secular person or atheist who is an independent/systems thinker - studying/following the law of nature/universe. Jesus also wanted his followers to become and do the same. LOL
Sure. the book of Romans starts off with: Romans 1:1-5 "Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God— the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures regarding his Son, who as to his earthly life was a descendant of David, and who through the Spirit of holiness was appointed the Son of God in power by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord. Through him we received grace and apostleship to call all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith for his name’s sake." and ends with: Romans 16:25-27 "Now to him who is able to establish you in accordance with my gospel, the message I proclaim about Jesus Christ, in keeping with the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past, but now revealed and made known through the prophetic writings by the command of the eternal God, so that all the Gentiles might come to the obedience that comes from faith to the only wise God be glory forever through Jesus Christ! Amen." if i took something from the middle.. let's go with Romans 8 Romans 8:1-2 "Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit who gives life has set you free from the law of sin and death." I also looked at Romans 7 and Romans 9. they also mention Christ
afaik, your question is valid. Paul's letters have minimal words directly from Jesus. The only words from Jesus were mainly about having holy meals. The problem is Paul wasn't there when Jesus shared his final meal with his disciples (most likely males, females, families, all included). Therefore Paul didn't know what exactly Jesus said during the meal. That cannot be found in the Gospels, hence it is possible that the words of the final meal were produced by someone for a purpose. I guess Jesus was sharing an actual meal with disciples to fill their physical hunger. Rather than something else like the modern churches are serving today - called Holy Communion. What's the point when someone (whether a fellow believer or a non-believer especially) is homeless and hungry coming to a gathering place of Jesus' followers to find out that only holy communion was served, rather than actual meal to fill his physical hunger? I am just curious!
What I should have mentioned was Paul's emphasis on the condition that requires personal reflection/examination for whether or not taking the holy communion was not quite right. 1. It's a physical meal, as mentioned in the Gospels - Jesus theory (spiritual meal) is to set souls/minds free (i.e. liberty). 2. When someone is not qualified to take the holy communion would make him even spiritually weaker, since he would need Jesus' meal (spiritual or physical) for strengthening his spirit. Paul's invention in his letters was when a spiritual weak person is denied to take the holy communion, that would only make the (spiritual or physical) weak person even weaker (spiritual or physical or both), if without the help of taking Jesus' meal. In other words, Paul's logic of specifying conditions for whether taking (holy) meal or not should be questionable! What would Jesus think and do about Paul's inventive conditions for feeding physical meals to a hungry person? What would Jesus' followers thing and do about it after reading Paul's letters? Any major differences for feeding spiritual meals required by spiritually hungry people? How about feeding Holy Communion? I don't know/understand. LOL
More like Colin McGregor = self delusion. He is always ramping up how good he is at bargaining, being Presidential etc. 6 months in and hasn't achieved anything yet. Just annoyed former allies and trading partners, flirting with Russia, committing more troops on an unwinnable fight etc.! He's NUTS. And as for his stupid wall !! Oh dear.............