Posted on 04/07/2014 3:22:42 PM PDT by stirrinthepuddin
And I have been trying to spread the word about Iheart Radio as a way to listen to shows like John Batchelor, RedEye, and other favorites that may not be available in your area.
I used to listen to Noory and found amusement in all of the weirdness and stupidity. Then I realized that I was being contemptuous and uncharitable toward callers who were genuinely unhappy or mentally ill. I felt ashamed of myself and stopped listening. Now if I have to be up late working, I listen to recordings from EWTN or YouTube vids. The truth is that I love Eric and Gary but by the time they come on, I’ve been listening to many hours of political radio, and my mind needs a rest.
Sounds to me like standard Catholic-bashing, except he’s pushing the Great Betrayal back from Constantine all the way to Paul. Not really original. The liberals and modernists have hated Paul for centuries.
I’m always amused by these people who seem to think that when Jesus promised to remain with his Church until the end of time, he was referring exclusively to some 35-member church in Arkansas.
“There’s another show, aimed at the Night Shift and truck drivers instead of the ghost story crowd,”
The “red eye’ network.It’s out of WBAP in Texas and is on several of the 50,000 watt stations
George Snoory absolutely ruined Coast to Coast.
I am not defending the author who spoke on Coast to Coast - did not listen to the program & have no idea who he is/was.
While there can be many arguments for why that author is wrong to call Paul someone who worked against Yeshua and created a false gospel about Him; and good arguments that that author does not have independent proof of his position; many things that Christian’s take as irrefutable about Paul have only the word of Paul himself, and Luke - believed to be an assistant of Paul’s and the author of Acts as “proof”.
Did the elders in Jerusalem - led by James the Just, brother of Yeshua, have a different view than Paul about Paul himself, about his mission, about his conversion, about his Christian theology?? The fact that if they did disagree deeply with Paul we are missing a record of it is also NOT proof there never was such things recorded or that if recorded they were not lost in the final sacking of Jerusalem in the Roman wars against the Jews or that such records were not lost during the final diaspora from Jerusalem at that time, when those in the church in Jerusalem are thought to have escaped to Petra if they escaped at all.
Does any of that make the author’s view “right”? No. But it shows there is a case for questioning the circular logic that simply accepts Paul without question because Paul says so.
The author is certainly not the first to question the bonafides of Paul.
That’s the dumbest reply ever.
Oh, come on now - George has the best fake laugh in all of radio.
- and we get to hear it every three minutes!
Red Eye Radio is awesome. IMHO Eric and Gary are second only to Rush. I listen to them every night.
There are a lot of nutty nut nutties on the radio. :-)
And they probably all vote! 8(
You mean it isn’t so? ... LOL
“And they probably all vote! 8(”
LOL!
That was exactly Hitler’s feelings too
I used to listen to Rolle James (? pronounced rol-E). She was something of a Libertarian.
At the Council of Jerusalem Peter and the rest of the Jerusalem church accepted correction coming from Paul. It is nonsense to claim that Paul was teaching something different- he in fact was the one who corrected Peter’s error.
Your criticism relies on dismissing not only the writing of Paul but also that of Luke, which none of the early church questioned.
John lived longest of all the Apostles, had there been a conflict between the theology of Paul and the rest of the Apostles John had the time to address it. He didn’t. John’s last writing was the Revelation of Christ- did Christ also forget to mention a conflict between the teaching of Paul and the other Apostles? Apparently so if we accept your argument.
The early church was filled with the students of the Apostles, we have volumes and volumes of their ante Nicene father letters, and they wrote nothing about the supposed conflict that you claim exists.
In the Book of Acts, Saul of Tarsus, who became Paul, is recorded as stating that he studied under Gamaliel, who was a great Rabbinical teacher. So, he wasn't exactly a junior toadie.
“Paul, is recorded as stating that he studied under Gamaliel, who was a great Rabbinical teacher. So, he wasn’t exactly a junior toadie.”
You’re right, Paul had very impressive credentials. And he referred to himself as being the chief of sinners because he had been an ardent hunter and persecutor of Christians, which made his conversion all the more astounding.
While there can be many arguments for why that author is wrong to call Paul someone who worked against Yeshua>>>>>>
That is a sensible way to look at it.
There are several contradictions between Pauls letters and the history wrote down in acts, yet the People who believe Paul was the number one apostle will refute the facts with so called proof that proves nothing.
I am not anti Paul and i do not believe he was any anti Christ but if any one reads his letters how can they help but see that Paul does a lot to make the other apostles seem lessor and actually puts himself as the greatest even though he admits he is the least.
I believe Paul was a believer, and i also think he was a man who was very likely to make mistakes like all other men, he was not a God.
At the Council of Jerusalem Peter and the rest of the Jerusalem church accepted correction coming from Paul.
acts 15
12 Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.