NationStates Jolt Archive

Paul of Tarsus would have never been born.

[Quote:]
Originally Posted by TexpunditistanY'know... I was going to say "The Prophet Mohammad" would never have been born.... but I didn't want to go there.


Hey big difference.

Jesus preached love and brotherhood and kindness to all mankind. Jesus was a great guy. Paul came around and said kill queers, hate women, and conquer in the name of Jesus.

I can rag on Paul. I love Jesus.


Of course Jesus Rocks over Paul. Jesus, savior, Messiah, and Paul doing nothing but pointing at Jesus.

Are you suggesting that Jesus didn't pick Paul himself? Perhaps you should go back and actually read what Paul wrote in it's entirety and not just the few quote you don't like...

You have to understand ... I think of Jesus as a man, nothing more. He made a mistake when he picked Paul. He liked Paul, but didn't know what Paul would do in his stead.

I've read what Paul wrote. As the prophet Isaiah said, "Even your good deeds are as dirty rags before Hashem". Paul fits this bill. Everything Paul may have written is soiled by his hatred and misogynistic viewpoint.

That's just the way it is.

Never mind, obviously you haven't read it. Jesus didn't even know Paul until after the crucifixion. Paul was called Saul and he went around trying to persecute the Christians that wouldn't go away after the crucifixion.

Oh. Ok. If you say so.

I'll just ignore all of the bad things he wrote, which were in direct contradiction to not only Torah (God's Law) but to Jesus's own words.

Thank you for helping me see the light.

Hint: Paul never wrote a single Epistle as Saul. His calling for women to be subservient and never teach in the church - a direct violation of Torah, which states that *only* women may deliver certain blessings and prayers - was after his "enlightenment".

I suspect Paul was simply telling a lie about his adventure on the road to Damascus. You feel free to believe him, though. It is your right. No witnesses, but hey ... who needs those, right?


Well, he needed a Chiristian to come and heal him of blindness, A Christian that had a hard time believing that he was being called to heal a scoundrel and persecutor of the followers of Chirst. He saw the scales removed.


Jews had been healing people like that for centuries. Paul needed someone who believed totally and submitted to God, not a Christian. The NT never once uses the word "Christian".

One who believes totally and submits to God completely is a Muslim. No partner, no son, no intercessor. He needed someone like a Abraham. The man who healed him was not a witness to how he was blinded.

Paul's words speak for themselves. They are full of hatred and misplaced passions. Paul was no Christian. Paul was possessed of Satan. That people still fall for his lies brings me sadness.

That said, I must be done with this conversation. I will not change your mind nor you mine. It is as it stands.

We are hijacking this thread, and that's not fair. However, there is reason to think that Paul would not go on as a 'standard' Jew of the time, but that something had changed...

“On the next Sabbath almost the whole city gathered to hear the word of the Lord. When the Jews saw the crowds, they were filled with jealousy and talked abusively against what Paul was saying. Then Paul and Barnabas answered them boldly: ‘We had to speak the word of God to you first. Since you reject it and do not consider yourselves worthy of eternal life, we now turn to the Gentiles. For this is what the Lord has commanded us: “I have made you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring salvation to the ends of the earth.”’ When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed for eternal life believed. The word of the Lord spread through the whole region. But the Jews incited the God fearing women of high standing and the leading men of the city. They stirred up persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and expelled them from their region.” (Acts 13:44-50).

The Qur'an says that you can't believe that Jesus was crucified and rose from the dead, in fact, you can't believe that Jesus was even crucified can you? But instead, that someone else was put in his place (as if God's Prophet or Messenger or Messiah, would ever allow someone else to do what he himself was unwilling to do). Why now are you upset with Paul? Is it because he taught the Gentiles?

We should start a new thread. So this is it.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8984210&postcount=33

Are you suggesting that Jesus didn't pick Paul himself? Perhaps you should go back and actually read what Paul wrote in it's entirety and not just the few quote you don't like...

Depends on if you take the Bible as literal fact or metaphoric philosophy, as well as whether or not you truly accept Orthodox Christianity as being the exact religion Jesus set out to create, or wholly the creation of Paul after-the-fact...


Well, he needed a Chiristian to come and heal him of blindness, A Christian that had a hard time believing that he was being called to heal a scoundrel and persecutor of the followers of Chirst. He saw the scales removed.

Ananias wasn't a Christian, though. Or, at least, the Bible isn't definitive on the point. In Acts 9 he's portrayed as a devout Christian, but in Acts 22, he's described as a pious Jewish observer of the law, well-spoken of by Jews of that place. He can't be both.

And, if one assumes he was a Jew who converted to Christianity, then one cannot explain how HE can remain respected by the local Jewish community, even as Paul becomes a virtual criminal for HIS conversion (and people like Stephen are getting stoned to death for it).

Consider that Acts was written DECADES after the fact, by mortal men with mortal memories (and mortal agendas). It's VERY difficult to see any one passage (or collection of passages) as being definitively accurate, especially in cases where they disagree with actual HISTORICAL RECORD of the period. When the veracity comes into question, the door is open for people to ask if Paul was REALLY preaching the same things that Jesus was, or if Paul twisted and perverted the message of Jesus into something it was never meant to be.

I heartily recommend a book to you - "The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity". There's no need to accept its conclusions as solid fact, but it certainly helps to demonstrate why some people (and indeed, entire "sects" of people who consider themselves Christians but hate the Catholic Church and all it stands for), and why people call into question the "definitive" nature of Paul's "divine blessing" to spread the word.

You do realize, don't you, that if you deny Paul you are denying more than half of the new testament?

You do realize, don't you, that if you deny Paul you are denying more than half of the new testament?

But surely, if it is not the words of Jesus... and not compatible with the words of Jesus, then 'denying half of the New Testament' would be a good thing?

Still trying to figure out how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, eh?

Still trying to figure out how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, eh?
42
:p

42
:p lol

42
:p

Yeah, sure, that's the answer... but what's the question?

But surely, if it is not the words of Jesus... and not compatible with the words of Jesus, then 'denying half of the New Testament' would be a good thing?

Would you like to suggest a few points where you believe the words of Paul and the words of Jesus contradicted each other (I'm not suggesting that they don't or that they don't appear to at least, only that I would like to take up your point and develop it further)

Depends on if you take the Bible as literal fact or metaphoric philosophy, as well as whether or not you truly accept Orthodox Christianity as being the exact religion Jesus set out to create, or wholly the creation of Paul after-the-fact...




Ananias wasn't a Christian, though. Or, at least, the Bible isn't definitive on the point. In Acts 9 he's portrayed as a devout Christian, but in Acts 22, he's described as a pious Jewish observer of the law, well-spoken of by Jews of that place. He can't be both.

And, if one assumes he was a Jew who converted to Christianity, then one cannot explain how HE can remain respected by the local Jewish community, even as Paul becomes a virtual criminal for HIS conversion (and people like Stephen are getting stoned to death for it).

Consider that Acts was written DECADES after the fact, by mortal men with mortal memories (and mortal agendas). It's VERY difficult to see any one passage (or collection of passages) as being definitively accurate, especially in cases where they disagree with actual HISTORICAL RECORD of the period. When the veracity comes into question, the door is open for people to ask if Paul was REALLY preaching the same things that Jesus was, or if Paul twisted and perverted the message of Jesus into something it was never meant to be.

I heartily recommend a book to you - "The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity". There's no need to accept its conclusions as solid fact, but it certainly helps to demonstrate why some people (and indeed, entire "sects" of people who consider themselves Christians but hate the Catholic Church and all it stands for), and why people call into question the "definitive" nature of Paul's "divine blessing" to spread the word.
The New Living Translation (my favourite version) says that Ananias was a disciple, and I suppose that meant a disciple of Jesus. That would make him a Christian. But since he was also a Jew, and according to Acts, many of the Jewish Christians of that time were still Jews that attended the synagogues, particularly in Damascus, when the persecution by Paul had not arrived yet.

Yeah, sure, that's the answer... but what's the question?

Well, we were working on that - until we experienced some technical difficulties...

Well, we were working on that - until we experienced some technical difficulties...

Yes... there's always something... but, in all honesty - the plans WERE on display... :)

Yeah, sure, that's the answer... but what's the question?

Still trying to figure out how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, eh?
42: For all of life's unanswered questions.

Well, we were working on that - until we experienced some technical difficulties...
I've built an even stronger computer to create the question to the answer.

That said, I must be done with this conversation. I will not change your mind nor you mine. It is as it stands.

Like I said ...

*snip*
I heartily recommend a book to you - "The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity". There's no need to accept its conclusions as solid fact, but it certainly helps to demonstrate why some people (and indeed, entire "sects" of people who consider themselves Christians but hate the Catholic Church and all it stands for), and why people call into question the "definitive" nature of Paul's "divine blessing" to spread the word.

Maybe Paul can defend himself?

Galatians 1 11-12

I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

Galatians 2 1-2

Fourteen years later I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also. I went in response to a revelation and set before them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles.

Galatians 2 7-10cont:

I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, just as Peter had been to the Jews. For God, who was at work in the ministry of Peter as an apostle to the Jews, was also at work in my ministry as an apostle to the Gentiles. James, Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews. All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do.

If Paul met with and was sanctioned (so to speak) by the apostles then, who are we now to try and defrock him from afar?

Galatians 1 11-12

I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

Oral Roberts once claimed a 900 ft. tall Jesus told him to raise money for a medical center. Just because someone claims they've been given a mandate by the Divine doesn't mean it's true. Don't even get me started on Phelps, who claims to be one of the "Elect".

It's the message that matters, remember? Paul wrote to the Romans that homosexuals were "worthy of death" ... not something Jesus would have ever said. Paul wrote to the Corinthians that "women are to be silent in the churches" ... not something Jesus would have ever said.

Jesus said that "by their fruits shall ye know them". Paul's fruits were of hatred and misogynism. I, therefore, know him to be a teacher of falsehood, regardless of his claims.

Maybe Paul can defend himself?

Galatians 1 11-12

I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

Galatians 2 1-2

Fourteen years later I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also. I went in response to a revelation and set before them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles.

Galatians 2 7-10cont:

I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, just as Peter had been to the Jews. For God, who was at work in the ministry of Peter as an apostle to the Jews, was also at work in my ministry as an apostle to the Gentiles. James, Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews. All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do.

If Paul met with and was sanctioned (so to speak) by the apostles then, who are we now to try and defrock him from afar?

So - the person who might have lied.... is assumed to be telling the truth.. because he SAYS he is?

And is assumed to have been sanctioned, because he says he was?

So - the person who might have lied.... is assumed to be telling the truth.. because he SAYS he is?

And is assumed to have been sanctioned, because he says he was?

Well, that's like someone saying they're a Ranger when we know they're not, and then we continue to assume that he's telling some variant of the truth, and we accept him still because he says he's right with Allah.

If you're going to forgive one, you have to forgive Paul as well.

Well, that's like someone saying they're a Ranger when we know they're not, and then we continue to assume that he's telling some variant of the truth, and we accept him still because he says he's right with Allah.

If you're going to forgive one, you have to forgive Paul as well.

I think I am missing some secret significance there.... :)?

But, I don't 'assume' anyone is telling the truth... I am the eternal sceptic.

I don't mind 'forgiving' Paul... his sin was not against me... but I still don't necessarily 'believe' Paul.

Oral Roberts once claimed a 900 ft. tall Jesus told him to raise money for a medical center. Just because someone claims they've been given a mandate by the Divine doesn't mean it's true. Don't even get me started on Phelps, who claims to be one of the "Elect".

I know he was defending himself there, but he calls on known apostles as witnesses, and I was pointing at them as well.


It's the message that matters, remember? Paul wrote to the Romans that homosexuals were "worthy of death" ... not something Jesus would have ever said. Paul wrote to the Corinthians that "women are to be silent in the churches" ... not something Jesus would have ever said. What makes you say that? Jesus went to the temple where women weren't even allowed to enter past a certain point, he didn't say a thing about stopping that. Paul also said that we are all worthy of death, that's why we need to be saved via grace, that we can't achieve salvation from our own good works nor of observing the law...


Jesus said that "by their fruits shall ye know them". Paul's fruits were of hatred and misogynism. I, therefore, know him to be a teacher of falsehood, regardless of his claims.
You seem to have forgotten the number of times that Paul’s preaches love, and gentleness...

So - the person who might have lied.... is assumed to be telling the truth.. because he SAYS he is?

And is assumed to have been sanctioned, because he says he was?

You're calling him a liar based on what? Any evidence for your accusation or even a reason to suggest that he was lying?

I think I am missing some secret significance there.... :)?

But, I don't 'assume' anyone is telling the truth... I am the eternal sceptic.

I don't mind 'forgiving' Paul... his sin was not against me... but I still don't necessarily 'believe' Paul.

I'm sure Jesus would forgive Paul for wanting to be something he's not. It doesn't mean you have to believe him - but he's still acceptable fodder for discussion.

Not everything he said was bad - you also have to look at what people actually did with the words. Words are words - what you actually do with them is something else.

if we mean paul as in the former saul, then yes, he is a saint, or at least "one of the good guys."
he became a christian, which meant he asked for forgiveness from god and jesus, and was forgiven.

You're calling him a liar based on what? Any evidence for your accusation or even a reason to suggest that he was lying?

I didn't call him a liar... I said he 'might have lied'.

Try reading posts BEFORE you respond to them.

On the other hand, why SHOULD anyone believe Paul's words to be true? You don't read Lemony Snicket and assume that the Baudelaire Orphans are 'true'... in fact, if someone asserted they WERE, you would DEMAND reliable evidence.

I see no 'reliable evidence' for Paul's veracity.

I'm sure Jesus would forgive Paul for wanting to be something he's not. It doesn't mean you have to believe him - but he's still acceptable fodder for discussion.

Not everything he said was bad - you also have to look at what people actually did with the words. Words are words - what you actually do with them is something else.

Oh - agreed... much of what Paul said was probably admirable... but he was NOT messiah, and should not be accorded Messianic infallibility or honesty.

There is much within the OLd and New Testaments that I find objectionable... but provided it STAYS in those books, then we are all good. As you say, it is what people DO with words that can be the problem.

Can one not believe that Paul (no longer Saul) was a good and honest man, trying to help others become good and honest men? And that he happened, as is so often the case with evangelists, to unintentionally let the message be "poisoned" with the unfortunate beliefs he was personally saddled with due to his life and times (environment/upbringing/culture/societal imprinting/la-de-dah)?

All too often the good men attempt to do is flavored with the bad they don't realize they are carrying around with them. We're all sort of "Typhoid Marys" in that way.

The New Living Translation (my favourite version) says that Ananias was a disciple, and I suppose that meant a disciple of Jesus. That would make him a Christian. But since he was also a Jew, and according to Acts, many of the Jewish Christians of that time were still Jews that attended the synagogues, particularly in Damascus, when the persecution by Paul had not arrived yet.

Most of the early Christians were still Jews. In fact, early Christian writers spent quite a bit of time trying to demonstrate that they were, in fact, Jews. This was, of course, because they were. They were simply Jews who believed they had found the Messiah - and wanted to tell the others this. There was also the fact that the Romans were very tolerant of already existing religions, but would persecute new religions - thus the need to be a part of an existing religion.

As for Paul - I don't think Paul was Satan, nor do I think he was a saint. Paul was a man, with his own ideas and prejudices. Was he inspired by the Holy Spirit? I believe so, yes. Does that mean that he got everything right? Of course not! Paul did some good and some damage to the Christian faith. Augustine was much, much more damaging than Paul could ever have been.

Can one not believe that Paul (no longer Saul) was a good and honest man, trying to help others become good and honest men? And that he happened, as is so often the case with evangelists, to unintentionally let the message be "poisoned" with the unfortunate beliefs he was personally saddled with due to his life and times (environment/upbringing/culture/societal imprinting/la-de-dah)?

All too often the good men attempt to do is flavored with the bad they don't realize they are carrying around with them. We're all sort of "Typhoid Marys" in that way.

You can 'believe' that... but is it 'true'?

Can one not believe that Paul (no longer Saul) was a good and honest man, trying to help others become good and honest men? And that he happened, as is so often the case with evangelists, to unintentionally let the message be "poisoned" with the unfortunate beliefs he was personally saddled with due to his life and times (environment/upbringing/culture/societal imprinting/la-de-dah)?

All too often the good men attempt to do is flavored with the bad they don't realize they are carrying around with them. We're all sort of "Typhoid Marys" in that way.
You also have to watch out for context. Much of Paul's writings were to specific churches with specific problems. Take the Roman women. Their husbands were not Christian and would visit prostitutes rather than their wives, so the Christian wives started to dress as prostitutes to entice back their husbands, so Paul told them to be modest.
Next thing you've got mad fundies (I hate that term, but it is sadly appropriate) interpreting this as meaning women should cover themselves from head to toe and anything else is evil and wicked you vile female thing you will burn in Hellfire for all Eternity!

Most of the early Christians were still Jews. In fact, early Christian writers spent quite a bit of time trying to demonstrate that they were, in fact, Jews. This was, of course, because they were. They were simply Jews who believed they had found the Messiah - and wanted to tell the others this. There was also the fact that the Romans were very tolerant of already existing religions, but would persecute new religions - thus the need to be a part of an existing religion.

As for Paul - I don't think Paul was Satan, nor do I think he was a saint. Paul was a man, with his own ideas and prejudices. Was he inspired by the Holy Spirit? I believe so, yes. Does that mean that he got everything right? Of course not! Paul did some good and some damage to the Christian faith. Augustine was much, much more damaging than Paul could ever have been.

Indeed - Augustine gave us the 'Divine Right of Kings'....

You can 'believe' that... but is it 'true'?Here are several answers for you to select between:

1. You can "quote" various words...but does that make them "emphasize" your point?

2. What, by the way, is your point?

3. It is true, because I believe it - with apologies to Descartes.

4. It is true because we are all all too human.

5. What is true - is true - whether or not it is believed.

6. The popularity of a viewpoint has absolutely no bearing on it's validity.

Here are several answers for you to select between:

1. You can "quote" various words...but does that make them "emphasize" your point?

2. What, by the way, is your point?

3. It is true, because I believe it - with apologies to Descartes.

4. It is true because we are all all too human.

5. What is true - is true - whether or not it is believed.

6. The popularity of a viewpoint has absolutely no bearing on it's validity.

I agree with your fifth and sixth points, and point four - we are all limited by a human condition.

But then - is it true because it is believed? Point 3 seems like a logical fallacy to me...

And, regarding your first point... sometimes one has to 'emphasise'... when one is using a medium that has no tones of inflection.

My point? Paul was no saint... and arguably was not a close follower of Christian teaching, by the standards measured against Jesus. Further - there is little evidence to say that Paul's ministry has any value - other than that he asserts for himself... if he even wrote the texts imputed to him...

I agree with your fifth and sixth points, and point four - we are all limited by a human condition.

But then - is it true because it is believed? Point 3 seems like a logical fallacy to me...

And, regarding your first point... sometimes one has to 'emphasise'... when one is using a medium that has no tones of inflection.

My point? Paul was no saint... and arguably was not a close follower of Christian teaching, by the standards measured against Jesus. Further - there is little evidence to say that Paul's ministry has any value - other than that he asserts for himself... if he even wrote the texts imputed to him...Of course, my first "point" was a joke...

My third is a play on your question and the "I think, therefore I am" existential view of life.

And as to your point - who is to say who is a saint? Who is to say who's ministry has validity or value? There is a whole pantheon (that is, in this context, both a pun and a valid use of the word) of saints. And the list differs, depending on which christian religion you choose as the lens through which you view it. In fact during my lifetime the Roman Catholic religion "demoted" some saints - I guess to "good guy" - including Ex-Saint Christopher, Patron Saint (Good Guy?) of Travelers.

What I know of "Saul of Tarsus, aka the Apostle Paul" leads me to believe he was a man of his times, finding nothing really wrong in the excesses and extremes - in fact, engaging in them - until christianity made it's way into his mind. At which time he appalled himself (another pun - i'm terrible), changed his ways from what he now believed to be wrong to what he now believed to be right, and attempted to share that rightness, and the reason(s) why he believed it, with others.

That makes him, in my mind, a bad man who became a good man and tried to spend the rest of his life helping others become good men.

Saint - not saint - again, who's to say who is/isn't a saint? That is the kind of question we can only have answered in the after-life, provided it is as we imagine it - and we still care to have it answered.

Paul was mortal. He made mistakes, as everyone did.

His mistake was predicting the apocylpse for happening in his life time. He thought it was going to happen then, and when it didn't, all of Christanity suffered.

Paul was mortal. He made mistakes, as everyone did.

His mistake was predicting the apocylpse for happening in his life time. He thought it was going to happen then, and when it didn't, all of Christanity suffered.Or...

Doesn't christianity teach that if you believe, you do not die, but live forever? Speaking, of course, of the soul and not the body? That being the case, Paul/Saul is still alive - and since he will still be alive when the apocolypse comes (hopefully many many many millenia from now), his prediction will be validated.

?

Of course, my first "point" was a joke...

My third is a play on your question and the "I think, therefore I am" existential view of life.

And as to your point - who is to say who is a saint? Who is to say who's ministry has validity or value? There is a whole pantheon (that is, in this context, both a pun and a valid use of the word) of saints. And the list differs, depending on which christian religion you choose as the lens through which you view it. In fact during my lifetime the Roman Catholic religion "demoted" some saints - I guess to "good guy" - including Ex-Saint Christopher, Patron Saint (Good Guy?) of Travelers.

What I know of "Saul of Tarsus, aka the Apostle Paul" leads me to believe he was a man of his times, finding nothing really wrong in the excesses and extremes - in fact, engaging in them - until christianity made it's way into his mind. At which time he appalled himself (another pun - i'm terrible), changed his ways from what he now believed to be wrong to what he now believed to be right, and attempted to share that rightness, and the reason(s) why he believed it, with others.

That makes him, in my mind, a bad man who became a good man and tried to spend the rest of his life helping others become good men.

Saint - not saint - again, who's to say who is/isn't a saint? That is the kind of question we can only have answered in the after-life, provided it is as we imagine it - and we still care to have it answered.

I know your first point was a joke... but you couldn't tell my joking tone in response... :)

Regarding saints... I merely meant Paul was arguably not 'that great'... not necesarilly wheather or not he was beatification material...

Was he a bad man? Was he a good man? Did the influence of Jesus have any effect on him?

Did he ever even exist?

I know your first point was a joke... but you couldn't tell my joking tone in response... :)well, yes...but some people take offense very easily... :)
Regarding saints... I merely meant Paul was arguably not 'that great'... not necesarilly wheather or not he was beatification material...

Was he a bad man? Was he a good man? Did the influence of Jesus have any effect on him?The Prodigal Son? More joy over...la, la, la...?

Did he ever even exist?Which brings us right back around to Descartes and Sartres. Do any of us exist? Is existance all there is? Provide examples from the reading...

well, yes...but some people take offense very easily... :)
The Prodigal Son? More joy over...la, la, la...?

Which brings us right back around to Descartes and Sartres. Do any of us exist? Is existance all there is? Provide examples from the reading...

Which, for some reason, makes me think "So long, and thanks for all the fish".... :)

I do not doubt my own existence... although I find it hard sometimes to believe that there are as many 'real' people in this world, as there are bodies...

(Ever noticed... you travel thousands of miles, and you meet someone who just SOOO reminds you of someone back home? And not just one... it's like a character workshop for the imagination, with only a finite number of permutations.... ermmm...)

But - accepting all as real... still, was the 'Paul' of the Bible the same person as wrote the books attributed to him? The only real evidence is internal... how do you review the material objectively?

Which, for some reason, makes me think "So long, and thanks for all the fish".... :)Bringing us neatly back to..."42"I do not doubt my own existence... although I find it hard sometimes to believe that there are as many 'real' people in this world, as there are bodies...

(Ever noticed... you travel thousands of miles, and you meet someone who just SOOO reminds you of someone back home? And not just one... it's like a character workshop for the imagination, with only a finite number of permutations.... ermmm...)I had an idea for a novel (science fiction) once that I never developed, where it turns out that the distance between the stars is vastly exaggerated by "advanced technology" (used by another race - hadn't decided whether they were to be evil or just cautious) to make it appear to the human race that we could never traverse the distances, and so confine dangerous us and our destruction to our tiny little planet. But, as usual, I digress.But - accepting all as real... still, was the 'Paul' of the Bible the same person as wrote the books attributed to him? The only real evidence is internal... how do you review the material objectively?There is no way to know for sure - one believes Paul wrote it, or one believes he didn't.

The same question exists regarding the plays of William Shakespeare - which were written only several hundred years ago rather than several thousand years ago. Some say Shakespeare wrote only some of what is attributed to him. Some say he wrote none of it at all. And some say...that he did not actually exist.

Then there is the question of who wrote the old testament of the bible. Some insist that it was written by God. I believe it was written over an extremely long time by a bunch of different men, all of whom truly believed they were inspired by God - and some of whom, at least, probably were.

Does Paul care what you and I think about him, or what he did, or what he wrote or didn't write? Do you and I care what Paul thinks about what we think - or anything else?

What, after all is said and done, is important? And that must be, I believe, individualized. What is important to you? There is a god awful (to use the term in what was most likely it's original sense - "awe full") lot to choose from. And after reading what Paul is alleged to have written (as well as whatever else one chooses to read) - I believe that is the material we should be reviewing objectively.

What episodes of Neon Genesis Evangelion did Paul appear in? None. That sums up my opinion of him.

There are options... 1. Paul existed and wrote what he wrote, some or all of the writings attributed to him. 2. To hypothesize that he never really existed at all and was entirely made-up, supposes that there was a conspired agreement among thousands of people over at least two continents to pretend that he had existed...

It's more logical to decide that it’s more likely he did exist, 1. It's more plausible than the alternative anyway, which is to think that he did not exist but was entirely made up, conspired by an imaginary all powerful secret society that was able to insert fake documents that appear to be almost two thousand years that and are attributed to him.

There are options... 1. Paul existed and wrote what he wrote, some or all of the writings attributed to him. 2. To hypothesize that he never really existed at all and was entirely made-up, supposes that there was a conspired agreement among thousands of people over at least two continents to pretend that he had existed...

It's more logical to decide that it’s more likely he did exist, 1. It's more plausible than the alternative anyway, which is to think that he did not exist but was entirely made up, conspired by an imaginary all powerful secret society that was able to insert fake documents that appear to be almost two thousand years that and are attributed to him.

While I agree that the most logical deduction is that Paul did exist, what you have said here is absolutely ludicrous. You love to stretch things and turn everything you don't like into a vast conspiracy, forgetting several things about the culture - namely, that writing things in other names was a part of the culture and was largely accepted.

If Paul did not exist, there would not have to be a huge conspiracy - simply a rumor that there was such a person, then a number of letters written in his name by those who felt they were saying what he would have said.

Of course, it is much more likely that Paul did exist, wrote a few letters, and many more got attributed to him.

While I agree that the most logical deduction is that Paul did exist, what you have said here is absolutely ludicrous. You love to stretch things and turn everything you don't like into a vast conspiracy, forgetting several things about the culture - namely, that writing things in other names was a part of the culture and was largely accepted.

If Paul did not exist, there would not have to be a huge conspiracy - simply a rumor that there was such a person, then a number of letters written in his name by those who felt they were saying what he would have said.

Of course, it is much more likely that Paul did exist, wrote a few letters, and many more got attributed to him.

Actually, I was kind of making a joke along the line of the Da Vinci Code school of thought. I think you just don't like the way I say things, even when we agree, you disagree :D

Words are words - what you actually do with them is something else.
That doesn't follow the idea that the bible is the inerrant WORD of god ... nor does it follow one of the fancier parts of Genesis.
And by "Ranger" do you also imply "Pioneer"?

You do realize, don't you, that if you deny Paul you are denying more than half of the new testament?

To be honest, since the only PRE-Paul point-of-view in the Bible is the Gospels, and THEY were actually written AFTER Paul's letters, and most likely by Paul's followers (Luke, specifically, was supposed to be Paul's direct assistant), I'd go so far as to say that, if you consider Paul to be a mere man who misunderstood the message of Jesus and turned it into something it was never meant to be, then it more or less invalidates the ENTIRE New Testament.

Of course, such a point-of-view is a direct threat to the Church - which is why when people suggested it in the Middle Ages, the Church decided to set them on fire.

Even in Paul's time, there were groups that considered themselves followers of Jesus who not only denied Paul's "divine" enlightenment, but also declared quite clearly that he was little better than a pagan idolator. The fact that the "Church of Paul" is the one that succeeded doesn't make it RIGHT...


The New Living Translation (my favourite version) says that Ananias was a disciple, and I suppose that meant a disciple of Jesus.

The problem with the story in Acts is that it was written something like 40 years or more after the events it supposedly described. And yet Paul's OWN description of his conversion doesn't mention them at all (Galatians).

So, if we seriously start to consider the "mistakes" in the NT, we either have to start developing some seriously complicated excuses for them, or accept that SOME degree of editing has indeed taken place.


Maybe Paul can defend himself?

Galatians 1 11-12

His word against others, though, and not much "proof".




Galatians 2 1-2

He's again claiming divine guidance, but he's neither offering proof that he DID, in fact, receive such a vision, or, if he DID, that he transmitted it pure and without bias.




Galatians 2 7-10cont

If Paul met with and was sanctioned (so to speak) by the apostles then, who are we now to try and defrock him from afar?

Except that you're relying on Paul's WORD that he received the blessing of the Apostles. What if I said God talks to me, but it's okay, because the Pope said, yep, Jesus has chosen you to do his work. The weakness there is that someone will simply ask the Pope if he talked to me... but what if I said the LAST Pope told me before he died?

Of course, in today's modern world, such a claim would be FAR easier to disprove than it would have been in an age when Paul was writing letters. Peter and the others may never have even KNOWN for YEARS that Paul was claiming they'd approved of him.

If you look into sources beyond the Bible, there is a suggestion that the other followers of Jesus, far from APPROVING of Paul, viewed him as an outsider (or worse) - see below.


I know he was defending himself there, but he calls on known apostles as witnesses, and I was pointing at them as well.

Though others have brought it up, claiming authority based on something which cannot be proven is a hard pill to swallow. True, it WAS suggested in some writings that he sought and obtained the blessing of the earlier disciples, but his OWN WORDS (again, Galatians) he suggests he immediately began to preach his newly revealled understanding without ever consulting "another human being".

EVEN SO - if you exclusively use the Bible as your evidence, then you're using a document collected, edited, and maintained by a group which clearly supports Paul. Relying on the Bible for factual evidence which might contradict their stance would be like asking the modern-day Republican Party to publish a scathing expose on Bush.

Other documents of the times, however (uncovered in the Dead Sea Scrolls or the Nag Hammadi discovery) name at least TWO rival sects (the Essenes and the Nazarenes) who objected to Paul's "hijacking" of the teachings of Jesus.

Which, honestly, doesn't decisively mean that Paul was a dirty liar... but it DOES bring into question his divine "infallibility".


That doesn't follow the idea that the bible is the inerrant WORD of god ... nor does it follow one of the fancier parts of Genesis.

Of course, not everyone accepts that the Bible is the Word of God, filtered through mortals but remaining thematically correct regardless of that. Especially since the only real source you have to "PROVE" such a claim is... wait for it... the Bible itself.

So, if I claim that this post was divinely inspired, and God himself made it so that my words were 100% accurate and untainted by my own biases, then it MUST be so. Now all I need is a Church to continue to repeat that and I too will be a saint years from now...

When it comes down to it, the Jewish faith claims the Old Testament is divinely inspired. The Christian faith says the same about both Testaments, claiming that the NT trumps the OT (and the Jews dispute this quite strongly). And Muslims will tell you both OT and NT were divinely inspired, but that the Koran was ALSO divinely inspired, AND trumps both (though both Christians and Jews would object to this).

So, we now have three definitively "divine" writings which contradict each other. They can't ALL be right... so how do we decide that THIS one is THE one, and the rest are wrong?

My point? Paul was no saint... and arguably was not a close follower of Christian teaching, by the standards measured against Jesus. Further - there is little evidence to say that Paul's ministry has any value - other than that he asserts for himself... if he even wrote the texts imputed to him...

Okay, G_n_I, I saw a ways back that someone asked you to demonstrate or provide and example of Paul disagreeing with Christ's teaching and read this far to see if you would respond... I was surprised to see that you didn't given your knowledge of scripture...

So, I'll ask the question again, where specifically does Paul teach something that is explicitely contrary to the teaching of Christ?

Oral Roberts once claimed a 900 ft. tall Jesus told him to raise money for a medical center. Just because someone claims they've been given a mandate by the Divine doesn't mean it's true. Don't even get me started on Phelps, who claims to be one of the "Elect".

It's the message that matters, remember? Paul wrote to the Romans that homosexuals were "worthy of death" ... not something Jesus would have ever said. Paul wrote to the Corinthians that "women are to be silent in the churches" ... not something Jesus would have ever said.

Jesus said that "by their fruits shall ye know them". Paul's fruits were of hatred and misogynism. I, therefore, know him to be a teacher of falsehood, regardless of his claims.

Oh it's so fun when people take things out of context...

Romans you're of course reffering to Chapter 1 vs. 33

"Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them."

Of course, you seem to think Paul is advocating such should be "put to death".... Which is, of course, from CONTINUING to read, an unfounded claim....

"Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things. But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things. And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God? Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?"

You're misinterpreting Paul's own speech.... It's not justification of slaughter... It's condemnation of people standing in judgment of one another, or of viewing others poorly... The first is a statement upon "law-breakers" in general, the second a rebuke of the "law-keepers" who see merely keeping the law as a way to salvation.

"Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin."

In addition, claims to the Corinthians of "women keeping silent" is a misreading of the chapter and verse...

" for God is not {a God} of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints. Let those women {the same word as "wives"} keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but let them subject themselves, just as the Law also says." (Refferencing Genesis, where wives are made subject to their husbands....) This in relation to previous points made, regarding recognizing someone who is definitely not a messager of God:

"Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost."

Thus this is regarding women (wives) unconverted (by context of the article)...

Many people don't like reading Biblical context; they like formulating entire doctrines from singular verses ripped from their contect.... Roberts being one of those types.... and you too, unfortuneatly.

If you look into sources beyond the Bible, there is a suggestion that the other followers of Jesus, far from APPROVING of Paul, viewed him as an outsider...

*snip*

If you exclusively use the Bible as your evidence, then you're using a document collected, edited, and maintained by a group which clearly supports Paul. Relying on the Bible for factual evidence which might contradict their stance would be like asking the modern-day Republican Party to publish a scathing expose on Bush.

Other documents of the times, however (uncovered in the Dead Sea Scrolls or the Nag Hammadi discovery) name at least TWO rival sects (the Essenes and the Nazarenes) who objected to Paul's "hijacking" of the teachings of Jesus.

Actually, the 'Essenes' documents that were discovered in the caves near the Qumran site are all pre-Christianity. They were not Christians, they are Messianic Jews.

As to the Nazerenes you mentioned though, I submit that they are the very people that came after Paul to the Galatians and tried to talk them into circumcision etc., and they promoted the ideology that Christians should follow the Moisaic law for salvation.

But these sectarians... did not call themselves Christians--but "Nazarenes," ... However they are simply complete Jews. They use not only the New Testament but the Old Testament as well, as the Jews do... They have no different ideas, but confess everything exactly as the Law proclaims it and in the Jewish fashion-- except for their belief in Messiah, if you please! For they acknowledge both the resurrection of the dead and the divine creation of all things, and declare that G-d is one, and that his son is Y'shua the Messiah. They are trained to a nicety in Hebrew. For among them the entire Law, the Prophets, and the... Writings... are read in Hebrew, as they surely are by the Jews. They are different from the Jews, and different from Christians, only in the following. They disagree with Jews because they have come to faith in Messiah; but since they are still fettered by the Law--circumcision, the Sabbath, and the rest-- they are not in accord with Christians.... they are nothing but Jews.... They have the Goodnews according to Matthew in its entirety in Hebrew. For it is clear that they still preserve this, in the Hebrew alphabet, as it was originally written.

(Epiphanius; Panarion 29)

And thus, as such, they were not ignored in the NT and Paul, they were dismissed as being wrong and countered vigorously.






Side note: Why did you think the Essenes were Christians? I am aware of a new 'sect ~cult' group claiming to be descendents of the Essenes now. But to the best of my knowledge they didn't exist before the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls and now they claim to be the original Christians only after the ‘Good Leader’ document was translated. They go around making a bunch of hogwash noise about being the original Christians, much like the newage Wiccans claim to have an inheritance in the ancient druids that fought with Ceasar, complete hogwash as far as archaeology is concerned..

The Archaeological Essenes were no Christians, he hadn't been born yet, the claims of the new sect/cult notwithstanding. I was curious why you thought the Essenes were Christians, though. The only scrolls that I’ve seen are all B.C.E., and not relevant to NT scripture except in being able to help us understand the social and cultural world that Jesus was born into...

The Archaeological Essenes were no Christians, he hadn't been born yet, the claims of the new sect/cult notwithstanding. I was curious why you thought the Essenes were Christians, though. The only scrolls that I’ve seen are all B.C.E., and not relevant to NT scripture except in being able to help us understand the social and cultural world that Jesus was born into...

Interestingly enough, however, from his own teachings, it is likely that Christ himself was an Essene Jew. While you probably wouldn't call them Christians, they were likely precursors - and much closer to early Christian theology than any contemporary denomination.

Interestingly enough, however, from his own teachings, it is likely that Christ himself was an Essene Jew. While you probably wouldn't call them Christians, they were likely precursors - and much closer to early Christian theology than any contemporary denomination.

Very true. But to put it into perspective..., if someone came to me and proved that Jesus was never an Essene, I wouldn't be too surprised. However, if they came to me and proved that John the Baptist was never an Essene I'd be dumbfounded :p

It is funny how people perceive Paul in his writtings... Taking things to two seperate extremes.

Modern Fundamentalists and Dominionists assume Paul meant that sin should lay in worldy judgement... Bringing earthly condemnation upon "sinners".

Anti-nominans, for some reason, use Paul as justification for living "sinful" lives, but still claim "Salvation".

Many others, of more Fundamentalist sectarianism, outside of the mainstream, also view Paul in an anti-nomian way.

You of course, realize, all of them reach these conclusions from reading the EXACT same words of Paul... Comming to seperate conclusions... And the assumption is, Paul must either be a "Law-Keeper" (Fundamentalists) or a Law-Breaker (Antinomians).... Anyone standing apart from the two views; would readily realize the error each side makes.

Paul was inbetween the concept here..... Pauline Theology was based off the primise that LAW KEEPING ITSELF DID NOT JUSTIFY.... Though GOOD WORKS OF THE LAW (as an branch of personal faith) was a part of the "Christians" path.

His ultimate view was the God Himself is the Judge.... As people, we do not pronounce judgement, even if we can count all the "laws" we keep. The law INFORMS us of sin, but does not PREVENT us from sinning.... That LAW-KEEPING, does not save... But faith saves, doing the "good-works" of the Spirit (doing the works of the law) being an extension of our faith, not the FOUNDATION of our faith (as the Nazarenes and Pharisees supposed)... Merely pointing to all of the words of the law we keep, in no way grants up personal authority to condemn and pass judgement upon those who do not keep the law... For we ourselves, can not lay claim to KEEPING the entire law (Note Jesus' own discourse in comparison to the Physical Adulterous act vs. even coveting another's spouse... Jesus made no division... Thus, even if you had desire for the wife of another, under Jesus' own words, you can not lay claims to "keeping" that law against adultry)... Paul extends that, and it is from this (Jesus' own teachings) that he extends this case out further upon those who claim to "keep the whole law"... Paul's message is a warning upon those Jews, following the course of the Pharisees (which Jesus constantly had to rebuke), that they were varying from the true faith in Christ.... Much like Jesus' own contention with the Pharisees, and his comparison to physical acts vs. intents.... Paul recognized the doctrinal hazard of "law-keepers"; questioning the very "intents" of them... Using the law as a form of "superiority" as opposed to its actual place, whereby it is an extention of faith.... Faith and love standing supreme, and keeping God's commandments being an act of that love and faith.... As opposed to the end all and be all of faith (as espoused by the Nazarenes and Pharisees).

Paul was neither a strict Pharisiatic Law-Keeper. Nor was he an antinomian... Both sides are wrong.

Okay, G_n_I, I saw a ways back that someone asked you to demonstrate or provide and example of Paul disagreeing with Christ's teaching and read this far to see if you would respond... I was surprised to see that you didn't given your knowledge of scripture...

So, I'll ask the question again, where specifically does Paul teach something that is explicitely contrary to the teaching of Christ?

Let me get to it. :) It's on my list.

Unfortunately, I have been working long shifts, and Jolt keeps screwing with me (in this thread alone, it has blanked about three (really long) responses because it is having database errors.

I'm also debating in about a dozen other threads, and trying to keep a little up to date on each - so give me time.

[QUOTE=GendaraThe problem with the story in Acts is that it was written something like 40 years or more after the events it supposedly described. And yet Paul's OWN description of his conversion doesn't mention them at all (Galatians).

So, if we seriously start to consider the "mistakes" in the NT, we either have to start developing some seriously complicated excuses for them, or accept that SOME degree of editing has indeed taken place.[/QUOTE]

Woah, fella, your first point is a bit in question. just because Acts was written some years (maybe 40, but that is only an educated guess, it could have been a little more or less) after the event, there was no need for Paul to mention Ananias' name in a letter, as if he knew that he had to witness to the event for the pupose of modern people living today. He didn't write any letters for anyone living today, at least not directly. Thus there was no need for him to include all the details of his conversion in his letter to the Galatians.

Then your next point was a bit hard to follow. Was this omission of Paul's a mistake of the NT? I doubt it. I see no need for a complicated excuse. Is this some rheotoric of yours?
Perhaps you would like to give an example of where some NT edition must have taken place, and we could discuss them. I'm not asserting that the NT is easy to understand, and is without apparent contradictions. Some of the seeming contradictions/messages can indeed only be resolved using the deep wisdom that God supplies through His spirit. But this is exactly what the Apostle Peter writes regarding Paul's letters. But I see a difference between using a complicated excuse and God's wisdom. God is likely to give His wisdom to those who ask for it. If you don't want it, of course you are going to remain puzzeled by the teachings of the Bible.
But go ahead, dig up the contradictions.....I feel like a nice discussion, and perhaps I may learn something from you.

Interestingly enough, however, from his own teachings, it is likely that Christ himself was an Essene Jew. While you probably wouldn't call them Christians, they were likely precursors - and much closer to early Christian theology than any contemporary denomination.

If Jesus was a the Son of God, then he was no member of any party of Jews. From His teachings, it looks as though he didn't belong to any party. he was somewhere in between. His teachings were so different and radical that he made the old enemies the Pharasees and the Saduccees get together as allies.

The fact that the people were astounded by his teachings suggest that they had never heard them before. If the Essenes had been teaching them already, he could not have had that effect on the people.
More likely, he was trying to introduce the Kingdom of Heaven to the people. He didn't keep all the stricts laws of 'purity', since he went to parties with all the social drop outs. He was no Essene, even if some of his teachings did agree with what they taught.

Okay, G_n_I, I saw a ways back that someone asked you to demonstrate or provide and example of Paul disagreeing with Christ's teaching and read this far to see if you would respond... I was surprised to see that you didn't given your knowledge of scripture...

So, I'll ask the question again, where specifically does Paul teach something that is explicitely contrary to the teaching of Christ?

To me - the biggest contradiction, is Paul's version of salvation by faith alone. Jesus constantly taught that we should do good works and deeds (maybe in response to our internal change), and that we need to do so in order to receive salvation. Paul alone is the person that overturns this and insists on PURE salvation by faith. He is also the only person who insists that Jesus has already done the 'work' or salvation. Jesus argued our deeds were necessary... Paul seems to be undermining this.

Matthew 25:31-46 clearly shows what I am saying about Jesus' view of salvation. It is utterly inreconcilable with the modern Pauline teaching.

If we follow ANYONE aside from Jesus, it should be James - who is the other person that clearly describes the faith/works divide... entirely in opposition to Paul, and, therefore, much more true to the teachings of Jesus.

Romans 3:28: Paul says: "man is justified by FAITH apart from WORKS of the law".

James 2:24: James makes a liar of Paul: "KJV: by WORKS a man is justified, and not by FAITH only".

If Jesus was a the Son of God, then he was no member of any party of Jews. From His teachings, it looks as though he didn't belong to any party. he was somewhere in between. His teachings were so different and radical that he made the old enemies the Pharasees and the Saduccees get together as allies.

The fact that the people were astounded by his teachings suggest that they had never heard them before. If the Essenes had been teaching them already, he could not have had that effect on the people.
More likely, he was trying to introduce the Kingdom of Heaven to the people. He didn't keep all the stricts laws of 'purity', since he went to parties with all the social drop outs. He was no Essene, even if some of his teachings did agree with what they taught.

Jesus opposed both the Sadducees and the Pharisees. He believed that people spent too much time worrying about interpretations of scripture, and not enough time being a child of god. He would probably laugh himsefl sick looking at the modern Christian denominations doing exactly the same things he decried in the Sadducees and Pharisees... but now doing it in HIS name.

Most likely, from his teachings... Jesus was an Essene, or influenced by Essene thinking. There is also possible reason to believe that Jesus was partially inspired by the early Buddhists, that had been in the same area a few hundred years earlier.

What IS clear is that Jesus was a Jew, but no friend to either Sadducee or Pharisee.

To me - the biggest contradiction, is Paul's version of salvation by faith alone. Jesus constantly taught that we should do good works and deeds (maybe in response to our internal change), and that we need to do so in order to receive salvation. Paul alone is the person that overturns this and insists on PURE salvation by faith. He is also the only person who insists that Jesus has already done the 'work' or salvation. Jesus argued our deeds were necessary... Paul seems to be undermining this.

Matthew 25:31-46 clearly shows what I am saying about Jesus' view of salvation. It is utterly inreconcilable with the modern Pauline teaching.

If we follow ANYONE aside from Jesus, it should be James - who is the other person that clearly describes the faith/works divide... entirely in opposition to Paul, and, therefore, much more true to the teachings of Jesus.

Romans 3:28: Paul says: "man is justified by FAITH apart from WORKS of the law".

James 2:24: James makes a liar of Paul: "KJV: by WORKS a man is justified, and not by FAITH only".

Jesus is recorded as saying that we must be perfect, even as our Father in Heaven is perfect. Paul says, as you have said, the man is justified by faith apart from works. There is not a contradiction here, but a very strong point. It was, in fact, the reason why Jesus preached the beattitides. The law must be fulfilled, but Jesus was the only person who could fill it perfectly. That is why, by faith, we are accepted into the body of Christ, and thus accept His righteousness as our own, and only in this way are we considered perfect before God. The path to righteousness, then, is only by faith. Jesus wanted every person to realize this, that their only hope of salvation was the path of faith, when they saw how impossible it was to live ones life without breaking the law.

Writing from a different perspective, but not a contradictory one, James says that the way to make sure we really do have that faith that saves us is to look at our works. Jesus also points this out in the parable of the sheep and the goats (Matt 25). How do we know we have the faith that really saves us and makes us acceptable before God? By looking at the works that grow out of that faith. To see what the faith looks like, you have to look at the works. This is not the same as doing those works in order to be saved.

This you have found a very strong argument in the NT. It compels us to take the way of faith, and then to have a frequent health check on that faith, to see if it really is the type of faith that is good and pleases God.

Jesus opposed both the Sadducees and the Pharisees. He believed that people spent too much time worrying about interpretations of scripture, and not enough time being a child of god. He would probably laugh himsefl sick looking at the modern Christian denominations doing exactly the same things he decried in the Sadducees and Pharisees... but now doing it in HIS name.

Most likely, from his teachings... Jesus was an Essene, or influenced by Essene thinking. There is also possible reason to believe that Jesus was partially inspired by the early Buddhists, that had been in the same area a few hundred years earlier.

What IS clear is that Jesus was a Jew, but no friend to either Sadducee or Pharisee.

I agree that Jesus is possibly at odds with a good deal of modern Christianity. But, amazingly, He loves us still!!!
I doubt the Essenes ever introduced the Kingdom of God in the same way Jesus did. I think there was a vast difference. Also, the Essenes were a militant bunch, weren't they? I don't see them teaching one to love one's enemy. Actually, I don't know that much about them. Perhaps you could suggest a good source for me to read up on them.

Jesus is recorded as saying that we must be perfect, even as our Father in Heaven is perfect. Paul says, as you have said, the man is justified by faith apart from works. There is not a contradiction here, but a very strong point. It was, in fact, the reason why Jesus preached the beattitides. The law must be fulfilled, but Jesus was the only person who could fill it perfectly. That is why, by faith, we are accepted into the body of Christ, and thus accept His righteousness as our own, and only in this way are we considered perfect before God. The path to righteousness, then, is only by faith. Jesus wanted every person to realize this, that their only hope of salvation was the path of faith, when they saw how impossible it was to live ones life without breaking the law.

Writing from a different perspective, but not a contradictory one, James says that the way to make sure we really do have that faith that saves us is to look at our works. Jesus also points this out in the parable of the sheep and the goats (Matt 25). How do we know we have the faith that really saves us and makes us acceptable before God? By looking at the works that grow out of that faith. To see what the faith looks like, you have to look at the works. This is not the same as doing those works in order to be saved.

This you have found a very strong argument in the NT. It compels us to take the way of faith, and then to have a frequent health check on that faith, to see if it really is the type of faith that is good and pleases God.

I am not arguing that you should do works IN ORDER to be saved... but, if you read the passage I cited (Matthew 25:31-46), Jesus clearly shows that the way to salvation IS good works... in fact - that whole passage almost specifically DENIES the concept of direct salvation through faith, or even the concept that you HAVE to follow Christ... so long as you follow HIS teaching.

In fact - I have definite suspicion that THAT was what Jesus was trying to sell... He said 'believe in me'... and I think he meant, "believe my teaching"... not "believe I am god".

The only way to God is through Jesus' TEACHING.

James continues this thought - he shows that faith is not justification WITHOUT works. It is ONLY Paul that preaches the irrelevence of works.

And that is not the ONLY time he contradicts that part of Jesus teaching (the ministry of Matthew 25:31-46). Jesus tells us we will acheive our salvation through feeding the poor... Paul flies straight in the face of this.

Second Thessalonians 3:10 "For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat".

Paul is the enemy of Christlike thinking.

James and Paul are saying similar things, from different perspectives, to different types of people.

Paul is writing to the Romans, Jews and Gentiles in Rome... Dealing with situations where Jewish converts and pushing Pharisiatic "law-keeping" and "purity" rights on Gentiles, as a way to salvation. Paul's response, is that by works of the law is no flesh justified... That is, law-keeping is not the path to salvation... But the operation of the heart (love and faith) is the core of it all. What he is heavily talking about is "circumcision rights", food purity laws, etc.

The Jewish converts, are trying to push this as the path to salvation, as opposed to faith in Christ, and the Good News... He is condemning their judgement upon the Gentiles, and pointing out their own sins, showing they have no right to judge the sins of another, as long as they are in sin (note the stoning of the adultress, where Jesus confronts the Pharisees... Which I have a long discourse about which is seperate.. and will include at the end of this post...).

On the opposite side... James is dealing with early "Antinomianism" (lawlessness)... Basically, those who believe they can live in immorality, and yet still claim love of Christ as salvation. James rightly points out "Faith without works is dead, being alone...."... How can someone claim substitutionary death through Christ, claiming love as their salvation; when they do nothing but heap more judgment upon the substitutionary work of Christ, through their sins? Much like Paul's "friut of the spirit" discourse, this deals with the actual acts these people commit, after claiming Christ's death as their own, through "faith"... Their "Faith" is dead, because they have no claim to the "Spirit" in their life (A tree is known by its fruit).

________________________

As promised, my discourse about the stoning of the Adulteress, where Jesus confronts the Pharisees questions over the law.

If you note from the act, this woman is "caught in adultry".... The Pharisees want to trick Christ, to get him to break the law or contradict it....

When asked, Christ goes down to the dust, and writes something (which I believe is easy to figure out)... Sin, as it is known, is "trangression of the law"; that is not keeping the WHOLE LAW.... So what would Christ write? Some assume it is the sins of the people there.... Somewhat accurate, but far more general... This is the case of an adultress.

The facts.....
1. The woman was found guilty of adultry.
2. The woman was "caught in the very act."
3. The woman was taken out alone to be stoned.

Questions:
1. What is the old testament law regarding punishment in connection with adultry?
2. Did these Jews follow this law? (Please Explain)
3. What do you think Jesus actually wrote in the sand to confront them in this case?

I agree that Jesus is possibly at odds with a good deal of modern Christianity. But, amazingly, He loves us still!!!
I doubt the Essenes ever introduced the Kingdom of God in the same way Jesus did. I think there was a vast difference. Also, the Essenes were a militant bunch, weren't they? I don't see them teaching one to love one's enemy. Actually, I don't know that much about them. Perhaps you could suggest a good source for me to read up on them.

Well, you cann gain a quick over-view (although, of course, with a sceptical bias... since it is a Catholic website) from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05546a.htm

Note: specifically - look at what are described as the 'virtues' of the Essenes: "...obedience, truthfulness, continence, justice, and temperance; they paid great attention to the sick, respect to the aged, and showed marked kindness and hospitality to strangers. All men were regarded as equal, and slavery was regarded as contrary to nature..." all of which sounds very familiar in the light of the teachings of one certain desert prophet...

You might also try: http://www.essenespirit.com/ which is a fairly pleasantly laid-out site, giving a brief 'condensed' version of what it is to be Essene.

Also: http://www.themystica.com/mystica/articles/e/essenes.html gives another version, with a slightly different angle.

James and Paul are saying similar things, from different perspectives, to different types of people.

Paul is writing to the Romans, Jews and Gentiles in Rome... Dealing with situations where Jewish converts and pushing Pharisiatic "law-keeping" and "purity" rights on Gentiles, as a way to salvation. Paul's response, is that by works of the law is no flesh justified... That is, law-keeping is not the path to salvation... But the operation of the heart (love and faith) is the core of it all. What he is heavily talking about is "circumcision rights", food purity laws, etc.

The Jewish converts, are trying to push this as the path to salvation, as opposed to faith in Christ, and the Good News... He is condemning their judgement upon the Gentiles, and pointing out their own sins, showing they have no right to judge the sins of another, as long as they are in sin (note the stoning of the adultress, where Jesus confronts the Pharisees... Which I have a long discourse about which is seperate.. and will include at the end of this post...).

On the opposite side... James is dealing with early "Antinomianism" (lawlessness)... Basically, those who believe they can live in immorality, and yet still claim love of Christ as salvation. James rightly points out "Faith without works is dead, being alone...."... How can someone claim substitutionary death through Christ, claiming love as their salvation; when they do nothing but heap more judgment upon the substitutionary work of Christ, through their sins? Much like Paul's "friut of the spirit" discourse, this deals with the actual acts these people commit, after claiming Christ's death as their own, through "faith"... Their "Faith" is dead, because they have no claim to the "Spirit" in their life (A tree is known by its fruit).



I see what you are saying... but stand by my earleir assertion. Jesus makes a pretty clear case for what he believes is the IMPORTANT requirement for 'salvation', and it is not about 'faith', it is not about 'sacrifice', it is not about 'belief'. This, to my thinking, is a Pauline way of looking at Christian teaching.

Jesus basically lists out doing good things for others as the route to salvation... for every hungry mouth you feed, you are, in effect, bringing yourself closer to god.

Thus - no matter which audience - Paul's assertion that it is faith, not works, is insupportable. It isn't what Jesus taught, and is almost a direct contradiction.

On the other hand, and again, it is no matter who the audience is, James teaches that we are 'saved' because we do good things.

I also see the 'substitutional death' as a uniquely Pauline construct, which I don't see supported in the teachings of Jesus... so that argument isn't going to sway me.

I see what you are saying... but stand by my earleir assertion. Jesus makes a pretty clear case for what he believes is the IMPORTANT requirement for 'salvation', and it is not about 'faith', it is not about 'sacrifice', it is not about 'belief'. This, to my thinking, is a Pauline way of looking at Christian teaching.

Jesus basically lists out doing good things for others as the route to salvation... for every hungry mouth you feed, you are, in effect, bringing yourself closer to god.

Thus - no matter which audience - Paul's assertion that it is faith, not works, is insupportable. It isn't what Jesus taught, and is almost a direct contradiction.

On the other hand, and again, it is no matter who the audience is, James teaches that we are 'saved' because we do good things.

I also see the 'substitutional death' as a uniquely Pauline construct, which I don't see supported in the teachings of Jesus... so that argument isn't going to sway me.

Once again, you're ripping things out of context (a bad way to base a belief).

Paul has plenty to say about "good works" (Ph 2:13)... We're dealing not with "feeding the poor" in Romans, but with "works of the law" as in "Circumcision", "Food Purity Rites" etc.

As for the Substitutionary death being strictly "Pauline", that is not born well in text (1 Peter 1:18;2:24, 1 Jn. 2:2;4:10;Jn 3:16,36;10:11,27-30).

Just as the Pharisees "Law-keeping" in no way granted them special rights to heaven; it also bore that out through Paul to the Romans. Sorry, Grave, your Pharisiatic ideas were rebuked by Christ Himself...

If I decide, to get myself more noteriety, and "Feed" poor people from my excess.... While the "feeding" is a good work, it is no more getting me closer to heaven, than when the King of Assyria invaded Israel, being used as an instrument of discipline upon God's people (of Israel)... And I am under as much condemnation from the selfish intents of my acts, as the Assyrian King was for his (thinking it is his works and power)... No, the works extend from a sense of Faith and Love, not merely being acts in and of themselves... I can do the works of God (as the King of Assyria did), fulfillings God's own will... But if I am acting from bad intent, those "Good Works" do nothing for me towards salvation. And this is exactly what Paul is talking about.

Sorry, but works themselves don't save you any more than a claim to faith saves you.... Do you think that the intent and directions of your act play no part in the final judgement of that act? Do you think adultry is more grievous than coveting another's wife? Merely because one is an act, while the other is mere intent? Are not both grievous acts before God's own judgment? I can do as many "good works" as I want.... But if I am doing it for selfish reasons apart from love of God and Christ.... Does it profit? Should it profit me in salvation? No... God will judge the intent of my heart, just as he does my acts... Neither one excuses the other....

Faith is not an excuse to claim salvation alone, and neither is "works".... They stand and fall together....

Let me get to it. :) It's on my list.

Unfortunately, I have been working long shifts, and Jolt keeps screwing with me (in this thread alone, it has blanked about three (really long) responses because it is having database errors.

I'm also debating in about a dozen other threads, and trying to keep a little up to date on each - so give me time.

Fair enough, my friend. Take your time. I'll check back periodically... I'm otherwise avoiding this discussion, but your comment intregued me.

Once again, you're ripping things out of context (a bad way to base a belief).


I don't 'base my belief' on any of it. I'm a Godless Heathen, remember?


Paul has plenty to say about "good works" (Ph 2:13)... We're dealing not with "feeding the poor" in Romans, but with "works of the law" as in "Circumcision", "Food Purity Rites" etc.


The Matthew 25:31-46 passage was where I brought in the 'feeding the poor' concept... and Paul does expressly say (Second Thessalonians 3:10) that they should starve. It's that simple... to me. I don't see quite where you see the justification for Paul's words, WITHIN Jesus' teaching.

Within Romans, Paul asserts that Jesus' view of works (acts of kindness) to fulfil salvation (Matthew 25) is wrong. Again, it is so obvious to me, I don't see how anyone can see it differently.


As for the Substitutionary death being strictly "Pauline", that is not born well in text (1 Peter 1:18;2:24, 1 Jn. 2:2;4:10;Jn 3:16,36;10:11,27-30).

Just as the Pharisees "Law-keeping" in no way granted them special rights to heaven; it also bore that out through Paul to the Romans. Sorry, Grave, your Pharisiatic ideas were rebuked by Christ Himself...


I appreciate that Christ rebuked the Pharisees... yet, ironically, it is Paul who claimed to be Pharisic (Acts 23:6 "But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee...".


If I decide, to get myself more noteriety, and "Feed" poor people from my excess.... While the "feeding" is a good work, it is no more getting me closer to heaven, than when the King of Assyria invaded Israel, being used as an instrument of discipline upon God's people (of Israel)... And I am under as much condemnation from the selfish intents of my acts, as the Assyrian King was for his (thinking it is his works and power)... No, the works extend from a sense of Faith and Love, not merely being acts in and of themselves... I can do the works of God (as the King of Assyria did), fulfillings God's own will... But if I am acting from bad intent, those "Good Works" do nothing for me towards salvation. And this is exactly what Paul is talking about.


The King of Assyria was not going any of the 'good works' Jesus listed, was he? He was an instrument, yes - but not an instrument of 'good'.

I think Matthew 25 clearly sets a precedent for salvation through kindness... and those kinds of 'good works' are hard to do as acts of 'retribution', I would imagine. The root of kind acts is kindness... and that seems to be what Jesus was preaching.


Sorry, but works themselves don't save you any more than a claim to faith saves you....


And I don't think 'faith' or 'belief' is supposed to save you, at all... according to Jesus. I care not a jot for the other writers. As far as I can tell, Jesus preaches 'good works'... by which, he (and I) mean: acts of kindness.

Any other route to 'god' is folly, I think. I don't think Jesus ever intended to say that you could acheive eternity by simple faith.


Do you think that the intent and directions of your act play no part in the final judgement of that act? Do you think adultry is more grievous than coveting another's wife? Merely because one is an act, while the other is mere intent? Are not both grievous acts before God's own judgment?


Yes, of course. If I covet my neighbours wife, by Christian morality, I have sinned... I have allowed my flesh dominion over my spirit.

But, if I commit adultery, I have ALSO allowed my flesh dominion over the spirit of another. So - the one is far more grevious an act than the other.

And, I know you can argue that the 'thought is the deed'... but my neighbour and his wife are never affected by MY sin, until I act upon it.


I can do as many "good works" as I want.... But if I am doing it for selfish reasons apart from love of God and Christ.... Does it profit? Should it profit me in salvation? No... God will judge the intent of my heart, just as he does my acts... Neither one excuses the other....

Faith is not an excuse to claim salvation alone, and neither is "works".... They stand and fall together....

I don't think you can, legitimately, do 'good works' for a selfish reason. That sounds oxymoronic... like fighting for peace.

By the same token, however, surely you must see that Pascal's Wager must share the same flaw?

To 'believe' in Jesus, to achieve salvation? Should it profit?

The thing is - you and I agree that the works are needed... and we probably both agree that the works are ROOTED in the faith (or in the desire to be 'good', at least).

Thus - both of us have issue, honestly, with Paul - because he declares works dead.

I am not arguing that you should do works IN ORDER to be saved... but, if you read the passage I cited (Matthew 25:31-46), Jesus clearly shows that the way to salvation IS good works... in fact - that whole passage almost specifically DENIES the concept of direct salvation through faith, or even the concept that you HAVE to follow Christ... so long as you follow HIS teaching.

In fact - I have definite suspicion that THAT was what Jesus was trying to sell... He said 'believe in me'... and I think he meant, "believe my teaching"... not "believe I am god".

The only way to God is through Jesus' TEACHING.

James continues this thought - he shows that faith is not justification WITHOUT works. It is ONLY Paul that preaches the irrelevence of works.

And that is not the ONLY time he contradicts that part of Jesus teaching (the ministry of Matthew 25:31-46). Jesus tells us we will acheive our salvation through feeding the poor... Paul flies straight in the face of this.

Second Thessalonians 3:10 "For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat".

Paul is the enemy of Christlike thinking.

Christ said "I am the way the truth and the life", not my teachings are the way the truth and the life. He talks about believers being grafted into the "True Vine", Himself. Yes, there is a componant of following His words/teachings, but John 3:16-20 make it pretty clear that it is His sacrifice for sin that saves us and the Matt. 25 passage you mentioned is in the context of what actions provide evidence of having accepted that salvation, not the means by which one obtains that salvation.

A theology professor friend of mine says it like this, "Works won't save you, but you won't be saved without them." This idea brings the teaching of James, Christ and Paul, and Peter and John for that matter into a harmony.

As for the passage you mentioned where Paul talks about not enabling those who refuse to work though able bodied, is not in conflict with Christ's teach on the poor. It is possible to be charitable to the poor while still insisting tha they do what they are able. The two concepts are not mutually exclusive...

I think perhaps someone here has abbreviated Paul’s message too harshly.

James was right, but so was Paul. If you have faith, you will have works. If you have works, but have no faith, you have nothing. In the end, Have faith, if you do, you will have works.

But more importantly, neither of them (Paul or James) contradicts Christ’s teachings whatsoever. You confuse yourself by first thinking of Jesus as an Essene and thinking that he might have been inspired by Buddhism. But with that in your mind you think of him as a teacher only, as the others and you expect him to endorse the same things as they did and not be the savior.

You hear some of his words but you don’t listen to what he was saying because you think you already know what he is saying (you expect him to sound like an essene Buddhist should sound).

People that want to think like that end up completely ignoring or disregarding the meaning of the other stuff that Jesus said and talked about. Such as; the way and the truth. When He said: to see him was to see the Father, and to Love the Father was to Love him, and when the disciples asked him to show them the Lord, he turned YOU hear ‘how can you ask me that, you should have known better than to ask…"

But what he said was:

John 14 8-14
"Philip said, "Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us."

Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'? Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves. I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may bring glory to the Father. You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.

In defense of Paul:

II Timothy 2: 14 and 15:
Keep reminding them of these things. Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen. Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.

It sounds like he expects work (s) as well as faith…

Christ said "I am the way the truth and the life", not my teachings are the way the truth and the life. He talks about believers being grafted into the "True Vine", Himself. Yes, there is a componant of following His words/teachings, but John 3:16-20 make it pretty clear that it is His sacrifice for sin that saves us and the Matt. 25 passage you mentioned is in the context of what actions provide evidence of having accepted that salvation, not the means by which one obtains that salvation.


You know me, PR... you know I am not going to accept John's word OVER Jesus. If there are important words in the New Testament, those words are the words of Jesus - not the commentators who came later (like John or Luke), nor those who claim to be messengers of Jesus (like Paul).

Where someone says something that modifies Jesus - I stick to Jesus.

So - while John claims that salvation is bought with the blood of christ, Jesus doesn't say so - and so, I cannot accept John as anything more than commentator, and fallible.

Regarding the 'way, truth and life' thing... you are aware that the same passage could be translated directly from Hebrew as "I, myself, exist properly and objectively and also genuinely - noone comes to the father but through my means"? Obviously - that is just one possible interpretation... but, even in the KJV translation, Jesus isn't saying that his death = salvation, or that his intercession = salvation. He just says he 'is the way'... and that seems to me to refer to his his life, his message and his example.


A theology professor friend of mine says it like this, "Works won't save you, but you won't be saved without them." This idea brings the teaching of James, Christ and Paul, and Peter and John for that matter into a harmony.


I agree that this is agreement with James and Jesus... but I still don't see how Pauls' words can be made to fit.


As for the passage you mentioned where Paul talks about not enabling those who refuse to work though able bodied, is not in conflict with Christ's teach on the poor. It is possible to be charitable to the poor while still insisting tha they do what they are able. The two concepts are not mutually exclusive...

I still don't buy it... Jesus preached generosity and kindness... it was pretty much all of his ministry. Pauls' comments don't differentiate between able-bodied and disabled... he just says any that will not work, will not eat.

I don't 'base my belief' on any of it. I'm a Godless Heathen, remember?

I didn't say that...


The Matthew 25:31-46 passage was where I brought in the 'feeding the poor' concept... and Paul does expressly say (Second Thessalonians 3:10) that they should starve. It's that simple... to me. I don't see quite where you see the justification for Paul's words, WITHIN Jesus' teaching.

Oh, what a way to refute a claim of you ripping something out of context, by ripping something else out of context....

You do of course realize he is talking about "some of you are living in idleness, mere busybodies, not doing any work." Men standing around, reaping sustinance, expecting the Lord to Come at any moment.... We're not talking about the "poor" here.... We're talking about people who refuse to do anything, though capable of it.


Within Romans, Paul asserts that Jesus' view of works (acts of kindness) to fulfil salvation (Matthew 25) is wrong. Again, it is so obvious to me, I don't see how anyone can see it differently.

It's obvious to you, because you would get an failing mark in reading comprehension.

Obviously you missed the part: "For he will render to every man according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life;" and "For he is not a real Jew who is one outwardly, nor is true circumcision something external and physical. He is a Jew who is one inwardly, and real circumcision is a matter of the heart, spiritual and not literal. His praise is not from men but from God." - "But if through my falsehood God's truthfulness abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner? And why not do evil that good may come? --as some people slanderously charge us with saying."... "For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law...... Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law."

I appreciate that Christ rebuked the Pharisees... yet, ironically, it is Paul who claimed to be Pharisic (Acts 23:6 "But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee...".


The King of Assyria was not going any of the 'good works' Jesus listed, was he? He was an instrument, yes - but not an instrument of 'good'.

The judgment of God, is not good?


I think Matthew 25 clearly sets a precedent for salvation through kindness... and those kinds of 'good works' are hard to do as acts of 'retribution', I would imagine. The root of kind acts is kindness... and that seems to be what Jesus was preaching.

And Paul was obviosult preaching something different (as long as you don't actually read what he said, but only pluck sentences out randomly to support a claim).


And I don't think 'faith' or 'belief' is supposed to save you, at all... according to Jesus. I care not a jot for the other writers. As far as I can tell, Jesus preaches 'good works'... by which, he (and I) mean: acts of kindness.

Jesus preaches "Good works" as does Paul and the other writers... except GOOD WORKS is not the end all and be all of the message. Perhapse you need to spend some more time actually READING the passages, instead of plucking out those little tidbits you "like", and then using non-associative, and non-contextual remarks from others, to refute them, and base your perverse ideas off of.


Any other route to 'god' is folly, I think. I don't think Jesus ever intended to say that you could acheive eternity by simple faith.

Nor could you achieve it by simple "works"...


Yes, of course. If I covet my neighbours wife, by Christian morality, I have sinned... I have allowed my flesh dominion over my spirit.

But, if I commit adultery, I have ALSO allowed my flesh dominion over the spirit of another. So - the one is far more grevious an act than the other.

More greivous? You mean God sees different sins differently? So, murder isn't as bad as hitting someone, and disobeying God is not as bad as hating Him.... Degrees to sin? Pfft.. I'd like to see you justify that one...


And, I know you can argue that the 'thought is the deed'... but my neighbour and his wife are never affected by MY sin, until I act upon it.

I don't argue that the "thought is deed" except in the context that Christ Himself argued it....

""You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.' But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart."


I don't think you can, legitimately, do 'good works' for a selfish reason. That sounds oxymoronic... like fighting for peace.

You can't? So, let's say I open a soup kitchen to feed the poor.... So I can get a tax write-off.... It is oxymoronic, becuase it's not a "good work" to begin with (by intent) though it might do good for those it is acted upon.... And there are people who claim to "fight for peace"...


By the same token, however, surely you must see that Pascal's Wager must share the same flaw?

Pascal's wager is flawed... Because the intent is wrong.


To 'believe' in Jesus, to achieve salvation? Should it profit?

The thing is - you and I agree that the works are needed... and we probably both agree that the works are ROOTED in the faith (or in the desire to be 'good', at least).

Thus - both of us have issue, honestly, with Paul - because he declares works dead.

Works are dead, if taken outside of faith and love. The Jews in Rome were using their "rite keeping" purity laws to "Boast" of themselves, and press their agendas in the congregation.... The "works are dead" being operations of selfish personal desires, and grasp of power, as opposed to acts of love towards God... The same concept of ideas the Pharisees used in opposition to Jesus, even as far as laying claim to Paul that he does not "follow the whole law"... Which he also (as shown) refuted.... Paul is saying the same thing to puritanical Jews in Rome, that Christ said to the Pharisees... Their messages are geared to the people they are talking to.... When Jesus talked to the woman at the well, he's telling her (a sinner) about faith love and forgiveness.... When he's talking to Pharisees, he uses the law against them.... When Paul is talking to Roman Jews, following Pharisatic purity rites; he uses the law against them... When he's talking to the church at Phillipi, he's commending their "good works"... James is talking to Antinomians, who feel that faith is all you need... James condemns that.... When he's writing to the congregations at Thesalonica, he's talking to congregations ransaked with people who refuse to work, instead (by will, not necessity) live off the work of others.... ABUSING the charity of the congregation... No single verse should be a basis for a doctrine... the entirety of the writtings should be taken into account.... If you actually READ and Study the Pauling epsitles, and look at the context and audience... He wasn't contradicting anybody... Except some of the errors being commited by people of those congregations...

Sure, you may not see how it is possible for you to "do good works from bad intentions..." Was it "good" for Roman Jews to maintain their food rites? According to Paul it was...... Was it good for them to boast of their purity rites to gain influence and pass judgement upon others? No it wasn't... What proffit is their purity rights (while good) if used to do bad things?

You, discount Paul, because you think he's being Antinomian; there are plenty of Christians that use the same passages you spout from Paul's epistles to justify antinomianism.... They are just as guilty as you of taking Paul's messages our of context... I don't believe the Antinomians are correct, Paul himself, as well as a bulk of the testaments refute their claims.... Merely because they pervert the message, doesn't mean I reject the original message.... Any more than the fact that the Pharisees perverted Old Testament law, means I reject the Old Testament...

I think perhaps someone here has abbreviated Paul’s message too harshly.

James was right, but so was Paul. If you have faith, you will have works. If you have works, but have no faith, you have nothing. In the end, Have faith, if you do, you will have works.

But more importantly, neither of them (Paul or James) contradicts Christ’s teachings whatsoever. You confuse yourself by first thinking of Jesus as an Essene and thinking that he might have been inspired by Buddhism. But with that in your mind you think of him as a teacher only, as the others and you expect him to endorse the same things as they did and not be the savior.

You hear some of his words but you don’t listen to what he was saying because you think you already know what he is saying (you expect him to sound like an essene Buddhist should sound).

People that want to think like that end up completely ignoring or disregarding the meaning of the other stuff that Jesus said and talked about. Such as; the way and the truth. When He said: to see him was to see the Father, and to Love the Father was to Love him, and when the disciples asked him to show them the Lord, he turned YOU hear ‘how can you ask me that, you should have known better than to ask…"

But what he said was:

John 14 8-14
"Philip said, "Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us."

Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'? Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves. I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may bring glory to the Father. You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.

In defense of Paul:

II Timothy 2: 14 and 15:
Keep reminding them of these things. Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen. Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.

It sounds like he expects work (s) as well as faith…

Interesting... now you are telling me what I believe?

I didn't say I thought Jesus was an Essene, adn I haven't let that 'colour' my vision. If you read my post, you'll see that my vision of what Jesus taught has led me to the conclusion (not the other way round) that Jesus was 'most likely' (look back at my wording) an Essene.

I am not trying to fit Jesus into an Essene mould... I am saying that his teachings resemble Essene thought to the extent that he 'most likely' WAS raised an Essene (remember, we have a few decades of Jesus' life totally undocumented).

I also didn't say I thought he was a Buddhist - I said the argument could be made.

Of course, I do think of him as a teacher only, because I do not believe that he was 'messiah', and I certainly see no reason to believe he was anything other than a mortal man. But, that is the conclusion.. not the shaper of the argument.

I doubt that you could say the same, in all honesty. You have to believe Jesus was Messiah (even though it makes a mockery of the religion of the Hebrews) BECAUSE you already think that he was 'god'.

What did Jesus mean about seeing god in him? How about the fact that we ALL contain 'god', or the potential. We ALL have the ability to attain salvation. It is certainly possible to easily read that... "The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work"... Jesus is perhaps claiming that the message is divine and he is the messenger... that God works through him.

You colour his words, because of your belief. You cannot see any other meaning except for the 'indwelling god'.

I didn't say that...


No - I did. I do not 'base belief' on any of Paul's teachings, or otherwise. I have no 'belief' in Paul, nor even in Jesus.

I am an Implicit Atheist... my 'belief' (or lack of it) is not 'based on' the teachings of ny one prophet or apostle.


Oh, what a way to refute a claim of you ripping something out of context, by ripping something else out of context....

You do of course realize he is talking about "some of you are living in idleness, mere busybodies, not doing any work." Men standing around, reaping sustinance, expecting the Lord to Come at any moment.... We're not talking about the "poor" here.... We're talking about people who refuse to do anything, though capable of it.


Well, firstly... that's only according to Paul's judgement. What HE considered to be worthwhile activity. Secondly - I stuill don't actually recall Jesus saying that anyone should be forbidden food. Quite the opposite, in fact.



It's obvious to you, because you would get an failing mark in reading comprehension.


On the contrary, my friend. My comprehension is very good. (I have GED scores and GCSE scores to prove it).

Perhaps your own comprehension is clouded by your belief, acting as a filter?


Obviously you missed the part: "For he will render to every man according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life;" and "For he is not a real Jew who is one outwardly, nor is true circumcision something external and physical. He is a Jew who is one inwardly, and real circumcision is a matter of the heart, spiritual and not literal. His praise is not from men but from God." - "But if through my falsehood God's truthfulness abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner? And why not do evil that good may come? --as some people slanderously charge us with saying."... "For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law...... Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law."


And yet, STILL Paul is the only one who preaches vicarious substitution... it sounds as though you are guilty of the same crime you accuse me of...


The judgment of God, is not good?


The judgement was, arguably, good. That is irrelevent. The King was not carrying out 'good works'... he was another example of the 'evil' that God visited upon others. His 'evil' was an instrument of God... that doesn't make it 'good'.


Jesus preaches "Good works" as does Paul and the other writers... except GOOD WORKS is not the end all and be all of the message. Perhapse you need to spend some more time actually READING the passages, instead of plucking out those little tidbits you "like", and then using non-associative, and non-contextual remarks from others, to refute them, and base your perverse ideas off of.


I've read the passages, and the book. I think that the heart of Jesus' ministry can be summed up in two points:

One: Ignore all the books, the supposedly wise teachers, the prophets, those who would preach THEIR version of religion. Religion is personal, and nobody else can explain it to you, or tell you what it means.

Two: Do good things, because they are the passage to eternity.

Jesus didn't preach vicarious substituion. Jesus didn't preach that he WAS god. Jesus didn't preach salvation by faith.

Colour your beliefs of Jesus by the other texts if you wish, but you are not a Christian if you do... just someone using his name.


Nor could you achieve it by simple "works"...


I disagree. The words of Jesus (the ONLY words worth consideration) seem to say otherwise.


More greivous? You mean God sees different sins differently? So, murder isn't as bad as hitting someone, and disobeying God is not as bad as hating Him.... Degrees to sin? Pfft.. I'd like to see you justify that one...


You have read the Bible, yes?

You are aware that all sins can be forgiven, except one?

Obviously, there must be at least TWO levels of 'sin'.

Also - there are two different tiers of 'abomination', also... so again.. we see divided 'levels' of sin.

I'm also not sure why you placed your sins in sucha counter-intuitive order? Why would anyone argue that hitting was worse than murder?

I don't understand your logic.


I don't argue that the "thought is deed" except in the context that Christ Himself argued it....

""You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.' But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart."


Yes. In his heart. SHE is unaffected by that sin. SHE is only affected by that sin if you do MORE than commit it 'in your heart'.


You can't? So, let's say I open a soup kitchen to feed the poor.... So I can get a tax write-off.... It is oxymoronic, becuase it's not a "good work" to begin with (by intent) though it might do good for those it is acted upon.... And there are people who claim to "fight for peace"...


It wasn't a 'good' work.. it was just a work that had good effects. Jesus preached charity and kindness. You can't claim 'charity and kindness' for your tax write-off.


Pascal's wager is flawed... Because the intent is wrong.


And because it is fallacious.


Works are dead, if taken outside of faith and love. The Jews in Rome were using their "rite keeping" purity laws to "Boast" of themselves, and press their agendas in the congregation.... The "works are dead" being operations of selfish personal desires, and grasp of power, as opposed to acts of love towards God... The same concept of ideas the Pharisees used in opposition to Jesus, even as far as laying claim to Paul that he does not "follow the whole law"... Which he also (as shown) refuted.... Paul is saying the same thing to puritanical Jews in Rome, that Christ said to the Pharisees... Their messages are geared to the people they are talking to.... When Jesus talked to the woman at the well, he's telling her (a sinner) about faith love and forgiveness.... When he's talking to Pharisees, he uses the law against them.... When Paul is talking to Roman Jews, following Pharisatic purity rites; he uses the law against them... When he's talking to the church at Phillipi, he's commending their "good works"... James is talking to Antinomians, who feel that faith is all you need... James condemns that.... When he's writing to the congregations at Thesalonica, he's talking to congregations ransaked with people who refuse to work, instead (by will, not necessity) live off the work of others.... ABUSING the charity of the congregation... No single verse should be a basis for a doctrine... the entirety of the writtings should be taken into account.... If you actually READ and Study the Pauling epsitles, and look at the context and audience... He wasn't contradicting anybody... Except some of the errors being commited by people of those congregations...

Sure, you may not see how it is possible for you to "do good works from bad intentions..." Was it "good" for Roman Jews to maintain their food rites? According to Paul it was...... Was it good for them to boast of their purity rites to gain influence and pass judgement upon others? No it wasn't... What proffit is their purity rights (while good) if used to do bad things?


I have read and studied the Pauline epistles. I think he is anti-Christ.


You, discount Paul, because you think he's being Antinomian; there are plenty of Christians that use the same passages you spout from Paul's epistles to justify antinomianism.... They are just as guilty as you of taking Paul's messages our of context... I don't believe the Antinomians are correct, Paul himself, as well as a bulk of the testaments refute their claims.... Merely because they pervert the message, doesn't mean I reject the original message.... Any more than the fact that the Pharisees perverted Old Testament law, means I reject the Old Testament...

Your choice. I think that following the Pauline teachings and calling yourself Christian is hypocritical. But, that's just my opinion.

Jesus said more than just tell people to be good to each other...

Matthew 16 13-20
When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?"

They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets."

"But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?"

Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.

Or...

Matthew 17 18-23

Jesus rebuked the demon, and it came out of the boy, and he was healed from that moment.

Then the disciples came to Jesus in private and asked, "Why couldn't we drive it out?"

He replied, "Because you have so little faith. I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there' and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you."

When they came together in Galilee, he said to them, "The Son of Man is going to be betrayed into the hands of men. They will kill him, and on the third day he will be raised to life." And the disciples were filled with grief.

There is very much more to his message than purely "be nice"

Jesus said more than just tell people to be good to each other...

Matthew 16 13-20
When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?"

They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets."

"But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?"

Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.

Or...

Matthew 17 18-23

Jesus rebuked the demon, and it came out of the boy, and he was healed from that moment.

Then the disciples came to Jesus in private and asked, "Why couldn't we drive it out?"

He replied, "Because you have so little faith. I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there' and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you."

When they came together in Galilee, he said to them, "The Son of Man is going to be betrayed into the hands of men. They will kill him, and on the third day he will be raised to life." And the disciples were filled with grief.

There is very much more to his message than purely "be nice"

Yes... he also said that enough faith in something can do wonders, and that the Pope has the right to change the laws of heaven.

And?

A few comments maketh not the ministry.

The point was/is, that to pretend that Jesus said of himself that he was only a teacher, is the same as pretending that there is only partial gospels and not four, and to selectively dismiss the passages that disagree with that proposal.

Thomas Jefferson got so mad about the scriptures that didn't agree with him that he wrote his own version of the gospel so it would be easier for him to skip over the stuff he didn't like... Perchance you use his copy and that's why you think Jesus never said anything in accordance to the salvation Paul spoke about?

In the end, there is the last scripture on the matter of what Jesus did and was for, as he himself said.


"You are Israel's teacher," said Jesus, "and do you not understand these things? I tell you the truth, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony. I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things? No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man. Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God."

The point was/is, that to pretend that Jesus said of himself that he was only a teacher, is the same as pretending that there is only partial gospels and not four, and to selectively dismiss the passages that disagree with that proposal.


There are only two true Gospels. The other two are written by non-witnesses - and thus, should be accorded only the acuracy and relevence to which they can be corroborated with the OTHER Gospels.

And - you really need to pay attention to what I type, if you want to argue with it. Did I say that Jesus said of himself 'that he was only a teacher'? Or did I say that Jesus taught... which is a far different prospect.

I can understand you getting all 'bent out of shape' over the possibility that Jesus might have been mortal - but your reasoning for that is not logical, nor based on the facts - but, is an emotional response to something that isn't even implicit in scripture.

Remember, it was several generations AFTER Jesus did his final sacrifice bit, before the 'christian' consensus became one that Jesus was somehow MORE than mere man.


Thomas Jefferson got so mad about the scriptures that didn't agree with him that he wrote his own version of the gospel so it would be easier for him to skip over the stuff he didn't like... Perchance you use his copy and that's why you think Jesus never said anything in accordance to the salvation Paul spoke about?

Unfortunately, I do not have a copy of that scripture, and you would do well to avoid such commentary in the future. Your arrogance is misplaced... since I probably have more different bible 'versions', in more languages, than you do, my friend... It wouldn't be that uncommon - most of the alleged Christians I know read but one version of the Bible, and have never even read it in the native tongues.


In the end, there is the last scripture on the matter of what Jesus did and was for, as he himself said.


"You are Israel's teacher," said Jesus, "and do you not understand these things? I tell you the truth, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony. I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things? No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man. Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God."


Are we quoting John? Who.. wasn't even there?

Personally, I think the commonly accepted version of this passage is wrong, anyway - I think this is another one of those cases where people CONFUSE the testimony of two people, as being that of ONE person.

Red-letter Bibles ALWAYS give the entirety of the passage (John 3:10-21) as though it were the words of Jesus - but, it seems to me that the passage is clearly a brief word from Jesus, and a shed-load of commentary from John.

Thus:

The words of Jesus: "Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things? Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness... If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?"

Followed by the commentary of John "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven. And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

After these things came Jesus and his disciples....."


So - I guess it's a matter of interpretation. You WILL believe the whole passage to be Jesus speaking, because you wish it so, because it reinforces your view of Jesus.

I am more objective. What can clearly be attributed to Jesus (there are similar 'conflicts' in the Adam story... however, that is a different story), I attribute to Jesus. But, where there should be doubt, or where it makes more textual 'sense' to interpret it otherly, so I shall.

Even a basic encyclopedia knowledge of the scripture will tell us that you claim to have more knowledge than you can. Meaning, there is no clear consensus on the issue of how many gospels there were. The theory goes that Mark inspired two, one for Hebrew and one for Gentile, and that John was written later for the already converted… however, I believe you do know enough to have known this, but I’ll post it so that we both know where the other is coming from…

There are more gospels than only the 4 dominating that have been included in the New Testament: Mark, Matthew, Luke and John. The Gospel according to Thomas was found in the Nag Hammadi excavation in 1947-49 and is of some importance, especially for religious historians. Other gospels include the Gospel of Mary and the Gospel of the Hebrew, but these are seldom given much attention, and the only partially found, Gospel of Peter is known to us.

The four canonical Gospels were probably all written in Greek, but we have only copies of works previously existing, (Thomas which was written in old Coptic) but used Aramaic sources to reconstruct works and sayings of Jesus.

The oldest gospel is most likely Mark, and can be dated to around 70 CE, or 32-40 years after the time of Jesus' death. The 3 other gospels of the New Testament belong to the period of 80- 100 CE (the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas dates to around 200 CE).

For the gospels, it is believed that there may have been an original source, now lost to us, which by scholars is called Q. There is however, no evidence of any kind for this theory, it is the product of investigation on how literary presentations of this time came to be materialized.

So unless you have a copy of Q in your possession, I think you speculate as much as anyone else. You suggest that the stuff you don’t like should be omitted, then you back it up your ‘logic’ for it, but you have no archaeologically substantiated claim at being able to claim the passages you don’t like are newer than the passages you do like.

The oldest copies in existence do not omit them the passages, all of the oldest gospels we have (even non-canonical gospels) claim Jesus as divine, so your theory suggests that this must have been added before any of the copies we have were written.

How this relates to Paul’s letters (the real topic of this discussion) is that Pauls writings are in fact older than the oldest copies of the gospels that we have. They obviously reference Jesus as divine at that time as well (before 70 B.C.E.), giving your theory of being added later, only thirty for forty years to occur and well within the period of physical human memory (meaning they could be checked against eye-witnesses).

So again, outside of ideology, what claim can you make that says Paul Changed Jesus from man to divine against the will of Jesus the man? You espouse through faith, faith that you are right, but you have even less archaeological evidence than I do, because all of the physical evidence we have references him as divine. So you theory is simply unsupported supposition.

Okay - this isn't all that clearly written, my friend.. I'm having some problems working out just what you are getting at.

You might want to rework it into a more user-friendly format.

I'm going to TRY to answer it, as best I can.

Even a basic encyclopedia knowledge of the scripture will tell us that you claim to have more knowledge than you can. Meaning, there is no clear consensus on the issue of how many gospels there were. The theory goes that Mark inspired two, one for Hebrew and one for Gentile, and that John was written later for the already converted… however, I believe you do know enough to have known this, but I’ll post it so that we both know where the other is coming from…


How much 'knowledge' did I claim? How much knowledge do I have?

You are making insupportable assumptions... and I'm not sure which part of my behaviour you are even basing them on.

You raised the topic that there were 4 Gospels - so, I assumed you meant Canonical Gospels. There is something of a consensus on the matter that Mark and Matthe were PROBABLY written by possibl witnesses, and that Luke and John were written based on (at best) second-hand accounts.

Thus, I mentioned that your '4 Gospels' was, in terms of direct testimony of events, at best 2 Gospels.

I have NO reason to believe those 2 Gsopels valid, either... I am just saying, they have the BEST possibility of being real witness testimony.


There are more gospels than only the 4 dominating that have been included in the New Testament: Mark, Matthew, Luke and John. The Gospel according to Thomas was found in the Nag Hammadi excavation in 1947-49 and is of some importance, especially for religious historians. Other gospels include the Gospel of Mary and the Gospel of the Hebrew, but these are seldom given much attention, and the only partially found, Gospel of Peter is known to us.


Of course, I know this... my research of scriptural material is far from limited to just the canonical texts.

I'm not sure what the significance of your comment IS. You had already suggested (with your '4 gospels') that you were discussing Canonical texts.

I think, perhaps, you imagined yourself somehow superior, in that you had knowledge of these other texts. SOrry to burst your bubble, friend.


The four canonical Gospels were probably all written in Greek, but we have only copies of works previously existing, (Thomas which was written in old Coptic) but used Aramaic sources to reconstruct works and sayings of Jesus.


And...?


The oldest gospel is most likely Mark, and can be dated to around 70 CE, or 32-40 years after the time of Jesus' death. The 3 other gospels of the New Testament belong to the period of 80- 100 CE (the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas dates to around 200 CE).


Okay...

(Actually, we don't KNOW when Thomas originates... if it is NOT pseudepigraphical, we cna assume it is based ona much earlier text).


For the gospels, it is believed that there may have been an original source, now lost to us, which by scholars is called Q. There is however, no evidence of any kind for this theory, it is the product of investigation on how literary presentations of this time came to be materialized.

So unless you have a copy of Q in your possession, I think you speculate as much as anyone else. You suggest that the stuff you don’t like should be omitted, then you back it up your ‘logic’ for it, but you have no archaeologically substantiated claim at being able to claim the passages you don’t like are newer than the passages you do like.


I didn't claim to discuss anything about 'Q'. As you said, we are in the realms of scriptural guess-work, there. Again - I'm not sure what this commentary is AIMED at? Are we not discussing the Canonical text?

What did I claim should be omitted? I have claimed that, TO ME, the IMPORTANT words are those of Jesus... I never claimed that the other words should be removed. You are constructing Strawmen again.

Also - what has the 'newness' of the passage to do with anything?


The oldest copies in existence do not omit them the passages, all of the oldest gospels we have (even non-canonical gospels) claim Jesus as divine, so your theory suggests that this must have been added before any of the copies we have were written.


Do not omit WHICH passages?

Where do the oldest gospels claim Jesus as divine?

Are you not aware that Jesus' 'divinity' was a matter of contention for quite some time AFTER his death?

I think you READ somethings as 'divinity' that are perhaps not as necessarily 'divine' as you see them. ANd, the only reason you assume they are about 'divinity', is because of the tradition of accepting Jesus as God... NOW.


How this relates to Paul’s letters (the real topic of this discussion) is that Pauls writings are in fact older than the oldest copies of the gospels that we have. They obviously reference Jesus as divine at that time as well (before 70 B.C.E.), giving your theory of being added later, only thirty for forty years to occur and well within the period of physical human memory (meaning they could be checked against eye-witnesses).


How do Paul's letter 'obviously reference Jesus as divine'?

I didn't say the concept od divinity was ADDED later. I said it was DECIDED later. Another of your straw-friends bties the dust.

But - you, yourself, admit that there was at least a 30 year period during which changes COULD have easily been made to scriptural texts. You do, however, ignore the fact that 30-40 years AT THAT TIME, and in that place, would probably have been longer than MOST people would have lived.

And, of course, memory is a fragile thing. Perhaps you have heard of the memory studies where the investigators asked over and over if visitors remembered meeting Daffy Duck (I think it was), at Disneyland. After a while, they got a frighteningly high percentage positive response.


So again, outside of ideology, what claim can you make that says Paul Changed Jesus from man to divine against the will of Jesus the man? You espouse through faith, faith that you are right, but you have even less archaeological evidence than I do, because all of the physical evidence we have references him as divine. So you theory is simply unsupported supposition.

I am not espousing through faith at all, my friend. I am espousing ONLY through what is IN the scripture. Unfortunately, your faith renders you impervious to 'logic'.

There is no 'physical evidence' of Jesus as divine... all there is is SCRIPTURAL evidence. And scripture is subjective, and prone to mistakes... to alterations... to omissions... to the vagaries of memory, and to interpretation.

Perhaps you should stop telling me what I KNOW about Canonical and non-Canonical tests and thoughts, and do a little research into the early church beliefs about the mortality/divinity of Jesus.

Things are not as cut-and-dry as you believe.

Okay - this isn't all that clearly written, my friend.. I'm having some problems working out just what you are getting at.

You might want to rework it into a more user-friendly format.

The entire post was a reminder of the actual archaeological record, what we know and when we knew it. Meaning, it was primarily a summary of the recorded gospels. It had very little to do with theology.


You raised the topic that there were 4 Gospels - so, I assumed you meant Canonical Gospels. There is something of a consensus on the matter that Mark and Matthe were PROBABLY written by possibl witnesses, and that Luke and John were written based on (at best) second-hand accounts.
Actually, the current theory goes that Mark was first and that Matthew came later, and the author must have been aware of Mark and referenced it for source. But the main point I was getting at is that their form, their structure and substance are known to us to a certain date and time. It makes a window of opportunity to exist for alterations, if any, were done to it.

I have NO reason to believe those 2 Gsopels valid, either... I am just saying, they have the BEST possibility of being real witness testimony.
That’s really the center of this isn’t it? Even, if they find a two thousand year old gospel called ‘Q’ tomorrow in the burial box of some ancient figure, you aren’t going to believe it. And that’s fine. That’s up to you; but to sit there and pretend that the gospels don’t say what they are supposed to say because ‘you’ve’ used logic to determine what they ‘should’ say is just absurd,

Of course, I know this... my research of scriptural material is far from limited to just the canonical texts.

I'm not sure what the significance of your comment IS. You had already suggested (with your '4 gospels') that you were discussing Canonical texts.

I think, perhaps, you imagined yourself somehow superior, in that you had knowledge of these other texts. SOrry to burst your bubble, friend.
I don’t care how much studying you’ve done, it makes absolutely zero sense and is not a convincing argument to say, I believe what it says when you quote it is wrong, but here, when I quote what Jesus said and I cane compare it to what Paul said and it’s something.



(Actually, we don't KNOW when Thomas originates... if it is NOT pseudepigraphical, we cna assume it is based ona much earlier text).
No, you can’t assume that, there is no reference to it in other, older writings. You can make suppositions about it being older but you have to try to find more evidence for it to displace the other theories that it was written later. Perhaps you study the theological side but have paid little attention to the archaeological side? I’m not sure, I’ve asked before but you’ve never said where or what you study, only that you can read it and that you study it.



I didn't claim to discuss anything about 'Q'. As you said, we are in the realms of scriptural guess-work, there. Again - I'm not sure what this commentary is AIMED at? Are we not discussing the Canonical text? No, you didn’t claim anything about Q, I was suggesting for you to be able to substantiate your position that the gospels we do have are wrong, you would have to have a copy of the Q that said what you said it would say.



What did I claim should be omitted? I have claimed that, TO ME, the IMPORTANT words are those of Jesus... I never claimed that the other words should be removed. You are constructing Strawmen again.

Every time you suggest that the scripture is wrong, or has been added to, you suggest that it should be changed so that it is fixed. Where’s the strawman? Your argument is the strawman. You say it over and over again. Some made up and unsubstantiated changes that you say could have and therefore must have logically occurred despite the archaeological records showing that they didn’t occur…


Also - what has the 'newness' of the passage to do with anything? A newer passage is a passage that is written into one transcript but missing in an older transcript, showing ‘added’ scripture or changed gospel. This has not occurred.


Where do the oldest gospels claim Jesus as divine? You’ve got to be kidding. Try reading the last chapter of any of the gospels and tell me that they don’t claim that via resurrection Jesus is divine.



Are you not aware that Jesus' 'divinity' was a matter of contention for quite some time AFTER his death? Nope. I’m not so confident in your knowledge about this field of study anymore. You tell us what you are talking about. Who, when, where? The very basics will do. However, beware, you’ve already got me using 1st century scripture, you can’t start using second or third century Gnostics. You’re that suggested Paul made it up, so the original must be older than Paul or your theory is moot point.

[
How do Paul's letter 'obviously reference Jesus as divine'? Wasn’t that the entire topic of this thread? Paul, Saint or Satan? And you’ve said Paul changed it, made salvation via faith instead of works etc., etc., etc.



I didn't say the concept od divinity was ADDED later. I said it was DECIDED later. Another of your straw-friends bties the dust.

If it wasn’t added later, then it can’t be decided later. I believe you are talking about Church doctrine though, forth century perhaps? What’s that got to do with what Paul wrote or the authenticity of his message?


I am not espousing through faith at all, my friend. I am espousing ONLY through what is IN the scripture. Unfortunately, your faith renders you impervious to 'logic'.

There is no 'physical evidence' of Jesus as divine... all there is is SCRIPTURAL evidence. And scripture is subjective, and prone to mistakes... to alterations... to omissions... to the vagaries of memory, and to interpretation.

There you go again, saying that it was wrong, omissions, and alterations etc. Prove it. Prove any omissions or whatnot. Your ‘Logic’ dictates a lot of stuff that you don’t seem to be able to substantiate.

Perhaps your own comprehension is clouded by your belief, acting as a filter?

Everyone's comprehension is clouded by something. Remember, Grave, that you are not infallible either. What seems very obvious to you may not seem obvious to another.

We all come to different conclusions with the same input. That doesn't necessarily mean that any one of us is more or less rational than the others.

One: Ignore all the books, the supposedly wise teachers, the prophets, those who would preach THEIR version of religion. Religion is personal, and nobody else can explain it to you, or tell you what it means.

Two: Do good things, because they are the passage to eternity.

You missed something here. That is, love God with all your heart. What is the most important commandment? "Love God with all your heart and do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

I disagree. The words of Jesus (the ONLY words worth consideration) seem to say otherwise.

One could argue that one who loves God with all their heart has faith in God. Thus, faith is one of the "good works" that one must carry out.


As for the faith v. works thing. There are all sorts of ways of looking at it. I lean towards the views of Abelard, that Christ's purpose was to turn people towards God in love, rather than in fear. If this love is present, then one will want to do good in the world, as this would be honoring God.

If it walks like a Pharisee, and it talks like a Pharisee, most likely it's a Pharisee.

Everyone's comprehension is clouded by something. Remember, Grave, that you are not infallible either. What seems very obvious to you may not seem obvious to another.

We all come to different conclusions with the same input. That doesn't necessarily mean that any one of us is more or less rational than the others.


I appreciate that everyone approaches material differently, and I have never claimed infallibility. However, I believe that Ph33rdom is incapable of seeing a non-divine version in the scripture, BECAUSE of what he 'knows'... despite the lack of consensus for quite some time AFTER Jesus, as to whether he might be divine or not.

Obviously, then, it cannot be THAT obvious in scripture.


You missed something here. That is, love God with all your heart. What is the most important commandment? "Love God with all your heart and do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

One could argue that one who loves God with all their heart has faith in God. Thus, faith is one of the "good works" that one must carry out.


That is something we should 'do'... but is it something we 'need' for salvation?


As for the faith v. works thing. There are all sorts of ways of looking at it. I lean towards the views of Abelard, that Christ's purpose was to turn people towards God in love, rather than in fear. If this love is present, then one will want to do good in the world, as this would be honoring God.

Which is fair enough. And, a reasonable interpretation.

I don't think it necesarily follows, though... but that is your belief.

From what I can read, Jesus was saying that it is this kindness to strangers which is the big thing... and I can see that IF YOU LOVE god, you will probably do nice stuff... but I don't think it HAS to be the logical and only progression.

That’s really the center of this isn’t it? Even, if they find a two thousand year old gospel called ‘Q’ tomorrow in the burial box of some ancient figure, you aren’t going to believe it. And that’s fine. That’s up to you; but to sit there and pretend that the gospels don’t say what they are supposed to say because ‘you’ve’ used logic to determine what they ‘should’ say is just absurd,


It would depend on what 'Q' was, where it was found, and who the ancient figure transpired to be. I would study it. I would look at it in the context of other evidence... but I wouldn't immediately believe ANYTHING, no matter what, without corroboration.

Also - just because it is old, doesn't make it true.


I don’t care how much studying you’ve done, it makes absolutely zero sense and is not a convincing argument to say, I believe what it says when you quote it is wrong, but here, when I quote what Jesus said and I cane compare it to what Paul said and it’s something.


I don't know what you mean... are you referring to a specific instance?


No, you can’t assume that, there is no reference to it in other, older writings. You can make suppositions about it being older but you have to try to find more evidence for it to displace the other theories that it was written later. Perhaps you study the theological side but have paid little attention to the archaeological side? I’m not sure, I’ve asked before but you’ve never said where or what you study, only that you can read it and that you study it.


You really need to start reading what I TYPE, rather than what you want/expect to see: "if it is NOT pseudepigraphical, we can assume it is based on a much earlier text".

See how it is qualified? See how I didn't make the assumption, but said that an assumption COULD be made, if something ELSE was first ascertained?

I'm not saying I can prove 'Thomas' to be older... I am saying it matters whether or not 'Thomas' is a Pseudepigraphical text.


Every time you suggest that the scripture is wrong, or has been added to, you suggest that it should be changed so that it is fixed. Where’s the strawman? Your argument is the strawman. You say it over and over again. Some made up and unsubstantiated changes that you say could have and therefore must have logically occurred despite the archaeological records showing that they didn’t occur…


The strawman is that I have never said that scripture should be changed.

Even if the Bible is one hundred percent bullshit, where have I said that such material should be destroyed? Or even changed?

I believe there is value to the Bible - that it can contain some truth... I also believe that the modern translations miss things that are in the native tongues... but, where have I recommended that one version be 'dropped' in favour of another?

Now that you have brought the subject up, I shall explain what I do feel - such that you can stop telling me what I feel. I think that the Bible should be presented in the following format:

The native Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic text on one page, the received English translation on the other page.

Further, I would like to see the 'received' page ALSO showing the literal translations of words and phrases - perhaps as subtext to each translated verse.

Lastly, I would like each page/double-page to have a commentary - possibly separate, but preferably on the pages... maybe in the same way dictionaries sometimes do - a separated bar across the bottom. This section could give background, history of the text, history of the translation, reasoning, connections to other parts of the text, connections to other theology, and explanations of concepts and terms.


You’ve got to be kidding. Try reading the last chapter of any of the gospels and tell me that they don’t claim that via resurrection Jesus is divine.


Resurrection isn't necessarily divine. Someone CLAIMING resurrection is divine doesn't make it divine. Someone saying it is divine doesn't make the resurrected body divine.


Nope. I’m not so confident in your knowledge about this field of study anymore. You tell us what you are talking about. Who, when, where? The very basics will do. However, beware, you’ve already got me using 1st century scripture, you can’t start using second or third century Gnostics. You’re that suggested Paul made it up, so the original must be older than Paul or your theory is moot point.


Try examining the Council of Nicaea, look up Lucian, Paul of Samasota or Arius. Try looking at the three Councils of Antioch.

The first few hundreds of years of 'christianity' were far less than united over their policy on Jesus' divinity.


If it wasn’t added later, then it can’t be decided later. I believe you are talking about Church doctrine though, forth century perhaps? What’s that got to do with what Paul wrote or the authenticity of his message?


Rubbish. You and I could be Hebrew scholars poring over the Hebrew text... and suddenly come to the conclusion that one word was being mistranslated. If our arguments were persuasive, and our evidence compelling... others might agree. It would have been 'decided' three millenia after it was 'written'. You don't need to add or subtract in the scripture, to change what is 'decided'.


There you go again, saying that it was wrong, omissions, and alterations etc. Prove it. Prove any omissions or whatnot. Your ‘Logic’ dictates a lot of stuff that you don’t seem to be able to substantiate.

'Prone to' omissions, etc. Read what I type.

In an attempt to summarize and refocus this discussion;
(Bold added by me)


-There is no 'physical evidence' of Jesus as divine... all there is is SCRIPTURAL evidence. And scripture is subjective, and prone to mistakes... to alterations... to omissions... to the vagaries of memory, and to interpretation.

Perhaps you should stop telling me what I KNOW about Canonical and non-Canonical tests and thoughts, and do a little research into the early church beliefs about the mortality/divinity of Jesus.

Things are not as cut-and-dry as you believe.


-I appreciate that everyone approaches material differently, and I have never claimed infallibility. However, I believe that Ph33rdom is incapable of seeing a non-divine version in the scripture, BECAUSE of what he 'knows'... despite the lack of consensus for quite some time AFTER Jesus , as to whether he might be divine or not.

Obviously, then, it cannot be THAT obvious in scripture.


-Try examining the Council of Nicaea , look up Lucian, Paul of Samasota or Arius. Try looking at the three Councils of Antioch.

The first few hundreds of years of 'christianity' were far less than united over their policy on Jesus' divinity.

From the quotes above, I think perhaps I’m seeing the primary problem with your theory. You seem to be suggesting: the church needed to introduce a council to focus the Christian, on divinity and teachings et-al., that there were competing ideas that were dismissed and lost, that had as much claim to legitimacy as the ones that was accepted. You take that impression and run with it, thinking that there were competing theologies from the very beginning. That Jesus’ teachings were interpreted differently since very first; Perhaps you would say, like a great number of streams flowing into the one current church, one river after the council of Nicaea, as we know it now.

However, this is not the actual case of what happened. You are mistaken when you suppose that the differences were happening from the very beginning and was resolved only after, or at, the council of Nicaea.

Admittedly, shortly after the initial time that the disciple’s were dispersed, some variety was introduced, but much of that was resolved in the time of the Book of Acts.

Historically speaking, the “Good News” of Christianity was actually very uniform in the beginning and changed only later, little changes came over time. Different changes in different places, but mainly that started after the Roman persecution of Christians (Nero’s charges were against a nearly uniform Church in 64 B.C.E.).

Then again, after the time when Gospels were recorded about 32-60 years after Jesus death (70-110 B.C.E. after people started to wonder how long it would be before Jesus return they began to think it needed to be recorded since the eye-witnesses themselves were dying off) It became, but only over generations, very different to practice Christianity from one place or city to the next place or city, especially as the years passed and the individual church customs evolved in near isolation from each other.

Although they all started out with the nearly vary same message (different only because it was recalled and verbally shared by different people in different places) everywhere, each church (one per city in essence) didn’t have the benefit of a written version of the word from every place, to maintain their beliefs with each other over the passing generations.

Some three hundred year later, some very bizarre and unchristian practices were being done in the name of Jesus. The collective church forefathers had the realization that something had to be done. They decided to convene and share all of their documents together, and go through all of the various practices that had been adopted over the years differently from place to place, and bring together for the first time all of the books and letters were held at different place, for the purpose of and eliminating the nonsense and issue decrees about what is, and what is not, Christianity so that everyone would know and be able to better preserve the original Christianity.

The council of Nicaea, staying with our example above, has been accused in modern times of having banned and burned hundreds of other books or versions of the gospel, but that is simply not true and vastly over-emphasized. By the end of the council of 318 bishops the acceptance of the agreed to outcome was not just generally accepted, it was enthusiastic and nearly all inclusive.

All the bishops save five declared themselves ready to subscribe to this formula, convince that it contained the ancient faith of the Apostolic Church. The opponents were soon reduced to two, Theonas of Marmarica and Secundus of Ptolemais, who were exiled and anathematized. Arius and his writings were also branded with anathema, his books were cast into the fire, and he was exiled to Illyria.

But the accounts of Eusebius, Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, and Rufinus may be considered as very important sources of historical information, as well as some data preserved by St. Athanasius, and a history of the Council of Nicaea written in Greek in the fifth century by Gelasius of Cyzicus.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11044a.htm


And now, with the historical archaeological records of our modern sciences, we can see just how incredibly good they were at weeding out the Gnostic stuff.

So in the end, practicing Christianity was not as you think it, all kinds of different stuff coming together by force, but rather, like a family tree starting with the same trunk, but spreading ever outwards from the same beginning, and pruned from time to time. I suggest that your version/belief, is of the tree upside-down.

The Nicean council was formed to combat two primary "heresies".... Namely that of "Gnosticism" and "Schismaticism". Schismatics and Gnostics believed in multiple gods, representing "Good" and "Evil", generally denied the bodily form of Christ, instead as a personified "spirit" as opposed to a person, flesh and blood; and that "matter" was essentially "evil".

Each point in the Nicean creed, forumated by the council, was a rebutal of the Gnostic and Sschismatic positions...


I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible;

As opposed to Gnosticism; There is ONE God, not two. Who created the material, and empowers the spiritual... Gnostics believed that the "good" God, in heaven, handled spiritual realms.... An "evil" God created matter...


And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, begotten of his Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made; who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; he suffered and was buried; and the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father; and he shall come again, with glory, to judge both the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.

Not just a "spirit" being of the "Good" God. Both flesh and spirit. A real person of history... Flesh and Spirit... Born as a man... living as a man... dying as a man.... Gnostics believed that Christ was a "spirit-being", was not actually a "man" at all (not flesh and blood), did not actually "die", and was not actually "resurrected"... All of it being "spiritual" since "flesh" is inherantly evil.


And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord, and Giver of Life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spake by the Prophets.

The Spirit is part of God... not a mystical force or magic to be used by the "spiritual elite"... (as proposed by Gnostics)... But, Himself, a being of God, and God... Not something attained, or "used", but "given" by God. Gnostics believed the spirit was "magical force" that could be manipulated by the "spiritual elite" [magi].


And I believe one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church; I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come.

That is, despite multitude of government, and "groups" there is but "one" Church (composed of all believers everywhere) [sometimes called the "invisible church" by some theologies]... Not merely composed of the "elite" or the "officers"... but of all believers. Gnostics believed that the saved were a special "spiritual" elite, who through "knowledge" could attain a higher "plane" of existance. That the ultimate goal of man, was to attain this plane...

Gnostics were also heavily "antinomian" (against the Law)... They viewed the "law" itself as "evil" and a product of the "evil god" of matter... Man was to use the magical "spirit" and gain control over the spiritual realm through this "magic" (and thereby fight the physical realm).... "Good works" did not necessarily matter... Since "earthly works" were "evil".

Simon MAgnus was one of the first Gnostics... Marcion, Arius, Mani and many others following the teaching of the MAgician MAgnus.... Gnosticism is still alive today, in the "Word-Faith" movement, and in circles dominated by Kenneth Copeland, K.C. Price, etc... as well many in the "charismatic" circles.

The Nicean Council also determined (in light of Persecution in the Roman empire) what constitutes the "New Testament" scriptures. Gospel's like the one Thomas wrote, were rejected, due to being heavily modified by the Gnostics... Others like that of Peters, did not exist in full record at that time (incomplete or partial epsitles) and so were also rejected.

*snip*

Are you posting that as "FYI: more info for everyone, establishing a clearer picture of what is being discussed etc.,?" Or did you mean to address it at any one argument or position in general?

If so, I hope not mine because I don't have any problem with it... It looks pretty accurate to me (without going through with a fine tooth comb or anything like that).

Are you posting that as "FYI: more info for everyone, establishing a clearer picture of what is being discussed etc.,?" Or did you mean to address it at any one argument or position in general?

If so, I hope not mine because I don't have any problem with it... It looks pretty accurate to me (without going through with a fine tooth comb or anything like that).

Partially in response to views that the "Councils" were set to be "devisive" or "alter" anything.... Mostly, FYI. As to the full context of what, and to what, they were designed to address.

Jesus is God... nuff said.

Paul is probably the most influential figure in the New Testament and to Christendom, besides Jesus... Paul literally built the church and was the first to really spread the gospel. Paul was a great christian, one of the all-time greats.

To refer to Paul as Satan would be blasphemous to Jesus. Paul did what Jesus told people to do in the Great Commission: spread the Word.

Paul wrote about half of the New Testament, including Romans 10:9-10, which is one of the two or three top passages for knowing how to be saved.

He also wrote 1 Corinthians 13, which is one of the most beautiful chapters in the Bible.

He made it clear -- emphasizing Jesus' point in John 3:16 -- that we are saved by faith, not by baptism (how anyone could think that an infant could decide to follow Jesus is anyone's guess... Jesus made it clear that one must repent of his sins and ask Jesus' forgiveness, believing Jesus to be the Son of God... infants can't make such choices. So if i'm baptized as a baby but grow up to not follow christ, I am lost. This is not to say that baptism is a bad thing -- it is a good thing, much better if done when older -- but the act of baptism does not save people.)

It could be said that Paul was the first big-name Protestant: faith over baptism.

I've not waded through the six pages of this thread, so forgive me if someone has already made this point.

What this all really comes down to is whether or not you're willing to believe that 1) Jesus was divine, 2) that he spoke to Paul and that Paul was doing Jesus' will in his forming of the church and 3) that the church fathers who followed Paul were acting with divine aid and fully understood what Paul, and through Paul, Jesus, required of them. Now if you accept that, then to say Paul is anything other than a saint is, indeed, blasphemous.

But if you have doubt about any of that--and there are reasonable people who do, even Christians, then Paul's standing becomes a little more hazy, and considering the history of christianity in general over the last two thousand years, I'd say there's lots of room for discussion as to just how linked into the mind of Christ Paul actually was, and to an even greater degree, the church fathers who followed Paul.

I mean, there's no way to logically link the teachings of Christ to actions like the Inquisition, the Crusades, the persecution of Jews and Muslims, the consent to the slave trade, the endless wars that have been waged over religious and secular issues that have had the full backing of churches and religious leaders. I mean, looking at christianity's history, it's hard not to come to the conclusion that something got seriously fucked up along the way, and as Paul was the first major influence in Christianity's rise to a global religion, he's a good place to start. I guarantee you that other thinkers that followed him have had huge effects on the path of Christianity, and the history of the church is a fascinating (and lifelong) study, but why not consider Paul at least for starters, as not being quite the person that the Bible and the church present him as being?

"If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give away all I have, and if I deliver my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing. Love is patient and kind, love is not jealous or boastful; it is not arrogant or rude. Love does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrong, but rejoices in the right. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things."

Goes well with his complaints in Romans.... to those using "the law" and "works" as a way boasting, to create jealousy, to show arrogance in "eliteness", and use as force to get their way in the congregations....

"Good works" can be done for "bad reasons".... Paul's message... If the good works do not come from "love" and "faith" in God..... they are nothing.... a Very simple message.... misunderstood most of the time, by most people... It's funny to see fundamentalists use Romans 1 as a reason for being so judgemental, and yet, Romans 2 shows that Romans 1 is a REBUKE upon the very same type that use their "works" as validation for their hatred and judgment of others.... Yes, sinners "deserve condemnation" (from God); however, your works, no matter the number of "good" works you act out, do not make you judge of others... You yourself are not the judge and jury of others... And if you act out of jealousy, strife, and power-mongering; no matter if you give away all your money to do so.... It is a worthless act, which comes to nothing.

Yes, I may act out to feed the poor around me, and assist all those I can....

If I do such out of love and faith, it is a good work I do...

If I do such out of power-mongering, and gaining "elitism" amongst the brethren; it is nothing.... It is nothing but an evil operation of a wicked heart...

God may use the "evil" of such a person for "good" in feeding those destitute... But their work gains them "nothing" before God's most holy judgement....

Likewise, I may claim love and faith.... But as James has said, such is "dead" faith if it does not "operate".... AS Jesus says, such "bears no fruit" and it shows what the source actually is (not love at all).... If God works in us, good works, out of His goodness (Philippians 2:13); how can we claim love and faith, if there be no "fruit" (works) of faith?

Living faith bears Fruit (Jesus, Paul and James)... And it is that "living faith" which saves (bearing the fruit of Good works).... Works alone, not out of love, but out of selfish pride... are nothing... Faith alone (the claim of it), which shows no love, and no "fruit" (works) is dead faith (not faith at all), and is nothing...

Partially in response to views that the "Councils" were set to be "devisive" or "alter" anything.... Mostly, FYI. As to the full context of what, and to what, they were designed to address.

I don't think anyone HAD suggested that the Council of Nicaea WAS to be divisive... quite the opposite in fact.

Constantine convened the Council, initially, to force disputing factions to come to a mutual peace... although he modified this somewhat when he realised just how complex the situation really was - and that it wasn't just going to 'go away'.
The ultimate function became to create one set 'creed', which all the church members present could sign onto...although it ALSO served as the tool of excision for those who would not toe the party line.

"If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give away all I have, and if I deliver my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing. Love is patient and kind, love is not jealous or boastful; it is not arrogant or rude. Love does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrong, but rejoices in the right. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things."

Goes well with his complaints in Romans.... to those using "the law" and "works" as a way boasting, to create jealousy, to show arrogance in "eliteness", and use as force to get their way in the congregations....

"Good works" can be done for "bad reasons".... Paul's message... If the good works do not come from "love" and "faith" in God..... they are nothing.... a Very simple message.... misunderstood most of the time, by most people... It's funny to see fundamentalists use Romans 1 as a reason for being so judgemental, and yet, Romans 2 shows that Romans 1 is a REBUKE upon the very same type that use their "works" as validation for their hatred and judgment of others.... Yes, sinners "deserve condemnation" (from God); however, your works, no matter the number of "good" works you act out, do not make you judge of others... You yourself are not the judge and jury of others... And if you act out of jealousy, strife, and power-mongering; no matter if you give away all your money to do so.... It is a worthless act, which comes to nothing.

Yes, I may act out to feed the poor around me, and assist all those I can....

If I do such out of love and faith, it is a good work I do...

If I do such out of power-mongering, and gaining "elitism" amongst the brethren; it is nothing.... It is nothing but an evil operation of a wicked heart...

God may use the "evil" of such a person for "good" in feeding those destitute... But their work gains them "nothing" before God's most holy judgement....

Likewise, I may claim love and faith.... But as James has said, such is "dead" faith if it does not "operate".... AS Jesus says, such "bears no fruit" and it shows what the source actually is (not love at all).... If God works in us, good works, out of His goodness (Philippians 2:13); how can we claim love and faith, if there be no "fruit" (works) of faith?

Living faith bears Fruit (Jesus, Paul and James)... And it is that "living faith" which saves (bearing the fruit of Good works).... Works alone, not out of love, but out of selfish pride... are nothing... Faith alone (the claim of it), which shows no love, and no "fruit" (works) is dead faith (not faith at all), and is nothing...

Well, that is your interpretation, and you are, of course, welcome to believe it... but you ignore those who do good works, but do not 'believe', which you seem to think is core to the doing of those works.

I think too many people encounter Christianity as a built-artifact, and never stop to make a ground-up view of the whole thing.

In an attempt to summarize and refocus this discussion;
(Bold added by me)

<snip>

So in the end, practicing Christianity was not as you think it, all kinds of different stuff coming together by force, but rather, like a family tree starting with the same trunk, but spreading ever outwards from the same beginning, and pruned from time to time. I suggest that your version/belief, is of the tree upside-down.

You are very fond of telling me what I believe...

You are wrong. I see that the infant Christianity expanded and extrapolated, but it did not do so from one root.

The only constant was Jesus - and after that, the seeds of dissent WERE sown, whether or not you agree (I don't expect you to). Which is part of the reason that I value the Post-Jesus scripture very differently to the Pre-Crucifixion ministry.

I think Paul was a heretic... that's my belief, and you can't deny me that choice. I think Jesus would have refuted Paul's version of his ministry... but, of course, he couldn't, could he? I think Jesus would have had a lot to say about claims of Paul performing 'miracles'... I think Paul (and his followers who wrote records in his memory, no doubt) thought perhaps there was space for two messiahs...

But, even Paul was aware of the divisions within the Church - it is not the united front you pretend... even at the first.

First Corinthians 1:12-3 "Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ... Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? "

In fact - Paul was responsible for division, was he not?

Acts 15:37-41 "And Barnabas determined to take with them John, whose surname was Mark. But Paul thought not good to take him with them, who departed from them from Pamphylia, and went not with them to the work. And the contention was so sharp between them, that they departed asunder one from the other: and so Barnabas took Mark, and sailed unto Cyprus; And Paul chose Silas, and departed, being recommended by the brethren unto the grace of God. And he went through Syria and Cilicia, confirming the churches".

Well, that is your interpretation, and you are, of course, welcome to believe it... but you ignore those who do good works, but do not 'believe', which you seem to think is core to the doing of those works.

I think too many people encounter Christianity as a built-artifact, and never stop to make a ground-up view of the whole thing.

Actually, I don't.... I recognize people who do not "love God" can do works which are good (as a whole to society)... Just that those "Good works" aren't "Good" in the absolute sense of the term.

You're the one who refuses to acknowledge the fact that people most certainly can and do what are essentially beneficial acts to others, from intentions which are in fact arrogant and lustfull.

Much like the Pharisees of old, you spend your time molding a god out of your own image...

Jesus recognized that what is in your heart most certainly defiles you.... You refuse to accept even what Jesus said, if it does not line up with what this idol you have created is supposed to be like.... You've taken the beatitudes, and concocted an entire religion after it, ignoring everything else outside of it, that does not line up with this false belief... Including anything else Christ Himself had said.

I actually feel sorry for you...

You are very fond of telling me what I believe...

You are wrong. I see that the infant Christianity expanded and extrapolated, but it did not do so from one root.

The only constant was Jesus - and after that, the seeds of dissent WERE sown, whether or not you agree (I don't expect you to). Which is part of the reason that I value the Post-Jesus scripture very differently to the Pre-Crucifixion ministry.

I think Paul was a heretic... that's my belief, and you can't deny me that choice. I think Jesus would have refuted Paul's version of his ministry... but, of course, he couldn't, could he? I think Jesus would have had a lot to say about claims of Paul performing 'miracles'... I think Paul (and his followers who wrote records in his memory, no doubt) thought perhaps there was space for two messiahs...

But, even Paul was aware of the divisions within the Church - it is not the united front you pretend... even at the first.

First Corinthians 1:12-3 "Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ... Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? "

In fact - Paul was responsible for division, was he not?

Acts 15:37-41 "And Barnabas determined to take with them John, whose surname was Mark. But Paul thought not good to take him with them, who departed from them from Pamphylia, and went not with them to the work. And the contention was so sharp between them, that they departed asunder one from the other: and so Barnabas took Mark, and sailed unto Cyprus; And Paul chose Silas, and departed, being recommended by the brethren unto the grace of God. And he went through Syria and Cilicia, confirming the churches".

Paul was not responsible for the division.... People were (which is why he rebuked them for making claims of being to others than Christ [including those who claimed Paul]). Paul didn't want to take John Mark, because John had left the ministry before, on an earlier missionary journey.... I find it very convenient that you analyize passages, not by what they say, but by what you want them to say... No one else sees all this you keep trying to poove, because none of it is there... They don't have the pre-determinate bias you impose on the passage before reading it and posting it...

It's all quite sad, really.

*snip*

I want to be a little careful here, you keep misrepresenting what I say...

Chronology of Scripture's age:
Paul's Letters
Gospels
Books of Acts

(NT letters from others are mixed in throughout the entire process)

How is it that you keep saying Paul changed Jesus message, when it is impossible for you to know what Jesus said without someone writing down for you after Paul wrote his letters?

The very logic of your favoring pre-crucifixion scriptures over post-resurrection scripture is in essence nonsensical. The story chronology is not the recorded chronology.

We must, as individuals, choose to accept the scripture together or dismiss it. But to pick and choose, passage by passage, seems to me to be the epitome of self-deception and arrogance. And in your case, it’s lost all logic with the archaeological record as well.

I want to be a little careful here, you keep misrepresenting what I say...

Chronology of Scripture's age:
Paul's Letters
Gospels
Books of Acts

(NT letters from others are mixed in throughout the entire process)

How is it that you keep saying Paul changed Jesus message, when it is impossible for you to know what Jesus said without someone writing down for you after Paul wrote his letters?


I am sceptical of the words of Jesus, as recorded, too.

And yet, you can follow all the words attributed to Jesus (and I have already shown you an example where I think some words have been mis-attributed), and still not follow the words of Paul... even though you may be sceptical of both.

You just don't see it, do you?


The very logic of your favoring pre-crucifixion scriptures over post-resurrection scripture is in essence nonsensical. The story chronology is not the recorded chronology.


What, you mean that the words of Jesus may have actually been things he said after he died?

Or do you just mean - that the scripture wasn't written down, in the order in which the story takes place... In which case... this is hardly ground-breaking news.

It should be fairly evident that (biases aside), whoever wrote Jesus' words would try to get them close to what consensus, or personal recollection, shows.... similarly, the letters of Paul may not ACTUALLY be the very letters... but later transcriptions trying to keep true to the text.

I understand this... and yet, I still see no problem with looking on the words attributed to Jesus, and those attributed to Paul - as being two different things.


We must, as individuals, choose to accept the scripture together or dismiss it. But to pick and choose, passage by passage, seems to me to be the epitome of self-deception and arrogance. And in your case, it’s lost all logic with the archaeological record as well.

Poppycock.

Let me give you a little example:

The Moon is a long way away.
The Moon is a dead rock that orbits the Earth.
The Moon is made of Green Cheese.
The Moon has no known lifeforms.

See - that little list of 'scripture'? You can read it as all being literal, but it will give you problems... for two reasons:

One: The 'Moon' Scripture contains at least ONE element that doesn't fit with known scientific data. Science finds evidence that the Moon is not Cheese.

Two: The 'Moon' Scripture is not INTERNALLY consistent. Thus - reading the set of 'scripture', one can see that the bit about Cheese doesn't SEEM to fit.

So - EVERY person reading scripture makes decisions about what they 'accept' and what they question. If you tell me you think EVERY WORD of the Bible is true, I will call you a liar... since some of it is obviously metaphor, even to the TRUE BELIEVER. (Job's bowels 'boiling', for example).

Just because you can accept parts I cannot accept, gives you no 'superiority' to tell me I am self-deceived... and is not evidence that you are any more 'right' than me, either.

I find it hard to believe that the person who keeps telling ME what I think, and how wrong I am, because there is 'only one possible interpretation' of scripture.... is the same person who accuses ME of being arrogant.

Actually, I don't.... I recognize people who do not "love God" can do works which are good (as a whole to society)... Just that those "Good works" aren't "Good" in the absolute sense of the term.

You're the one who refuses to acknowledge the fact that people most certainly can and do what are essentially beneficial acts to others, from intentions which are in fact arrogant and lustfull.

Much like the Pharisees of old, you spend your time molding a god out of your own image...

Jesus recognized that what is in your heart most certainly defiles you.... You refuse to accept even what Jesus said, if it does not line up with what this idol you have created is supposed to be like.... You've taken the beatitudes, and concocted an entire religion after it, ignoring everything else outside of it, that does not line up with this false belief... Including anything else Christ Himself had said.

I actually feel sorry for you...

So - what about me?

I have worked, voluntarily, for the municipalities of two communities in the area where I live. This made me no money, and actually cost me quite a lot of fuel, etc.

I have a skill which is in demand, and I do get paid for it - but I have ALSO given (over the last 4 years) about one whole working-year of pro bono...

You are saying that I have done this to be 'arrogant' and 'lustful'?

I am a little insulted at your 'god out of my own image' comment... I see no justification for it, and it hardly fits with my belief structure.

You are more than a little insulting... and I wonder WHY you think it is appropriate? Just because I do not share your view of religion? Does that make this behaviour acceptable?

What have I refused to accept, that Jesus said?

What is this 'idol' you say I have created?

How do you justify saying I have created a religion out of the beatitudes?

More to the point... if I had... who are you to say I am wrong?

I would find it curious if someone accused another person of having a heretical Christian church, BECAUSE it focused on Christ.

I am glad you say you feel sorry for me... I can take that as a form of unspoken apology for the way you have acted in this post.

We must, as individuals, choose to accept the scripture together or dismiss it. But to pick and choose, passage by passage, seems to me to be the epitome of self-deception and arrogance. And in your case, it’s lost all logic with the archaeological record as well.

How interesting that you discount the fact that those who believe can ask God for guidance. Thus, the "picking and choosing" (which everyone, believer or not, does) can be God-driven. Or do you not believe that you can pray for guidance and receive it?

How interesting that you discount the fact that those who believe can ask God for guidance. Thus, the "picking and choosing" (which everyone, believer or not, does) can be God-driven. Or do you not believe that you can pray for guidance and receive it?


I will answer your question Dem, differently that I would if the question came from Graven, because he dismisses the authority of the message itself and it's authenticity as scripture at all, and yet still quotes other parts that serve his purpose, and his purpose is to argue that the NT scripture’s message about salvation is a lie. Thus, your question is different and requires a deferent response from me. Essentially, you and I both believe in the Holy Ghost/Spirit…

I am not likely to be as dogmatic as you might assume, so try to read through before responding.

Can we pick and choose our own ‘biblical truths’? No. Can we as Christians say that this is wrong or that is wrong, and have two equally Christian sets of true believers conclusively disagree about what these basic truths are? Yes.

In short, both extremes of the Christian spectrum are guilty (conservative fundamentalist and liberal enablers) and can easily be accused of the same thing - of a yes to this, no to that ~ a no to that but a yes to this, approach to doctrine and acceptance of the faith, and in the end that this limits their (our) scope of Christian belief into oversimplified cultural proclamations of their (our) ideological camps.

There are really, essentially, only two ways that we can interpret scripture. Lets start with a premise, a question of, is “XYZ” a good thing or a bad thing? We will have a built in cultural response to the notion of “XYZ” but as Christians we want to know how we should address it. We can start by taking a ‘scriptural truth’ in the one hand about what it says in regards to XYZ, and our pre-conceived belief of XYZ in the other (which may or may not be true and may be false entirely), and compare them to each other in order to test the two ‘truths’ for validity.

1: If a preconceived belief contradicts a scriptural truth, we can change our preconceived belief and conform it to that scriptural truth.

2: If a preconceived belief contradicts a scriptural truth, we can ignore that scriptural truth, make an exception to that truth, and we try to change that scriptural truth to conform to our preconceived belief.

The first way, according to scripture, is how we walk in righteousness. The second way is how we walk in our own lusts, desires, wants, wishes, foolishness of conscience etc., so that we can live our life the way we want to, without having anyone, including Scripture, interfere in the way we live our lives.

Many people have always believed that it is okay to believe and trust in our own conscience; however, conscience is simply a term for their own desires, enthroned as law and is easily manipulated or incapable of coming to a fully informed decision because we are human and not all seeing. We can be deceived, or even, just simply, make a mistake.

Man could, if left on our own, rationalize anything. This is in particular why a search of the scripture so essential; The Word, or God's Law, acts as a mirror, to reflect the good and evil in our lives (James 1:23-25).

23Anyone who listens to the word but does not do what it says is like a man who looks at his face in a mirror 24and, after looking at himself, goes away and immediately forgets what he looks like. 25But the man who looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues to do this, not forgetting what he has heard, but doing it—he will be blessed in what he does.

With that in mind, how do we distinguish between what seems to be both good and evil, depending on who we are listening to about XYZ, in our modern world?

There is really only one way; by the Word of God as revealed through the Holy Scripture. And sometimes we need to remind ourselves that just because we find passages we don’t like or don't understand, when we want to dismiss it entirely, but the real knowledge comes when we know that the end all of XYZ may not be found in just one quote or just one passage. While we are still searching and praying about XYZ, we do need to remember that it is clear that we can not stop and just give up either, we need to be able to discern between good and evil because even calling good evil and evil good is a sin in itself!

Isaiah 5:20,24 Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.

So we need to stick with it, to research and pray and study about XYZ and never just decide to dismiss the scripture as not holding the answer anymore, assuming that the ‘world has moved on’ or whatever. God says to test all things with scripture, examine all things with God's Word and His Law (Isaiah 8:20, Matthew 12:30, Mark 7:7, 1 Thessalonians 5:21, Titus 1:14, 1 John 4:1, 3 John 1:11, Acts 17:11, 2 Timothy 2:15).

We are to even test what we believe the Holy Spirit is telling us with scripture, otherwise, how are we going to know the difference between the prodding of the Holy Spirit from the prodding of our own desires and wishes and cultural pride? Our preconceived belief may be our pride in our own intellectual strength, a pitfall I bet many of us have around here.

So, yes, I believe answers can come from the spirit, but those answers need to be tested against the scripture. The primary test being, does our answer to XYZ confirm the salvation and Good News of Jesus Christ, or does it not?

paul = corruption of original christian message, sexism, prejudice, and the origin of all of the christian corruption, i believe.

i've spent my life struggling with his teachings. he was one of the reasons i have ultimately rejected christianity, despite the first 10 conscious years of my life being obsessed with the religion.

So - what about me?

What about you? Do you experience some guilt I don't know about merely because I lay claim to the fact that good works can stem from evil intents?


I have worked, voluntarily, for the municipalities of two communities in the area where I live. This made me no money, and actually cost me quite a lot of fuel, etc.

I have a skill which is in demand, and I do get paid for it - but I have ALSO given (over the last 4 years) about one whole working-year of pro bono...

You are saying that I have done this to be 'arrogant' and 'lustful'?

I am saying that people can do it out of arrogant and lustful intents... If you feel it is being directed at your own internal desires as such; that is a problem you need to work out with yourself. I have made no claim to the intents of any specific person. IF you feel this is judgemental to you, it is you reading in the judgement, not me stating it.


I am a little insulted at your 'god out of my own image' comment... I see no justification for it, and it hardly fits with my belief structure.

It fits when you refuse to look at the larger picture; intentionally ignore, or refuse to acknowledge facts, and the like.


You are more than a little insulting... and I wonder WHY you think it is appropriate? Just because I do not share your view of religion? Does that make this behaviour acceptable?

If you feel insulted, it must be an operation of your own conscience. One must wonder why you don't consider lies and deceptive tactics "bad" acts. Because, that is all you have used in this thread.


What have I refused to accept, that Jesus said?

Anywhere where the text of Christ disagrees with you, you merely attribute it to someone else (against context)...


What is this 'idol' you say I have created?

This "idol" is a false "Jesus" constructed out of single verse passages, scattered around, while not accepting anything that does not fix to your predeterminate bias.


How do you justify saying I have created a religion out of the beatitudes?

Because, more or less, that, and a few connected passages, is all you adhere to in doctrine, rejecting everything else.


More to the point... if I had... who are you to say I am wrong?

I don't have to "say" you're wrong, all that's been done is presentation of proof that you indeed are... The text has "prooven" you wrong, including connected texts towards passages you accept.


I would find it curious if someone accused another person of having a heretical Christian church, BECAUSE it focused on Christ.

Accept you're not focused on Christ.... You even reject Him, where he does not allign with your predeterminate bias.


I am glad you say you feel sorry for me... I can take that as a form of unspoken apology for the way you have acted in this post.

I have acted to point out your errors.... It's not an apology, spoken or unspoken, except in that self-deceived mind of yours....

You've prooven yourself to be lustful, deceptive, arrogant, and the like... You adhere to your "good works" like some sort of talisman, likely because, deep inside, you know if judged by your intents, you would fall way short... AT least I rejoice that your conscience is still operative on some deep level, fighting against your pharisiatic nature, and hold-out hope that your own conscience will condemn yourself for the intents of your heart, and bring you into a true understanding of your nature and place... That saving grace is being applied to you are some rudimentary level, working out your own salvation.

paul = corruption of original christian message, sexism, prejudice, and the origin of all of the christian corruption, i believe.

i've spent my life struggling with his teachings. he was one of the reasons i have ultimately rejected christianity, despite the first 10 conscious years of my life being obsessed with the religion.

1. Where was Paul "sexist"? And how did this "differ" from the "Christian Message"?

2. How was Paul prejudicial?

I will answer your question Dem, differently that I would if the question came from Graven, because he dismisses the authority of the message itself and it's authenticity as scripture at all, and yet still quotes other parts that serve his purpose, and his purpose is to argue that the NT scripture’s message about salvation is a lie. Thus, your question is different and requires a deferent response from me. Essentially, you and I both believe in the Holy Ghost/Spirit…


This makes a change.... at least this time you are telling someone else, what you think I believe... rather than telling me.

My purpose isn't to "argue that the NT scripture's message about salvation is a lie" - as you would probably know, if you paid attention.

My purpose is to point out that the NT may contain TWO salvation messages, basically: one from Jesus, and one from Paul.

I happen to believe that salvation would be Jesus' business, not Paul's... and that Paul can, at best, be nothing more than guessing at Jesus' wisdom. But, if you wish to follow the teachings of Paul, that's your lookout... I'd just say it makes you Paulian, rather than Christian.

I had to think about it for a while, before deciding to respond to this... I almost considered it entirely unworthy of dignifying with a response.

How your version of 'christianity' tells you it's okay to be so hateful, judgemental, arrogant and and insulting, I'm not sure.

I guess this is your Paulian learning showing over your Christian.

What about you? Do you experience some guilt I don't know about merely because I lay claim to the fact that good works can stem from evil intents?

I am saying that people can do it out of arrogant and lustful intents... If you feel it is being directed at your own internal desires as such; that is a problem you need to work out with yourself. I have made no claim to the intents of any specific person. IF you feel this is judgemental to you, it is you reading in the judgement, not me stating it.


You basically presented two options. That there were 'good' works that are 'good' because God somehow motivates the spirit... and that there are 'other' good works... that you see as false... you then continued to discuss how false 'good works' are based in lust and arrogance.

If you see the two categorisations: either 'good' because of 'god', or not really 'good' because of being rooted in lust - you are attributing ALL the good works of ALL non-Christians to evil motivations.

I find THAT kind of arrogance hard to swallow. I hope you believe in a forgiving god.


It fits when you refuse to look at the larger picture; intentionally ignore, or refuse to acknowledge facts, and the like.


Irrelevent.... you said I am making an idol... I want you to explain that, not discuss my interpretation of scripture.

You know, I assume, that an Atheist has no 'gods'... it doesn't really seem to fit that I would 'make' one.


If you feel insulted, it must be an operation of your own conscience. One must wonder why you don't consider lies and deceptive tactics "bad" acts. Because, that is all you have used in this thread.


I feel insulted because you are being insulted. I don't accept your psychobabble reasoning that it is a subconscious act of my own conscience. I'd be interested to see if you try the same 'explanation' with racial slurs.

I haven't 'lied' or used 'deceptive tactics' in this thread. Interpretation is subjective - but that doesn't make views that differ from yours 'lies'.

Perhaps I could argue that my message is truer to the spirit of Jesus than you are willing to accept, due to your Paulian indoctrination - and that you would see it if you had sufficient spiritual discernment.


Anywhere where the text of Christ disagrees with you, you merely attribute it to someone else (against context)...


One time, in this thread, have I argued that text attributed to Jesus is INCORRECTLY attributed. That is the John 3:16 passage - and I stand by that. Apart from the fact that red-letter-Bibles show it as Jesus' words - what is your EVIDENCE that Jesus said THOSE words?

For me, it makes more sense (the passage being John's commentary, after all) if you read the reply part as being said by Jesus, and the part about sending his only begotten son (which, let's face it, doesn't match up with Jesus' NORMAL speech) as attributed to John's commentary.


This "idol" is a false "Jesus" constructed out of single verse passages, scattered around, while not accepting anything that does not fix to your predeterminate bias.


Maybe YOUR 'Jesus' is false? You are the one who is trying to argue that we should accept the ministry of a mortal as a modification to the ministry of Jesus.

You should bear in mind that I came at my understanding of Jesus honestly... I HAD NO predeterminate bias. I doubt that you can say the same thing.


Because, more or less, that, and a few connected passages, is all you adhere to in doctrine, rejecting everything else.


I don't 'adhere' to any 'doctrine'... and perhaps that is where you make your mistake. Jesus seemed very clear on the fact that people were more interested on the 'books' than on the spirit of godliness.


I don't have to "say" you're wrong, all that's been done is presentation of proof that you indeed are... The text has "prooven" you wrong, including connected texts towards passages you accept.


I disagree. I have seen nothing that 'proves' that Paul is more important than... or sufficient to alter the teachings of... the very person that the religion is named for.


Accept you're not focused on Christ.... You even reject Him, where he does not allign with your predeterminate bias.


I do not accept Christ, or reject him.


I have acted to point out your errors.... It's not an apology, spoken or unspoken, except in that self-deceived mind of yours....

You've prooven yourself to be lustful, deceptive, arrogant, and the like... You adhere to your "good works" like some sort of talisman, likely because, deep inside, you know if judged by your intents, you would fall way short... AT least I rejoice that your conscience is still operative on some deep level, fighting against your pharisiatic nature, and hold-out hope that your own conscience will condemn yourself for the intents of your heart, and bring you into a true understanding of your nature and place... That saving grace is being applied to you are some rudimentary level, working out your own salvation.

Now you are questioning my motives? And my 'good works' are a talisman?

So - you say 'good works' without 'god' are impossible... and I ask a question about my OWN good works... and now that is somehow talismanic, and indicative of evil intent?

I have a Pharasiatic nature? And yet, you are the one who clings to a taught version of religion, without analysis?

Sorry, friend - but your whole last paragraph is just insults and arrogance. I do not believe that your 'god' or Jesus appointed YOU to judge me, and I doubt that Jesus would laud your efforts.

This is all the work of Paul. If more people were true to Jesus, this kind of post would never happen.

Weeee! I get to expond. First note, this is not faith, I cannot argue with god, because he can smite way better than I can. Yes, everything can be overridden with the argument: God made it so. That being said:
The bible time line
30ce - time of JC
50ce - Palul
70ce - Temple blows up. Essenes fade away. Mark
80ce - Matthew and Luke
90ce- John
100ce - most of the NT writtings done
367ce - current NT is set
367ce - this is the big one: Athanasius sets the cannon appropriate for xian use. They must follow 3 rules. Apostocicity- an apostle had to write it.
Orthodoxy-had to agree with orthodox beliefs
Catholicity-had to be a universal/widely used text.
This one guy had the final say about what went into the bible. This is why there are non cannononical texts out there written by apostles not in the bible.

Paul: Pseudepigrapha - writtings under a false name. Romans 1&2, Corinthians, Galations, Philipians, 1 Thessolonians and Philemon are agreed to be the works of Paul.
NOT PAUL - 1&2 Timmothy, Ephesians, Colossiansm, Titus, 2 Thessolonians, Philemon. These writtings are where most of the contratictions happen.

Pauls belief system simplified: Xianity for Paul begins with death and reserection, not life of JC. Having JC give him knowledge instantly grants him apostlehood. His message was realize JC is a solution to an unknown problem and is backed by God. Saten is Sin and Death. JC beat both so JC is the solution of how to escape death, believe in him. Xian communities are small and scattered so Paul adresses these concerns in his letters by trying to get everyone to follow the same rules: Faith in God, trust in JC, keep your place within authority.

Early xianity was egalitarian and no one was in charge. when the world didn't end (the kingdom of heaven is at hand) the offices of the church were created (Bishop being the highest at the time). Women were with JC, were the ones who burried and discovered the Resurrection. Many women were martyrs for the cause (Theleca, Perpetua, Blandina etc). But equality? By the time of Paul women preachers were becoming discouraged and could support the cause with money etc. as women conformed to sociatal roles. Though the Gnostics and Gospal of Thomas put Marry Magdalin as the top dog of the apostles, recieving secret teachings from JC that the men could not understand.

I don't know that I make any points, but it was ever so much fun. :)
now I know, and knowing is half the battle.

1. Where was Paul "sexist"? And how did this "differ" from the "Christian Message"?

1. Paul as sexist only in the context of our times. Not so bad if you consider he is just reminding people of their proper place in Jewish societiy(man and woman): I Corinthians 11:2
women covering their hair; "For a man out not to have his head veiled, since he is the image and reflection of God; but woman is the reflecction of man. Indeed, man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for the sake of woman, but woman for the sake of man."
*continuing, not so prejudicial*
"Nevertheless, in the lord woman is not independent of man or man independent of woman. For just as woman came form man, so man comes through woman; but all things come from God."

Really Good - Galatians 3:23-28 - not sexist.
......there is no longer Jew of Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male or female; for all of you are one in JC.

really sexist, 1 Timothy 2:8-15(considered to be pseudepigrapha, not Pauline)
....also that women should dress themselves modestly and decently in suitable clothing....as is proper for women who profess reverence for God. Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not decieved, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.

Other good stuff, Romans 16:1-7 Paul name drops church leaders, some of which are women. "I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church at Cenchreae, so that you may welcome her in the lord as is fitting for the saints, and help her in whatever she may require form you, for she has been a benefacotr of many and of myself as well......


As for differing from the xian message....The message given to the apostles from JC (Matthew 10:1-15) "
These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: "Go nowhere amont he Gentiles....but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Isreal. As you go, proclame the good news, 'the kingdom of heaven has come near.'.....Whatever town or village you enter, find out who in it is worthy and stay there until you leave.....if the house is wothy, let your peace come upon it; but if it is not worthy, let your peache return to you. If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town. Truly I tell you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town."

What does this mean? I don't know. I take JC as an apacraphal guy preaching the end of the world (the kingdom of heaven is at hand) So the xian message is get ready, here comes daddy.

paul = corruption of original christian message, sexism, prejudice, and the origin of all of the christian corruption, i believe.

i've spent my life struggling with his teachings. he was one of the reasons i have ultimately rejected christianity, despite the first 10 conscious years of my life being obsessed with the religion.

That's quite sad really, and in a way surprising as well. In his day Paul was about as big a liberal radical as any Jewish apostate could be. In fact, so much so that the other Jewish converts had a hard time keeping up with him and eventually they (in essence) said, "You should go talk to the gentiles because we just can't drop all of our fundamentalism and Jewish ritual at once, not quite so fast... Eating pork and praying with women in the same building, how risqué!"

(I saw that you said prejudice as well, but with that one I don’t know what you are talking about, unless it’s slavery stuff. But slavery then wasn’t a racial thing, it was a political socio-economic thing. Descendants of the Germans, Celts, Spanish, Moroccan/Libyans and Persians might all equally be slaves in the Roman world, it had nothing to do with racial prejudice so I’m not sure what to compare that to, maybe you could clarify?)

Instead of looking the same stuff someone else already has, I’ll quote them to save effort;


Women's roles varied from one region to another, but Paul's writings clearly rank him among the more progressive, not the more chauvinistic, writers of his day. Many of Paul's colaborers in the gospel were women.

Paul commended the ministry of a woman who brought his letter to the Roman Christians (Romans 16:1,2). Phoebe was a servant of the church at Cenchrea. "Servant" may refer to a deacon, a term that sometimes designated administrative responsibility in the Early Church. In his epistles, however, Paul most frequently applied the term to any minister of God's Word, including himself (1 Corinthians 3:5; 2 Corinthians 3:6; 6:4; Ephesians 3:7; 6:21). He also called Phoebe a "succorer" or "helper" of many (Romans 16:2); this term technically designated her as the church's patron or sponsor, most likely the owner of the home in which the church at Cenchrea was meeting. This entitled her to a position of honor in the church.9

Phoebe was not the only influential woman in the church. Whereas Paul greeted about twice as many men as women in Romans 16, he commended the ministries of about twice as many women as men in that list. (Some use the predominance of male ministers in the Bible against women in ministry, but that argument could work against men's ministry in this passage.) These commendations may indicate his sensitivity to the opposition women undoubtedly faced for their ministry and are remarkable, given the prejudice against women's ministry that existed in Paul's culture.

If Paul followed ancient custom when he praised Priscilla, he may have mentioned her before her husband Aquila because of her higher status (Romans 16:3,4). Elsewhere we learn that she and her husband taught Scripture to another minister, Apollos (Acts 18:26). Paul also listed two fellow apostles, Andronicus and Junia (Romans 16:7). Although Junia is clearly a feminine name, writers opposed to the possibility that Paul could have referred to a female apostle,10 suggest that Junia is a contraction for the masculine Junianus. This contraction, however, never occurs, and more recently has been shown to be grammatically impossible for a Latin name like Junia. This suggestion rests not on the text itself, but entirely on the presupposition that a woman could not be an apostle.

Elsewhere Paul referred to the ministry of two women in Philippi, who, like his many male fellow ministers, shared in his work for the gospel there (Philippians 4:2,3). Because women typically achieved more prominent religious roles in Macedonia than in most parts of the Roman world,11 Paul's women colleagues in this region may have moved more quickly into prominent offices in the church (cf., Acts 16:14,15).

Although Paul ranked prophets second only to apostles (1 Corinthians 12:28), he acknowledged the ministry of prophetesses (1 Corinthians 11:5), following the Hebrew Bible (Exodus 15:20; Judges 4:4; 2 Kings 22:13,14) and early Christian practice (Acts 2:17,18; 21:9). Thus those who complain that Paul did not specifically mention women pastors by name miss the point. Paul rarely mentioned any men pastors by name, either. He most often simply mentioned his traveling companions in ministry, who were naturally men. Paul's most commonly used titles for these fellow laborers were "servant" and "fellow worker"–both of which he also applied to women (Romans 16:1,3). Given the culture he addressed, it was natural that fewer women could exercise the social independence necessary to achieve positions of ministry. Where they did, however, Paul commended them and included commendations to women apostles and prophets, the offices of the highest authority in the church.

While passages such as these establish Paul among the more progressive writers of his era, the primary controversy today rages around other passages in which Paul seemed to oppose women in ministry.
Craig S. Keener, Ph.D., is professor of New Testament at Eastern Seminary
http://www.thefatherscry.com/view/?pageID=223321

Actually, I don't.... I recognize people who do not "love God" can do works which are good (as a whole to society)... Just that those "Good works" aren't "Good" in the absolute sense of the term.

Big fan of Augustine, eh?

It fits when you refuse to look at the larger picture; intentionally ignore, or refuse to acknowledge facts, and the like.

This can be said of all people and is very subjective. You feel that Grave is refusing to look at the larger picture. Grave feels that you are guilty of the same thing. To be honest with yourself, you must admit that either might be true.

If you feel insulted, it must be an operation of your own conscience. One must wonder why you don't consider lies and deceptive tactics "bad" acts. Because, that is all you have used in this thread.

Not judgemental at all, eh? And yet you assume that Grave cannot possibly truly believe what he has said here. He must be lying and deceiving, just because he disagrees with you? That's a really wonderful way to look at things.

Anywhere where the text of Christ disagrees with you, you merely attribute it to someone else (against context)...

Again, subjective. Grave feels that he is looking at these things correctly. You feel that he is not. You cannot with certainty say that you are right - anymore than he can. There has been dissent and discussion about what is and is not Scripture, what did and did not happen, what is metaphorical and what is literally true, etc. since the very beginning. What makes you so arrogant as to think that you have it absolutely worked out now?

This "idol" is a false "Jesus" constructed out of single verse passages, scattered around, while not accepting anything that does not fix to your predeterminate bias.

One could argue this of anyone. Do you really think that you know everything there is to know about Christ? Do you think you are absolutely right about Christ? Or might you have some preconceived notions that you can't really do away with?

I have acted to point out your errors.... It's not an apology, spoken or unspoken, except in that self-deceived mind of yours....

You've prooven yourself to be lustful, deceptive, arrogant, and the like... You adhere to your "good works" like some sort of talisman, likely because, deep inside, you know if judged by your intents, you would fall way short...

Yes, yes, you don't insult anyone specific, eh?

Big fan of Augustine, eh?

This can be said of all people and is very subjective. You feel that Grave is refusing to look at the larger picture. Grave feels that you are guilty of the same thing. To be honest with yourself, you must admit that either might be true.

Not judgemental at all, eh? And yet you assume that Grave cannot possibly truly believe what he has said here. He must be lying and deceiving, just because he disagrees with you? That's a really wonderful way to look at things.

Again, subjective. Grave feels that he is looking at these things correctly. You feel that he is not. You cannot with certainty say that you are right - anymore than he can. There has been dissent and discussion about what is and is not Scripture, what did and did not happen, what is metaphorical and what is literally true, etc. since the very beginning. What makes you so arrogant as to think that you have it absolutely worked out now?

One could argue this of anyone. Do you really think that you know everything there is to know about Christ? Do you think you are absolutely right about Christ? Or might you have some preconceived notions that you can't really do away with?

Yes, yes, you don't insult anyone specific, eh?

Thank you, Dempublicents.

You are (as usual) proof of the fact that one CAN be Christian, and still be 'reasonable'.

It's not like I have started a 'church' here. All I (feel I) have been doing, is showing a view that there are people who do NOT accept Paul as Messiah, or equivalent. And now, I seem to be being burned at the stake for my heretical (lack of) belief.

I'm not sure where, exactly, you stand on the whole 'Paul' issue, but your desire to 'heal' rather than 'harm' the sinner, speaks volumes about where you stand on Jesus, I think.

I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned this yet, but here goes:

If the entire bible is sacred and either written by God or inspired by God (IE, writers were commanded what to write) -- i'll let preachers of different faiths debate that one, lol -- and since Jesus (I think) said that it was perfect and should not be messed with, then if you choose to follow the Word, all of it must be respected... including what Paul wrote.

He's taking a lot of crap for ripping on homosexuality, drunkenness, etc... which more or less was mimicry of Old Testament laws. But he also says that what enters a man's mouth does not mark him as a saint or as a sinner... IE, it is what a person believes that counts, what a person professes. Paul hammered home the idea of Faith being the most important aspect/prerequisite of salvation, which jives with Jesus.

I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned this yet, but here goes:

If the entire bible is sacred and either written by God or inspired by God (IE, writers were commanded what to write) -- i'll let preachers of different faiths debate that one, lol -- and since Jesus (I think) said that it was perfect and should not be messed with, then if you choose to follow the Word, all of it must be respected... including what Paul wrote.

He's taking a lot of crap for ripping on homosexuality, drunkenness, etc... which more or less was mimicry of Old Testament laws. But he also says that what enters a man's mouth does not mark him as a saint or as a sinner... IE, it is what a person believes that counts, what a person professes. Paul hammered home the idea of Faith being the most important aspect/prerequisite of salvation, which jives with Jesus.

Or, from a different perspective... Paul's focus is that salvation is granted only by the belief in the divinity of Jesus - which is not something I can see that Jesus has endorsed.

Or, from a different perspective... Paul's focus is that salvation is granted only by the belief in the divinity of Jesus - which is not something I can see that Jesus has endorsed.

Back to the basic's, just because you don't like it doesn't mean he doesn't say it...

Matthew 9 1-6
1Jesus stepped into a boat, crossed over and came to his own town. 2Some men brought to him a paralytic, lying on a mat. When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "Take heart, son; your sins are forgiven."
3At this, some of the teachers of the law said to themselves, "This fellow is blaspheming!"
4Knowing their thoughts, Jesus said, "Why do you entertain evil thoughts in your hearts? 5Which is easier: to say, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Get up and walk'? 6But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins...." Then he said to the paralytic, "Get up, take your mat and go home."

Matthew 11 27-30
27"All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.
28"Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. 29Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30For my yoke is easy and my burden is light."

Matthew 16 16-17
16Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ,[b] the Son of the living God."
17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.

Matthew 19 28
28Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Matthew 25 31- 36
31"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

34"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'

Back to the basic's, just because you don't like it doesn't mean he doesn't say it...

Matthew 9 1-6
1Jesus stepped into a boat, crossed over and came to his own town. 2Some men brought to him a paralytic, lying on a mat. When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "Take heart, son; your sins are forgiven."
3At this, some of the teachers of the law said to themselves, "This fellow is blaspheming!"
4Knowing their thoughts, Jesus said, "Why do you entertain evil thoughts in your hearts? 5Which is easier: to say, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Get up and walk'? 6But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins...." Then he said to the paralytic, "Get up, take your mat and go home."

Matthew 11 27-30
27"All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.
28"Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. 29Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30For my yoke is easy and my burden is light."

Matthew 16 16-17
16Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ,[b] the Son of the living God."
17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.

Matthew 19 28
28Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Matthew 25 31- 36
31"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

34"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'

A very pretty post.

Pointless, of course, because it still doesn't refute what I said... but very nice, nonetheless.

Keep it up.

A very pretty post.

Pointless, of course, because it still doesn't refute what I said... but very nice, nonetheless.

Keep it up.

Matthew 11
'I will send my messenger ahead of you,
who will prepare your way before you.' 11I tell you the truth: Among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. 12From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven has been forcefully advancing, and forceful men lay hold of it. 13For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John. 14And if you are willing to accept it, he is the Elijah who was to come. 15He who has ears, let him hear.

16"To what can I compare this generation? They are like children sitting in the marketplaces and calling out to others:
17" 'We played the flute for you,
and you did not dance;
we sang a dirge
and you did not mourn.' 18For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, 'He has a demon.' 19The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, 'Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and "sinners." ' But wisdom is proved right by her actions."


Matthew 20:28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."

MT 26:28 This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

With this post and the last, It seems to me that he says a lot of things that you say he doesn’t say, such as, he’s the son of God, that all things have been given to him, that he will reign and judge us and that forgiveness of sins is via him and his blood which is poured out for us (for example). Thus, making his version of the Good News not so different than Pauls version afterall.

I had to think about it for a while, before deciding to respond to this... I almost considered it entirely unworthy of dignifying with a response.

How your version of 'christianity' tells you it's okay to be so hateful, judgemental, arrogant and and insulting, I'm not sure.

I guess this is your Paulian learning showing over your Christian.

Pauling vs. Christian again... I have constantly showed you where your error lays... Rebuking someone of a clear and recognizable error is not hateful.


You basically presented two options. That there were 'good' works that are 'good' because God somehow motivates the spirit... and that there are 'other' good works... that you see as false... you then continued to discuss how false 'good works' are based in lust and arrogance.

I discuss how "Goods works" can be done out of lust and arrogance, and not out of love.... The works themselves perform a "Good" act, but from bad intents... It happend every day, all around you... My argument is, that a TRULY good work is done out of love... My arguement is that God judges the acts and HEART... Not merely the acts... The acts themselves do not make up the entire picture of salvation (as you, for some reason, need).


If you see the two categorisations: either 'good' because of 'god', or not really 'good' because of being rooted in lust - you are attributing ALL the good works of ALL non-Christians to evil motivations.

I'm not attributing anything to anyone in particular... Christ's message, primary "love the lord your God, with all your [heart, mind, soul]..." Secondary lays upon the first, "love your neighbour as yourself"... If the "work" is not motivated from "love of God", it's not motivated from "good"... God is the ultimate definer of "Good"... Sure, an act motivated out of "lust" can bring good to another, but it is nothing towards yourself and your salvation before God, not being motivated from "Good", but rather "evil" (against God).


I find THAT kind of arrogance hard to swallow. I hope you believe in a forgiving god.

It's not arrogance, it's the same message Christ gave His disciples, and the same message Paul presented to the Gentile Churches... I find it funny that you don't seem to believe Christ message on the commandments....


Irrelevent.... you said I am making an idol... I want you to explain that, not discuss my interpretation of scripture.

You've made an idol by using scripture via predeterminate bias. Constructing a "false" view of it (not being complete, either in full context, nor even in Christ own message).... Anything short of the COMPLETE truth, is a lie... Therefore, you "construct" a false "Christ-Idol" out of particular passages, and then reject anything you don't "personally" like.... It's a conceptual idol, but an idol none-the-less.


You know, I assume, that an Atheist has no 'gods'... it doesn't really seem to fit that I would 'make' one.

Yet, you have.


I feel insulted because you are being insulted. I don't accept your psychobabble reasoning that it is a subconscious act of my own conscience. I'd be interested to see if you try the same 'explanation' with racial slurs.

I won't even dignify that.


I haven't 'lied' or used 'deceptive tactics' in this thread. Interpretation is subjective - but that doesn't make views that differ from yours 'lies'.

Interpretation relies on using complete texts, and complete testimony. You remove things from context, and reject people bassed upon partiality of statement. When confronted with it, you simply ignore further proof, and continue meaningless positional statements from your predetermined, textually unfounded position.

If I make a statement like, "America was founded in slavery.... An institution completely adverse to its root principles and ideology.... Against the very idea that defines America!"... And then rip "America was founded in slavery" from it, and use it to "proove" (in a position) that I approve of slavery... Anyone who sees my full statement will attribute your remark as a lie; this is no different than what you have done with quotes from Paul, and even Christ... Accepting that which you like, constructing a non-contextual position from singular statements, and use those to prevent fact of position.

Not only are you a liar... You're a prooven liar.


Perhaps I could argue that my message is truer to the spirit of Jesus than you are willing to accept, due to your Paulian indoctrination - and that you would see it if you had sufficient spiritual discernment.

Except that your statement and "message" is alreafy prooven a lie. My Spiritual discernment allows to spot someone who is not using complete truth to back up their claims. Once again, anything less than the COMPLETE Truth is a lie.... And you, sir, are a prooven liar, once again.... You have been called on your deception on multiple accounts.... And you still seem to think you have credibility, or that even others see any credibility in your message (riddled with lies)... One wonder why you have some need to lie... And to continue lying even when it has been shown in the light to be lies.... I must assume your deception and lies are deliberate, since you continue to try to paint them as anything else than what they have already prooven to be, Grave....


One time, in this thread, have I argued that text attributed to Jesus is INCORRECTLY attributed. That is the John 3:16 passage - and I stand by that. Apart from the fact that red-letter-Bibles show it as Jesus' words - what is your EVIDENCE that Jesus said THOSE words?

For me, it makes more sense (the passage being John's commentary, after all) if you read the reply part as being said by Jesus, and the part about sending his only begotten son (which, let's face it, doesn't match up with Jesus' NORMAL speech) as attributed to John's commentary.

I'm not speaking of just that... I'm speaking of CLEAR contradictions (Greatest Commandments, Theif on the Cross). As for your position that it doesn't match up, it proceeds in the same language, and same course, and finishes in the same language. It's clear to you, because you don't want it to be Christ's words... Because it does not match your predetermintive BIAS of what your WANT Christ to say.


Maybe YOUR 'Jesus' is false? You are the one who is trying to argue that we should accept the ministry of a mortal as a modification to the ministry of Jesus.

I'm saying you should read the whole message, and interpret the whole message. Not use the rank prejudice, and then try to make it stick using incomplete testimony (with deceit and lies).

You have ZERO credibility left, Grave...


You should bear in mind that I came at my understanding of Jesus honestly... I HAD NO predeterminate bias. I doubt that you can say the same thing.

Considering I started from the poisition of an Agnostic/Atheist, I had no predetermintive bias. You have a predetermintive bias (as prooven in your inability or unwillingness to use complete testimony), to reject, by not using complete contextual refferences, nor a complete picture of position, as a goal to make a position stick of rejection... You assume "contradiction" by using a single out-of-context statement... I refute by continuing the message presented, and showing what the message is talking about; you counter with another out-of-context remark, which is then refuted again by continuing the message and presenting context of statement (and direction of original message).... You have an absolute NEED for Paul to contradict Christ... (I have no concept as to why you have this need, but it is painfully obvious).

Why should I reject what Paul said, because you can't accept the entire message and need to pull statements out of context, present incomplete testimony. I accept what Christ has said, and I recognize Paul's statements as being no less than what has been presented elsewhere in the entirety of scripture....

Do I need to repeat every single one of your lies, and their direct refutation and correction, over again Grave?


I don't 'adhere' to any 'doctrine'... and perhaps that is where you make your mistake. Jesus seemed very clear on the fact that people were more interested on the 'books' than on the spirit of godliness.

You don't adhere to a "doctrine"? That's impossible.... Unless you simply never learn anything... Doctrine = teaching or lessons.... So, I suppose you don't "adhere" to the "doctrine" of Christ then?And have "learned" nothing from Christ? Feel free to remove your foot from your mouth whenever you like.


I disagree. I have seen nothing that 'proves' that Paul is more important than... or sufficient to alter the teachings of... the very person that the religion is named for.

Paul never altered the teaching of Christ.... That is your particular prejudice to think that he has.


I do not accept Christ, or reject him.

Thus, you're not following any "spirit of godliness"....


Now you are questioning my motives? And my 'good works' are a talisman?

So - you say 'good works' without 'god' are impossible... and I ask a question about my OWN good works... and now that is somehow talismanic, and indicative of evil intent?

I have a Pharasiatic nature? And yet, you are the one who clings to a taught version of religion, without analysis?

Analysis? If you call ignoring context, using partial testimony, and ever single other deceptive tactic "analysis"; no, I don't "analyze" it... I learn about it, and base my position on entire testinomy.


Sorry, friend - but your whole last paragraph is just insults and arrogance. I do not believe that your 'god' or Jesus appointed YOU to judge me, and I doubt that Jesus would laud your efforts.

This is all the work of Paul. If more people were true to Jesus, this kind of post would never happen.

On that your wrong.... Unless you think Christ Himself would also not rebuke the errors of others...... However, on one thing you are right... I kick the dust from my feet... And let you continue in your errors... Your soul is upon your own hands, Grave... I hope you wise up, one day, and realize the errors of your way.

I discuss how "Goods works" can be done out of lust and arrogance, and not out of love.... The works themselves perform a "Good" act, but from bad intents... It happend every day, all around you... My argument is, that a TRULY good work is done out of love... My arguement is that God judges the acts and HEART... Not merely the acts... The acts themselves do not make up the entire picture of salvation (as you, for some reason, need).

Can intent not, in and of itself, be considered an act?

Has Grave not stated that coveting, which is a sin only of intent, can be seen as a sin?

You've made an idol by using scripture via predeterminate bias. Constructing a "false" view of it (not being complete, either in full context, nor even in Christ own message).... Anything short of the COMPLETE truth, is a lie... Therefore, you "construct" a false "Christ-Idol" out of particular passages, and then reject anything you don't "personally" like.... It's aconceptual idol, but an idol none-the-less.

Wow, so what you are saying is that every Christiand and non-Christian, including yourself, has created a false "Christ-Idol". After all, none of us know the COMPLETE truth. Anyone who claims to know it is either God, or a liar.

Once again, anything less than the COMPLETE Truth is a lie....

Once again, you make all human beings, including yourself, a liar.

Because it does not match your predetermintive BIAS of what your WANT Christ to say.

Everyone has a predeterminate bias. We are human beings. We will all read Scripture from the basis of our own ideas. Even those of us who ask for and receive divine guidance in the reading of Scripture are bound by our own fallibility to get some things wrong, often based on our predeterminate biases.

I'm saying you should read the whole message, and interpret the whole message. Not use the rank prejudice, and then try to make it stick using incomplete testimony (with deceit and lies).

You have ZERO credibility left, Grave...

I think, if you are truly trying to bring Grave to your point of view, that insults and accusations are not the way to go. You may think that Grave is using lies or half-truths. Hell, you may be right - but that doesn't mean that Grave is doing it on purpose, or knows he is doing it, in which case your accusations would be useless in your cause. And you may be wrong - which would mean that your accusations were even more useless.

Is the arrogance and mean-spirit you are displaying here really the way to attempt to spread what you believe to be the correct view of Scripture?

Considering I started from the poisition of an Agnostic/Atheist, I had no predetermintive bias.

Every human being has bias, regardless of where you start.

Paul never altered the teaching of Christ.... That is your particular prejudice to think that he has.

On the contrary. At the very least, Paul added to and clarified Christ's teachings - or at least this is what he most likely felt he was doing. Of course, Paul was a man and was thus, like us, fallible and capable of misinterpreting the message. Some may feel that he correctly interpreted it. Some may feel that he incorrectly interpreted it. Some, like me, may feel that he got some things right, but misinterpreted somethings based on his own "predeterminitive biases".

On that your wrong.... Unless you think Christ Himself would also not rebuke the errors of others......

Christ himself would know the answers completely, and would thus be qualified to absolutely rebuke any errors. Of course, He would be unlikely to do so in the manner you have chosen.

You, however, are not Christ, and you cannot claim to know all of the answers completely.

Matthew 11
'I will send my messenger ahead of you,
who will prepare your way before you.' 11I tell you the truth: Among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. 12From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven has been forcefully advancing, and forceful men lay hold of it. 13For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John. 14And if you are willing to accept it, he is the Elijah who was to come. 15He who has ears, let him hear.

16"To what can I compare this generation? They are like children sitting in the marketplaces and calling out to others:
17" 'We played the flute for you,
and you did not dance;
we sang a dirge
and you did not mourn.' 18For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, 'He has a demon.' 19The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, 'Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and "sinners." ' But wisdom is proved right by her actions."


Matthew 20:28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."

MT 26:28 This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

With this post and the last, It seems to me that he says a lot of things that you say he doesn’t say, such as, he’s the son of God, that all things have been given to him, that he will reign and judge us and that forgiveness of sins is via him and his blood which is poured out for us (for example). Thus, making his version of the Good News not so different than Pauls version afterall.

None of those things you have just posted are as concrete as you like to pretend.

Any martyr 'gives his (or her) life as a ransom for many'... that doesn't make any martyr into the incarnation of god.

Jesus' blood of the covenant being poured out for many, neither makes him god, or attests to salvation through believing in him.

And, the John the Baptist stuff was good... but, not really making a case...

-snip-



He made charges based on statements, and intepretations of those statements. His intepretation of those statements have been prooven WRONG from looking at the parts of those statements he omited.... He does no ackownlege his error, when clearly presented.

Using a partial testimony of a person, to apply a person as being of a position that person did not actuall state... Is a deceptive and lying act. Regardless whether he thinks it is or not, or what even you think, Dem... He's a liar because of the WAY he's presented things, not precisely what he's presented.

If one were to say, the Christ advocated the slaughter of disobedient Children, based off of Matthew 15:4, would you not call them on their deceptive act? Would you not call someone on a tactic of using Romans 1 as an excuse for or support for the physical slaughter of sinners? Would you also not call someone on the error of saying Romans 1 indicated Paul approved the slaughter of sinners?

This is not about "interpretation".... This is about whether the truth itself, of the statements is even being presented in the first place. Bearing false witness is a sin, it's lying.... It can't be claimed "he doesn't know it's a lie"... Because evidence presenting otherwise has been given, by continued reading of the very text he uses for justification of his claim. Yet he continues.... Continues in what is no less than rank sophistry... Presenting partial testimony, as grounds for rejection, filling in the blanks with his own ideas (contradicted by continuing the testinomy), and presenting those as a valid position of the author.... He never presents "Paul's" position at all, only a "PAuline" Position constructed from disconnected statements, cemented together with sophistical rhetoric, and then presenting that as the fact... It's all suttle, but painfully obvious to someone reading what he is saying, and observing the details of what he is doing....

I'd feel more guily from being quiet why he lies, than by anything, I have been forced out of honesty to say, against his lies and deceptive tactics... Was Christ silent about the errors of the Pharisees? Was Peter silent over the errors of Simon Magnus? Was Paul silent over the divisional errors through the Chuch of Corinth? It is better to sit back and defend the lies of others, or of their position to lie, or to confront those who err? What shows more love to God and to the one in error? Did Christ excuse the error of the Pharisees? Did Peter excuse the errors of Simon MAgnus? Did Paul excuse the errors in Corinth? No, none of them did.... Not even Christ.....

Was Christ silent about the errors of the Pharisees? Was Peter silent over the errors of Simon Magnus? Was Paul silent over the divisional errors through the Chuch of Corinth? It is better to sit back and defend the lies of others, or of their position to lie, or to confront those who err? What shows more love to God and to the one in error? Did Christ excuse the error of the Pharisees? Did Peter excuse the errors of Simon MAgnus? Did Paul excuse the errors in Corinth? No, none of them did.... Not even Christ.....

And this is the company of peers that you profess equality to?

You really think you have the same ability to judge, OR forgive, as that of Jesus himself?

And you accuse ME of creating my own idol....

At least, if I had, mine wouldn't bear my own face.

He made charges based on statements, and intepretations of those statements. His intepretation of those statements have been prooven WRONG from looking at the parts of those statements he omited.... He does no ackownlege his error, when clearly presented.

I think it is a bit strong to say that they have been proven wrong. These things are highly open to interpretation - and many different people have been coming to many different conclusions from their very inception. You have certainly provided a case for your view, but it would be going too far to say you have proven it.

If you are going to accuse people of using only partial statements, then you will have to post the entirety of Scripture, taken as a whole, in every argument. This is not really possible. Grave has read these things, and finds certain parts more important than you.

If one were to say, the Christ advocated the slaughter of disobedient Children, based off of Matthew 15:4, would you not call them on their deceptive act?

I wouldn't call them a liar or accuse them of intentionally being deceptive. I would simply point out the reasons I did not see it that way, one being of course that it does not mesh with any of the teachings of Christ.

This is not about "interpretation".... This is about whether the truth itself, of the statements is even being presented in the first place. Bearing false witness is a sin, it's lying.... It can't be claimed "he doesn't know it's a lie"... Because evidence presenting otherwise has been given, by continued reading of the very text he uses for justification of his claim.

Ah, you have begun using the proper words here. Evidence to the contrary has been presented. Of course, it has been presented in the context of your own beliefs. Evidence can be interpreted in many different ways, there is no way around that. Some are more logical than others. Some are more rational than others. Some are more God-driven than others. And none of these are mutually exculsive. But different human beings will come to different conclusions, even presented the same evidence.

I'd feel more guily from being quiet why he lies, than by anything, I have been forced out of honesty to say, against his lies and deceptive tactics...

No one said you must be quiet. You simply must recognize your own fallibilities as well as those of others and stop claiming to have the absolute in all truth. You do not. None of us do. Arguments in these things hold no water at all if the person arguing claims absolute truth.

And you ignore the fact that both the act of lying and deception assumes intent. What proof do you have that Grave intends to lie or deceive you? What proof do you have that Grave does not truly interpret things in the way he says he does?

Was Christ silent about the errors of the Pharisees? Was Peter silent over the errors of Simon Magnus? Was Paul silent over the divisional errors through the Chuch of Corinth? It is better to sit back and defend the lies of others, or of their position to lie, or to confront those who err? What shows more love to God and to the one in error?

You would show much more love to God by doing so in a civil manner, accepting your own faults as well as those of your opponent and accepting the fact that all that disagrees with you may not necessarily stem from bad intentions.

And this is the company of peers that you profess equality to?

You really think you have the same ability to judge, OR forgive, as that of Jesus himself?

And you accuse ME of creating my own idol....

At least, if I had, mine wouldn't bear my own face.

Now, now, I don't think this is what Tekania meant by that. I know there are certainly hostilities on both sides here and I know what you are trying to say here, but I don't know that this is very productive.

I'm curious to hear what folks mean when they talk about the "whole truth" in these delightful scriptural arguments. Would you consider the works of the non cannonical scripture, and have you ever read anything from, say, the gospel of Thomas? Or is the only whole and real truth the written bible as it stands today in whatever particular publishing and translation you're using?

By the by, anyone else heard of the work being done to translate the bible from Aramaic? It's wild. The lords prayer (our father who art in heaven and so on) translates (and I paraphrase) oh divine vibration of the cosmos who is all around us, you rock. Very cool stuff. :)

Pauling vs. Christian again... I have constantly showed you where your error lays... Rebuking someone of a clear and recognizable error is not hateful.


No, you haven't shown that. I have presented one or two little examples of where Paul diverges from Jesus, and you have jumped all over them, till you felt you had squashed them flat.

Your disagreement with me is not hateful, I disagree with you, also.

What has been hateful, has been the WAY you have disagreed.


I discuss how "Goods works" can be done out of lust and arrogance, and not out of love.... The works themselves perform a "Good" act, but from bad intents... It happend every day, all around you... My argument is, that a TRULY good work is done out of love... My arguement is that God judges the acts and HEART... Not merely the acts... The acts themselves do not make up the entire picture of salvation (as you, for some reason, need).


Perhaps a truly good work is done out of love, I have never actually argued against that. However, I do argue against the assumption that that love has to be the love of 'god'.

Oh - and I don't 'need' any ideal of salvation... I am an Atheist (thus I believe in no gods), and I firmly expect to spend eternity restoring my component atoms to their starting points.

'Salvation' is irrelevent to me. However, that doesn't alter the fact that I believe you follow a corruption of Jesus' teaching.


I'm not attributing anything to anyone in particular... Christ's message, primary "love the lord your God, with all your [heart, mind, soul]..." Secondary lays upon the first, "love your neighbour as yourself"... If the "work" is not motivated from "love of God", it's not motivated from "good"... God is the ultimate definer of "Good"... Sure, an act motivated out of "lust" can bring good to another, but it is nothing towards yourself and your salvation before God, not being motivated from "Good", but rather "evil" (against God).


Now who is quoting out of context? Was Jesus not refering to which of the commandments were important? Does Jesus saying 'love god' equate, in any way with, "I AM GOD"?


It's not arrogance, it's the same message Christ gave His disciples, and the same message Paul presented to the Gentile Churches... I find it funny that you don't seem to believe Christ message on the commandments....


... Irrelevent.


You've made an idol by using scripture via predeterminate bias. Constructing a "false" view of it (not being complete, either in full context, nor even in Christ own message).... Anything short of the COMPLETE truth, is a lie... Therefore, you "construct" a false "Christ-Idol" out of particular passages, and then reject anything you don't "personally" like.... It's a conceptual idol, but an idol none-the-less.


First - I believe I see a fallacy. I have a cat. I have a BLACK cat. One is less than the COMPLETE truth, is it not? So - my 'cat' is a lie, unless it is explicitly black?

I haven't 'constructed' a Christ-Idol... I have read what is in the scripture, and I see it differently to you. Perhaps if you studied it more closely, you would see it the same way?


Yet, you have.


Or, alternatively, I haven't.


I won't even dignify that.


I didn't think you would. It is okay for you to cast aspersions, but you don't like having them held up to scrutiny.


Interpretation relies on using complete texts, and complete testimony. You remove things from context, and reject people bassed upon partiality of statement. When confronted with it, you simply ignore further proof, and continue meaningless positional statements from your predetermined, textually unfounded position.

If I make a statement like, "America was founded in slavery.... An institution completely adverse to its root principles and ideology.... Against the very idea that defines America!"... And then rip "America was founded in slavery" from it, and use it to "proove" (in a position) that I approve of slavery... Anyone who sees my full statement will attribute your remark as a lie; this is no different than what you have done with quotes from Paul, and even Christ... Accepting that which you like, constructing a non-contextual position from singular statements, and use those to prevent fact of position.

Not only are you a liar... You're a prooven liar.


Neither a liar, nor a 'proven' liar. You have, at best, argued against my assertions. You haven't disproved anything.


Except that your statement and "message" is alreafy prooven a lie. My Spiritual discernment allows to spot someone who is not using complete truth to back up their claims. Once again, anything less than the COMPLETE Truth is a lie.... And you, sir, are a prooven liar, once again.... You have been called on your deception on multiple accounts.... And you still seem to think you have credibility, or that even others see any credibility in your message (riddled with lies)... One wonder why you have some need to lie... And to continue lying even when it has been shown in the light to be lies.... I must assume your deception and lies are deliberate, since you continue to try to paint them as anything else than what they have already prooven to be, Grave....


Again - I have quickly and easily shown that your 'complete truth' concept is fatally flawed.

You wonder why I 'need to lie'? And yet, you doubtless believe your own ideas about scripture to be true, yes?


I'm not speaking of just that... I'm speaking of CLEAR contradictions (Greatest Commandments, Theif on the Cross). As for your position that it doesn't match up, it proceeds in the same language, and same course, and finishes in the same language. It's clear to you, because you don't want it to be Christ's words... Because it does not match your predetermintive BIAS of what your WANT Christ to say.


The 'greatest commandment' refutes nothing I have said.

John 3:16, to my mind, clearly is part of John's commentary. I'm not sure WHY anyone would believe it to be the words of Jesus... to my mind it is obviously a third-party comment. I wonder why you DO accept it as Jesus? Just because the letters are a different colour in the book?

Again, though - I have issues with your claims of my 'predeterminate bias'. I didn't 'want' Jesus to say anything.


I'm saying you should read the whole message, and interpret the whole message. Not use the rank prejudice, and then try to make it stick using incomplete testimony (with deceit and lies).

You have ZERO credibility left, Grave...


To be honest, my 'credibility' score with you, is hardly going to be costing me sleep, now is it?

You accuse me of 'rank prejudices'. I accuse you of the same.


Considering I started from the poisition of an Agnostic/Atheist, I had no predetermintive bias. You have a predetermintive bias (as prooven in your inability or unwillingness to use complete testimony), to reject, by not using complete contextual refferences, nor a complete picture of position, as a goal to make a position stick of rejection... You assume "contradiction" by using a single out-of-context statement... I refute by continuing the message presented, and showing what the message is talking about; you counter with another out-of-context remark, which is then refuted again by continuing the message and presenting context of statement (and direction of original message).... You have an absolute NEED for Paul to contradict Christ... (I have no concept as to why you have this need, but it is painfully obvious).

Why should I reject what Paul said, because you can't accept the entire message and need to pull statements out of context, present incomplete testimony. I accept what Christ has said, and I recognize Paul's statements as being no less than what has been presented elsewhere in the entirety of scripture....

Do I need to repeat every single one of your lies, and their direct refutation and correction, over again Grave?


I started out as a Christian, thus I have no predeterminate bias... or else, your 'logic' is flawed.

Why should you reject what Paul said? Perhaps you shouldn't.... that is your choice. For me, the simple fact that he IS NOT Jesus is sufficient reason to be sceptical.

Why do you feel I have a 'need' for Paul to contradict Jesus? I had no preconceptions or desires, either way. It sounds to me like you are trying to externalise your own doubts onto me, to better attack them?


You don't adhere to a "doctrine"? That's impossible.... Unless you simply never learn anything... Doctrine = teaching or lessons.... So, I suppose you don't "adhere" to the "doctrine" of Christ then?And have "learned" nothing from Christ? Feel free to remove your foot from your mouth whenever you like.


Not impossible. It is very possible to learn a great deal of material without 'adhering' to any of it.

Do you know NOTHING of other religions?

I didn't say I have learned nothing from Christ, but I am not an 'adherent' to the 'doctrine' of Jesus... although I have used some of the wisdom of his scripture to enhance my own processes.


Paul never altered the teaching of Christ.... That is your particular prejudice to think that he has.


That is your prejudice, to believe that he hasn't.

The simple fact that Paul expanded upon Jesus own teachings, is enough to 'prove' that he altered the teaching. It is impossible to expand without adding.

As I said, I don't recall any concrete example of Jesus saying that the only way to acheive salvation was to believe in his own godhood, and the concept of vicarious substitution. Thus - for Paul to preach that, would be alteration.


Thus, you're not following any "spirit of godliness"....


I didn't claim to do so.


Analysis? If you call ignoring context, using partial testimony, and ever single other deceptive tactic "analysis"; no, I don't "analyze" it... I learn about it, and base my position on entire testinomy.


You were told about it, no doubt, and swallowed the whole thing.

Perhaps, one day, you will delve deeper into WHAT you truly believe. AT the moment, I'd have to say you are 'professing' Christianity, rather than truly practising it.


On that your wrong.... Unless you think Christ Himself would also not rebuke the errors of others...... However, on one thing you are right... I kick the dust from my feet... And let you continue in your errors... Your soul is upon your own hands, Grave... I hope you wise up, one day, and realize the errors of your way.

And I hope the same thing for you, I sincerely do.

If I am flawed, it is with curiousity... not pride.

Now, now, I don't think this is what Tekania meant by that. I know there are certainly hostilities on both sides here and I know what you are trying to say here, but I don't know that this is very productive.

I can't be sure what Tekania means... but I could probably go back through the last handful of his/her posts, and present several more examples of just this kind of thing...

I am being told that I am a liar, that I am dishonest... that I am a religious know-nothing.

I can appreciate that to Tekania, I am, indeed, utterly wrong.

But, have I been dishonest?

No - I honestly believe that Paul is not part of Jesus' ministry.

No - I have admitted up-front, that I am an Atheist.

And yet, I am confronted by commentary like:

"I'd feel more guily from being quiet why he lies, than by anything, I have been forced out of honesty to say, against his lies and deceptive tactics... Was Christ silent about the errors of the Pharisees?

I am lies, and therefore evil, and Christ must strike me down... in the form of Tekania...

I have certainly not been trying to insult or attack anyone... only to defend a perspective against increasingly hostile responses. And, now, despite my good-nature, I am being told that god wants to lay the smack down on me, because Tekania says so?

Perhaps I should retire from this thread....

Now, now, I don't think this is what Tekania meant by that. I know there are certainly hostilities on both sides here and I know what you are trying to say here, but I don't know that this is very productive.

On that you're correct... Confronting error is not judgment.... Condemning error is... Which I have no power to do (nor would I, even if I did, lacking the authority to). There is a far wide gap between a rebuke and a judgement, judgement is final, rebuke is temporal, indeed, it is confined to an instant, and seeks nothing but to mend the path of the one in error.

Did Christ come in judgement? Was his message to the Pharisees a judgement? Was his rebuke of them and their path a judgement? No, it was a warning, and I know he would have rejoiced for each one which would become his disciple.

Grave may not understand it, but I do not hate him... You may not understand either Dem, but I do not hate him...

I've been in similar position as Paul, and sympathize with the errors he had to endure in the churches.... Even once having people making contentions about people follwing one "church leader" vice another.... Was a silent over the issue? No... I was not, I got up before the entire congregation and presented the case (unnamed to the people in perpetration) who errored in their adherence to men in the church over Christ.... "Are we disciples of Wilson, are we disciples of O'Rork? Are their disciples of me? Or are we all disciples of Christ?".... It would have expected to be rightfully judged against by Christ, had I remained quiet on such an issue as that, and as what has happened here.... As such, I did not.... and those causing such division appologized to me, and also came up before the congregation.... If I were to be quiet, I'd be just as guilty of the error as they are....

Interpretation is deriving the meaning of a passage from context; not divorcing a statement from context to present an incorrect view (I am just as upset with "christians" which use Romans 1 as justification for putting homosexuals to death; as I am of Grave using "Romans 1" as justification for saying Paul contradicted Christ)... The moment they divorce from context, there is no claim to "interpretation"... Either the argument aligns with the message of the tesimony, or it does not.... A partial rendering of a witness' own words, divorced from the context of those words, and contradicting the context of those words; is NOT an interpretation.... Once is an error; numerous times it shows intent... Singular verses, do not stand alone, either to form a doctrine, or to refute one.... Someone who thinks "all women need to keep quiet in the church" justified from one singular verse in I Corinthians 14, missed the other 13 chapters of the epistle.... Someone who thinks that Paul advocated the slaughter of sinners, from one verse in Romans, missed the rest of the epistle to the Romans..... (regardless whether they are using it as justification to do such, or as refutation against Paul, it stems from an act of deception, by "reading into" Paul's words things which are both NOT THERE, and are in fact refuted by continued reading).

Seems to be a very "Skewed" idea in here, as to what constitutes "interpretation"....

On that you're correct... Confronting error is not judgment.... Condemning error is... Which I have no power to do (nor would I, even if I did, lacking the authority to). There is a far wide gap between a rebuke and a judgement, judgement is final, rebuke is temporal, indeed, it is confined to an instant, and seeks nothing but to mend the path of the one in error.

I don't think you are understanding my point. I'm not arguing with you here. In truth, I think that the end of this particular argument probably lies somewhere in the middle. Paul was certainly not infallible, and there are a few things he said that I think skewed Christ's teachings, if only by making them more pallatable to himself and the rest of a society far removed from many of the admonishments. I think Paul had the best interests of all involved in mind - and that he truly thought he was spreading the Gospel to the best of his ability, as I hope you are, and as I hope I am - but none of us, Paul included, are infallible. I believe that the true guidance in interpretation of Christ's teachings should come from God.

However, you can certainly confront what you believe to be false without accusations of intentional deception. I have been in threads with Grave with the topic of discussion more than once. I certainly don't agree with him on all things, in fact I downright disagree on some, but I have never once suspected him of deception or lying. And while I am sure that Grave thinks that I am wrong and even irrational about many things, he has always been very respectful of my beliefs. Neither of us has ever felt the need (to my knowledge) to call each other liars or be derogatory towards each other in any way.

I don't think Grave is being deceitful here - I think he is presenting what he believes is said in Scripture. When you have presented the rest of a given quote, Grave has pointed out why he still feels the way he does. You may find that this is in error, but he obviously does not believe so. In truth, most of the "Paul hates women", etc. has been posted by hit-and-run posters, rather than Grave. Unless I am mistaken, I think most of the discussion with Grave has focussed on salvation by works v. salvation by faith alone.

Interestingly, you talk about standing up in church and complaining that people were placing other writers' interpretations and opinions before the words of Christ. Grave is pointing out what he believes to be the exact same error - taking Paul's interpretation and opinions of Christ's teachings as if they were, themselves, Christ's words. You may think that there is no contradiction between the two because you interpret things the same way. Of course, some of those in your church may have seen no contradiction between those you brought up and Christ's teachings.

I can't be sure what Tekania means... but I could probably go back through the last handful of his/her posts, and present several more examples of just this kind of thing...

What I meant was that Tekania probably wasn't trying to claim equality with Christ or even Peter or Paul, but was trying to follow their example. I do think that the methods are a bit off, but pointing out what one believes to be in error would certainly not be improper.

I am being told that I am a liar, that I am dishonest... that I am a religious know-nothing.

I have certainly not been trying to insult or attack anyone... only to defend a perspective against increasingly hostile responses. And, now, despite my good-nature, I am being told that god wants to lay the smack down on me, because Tekania says so?

And these are the methods that I think are in error.

Perhaps I should retire from this thread....

I am hoping that the discussion can be brought back to a more civil level. I think you and Tekania are probably both a bit more studied in the subject than I am (although I have somewhat more background than most), so I don't feel I can step in directly. However, when I can separate points from the animosity that seems to be building, I find the whole discussion rather interesting. From my POV, the truth probably lies somewhere in between your viewpoint and Tekania's - but the discussion could certainly help me to continue formulating my viewpoint. I think the discussion itself could help Tekania as well, provided a more open approach.

It’s hogwash to say: I know about the American Revolution and I proclaim that from my studies, I think Thomas Jefferson misconstrued everything that George Washington said and did, after the fact, trying to twist his own ideological spin into things. That you Americans have been deceived and you don’t really understand what Washington stood for…

Now, in addition to that, I’m going to dismiss every quote of Jefferson that you come up with, because he’s a self-deceiving freak, an anti-Washington, so you can only discuss this by quoting Washington. However, if you quote Washington after the declaration of independence, then I’m not going to accept it as valid because we all know the Jeffersonian’s have changed the scripture to match their beliefs when the war with Britain commenced.

And if you try to argue with me, I’ll suggest that you haven’t studied the writings of this era as well as I have and that only your ideology and Faith make you so blind to what I’m saying…

If I’m wrong find me a quote of Washington agreeing with Jefferson, Jefferson was not the first president of the United States and I think you are all weak minded nincompoops for following his deceptions anymore…



It’s ludicrous and nonsensical. And is not in fact an interpretation of anything whatsoever, it’s a self delusion.

Talking about Jesus in the Pre-Crucifixion context only, and denying any legitimacy to two of the gospels (Luke and John) and saying that we can’t use post-resurrection quotes either, is tilting the field entirely in a ridiculous and meaningless fashion making debate on the issue non-resolving.

Paul’ letters are older than the four Gospels canonized in the NT. The authors of the gospels were well aware of Paul and his teachings before they put pen to paper, and they intended to record for prosperity the story they thought their followers already knew. The Gospel Paul speaks about is the same gospel the authors were trying to record, so now, two thousand years later, to say that they got it right and Paul’s changed things after the fact is what? Nothing. Not even an interpretation, it is, factually, wrong. Our recorded writings of the events has Paul as the oldest.

To suggest that the gospels writings are more or less valid or historical than Paul’s is silly and in denial of the archaeological record, they are neither more or less legitimate. And by the same toke, the resurrection and Jesus consecrated after the resurrection, was the reason that the gospel writers started the writings that they wrote. They did not change a pre-existing book, thus, their Jesus quotes after the resurrection must be as acceptable as any of their other Jesus quotes.

The story of Christianity cannot be told with the rules that we are only allowed to use half the story. Jesus said;
Matthew 28 16-20
16Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

I'm curious to hear what folks mean when they talk about the "whole truth" in these delightful scriptural arguments. Would you consider the works of the non cannonical scripture, and have you ever read anything from, say, the gospel of Thomas? Or is the only whole and real truth the written bible as it stands today in whatever particular publishing and translation you're using? I referenced it awhile back, but even the canonical gospels are accused of not being accurate, thus, I didn't pursue them any further and tried to work within Matthew and Mark alone.



By the by, anyone else heard of the work being done to translate the bible from Aramaic? It's wild. The lords prayer (our father who art in heaven and so on) translates (and I paraphrase) oh divine vibration of the cosmos who is all around us, you rock. Very cool stuff. :)

:confused:

No, OMGosh, say it aint so.... :D

I haven’t been so incredulous since, since I don’t know, since the 60’s Hippy version I suppose.

In regards to a quote that was used as an endorsement to young men to follow their Vietnam draft notices and to obey their Military calling, people would quote this at each other:


Matthew 4 40-42

New Living Translation; 40If you are ordered to court and your shirt is taken from you, give your coat, too. 41If a soldier demands that you carry his gear for a mile, carry it two miles. 42Give to those who ask, and don't turn away from those who want to borrow.

The same verses, 60’s Hippy version:
40If someone drags you into court and sues for the shirt off your back, giftwrap your best coat and make a present of it. 41And if someone takes unfair advantage of you, use the occasion to practice the servant life. 42No more tit-for-tat stuff. Live generously.

WTH was that? LMAO (they felt bad about it twenty years later and fixed it to the above quote):

It’s hogwash to say: I know about the American Revolution and I proclaim that from my studies, I think Thomas Jefferson misconstrued everything that George Washington said and did, after the fact, trying to twist his own ideological spin into things. That you Americans have been deceived and you don’t really understand what Washington stood for…

Improper analogy. Washington's ideas were not the entire basis of the principle, nor was Jefferson attempting to write about Washington's teachings specifically and their application.

Of course, if he had been specifically trying to interpret and explain Washington's ideals, one could certainly argue that he got certain things wrong.

Talking about Jesus in the Pre-Crucifixion context only, and denying any legitimacy to two of the gospels (Luke and John) and saying that we can’t use post-resurrection quotes either, is tilting the field entirely in a ridiculous and meaningless fashion making debate on the issue non-resolving.

Grave wouldn't be the first to take steps like this. In fact, even if Grave were Christian - he wouldn't be the first Christian to dispute the validity of certain Gosples or of Paul. These things, including what Gospels would be Scripture were quite a point of contention. It basically came down to "Which ones are used the most and what do the most powerful bishops say?

The authors of the gospels were well aware of Paul and his teachings before they put pen to paper, and they intended to record for prosperity the story they thought their followers already knew.

The last part of that sentence is most likely true. The former, however, is stretching it a bit. While I am sure that all of the Gospel writers were aware of Paul, it is unlikely that all of them knew Paul's teachings in depth - or had seen all of the letters that later became canon. It's not exactly like they had internet back then - and the early Christians often had to hide their holy writings for fear of having them confiscated (giving up the writings, btw, was considered a horrible sin - it was better to protect them and martyr yourself -- this became quite a point of contention in the later church, causing a schism between those who felt that no one ordained by those who gave up such documents and later repented could be true priests and those who felt that repentence was enough).

Our recorded writings of the events has Paul as the oldest.

Where does Paul include quotes? Paul mostly talks about how to apply and interpret Christ's teachings - but does not often lay out the teachings themselves. Thus, in Paul's writings, we are getting his interpretation, not a direct account.

Suppose I had a professor who taught a new theory. I wrote a series of essays on how I thought this theory would affect the field and how it might be applied, but never really set out the theory itself or the history of how the professor came to it. Other students did that after my essays were already written, some of them possibly having read some of my essays and others having seen none of them.

Would someone be horribly amiss if they then argued that the effects and applications I laid out were wrong, based on the way the theory was laid out?

41If a soldier demands that you carry his gear for a mile, carry it two miles. [/b] 42Give to those who ask, and don't turn away from those who want to borrow.

The same verses, 60’s Hippy version:
40If someone drags you into court and sues for the shirt off your back, giftwrap your best coat and make a present of it. 41And if someone takes unfair advantage of you, use the occasion to practice the servant life. 42No more tit-for-tat stuff. Live generously.

WTH was that? LMAO (they felt bad about it twenty years later and fixed it to the above quote):

There are so many things wrong with those that I almost don't know what to say.

Of course, people have been misinterpreting those passages for years, and will likely continue to do so. Long before the Vietnam War, priests were sending women home to abusive homes with the "turn the other cheek" passage. Never mind that all of those things are, interpreted within the culture, forms of passive resistance and none equates to "just take it nicely."

D
Ananias wasn't a Christian, though. Or, at least, the Bible isn't definitive on the point. In Acts 9 he's portrayed as a devout Christian, but in Acts 22, he's described as a pious Jewish observer of the law, well-spoken of by Jews of that place. He can't be both.

There were two people named Ananias. There were many people in the New Testament with the exact same name. There were 2 Johns and 9 James. I suggest instead of reading some biased book to become a scholar and look into it yourself.

Christian is majorly watered down today. Christian was a sarcastic word given to the apostles which is supposed to mean Christ-likeness (mini-Christs) which means you would have healing and miracles like Jesus did. Much like the apostles of the early church. I think the people who have received salvation or more followers of Christ instead of Christian.

Christian is majorly watered down today. Christian was a sarcastic word given to the apostles which is supposed to mean Christ-likeness (mini-Christs) which means you would have healing and miracles like Jesus did. Much like the apostles of the early church. I think the people who have received salvation or more followers of Christ instead of Christian.

Interestingly enough, Christian aid workers in Muslim countries often refer to themselves that way, not because they personally have a problem with the word Christian, but because it has such a negative connotation to those in the countries. One such worker was recently very excited as one community leader referred to them as "Ones who have surrendered to Allah through Christ," literally calling them "Muslims through Christ."

*snip*
Grave wouldn't be the first to take steps like this. In fact, even if Grave were Christian - he wouldn't be the first Christian to dispute the validity of certain Gosples or of Paul. These things, including what Gospels would be Scripture were quite a point of contention. It basically came down to "Which ones are used the most and what do the most powerful bishops say?

This is true, however, we now have the archaeological record to go with our theology premises and theory of origin. We now know, for example, that Paul’s writings are the oldest writings of the NT. And as such, the authors of the gospels most certainly DID know about Paul and the message he was propagating as they had met him before he wrote the papers and had direct contact with his newly founded gentile churches….

The Christian movement during the time of ACTS, was not yet in hiding from the Roman law when they expanded into the Rome and surrounding territories.


The last part of that sentence is most likely true. The former, however, is stretching it a bit. While I am sure that all of the Gospel writers were aware of Paul, it is unlikely that all of them knew Paul's teachings in depth - or had seen all of the letters that later became canon. It's not exactly like they had internet back then - and the early Christians often had to hide their holy writings for fear of having them confiscated (giving up the writings, btw, was considered a horrible sin - it was better to protect them and martyr yourself -- this became quite a point of contention in the later church, causing a schism between those who felt that no one ordained by those who gave up such documents and later repented could be true priests and those who felt that repentence was enough). Again though, you are addressing a period of time that comes later. The disciples were actively preaching during the time of Paul’s letters, the gospels weren't penned until the apostles/Disciples began to die off... by 64 B.C.E. Paul was pretty much done and not a single canonical gospel had been penned yet, including Mark.

The supposition is, that there might have been a previously written gospel, an older unfound one that scholars call "Q," but the fact is, if there is a Q and if we do find it, it's likely going to be the same gospel that Paul spread during his evangelizing.



Where does Paul include quotes? Paul mostly talks about how to apply and interpret Christ's teachings - but does not often lay out the teachings themselves. Thus, in Paul's writings, we are getting his interpretation, not a direct account. I'm not trying to say Paul made any direct quotes, but neither did he write a gospel. He does say that he taught a gospel. The other writers knew of Paul because Paul was well known in the community of the apostles before they left and dispersed. Paul even went to the council in Jerusalem and asked them to evaluated his message before he began writing letters, and they approved it, regardless of the fact that graven doesn't accept these passages, they exist and have been recorded.


Suppose I had a professor who taught a new theory. I wrote a series of essays on how I thought this theory would affect the field and how it might be applied, but never really set out the theory itself or the history of how the professor came to it. Other students did that after my essays were already written, some of them possibly having read some of my essays and others having seen none of them. Suppose twenty years from now you show your kids STAR WARS, and tell them that the oldest parts are really the latest parts? That the first three are written entirely with full knowledge of what happens in the last three. They won't exactly be able to argue that the director of 3 is more authentic than the director of 4, not with you around anyway, to tell him 3 was written to make sense of 4. The same is true with Paul, he wrote and dispersed the message first, then the gospels were penned so that people would understand what the heck Paul was writing about when all the disciples had passed away and there would be no more eye-witnesses of the events.

Again though, you are addressing a period of time that comes later. The disciples were actively preaching during the time of Paul’s letters, the gospels weren't penned until the apostles/Disciples began to die off... by 64 B.C.E. Paul was pretty much done and not a single canonical gospel had been penned yet, including Mark.

Not much later. Christians were already being persecuted when the Apostles were all still preaching the Gosple themselves. Was Saul himself not such a persecutor?

I didn't say canonical gospel, I said holy writings. Each curch had its own holy writings - which, depending on the church, would have included letters of all sorts.

I'm not trying to say Paul made any direct quotes, but neither did he write a gospel.

Exactly! Paul did not write a Gospel - Paul wrote interpretations of the Gospel - and how he felt it should be appplied.

He does say that he taught a gospel.

Suppose I recite one of Keat's poems. I then go into a long essay on exactly what I think Keats meant by that poem and how the imagery applies to life today. I may correctly recite the poem, but incorrectly interpret it.

The other writers new of Paul because Paul was well known in the community of the apostles before they left dispersed. Paul even when to the council in Jerusalem and asked them to evaluated his message, and they approved it, regardless of the fact that graven doesn't accept that passage.

...which still does not mean that every Gospel writer had read all of the letters that various churches attributed to Paul, or that they had intimate knowledge of everything that Paul taught. The letters were responses to questions and dissensions in churches - they weren't texts that Paul had prepared and presented before a council before setting off to preach.

A reverend in any religion goes through training and teaching. Then, when they are leading a congregation, they are faced with real-life issues for which they must attempt to interpret what they have learned and advise their parishioners. The fact that they have all received the same background training hardly means that they will give the same answers to a given application question - or that they will get everything right.

Suppose twenty years from now you show your kids STAR WARS, and tell them that the oldest parts are really the latest parts? That the first three are written entirely with full knowledge of what happens in the last three. They won't exactly be able to argue that the director of 3 is more authentic than the director of 4, not with you around anyway, to tell him 3 was written to make sense of 4. The same is true with Paul, he wrote and dispersed the message first, then the gospels were penned so that people would understand what the heck Paul was writing about when all the disciples had passed away and there would be no more eye-witnesses of the events.

Again, an improper analogy, if only because Star Wars was written in order - they simply made the last three episodes first because they thought it was more exciting.

That aside, it is also improper because it still does not encompass what is actually going on here. The last three Star Wars movies do not seek to interpret and provide applications for any teachings in the first three. They are simply a continuation of the story.

Paul did not write the message. Paul wrote ways to apply and interpret a message that had already been taught to the people in question.

I'm curious to hear what folks mean when they talk about the "whole truth" in these delightful scriptural arguments. Would you consider the works of the non cannonical scripture, and have you ever read anything from, say, the gospel of Thomas? Or is the only whole and real truth the written bible as it stands today in whatever particular publishing and translation you're using?

By the by, anyone else heard of the work being done to translate the bible from Aramaic? It's wild. The lords prayer (our father who art in heaven and so on) translates (and I paraphrase) oh divine vibration of the cosmos who is all around us, you rock. Very cool stuff. :)

The only book in the bible written in Arimaic is a part of Daniel, and that's in the OT.

The canonnical scripture is different from the apocraphil stuff because it is not considered to be written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. While this in and of itself is agreed upon by the vast majority of Christians, the extent to which the inspiration applies has been the cause of many an argument.

Not much later. Christians were already being persecuted when the Apostles were all still preaching the Gosple themselves. Was Saul himself not such a persecutor? Yes, persecuted by Jews, but not persecuted by Romans or outlawed in non-Jewish areas.


I didn't say canonical gospel, I said holy writings. Each curch had its own holy writings - which, depending on the church, would have included letters of all sorts. You see, that's just it. Before the gospels were penned, archaeology can NOT substantiate the idea that anyone had any writings whatsoever yet. It was verbal at this point, writings came later. They were all hearing very similar messages at this point.



Exactly! Paul did not write a Gospel - Paul wrote interpretations of the Gospel - and how he felt it should be appplied. At the time he wrote, there were no written gospels. As far as we can tell, there was ONLY the verbal, oral gospel. There was no written gospels for him to 'interpret' yet. It existed for them from him and others verbally.


...which still does not mean that every Gospel writer had read all of the letters that various churches attributed to Paul, or that they had intimate knowledge of everything that Paul taught. The letters were responses to questions and dissensions in churches - they weren't texts that Paul had prepared and presented before a council before setting off to preach.
True, but they all had the "Good News." They all had heard the gospel story from the eye-witnesses and the oral tradition.



A reverend in any religion goes through training and teaching. Then, when they are leading a congregation, they are faced with real-life issues for which they must attempt to interpret what they have learned and advise their parishioners. The fact that they have all received the same background training hardly means that they will give the same answers to a given application question - or that they will get everything right. absolutely true. That's one of the reason there are variances in the scriptures at all. But essentially, that the Good News, the message that Jesus redeems us from Sin and is the Messiah, WAS the shared element of their teachings...


Again, an improper analogy, if only because Star Wars was written in order - they simply made the last three episodes first because they thought it was more exciting.

That aside, it is also improper because it still does not encompass what is actually going on here. The last three Star Wars movies do not seek to interpret and provide applications for any teachings in the first three. They are simply a continuation of the story. My point is exactly the reverse, the first three stories try to "interpret and provide applications for any teachings in the LAST three" that were produced first. Just like the gospels. To reverse it, like Graven has, is to say that they, the first three were the original and the last three failed to understand them... when that is essentially impossible.


Paul did not write the message. Paul wrote ways to apply and interpret a message that had already been taught to the people in question. No, I disagree. Paul wrote and propagated the gospel before it was written AND took it to places that it had never been before. But, he also told the disciple what he message was and they approved. There is very little lee-way here, there is, in the end, no possible way for the gospel to be right and Paul wrong. The NT must be taken entirely, or, not at all. It is after all a group project, but one that consisted of a single group that DID communicate and share information with each other. And, if we are believers, then we also know that the Holy Ghost was encouraging them to 'stay the course,' and fight the good fight.


EDIT: not that you have to agree with it, but after you asked about it, I did take some amount of effort to write this: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9016344&postcount=101 in response to what you said/asked. Like I said, I'm not looking see if you agree with it, only checking now beause I wondered if it was missed entirely and I wasted my effort.

Yes, persecuted by Jews, but not persecuted by Romans or outlawed in non-Jewish areas.

You see, that's just it. Before the gospels were penned, archaeology can NOT substantiate the idea that anyone had any writings whatsoever yet. It was verbal at this point, writings came later. They were all hearing very similar messages at this point.


At the time he wrote, there were no written gospels. As far as we can tell, there was ONLY the verbal, oral gospel. There was no written gospels for him to 'interpret' yet. It existed for them from him and others verbally.

<snip>


Not quite true, you may want to brush up on you Bible studies.

Biblical scholars generally agree that there was a written "gospel" as such, written arround 50 AD, about the same time Paul wrote the letters to the Thesselonians. While there has never been a copy of this gospel actually found, Matthew and Luke both share certain passages, to the point of exactly the same wording, that are not found in Mark. Matthew and Luke used Mark as a resource, but they must also have had another common written record that Mark did not have. This lost gospel has been dubbed the gospel of "Q"

Now I agree that this is only a hypothetical document, and there is not really any Archeological proof of its existance, but bare in mind that there was probably a written gospel as old as the oldest letter's of Paul, and parts of this Gospel survive to today in Matthew and Luke.

Not quite true, you may want to brush up on you Bible studies.

Biblical scholars generally agree that there was a written "gospel" as such, written arround 50 AD, about the same time Paul wrote the letters to the Thesselonians. While there has never been a copy of this gospel actually found, Matthew and Luke both share certain passages, to the point of exactly the same wording, that are not found in Mark. Matthew and Luke used Mark as a resource, but they must also have had another common written record that Mark did not have. This lost gospel has been dubbed the gospel of "Q"

Now I agree that this is only a hypothetical document, and there is not really any Archeological proof of its existence, but bare in mind that there was probably a written gospel as old as the oldest letter's of Paul, and parts of this Gospel survive to today in Matthew and Luke.

Absolutely agreed. I've mentioned it several times. And I've addressed the possibility that if it existed, it's most likely going to say exactly what Paul and the others were saying as the "Good News" as they spread the gospel. But since it's hypothesized, I can't assume that it existed at all, but admit the possibility. The other possibility is that the "Q" IS the verbal tradition. Recorded as rhyme and/or put to memory, thus, the equivalent of a written record and why it would be recorded in the written gospels showing it’s existence later.

Yes, persecuted by Jews, but not persecuted by Romans or outlawed in non-Jewish areas.

Not really true. The Romans were looking to quash the "new" religion as soon ast it had formed. This is why many early Christian apologetics were trying to prove that they were, in fact, still Jews. The Romans were very tolerant of already established religions, but persecuted any new religion.

You see, that's just it. Before the gospels were penned, archaeology can NOT substantiate the idea that anyone had any writings whatsoever yet. It was verbal at this point, writings came later. They were all hearing very similar messages at this point.

You have just contradicted yourself. First, you say that Paul's letters came before Gospel was written down. Then you say there were no writings used by the churches prior to the Gospels. Which are you actually trying to say.

At the time he wrote, there were no written gospels. As far as we can tell, there was ONLY the verbal, oral gospel. There was no written gospels for him to 'interpret' yet. It existed for them from him and others verbally.

You can only interpret something that is written down? How interesting. So if I came up with a poem and never bothered to write it down, no one could possibly interpret it?

True, but they all had the "Good News." They all had heard the gospel story from the eye-witnesses and the oral tradition.

Which is thoroughly irrelevant. All having the same "good news" would not keep them (or us)from interpreting its application differently.

My point is exactly the reverse, the first three stories try to "interpret and provide applications for any teachings in the LAST three" that were produced first. Just like the gospels.

So you are saying that the Gospels are only there to provide interpretations of Paul's teachings?

That pretty much invalidates the idea that Christianity is a religion designed to follow Christ, doesn't it?

No, I disagree. Paul wrote and propagated the gospel before it was written AND took it to places that it had never been before. But, he also told the disciple what he message was and they approved. There is very little lee-way here, there is, in the end, no possible way for the gospel to be right and Paul wrong. The NT must be taken entirely, or, not at all. It is after all a group project, but one that consisted of a single group that DID communicate and share information with each other. And, if we are believers, then we also know that the Holy Ghost was encouraging them to 'stay the course,' and fight the good fight.

(a) Do you really think Paul sent every letter to some council before sending it to the churches in question? I don't - especially since they were all out doing their own preaching. It makes much more sense that they agreed on some general principles to begin with and then set off preaching - exactly as preachers do now. The core message is certainly the same, but application and interpretation can be very different - especially when faced with real-life situations rather than hypotheticals.

(b) As believers, we know that, even with the Holy Ghost encouraging human beings to "stay the course", we sometimes go astray. We sometimes feel very strongly that we are getting the message right, but are in fact not doing so.

Preachers who told women to go home and allow their husbands to keep beating them every night probably thought they were following Christ's admonishment to turn the other cheek and interpreting it properly - as driven by the Holy Ghost. They thought this because they were, as we all are, products of their own society and, as most are, fairly ignorant of other societies. However, I'm sure there were some prietss who had studied the passage more closely, or were truly following the Spirit, rather than their view of the words - and told women that they must find a way out of that situation.

Absolutely agreed. I've mentioned it several times. And I've addressed the possibility that if it existed, it's most likely going to say exactly what Paul and the others were saying as the "Good News" as they spread the gospel. But since it's hypothesized, I can't assume that it existed at all, but admit the possibility. The other possibility is that the "Q" IS the verbal tradition. Recorded as rhyme and/or put to memory, thus, the equivalent of a written record and why it would be recorded in the written gospels showing it’s existence later.

Q is probably not oral because it is not in Mark, and the wording is far too similar in Matthew and Luke for it to be verbal...

"We both read the Bible, day and night,
But you read black where I read white."

EDIT: not that you have to agree with it, but after you asked about it, I did take some amount of effort to write this: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9016344&postcount=101 in response to what you said/asked. Like I said, I'm not looking see if you agree with it, only checking now beause I wondered if it was missed entirely and I wasted my effort.

I agreed with it, in part.

I do believe that the Holy Spirit guides more than you seem to let on. It can guide both in interpretation and application of Scripture and in many things not relating directly to Scripture at all. I believe that the truly receptive can ask an honest question and have it answered, even without referring to particular Scripture for the answer. Is it easy to be truly receptive? Not at all, but I think we must try.

One would certainly expect that the answer received would not directly contradict Scripture, or at least the general points of Scripture. However, it is especially useful to use this when one part of Scripture doesn't seem to fit in with the rest. In this case, I believe that the answer can only come from God - and I think it will be freely given if truly asked for.

Does this open it up to all sorts of people claiming that the Holy Spirit guided them in X direction when it is not really true (both intentionally and unintentionally)? Of course, but such is free will.

Q is probably not oral because it is not in Mark, and the wording is far too similar in Matthew and Luke for it to be verbal...
Nah, it is in Mark as well, at least in the propositions of it's existence that I've read.

However, I'll resubmit the idea that the “Q” could have been the oral version of the gospel before it was recorded. Various Jewish disciplines, the essenes being one, required the memorization of entire OT books. If “Q” existed (written or oral), it was/is likely to be smaller than Mark is. I find it entirely plausible to wonder if the apostles wouldn't allow anyone to evangelize if they couldn't recite the entire Q by heart. It would easily fit within their cultural framework and tradition to 'expect' it of anyone who thought themselves ready to evangelize.

To Dem. Close enough. I wonder if you dismiss scripture too soon and you wonder if I don't spiritualize enough.... fair enough. Thanks for reading it.

To Dem. Close enough. I wonder if you dismiss scripture too soon and you wonder if I don't spiritualize enough.... fair enough. Thanks for reading it.

=) I suspect we both are partially right in our suspicions of each other's methods - at times. Thus, the spiritual path is, I believe, an ongoing journey - and even when we reach the end of our journey, we are unlikely to have everything correct. (Wow, that sounded kind of Yoda-ish).

When I deel with Paul, I realize (as must others) that Paul is dealing with specific "congregations" and peoples....

It has been pointed, by some, in refference to Romans 1:


For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse; 21 for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles. 24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen. 26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. 28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct. 29 They were filled with all manner of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity, they are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Though they know God's decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them.

Such is used by many in the "Christian Coalition", "Moral Majority" and other sects classified under the inappropriate title of "Fundamentalism" as an excuse for hate and maliciousness upon "heathen" in general, worldly condemnation of them in earthly judgement. Little is looked upon to the REST of Paul's own message...

1 Therefore you have no excuse, O man, whoever you are, when you judge another; for in passing judgment upon him you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things. 2 We know that the judgment of God rightly falls upon those who do such things. 3 Do you suppose, O man, that when you judge those who do such things and yet do them yourself, you will escape the judgment of God? 4 Or do you presume upon the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience? Do you not know that God's kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? 5 But by your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed. 6 For he will render to every man according to his works: 7 to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; 8 but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury.

He is addressing a group of "christians" Rome, who are passing judgement on the gentiles. Elaborating further from refferences such as:


9 There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, 10 but glory and honor and peace for every one who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. 11 For God shows no partiality.

1 Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? 2 Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews are entrusted with the oracles of God.

Who is he talking to? He is talking to what are in essence, Jewish Christians, or converts to Judaism who are not Christians, claiming superiority over the gentiles, through circumcision, food purity laws, and other operations of the Mosaic law.


Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On the principle of works? No, but on the principle of faith. 28 For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law. 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30 since God is one; and he will justify the circumcised on the ground of their faith and the uncircumcised through their faith.

"Works of the law"... Note, we're not talking works in general, as in any act. But specifically "works of the law"... The Mosaic Laws, purity rites, foor rights, etc.... Did Paul attribute the law to evil? By no means, but also, operations of these "rites" did not grant the Jewish Christians in Rome superiority or elitness over their Gentile Brethren, to which the Jews in Rome had been using "the law" and their "Works" in "the law" for such a purpose.... Remember, we're talking about the same person who said:


for God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.


For he will render to every man according to his works:


For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

Are we saved by works of the law? By no means, we're saved by faith, which bears the fruit of GOOD WORKS.... Not works of the law in circumcision and purity rights contained therein.... But by an operation of God's spirit in us, performing such good works in love, within the lines of Christ's own response to what is the "great commandment"...


37 And he said to him, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. 38 This is the great and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 40 On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets."

What is Christ's message? That the entirety of works, and the extent of the law hangs upon "love" to God first, and then, like it, to our neighbors.

What is Paul's message? That it hangs upon faith (pistis/trust in) [love of] God and Christ, and love of our neighbors.

Was it wrong of Paul to tell those in Thessalonika not to feed "busybodies" and the "idle"... Who do no work? But abuse the charity of those in the congregation there... People who feel that they will lay about till the Lord Returns? If someone lives in idleness, I would expect someone to rebuke such out of love, to compensate the charity of those who try to help them. If your own child sat at home watching TV all day, living off of your own charity, doing nothing, would you not press them into working? Out of love, if not anything else.... You would... Should we not be loving enough to encourage the self-reliance of our own brethren as we would our own children? We would not do such to the crippled, but we would to our brethren, even those in destitution... Such is exhortion, the "building up" of our brothers.... How can you claim love to one you would leave in a state of destitution, in a state of idleness, when not pressing and exhorting them to the betterment of themselves....

When I deel with Paul, I realize (as must others) that Paul is dealing with specific "congregations" and peoples....

It has been pointed, by some, in refference to Romans 1:



Such is used by many in the "Christian Coalition", "Moral Majority" and other sects classified under the inappropriate title of "Fundamentalism" as an excuse for hate and maliciousness upon "heathen" in general, worldly condemnation of them in earthly judgement. Little is looked upon to the REST of Paul's own message...



He is addressing a group of "christians" Rome, who are passing judgement on the gentiles. Elaborating further from refferences such as:





Who is he talking to? He is talking to what are in essence, Jewish Christians, or converts to Judaism who are not Christians, claiming superiority over the gentiles, through circumcision, food purity laws, and other operations of the Mosaic law.



"Works of the law"... Note, we're not talking works in general, as in any act. But specifically "works of the law"... The Mosaic Laws, purity rites, foor rights, etc.... Did Paul attribute the law to evil? By no means, but also, operations of these "rites" did not grant the Jewish Christians in Rome superiority or elitness over their Gentile Brethren, to which the Jews in Rome had been using "the law" and their "Works" in "the law" for such a purpose.... Remember, we're talking about the same person who said:







Are we saved by works of the law? By no means, we're saved by faith, which bears the fruit of GOOD WORKS.... Not works of the law in circumcision and purity rights contained therein.... But by an operation of God's spirit in us, performing such good works in love, within the lines of Christ's own response to what is the "great commandment"...



What is Christ's message? That the entirety of works, and the extent of the law hangs upon "love" to God first, and then, like it, to our neighbors.

What is Paul's message? That it hangs upon faith (pistis/trust in) [love of] God and Christ, and love of our neighbors.

Was it wrong of Paul to tell those in Thessalonika not to feed "busybodies" and the "idle"... Who do no work? But abuse the charity of those in the congregation there... People who feel that they will lay about till the Lord Returns? If someone lives in idleness, I would expect someone to rebuke such out of love, to compensate the charity of those who try to help them. If your own child sat at home watching TV all day, living off of your own charity, doing nothing, would you not press them into working? Out of love, if not anything else.... You would... Should we not be loving enough to encourage the self-reliance of our own brethren as we would our own children? We would not do such to the crippled, but we would to our brethren, even those in destitution... Such is exhortion, the "building up" of our brothers.... How can you claim love to one you would leave in a state of destitution, in a state of idleness, when not pressing and exhorting them to the betterment of themselves....

Jesus also taught that faith is the key to salvation... salvation by faith, followed by a life of following Christ.

Just like Paul.

It’s hogwash to say: I know about the American Revolution and I proclaim that from my studies, I think Thomas Jefferson misconstrued everything that George Washington said and did, after the fact, trying to twist his own ideological spin into things. That you Americans have been deceived and you don’t really understand what Washington stood for…

Now, in addition to that, I’m going to dismiss every quote of Jefferson that you come up with, because he’s a self-deceiving freak, an anti-Washington, so you can only discuss this by quoting Washington. However, if you quote Washington after the declaration of independence, then I’m not going to accept it as valid because we all know the Jeffersonian’s have changed the scripture to match their beliefs when the war with Britain commenced.

And if you try to argue with me, I’ll suggest that you haven’t studied the writings of this era as well as I have and that only your ideology and Faith make you so blind to what I’m saying…

If I’m wrong find me a quote of Washington agreeing with Jefferson, Jefferson was not the first president of the United States and I think you are all weak minded nincompoops for following his deceptions anymore…



It’s ludicrous and nonsensical. And is not in fact an interpretation of anything whatsoever, it’s a self delusion.

Talking about Jesus in the Pre-Crucifixion context only, and denying any legitimacy to two of the gospels (Luke and John) and saying that we can’t use post-resurrection quotes either, is tilting the field entirely in a ridiculous and meaningless fashion making debate on the issue non-resolving.

Paul’ letters are older than the four Gospels canonized in the NT. The authors of the gospels were well aware of Paul and his teachings before they put pen to paper, and they intended to record for prosperity the story they thought their followers already knew. The Gospel Paul speaks about is the same gospel the authors were trying to record, so now, two thousand years later, to say that they got it right and Paul’s changed things after the fact is what? Nothing. Not even an interpretation, it is, factually, wrong. Our recorded writings of the events has Paul as the oldest.

To suggest that the gospels writings are more or less valid or historical than Paul’s is silly and in denial of the archaeological record, they are neither more or less legitimate. And by the same toke, the resurrection and Jesus consecrated after the resurrection, was the reason that the gospel writers started the writings that they wrote. They did not change a pre-existing book, thus, their Jesus quotes after the resurrection must be as acceptable as any of their other Jesus quotes.

The story of Christianity cannot be told with the rules that we are only allowed to use half the story. Jesus said;
Matthew 28 16-20
16Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

Let me just quickly post a couple of comments, here:

1) There is a difference between George Washington, and Jesus - as I am sure you are aware.

George Washington is not widely believed to be the root to eternal salvation, as far as I know. Thus, we are talking about something a little more serious than George Washington being misunderstood, or misinterpreted by those who came later.

2) I haven't denied the legitimacy of any later words of Jesus (I think this is what you were implying). I have taken one set of verses that I think have been attributed to the wrong person. Let me give you a non-Jesus example of what I mean:

"And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man... Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh".

Bold added by me.

Okay - you read that passage, and it appears that the bold part must be a continuation of Adam's words, does it not? If there were a 'blue letter bible' (or somesuch - something that showed the words of Adam) I wouldn't be surprised to find Genesis 2:23 and 2:24 attributed to Adam.

And yet, they cannot be Adam's words, to my view... because Adam is still ignorant at that point, and has never known any other parent than God... so, he can have no way to make any connections to 'father' AND 'mother'.

Well, similarly, John 3:10-2 seem to clearly show Jesus answer to Nicodemus. If you stop reading at that point, the answer is completem=, and needs no further explanation. John 3:13-21 sounds like John DISCUSSING what Jesus has just said, and putting it into context.

It can be forgiven of John not to know that Enoch was (allegedly) lifted to God without death (and thus, ascended to heaven without first 'descending')... but one has to assume that Jesus would KNOW this?

I am not arguing that ALL text of John is errant - I have isolated on set of verses I believe to be misattributed.

3) You are creating strawmen - I didn't say you can't use post-resurrection quotes of Jesus, I didn't deny the legitimacy of two Gospels (although I do remain sceptical about their second-hand nature), and I didn't limit the discussion to Pre-Crucifixion.

4) I have to take issue with a whole section of your post... and it is something I would have expected to have to deal with from Atheists, but not from those who 'believe':

"Paul’ letters are older than the four Gospels canonized in the NT. The authors of the gospels were well aware of Paul and his teachings before they put pen to paper, and they intended to record for prosperity the story they thought their followers already knew".

You seem to be implying that the Gospels that were written AFTER Paul's letters, would somehow be modified BY Paul's letters?

One wonders what became of the notion that all scripture is 'inspired'?

saint

And while I am sure that Grave thinks that I am wrong and even irrational about many things, he has always been very respectful of my beliefs. Neither of us has ever felt the need (to my knowledge) to call each other liars or be derogatory towards each other in any way.


We pursue our truths in different spheres. I would never dream of telling someone that their pursuit of truth was 'wrong'.

I certainly don't find you irrational... quite the contrary, in fact. You are one of the posters I respect most - despite our different perspectives.

This is true, however, we now have the archaeological record to go with our theology premises and theory of origin. We now know, for example, that Paul’s writings are the oldest writings of the NT. And as such, the authors of the gospels most certainly DID know about Paul and the message he was propagating as they had met him before he wrote the papers and had direct contact with his newly founded gentile churches….

The Christian movement during the time of ACTS, was not yet in hiding from the Roman law when they expanded into the Rome and surrounding territories.

Again though, you are addressing a period of time that comes later. The disciples were actively preaching during the time of Paul’s letters, the gospels weren't penned until the apostles/Disciples began to die off... by 64 B.C.E. Paul was pretty much done and not a single canonical gospel had been penned yet, including Mark.

The supposition is, that there might have been a previously written gospel, an older unfound one that scholars call "Q," but the fact is, if there is a Q and if we do find it, it's likely going to be the same gospel that Paul spread during his evangelizing.


I'm not trying to say Paul made any direct quotes, but neither did he write a gospel. He does say that he taught a gospel. The other writers knew of Paul because Paul was well known in the community of the apostles before they left and dispersed. Paul even went to the council in Jerusalem and asked them to evaluated his message before he began writing letters, and they approved it, regardless of the fact that graven doesn't accept these passages, they exist and have been recorded.

Suppose twenty years from now you show your kids STAR WARS, and tell them that the oldest parts are really the latest parts? That the first three are written entirely with full knowledge of what happens in the last three. They won't exactly be able to argue that the director of 3 is more authentic than the director of 4, not with you around anyway, to tell him 3 was written to make sense of 4. The same is true with Paul, he wrote and dispersed the message first, then the gospels were penned so that people would understand what the heck Paul was writing about when all the disciples had passed away and there would be no more eye-witnesses of the events.

1) So - you allow Christian documents to be 'determined' in terms of age, by scientific methods?

Does this mean you oppose Young-Earth Creationism?

2) Just because Paul wrote his book before John wrote his... doesn't mean the one author copied the other. Hell, it doesn't even mean he'd read the other.

3) I have 'direct contact' with the pastor, and several of the congregation, of a little Baptist church just near here. It may surprise you to note that 'direct contact' does not equate to any shared belief, or implication of approval.

4) Why do you assume that an 'earlier unfound gospel' would agree with Paul? I suspect, just because it serves your purpose to believe it so.

5) You have made Dempublicents point. Paul did NOT write a Gospel... he merely commentated. Not only that, but he commentated on the ministry of another. Perhaps Paul preached a Gospel, but we have no idea what that Gospel was, because he didn't record it.

All we have are his clip-notes on what he believed Jesus 'meant'.

6) Which passage don't I accept? Are you telling me what I believe, again?

7) Using your Star Wars analogy... Paul isn't an installment of the Star Wars saga. Paul is the Production Designer commentary stuck on the DVD. Does the Production Designer have any understanding of what the Writer was thinking? Maybe... but no guarantee. At best, he can comment on what he THINKS the writer was trying to say...

Yes, persecuted by Jews, but not persecuted by Romans or outlawed in non-Jewish areas.

You see, that's just it. Before the gospels were penned, archaeology can NOT substantiate the idea that anyone had any writings whatsoever yet. It was verbal at this point, writings came later. They were all hearing very similar messages at this point.


At the time he wrote, there were no written gospels. As far as we can tell, there was ONLY the verbal, oral gospel. There was no written gospels for him to 'interpret' yet. It existed for them from him and others verbally.


True, but they all had the "Good News." They all had heard the gospel story from the eye-witnesses and the oral tradition.


absolutely true. That's one of the reason there are variances in the scriptures at all. But essentially, that the Good News, the message that Jesus redeems us from Sin and is the Messiah, WAS the shared element of their teachings...

My point is exactly the reverse, the first three stories try to "interpret and provide applications for any teachings in the LAST three" that were produced first. Just like the gospels. To reverse it, like Graven has, is to say that they, the first three were the original and the last three failed to understand them... when that is essentially impossible.

No, I disagree. Paul wrote and propagated the gospel before it was written AND took it to places that it had never been before. But, he also told the disciple what he message was and they approved. There is very little lee-way here, there is, in the end, no possible way for the gospel to be right and Paul wrong. The NT must be taken entirely, or, not at all. It is after all a group project, but one that consisted of a single group that DID communicate and share information with each other. And, if we are believers, then we also know that the Holy Ghost was encouraging them to 'stay the course,' and fight the good fight.


EDIT: not that you have to agree with it, but after you asked about it, I did take some amount of effort to write this: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9016344&postcount=101 in response to what you said/asked. Like I said, I'm not looking see if you agree with it, only checking now beause I wondered if it was missed entirely and I wasted my effort.


1) Again, flawed assumptions. Just because there are no written records of testimony before the Gospels were written, does not, in ANY way, mean that the bulk of people were preaching the same message. Quite the opposite would seem logical.

2) You admit it yourself, there ARE variances in scripture... and these variances are engendered by human error. Even though we assume all the texts came from witnesses, or from second-hand witnesses, there is always the human error margin. I see no reason to automatically consider Paul WITHIN that margin.

3) Again with the assumptions: "the message that Jesus redeems us from Sin and is the Messiah, WAS the shared element of their teachings"... that isn't even supported as necessarily true by the Gospels we have.

4) You 'assume' that the Gospel writers WOULD have changed their testimony to match Paul... I don't see how you can regard ANY Gospel as being witness testimony, if you truly believe that.

5) And how you go from that assertion, to the idea that the 'holy ghost' was ensuring some kind of doctrinal continuity??? I don't see how you can argue both arguments.

6) The NT must be taken entirely, or not at all? Why? Revelation doesn't describe anything that happened DURING those times... what relevence does it have? What about the fact that the NT is only a partial representation of scriptures at that point? Enoch was considered Canonical, when Jesus ministered, and yet is NOT today. Tobit was considered Canonical, and is not today.

What is Christ's message? That the entirety of works, and the extent of the law hangs upon "love" to God first, and then, like it, to our neighbors.


No.

That is one answer, to one specific question.

And you accuse me of taking text out of context.

You take your 'inspiration' from a responses to a question about commandments.

I take my 'inspiration' from what Jesus actually stood and preached.

You will not accept my inspiration, just as I do not accept yours.


Was it wrong of Paul to tell those in Thessalonika not to feed "busybodies" and the "idle"... Who do no work? But abuse the charity of those in the congregation there... People who feel that they will lay about till the Lord Returns?

In a way, Paul was wrong. Jesus said he would be back, and it sounded like he meant soon...

He also did preach an 'idle' congregation, in a way...

Matthew 6:25-6 "Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment? Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?"

And, Matthew 6:28-30 "And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin: And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these... Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith?"

Not really true. The Romans were looking to quash the "new" religion as soon ast it had formed. This is why many early Christian apologetics were trying to prove that they were, in fact, still Jews. The Romans were very tolerant of already established religions, but persecuted any new religion.

That’s too much of an oversimplification of the situation for our discussion, we need to define precisely when and what we are talking about. I’m referring specifically to the period of years that Paul could have been writing letters without a written Gospel. What can be determine from other known events?

Between 29-37 C.E. (window of opportunity for the crucifixion, most say 33, but that’s based on the idea that Jesus was 33 at the time, but we have some divergence of when he was born) and 70 C.E (the earliest date we can place the gospel of Mark), and for this discussion of Paul we can bring it down to 64 C.E. when Nero blamed the Christians for the burning of Rome and Paul was killed.

Then, after we add the 14 years that Paul said he was ‘hiding’ in the desert, to the earliest Crucifixion date, we can determine the first time Paul could have written letter to not be before 45 C.E (51 C.E. is the accepted date of Galatians, so our theory is holding up ~ the variances being when was the Crucifixion).

For now, there is no reason to assume a date later than 51 C.E., for Galatians, so the span of years that Paul could have been writing letters without the benefit of a written gospel to ‘interpret’ are between the years of 44-51 and 64 C.E., a twenty year window of opportunity at best and most likely only 13 years total.
(more info on dates) http://www.bombaxo.com/paulchron.html

With that in mind, I resubmit that what I said above still holds true. The period of years that Paul actively dispersed the ‘gospel’ in written “Q” form or oral Q form, and wrote his letters is sufficiently ahead of the first known written gospel for me to say that the gospel writer must have been fully aware of Paul’s teachings. There is no reason to suggest that the gospel writers didn’t have the same “Good News” in mind as Paul taught, when they began to write the gospels we know. And with that in mind, it is utter ridiculousness to suggest that Paul changed anything about what they wrote and we can read today, as if the pre-crucifixion Jesus quotes are somehow superiror to the later quotes and that early Christianity someone started without a common understanding between the Apostles and Paul.



You have just contradicted yourself. First, you say that Paul's letters came before Gospel was written down. Then you say there were no writings used by the churches prior to the Gospels. Which are you actually trying to say. See above.



You can only interpret something that is written down? How interesting. So if I came up with a poem and never bothered to write it down, no one could possibly interpret it? You can interpret it, but if you mess it up in the retelling the other Apostles and teachers of that poem will not be effected by your ‘changed’ rendering of it and continue to tell it as it was. However, there is no archaeological reason to suggest that this has happened. All of the evidence for this period of time suggests that they shared the same ‘gospel’ message. It’s a dead end, a red herring, to suggest otherwise without a reason to think so.



So you are saying that the Gospels are only there to provide interpretations of Paul's teachings?

That pretty much invalidates the idea that Christianity is a religion designed to follow Christ, doesn't it?

Not in the least. We can assume that the original gospel, the “‘Q” if you will (oral or written) was a singular event, otherwise we wouldn’t be able to detect it’s existence in later writings. And thus, as a singular event, we can determine that Paul and the apostles shared this singular event of the “Good News” and transferred from Jesus himself. So the Paul writings being first and the gospel writings in support of Paul do not change the fact that Jesus started the message, the essence of Q.



(a) Do you really think Paul sent every letter to some council before sending it to the churches in question? I don't - especially since they were all out doing their own preaching. It makes much more sense that they agreed on some general principles to begin with and then set off preaching - exactly as preachers do now. The core message is certainly the same, but application and interpretation can be very different - especially when faced with real-life situations rather than hypotheticals.

I do not propose that he sent every letter to every apostle, I propose that over the thirteen years and then sic more after his death, they were able to find out by design or by accident, what Paul had done, and they did all that before putting pen to paper before writing Mark.


(b) As believers, we know that, even with the Holy Ghost encouraging human beings to "stay the course", we sometimes go astray. We sometimes feel very strongly that we are getting the message right, but are in fact not doing so.
Happens all the time.


Preachers who told women to go home and allow their husbands to keep beating them every night probably thought they were following Christ's admonishment to turn the other cheek and interpreting it properly - as driven by the Holy Ghost. They thought this because they were, as we all are, products of their own society and, as most are, fairly ignorant of other societies. However, I'm sure there were some prietss who had studied the passage more closely, or were truly following the Spirit, rather than their view of the words - and told women that they must find a way out of that situation.

This sounds like a topic that you have very strong feelings about. I entirely agree that there have been idiots that have messed up their teachings. However, I don’t think this is Paul’ fault. You happen to already know my opinion on it personally. You know, my version of relative and community ‘strong-arm’ peer pressure to end the activity. And, I’ll go further, if the offender doesn’t stop even after some community ‘pummeling,’ ostracizing and excommunication from the community would be in order… Again though, I don’t see how Paul's writings suggests we should allow other people to beat their wives and kids, or any other kind of abuse.

=) I suspect we both are partially right in our suspicions of each other's methods - at times. Thus, the spiritual path is, I believe, an ongoing journey - and even when we reach the end of our journey, we are unlikely to have everything correct. (Wow, that sounded kind of Yoda-ish).

Entirely open to the possibility, and in fact probability, that your analyses of the situation is without error :D

With that in mind, I resubmit that what I said above still holds true.

How does any of that demonstrate that the only persecution was coming from the Jews?

The period of years that Paul actively dispersed the ‘gospel’ in written “Q” form or oral Q form, and wrote his letters is sufficiently ahead of the first known written gospel for me to say that the gospel writer must have been fully aware of Paul’s teachings.

I don't see how this follows. The gospel writer certainly would have been fully aware of the basic Gospel - the basis of the teachings. However, much like the pope is not aware of every single counsel given by every single priest, even within a single diocese, they would not have known every bit of counsel Paul gave other churches.

There is no reason to suggest that the gospel writers didn’t have the same “Good News” in mind as Paul taught, when they began to write the gospels we know.

Here lies the problem. I have never suggested that Paul was teaching a different version of the Gospels than anyone else. I have simply suggested that some of his application of it - his interpretation of it, may have been off.

Suppose you and I saw a young girl throw a ball against a wall and it looked as if her face was wet.

I might think that she must be angry and crying and that the proper thing to do would be to find out what was wrong.

You might notice that it is very hot outside and she is probably playing by bouncing the ball off the wall and sweating.

We both saw the exact same thing - the same Gospel, if you will, but interpreted and applied it differently. Of course, in this case, whichever of us was wrong would find out rather quickly. In the case of interpreting and applying Gospel, we won't know for sure until death.

You can interpret it, but if you mess it up in the retelling the other Apostles and teachers of that poem will not be effected by your ‘changed’ rendering of it and continue to tell it as it was.

Interpretation is not a flawed retelling. You can recite the poem or story back absolutely the same as someone else, but still have a different view of it - a different interpretation of what it means.

So the Paul writings being first and the gospel writings in support of Paul do not change the fact that Jesus started the message, the essence of Q.

Exactly my point. So why are you so hell-bent on suggesting that Paul's teachings specifically somehow influenced the later telling of the Gospel?

I do not propose that he sent every letter to every apostle, I propose that over the thirteen years and then sic more after his death, they were able to find out by design or by accident, what Paul had done, and they did all that before putting pen to paper before writing Mark.

I think this is a very naive view. Even in a single church with, say, two preachers, one preacher is not going to know every bit of counsel given by the other to parishioners. We're talking about a ministry spanning many, many miles and many churches of different backgrounds. I'm sure that the Gospel writers would have heard the basics of what Paul was teaching - but they would not be aware of every bit of counsel he gave to the churches.

This sounds like a topic that you have very strong feelings about. I entirely agree that there have been idiots that have messed up their teachings. However, I don’t think this is Paul’ fault.

Nor do I. I was simply giving an example of how one could interpret something poorly. Paul might have equally provided some poor interpretation in the long course of his ministry.

Then, after we add the 14 years that Paul said he was ‘hiding’ in the desert, to the earliest Crucifixion date,


Why? Just because 'he' says so?


a twenty year window of opportunity at best and most likely only 13 years total.


If you accept your math, and all the assumptions you make.


With that in mind, I resubmit that what I said above still holds true. The period of years that Paul actively dispersed the ‘gospel’ in written “Q” form or oral Q form,


There is no evidence, at all, that Paul dispersed the (hypothetical) contents of 'Q'.


and wrote his letters is sufficiently ahead of the first known written gospel for me to say that the gospel writer must have been fully aware of Paul’s teachings.


Might have been aware... not 'must'. We are talking about a time before our modern mass-communications.


There is no reason to suggest that the gospel writers didn’t have the same “Good News” in mind as Paul taught,


Nor any reason, except your desire for it to be so, to suggest they DID have the same 'good news'.


All of the evidence for this period of time suggests that they shared the same ‘gospel’ message. It’s a dead end, a red herring, to suggest otherwise without a reason to think so.


No - it doesn't. That's just not true. They may have shared several messages.


Not in the least. We can assume that the original gospel, the “‘Q” if you will (oral or written) was a singular event, otherwise we wouldn’t be able to detect it’s existence in later writings.


Again, not true. I can write something that quotes from two sources, and so could you... especially if we BOTH considered both sources important.

The hypothetical 'Q' may be a whole canon of undiscovered literature.


And thus, as a singular event, we can determine that Paul and the apostles shared this singular event


Again - a baseless assumption. There is some evidence that Matthew and Luke read a similar text, or heard a similar story.


of the “Good News” and transferred from Jesus himself.


Again - baselss assumption. If they all gained their insights from ONE witness, that witness could be wrong. There is no automatic link between 'gospels' and Jesus.


So the Paul writings being first and the gospel writings in support of Paul


The Gospels were likely written to avoid loss of knowledge during times of persecution, and when it became clear that Jesus wasn't returning anytime soon.


I do not propose that he sent every letter to every apostle, I propose that over the thirteen years and then sic more after his death, they were able to find out by design or by accident, what Paul had done, and they did all that before putting pen to paper before writing Mark.


Propose it, if you will. Doesn't make it true, or provide any evidence. There is no reason to assume that ALL Gospels were written with Paul's testimony in mind... let alone as a guiding principle.

No.

That is one answer, to one specific question.

And you accuse me of taking text out of context.

You take your 'inspiration' from a responses to a question about commandments.

I take my 'inspiration' from what Jesus actually stood and preached.

You will not accept my inspiration, just as I do not accept yours.

"What is the greatest commandment"... yes, an answer to a specific question. So, grave, WHAT IS THE GREATEST COMMANDMENT? Is it to feed the poor? Or is it love?



In a way, Paul was wrong. Jesus said he would be back, and it sounded like he meant soon...

He also did preach an 'idle' congregation, in a way...

Matthew 6:25-6 "Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment? Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?"

And, Matthew 6:28-30 "And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin: And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these... Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith?"

Won't even dignify your perversion with a response Grave... Maybe if you actually were to a look again, you would see where your error lays...

GRAVE_N_IDLE IS IGNORED.

"What is the greatest commandment"... yes, an answer to a specific question. So, grave, WHAT IS THE GREATEST COMMANDMENT? Is it to feed the poor? Or is it love?


The greatest commandment is irrelevent to the question of Jesus ministry. If someone asks me what my favourite colour is, they cannot really claim that my philosophy on life is determined by my response.


Won't even dignify your perversion with a response Grave... Maybe if you actually were to a look again, you would see where your error lays...


You say "won't dignify"... I think perhaps you cannot refute it.

We'll have to agree to differ on your motives.

But, in the light of...


<color=white>GRAVE_N_IDLE IS IGNORED.</colour>

(Color tabs edited by me) I don't really think I'm going to have to worry about what your explanation might have been, am I?

You could have simply said you didn't wish to debate further, rather than hiding messages...

Very mature, Tekania.

Well, thank you for your time. I hope you got as much out of it as I did.

How does any of that demonstrate that the only persecution was coming from the Jews? Because the Roman persecution began in 64. (edit note: the only thing before 64 is this, Emperor Claudius, "Since the Jews were constantly causing disturbances at the instigation of CHRESTUS, he expelled them from the city...", that in itself is not persecution though, the persecution you are thinking of started with Nero and the burning of Rome).


Exactly my point. So why are you so hell-bent on suggesting that Paul's teachings specifically somehow influenced the later telling of the Gospel? Because Graven has implied indirectly, but via his accusation of their unreliability and he didn't believe them to be accurate comments about other scripture, implying that since the council of Nicaea had favored Paul’s teachings over some other imagined by him equally accepted gospel, that this 'other' Jesus-Messiah stuff was dismissed and covered up somehow.

Thus, to refute that claim, I’m reminding the participants of this conversation that Paul’s writings are in fact older than any of the gospels, which one's do we suppose could be more authentic than the ones we have now? Which ones could have been lost before Paul? None. They didn’t exist, it’s a baseless accusation.

For example:
Why? Just because 'he' says so? It’s an attack on the very integrity of Paul being able to write anything at all. Yet, you quote Jesus from scripture, scripture that was written later by people that supported Paul’s ministry. You have no archaeological reason to suggest anything to the contrary, only contrary opinion that it MUST have been different than what Paul says. When I quote Paul, it’s challenged as not being believable, if I quote Luke or John, it’s belittled as not eye-witness, if quote Jesus, its commentary… And then when I say you make too many rules for the discussion that I end up with half a book that you may or may not allow as legitimate and authentic passage, you say; when did I say you can’t use other scriptures? Uh huh… okay then.



Originally Posted by Ph33rdom
And thus, as a singular event, we can determine that Paul and the apostles shared this singular event

Again - a baseless assumption. There is some evidence that Matthew and Luke read a similar text, or heard a similar story.
That ‘some evidence’ you admit to is the entire evidence that supports any idea of a Q existing ever, anywhere. Without that ‘some’ evidence, there is no speculation of Q to begin with. How could Paul have shared the ‘gospel’ if there wasn't at least one version of it, but if there was more than one version of Q the very evidence that we have that suggests it might have existed would not exist.

As to Paul saying he shared the gospel, what was the gospel, if it’s not the Good News Story? And what is that story if Jesus wasn’t resurrected?

You know me, PR... you know I am not going to accept John's word OVER Jesus. If there are important words in the New Testament, those words are the words of Jesus - not the commentators who came later (like John or Luke), nor those who claim to be messengers of Jesus (like Paul).

Where someone says something that modifies Jesus - I stick to Jesus.

So - while John claims that salvation is bought with the blood of christ, Jesus doesn't say so - and so, I cannot accept John as anything more than commentator, and fallible.

Regarding the 'way, truth and life' thing... you are aware that the same passage could be translated directly from Hebrew as "I, myself, exist properly and objectively and also genuinely - noone comes to the father but through my means"? Obviously - that is just one possible interpretation... but, even in the KJV translation, Jesus isn't saying that his death = salvation, or that his intercession = salvation. He just says he 'is the way'... and that seems to me to refer to his his life, his message and his example.



I agree that this is agreement with James and Jesus... but I still don't see how Pauls' words can be made to fit.



I still don't buy it... Jesus preached generosity and kindness... it was pretty much all of his ministry. Pauls' comments don't differentiate between able-bodied and disabled... he just says any that will not work, will not eat.

So, are you arguing that where John quotes Christ, those are John's words rather than Christ's? If that is the case, it is absolutely impossible to continue this discussion logically as there would be no way of knowing what Christ taught.

I'd say Christ's statements in John 3:16-19 make it pretty clear that it is through Him/belief in Him that salvation occurs. For further clarification on the issue of Christ making statements about His substitutionary sacrifice, His comments at His last meal with the disciples in Matt 26:27-30 and Luke 22:11-22 make it clear that His blood was for the remission of sins. Isaiah prophecied that our sins would be laid on Him and that by His stripes we would be healed. You don't need Paul or the other disciples to make this case, Christ said it Himself, the OT predicted and promised it, Paul and the other disciples just made it easier to understand.

One of the things that you're missing here is that Christ, by His own statment said that the entirity of the "Law and the Prophets" or in other words, the Old Testiment in some way or another reveal Him. One of the key components to the OT was the sacrifical system which was patterned after the perfectly complete Heavenly Sanctuary. That whole system was given as a revelation of what Christ's/the Messiah's ministry would be. It's central/key service was the Day of Atonement at which time the sanctuary was clensed of the sins symbolically laid upon it during the daily sacrifices. Daniel discusses antitypical Day of Atonement in such a way that it is pretty clear that it would occur in the Heavenly Sanctuary. Christ's statements about the Old Testiment being a revelation of Himself lends further credence to Paul's ideas in the book of Hebrews that suggest Christ is both High Priest and Sacrifice in the Heavenly sanctuary.

As for Paul's words agreeing with James and Christ were talking about your choice to interpret things in such a way as to see them as disagreeing, by your own admission. It is also possible to see them from the alternate perspective. I think one of the things you seem to be struggling with is the idea that if we are saved by faith, that good works (care for others/poor, sick etc) are no longer an obilgation. However, you are right that Christ's teaching enjoines this upon every follower as does the teaching of the apostles as well, it just isn't the means of salvation but rather the result of salvation. It is the difference between those who claim to know Christ and follow Him and those who genuinely do. Good works are the fruits of salvation, salvation being played out in the transformation of the human from selfishness to unselfishness, but it isn't possible for it to be completed without being justified by grace through faith as our righteousness, no matter how good, is never enough to save us from the results of our sin/death.

Because the Roman persecution began in 64. (edit note: the only thing before 64 is this, Emperor Claudius, "Since the Jews were constantly causing disturbances at the instigation of CHRESTUS, he expelled them from the city...", that in itself is not persecution though, the persecution you are thinking of started with Nero and the burning of Rome).

From what I have read, it wasn't a sudden thing. The Romans were very intolerant of new religions, period. The bulk of early persecution was Jewish, but there was most likely a gradual increase in Roman persecution - perhaps spurred onwards by other factors as well.

Because Graven has implied indirectly, but via his accusation of their unreliability and he didn't believe them to be accurate comments about other scripture, implying that since the council of Nicaea had favored Paul’s teachings over some other imagined by him equally accepted gospel, that this 'other' Jesus-Messiah stuff was dismissed and covered up somehow.

I haven't really seen him saying that at all. First of all, I don't remember Grave ever suggesting that there was a wholly different "equally accepted gospel" at Nicea.

I think the main point here is that we can't argue about Paul's version of the Gospel - we don't know it. Paul didn't write a Gospel, so we can't claim that his version was any different than any of those we do have. Paul was writing commentary on the Gospel - he was discussing how he thought the good news should change the lives of the new Christians and how different teachings shoudl be applied. Paul may very well may have been working off of the same core beliefs - in fact, I find that very likely. But that doesn't mean he interpreted them in the same way. I could be wrong, but I think this is basically what Grave is trying to point out - although he seems to see more malice behind it, while I think Paul, being human, just would've been wrong sometimes.

For example: It’s an attack on the very integrity of Paul being able to write anything at all.

Or a reminder that Paul himself was fallible, possibly even to the point of changing a few details to make sure he pushed his point. It really depends on how you look at it - much as Scripture does. We don't really know and perhaps we should consider the teachings of Paul in much the same way as we would any preacher.

From what I have read, it wasn't a sudden thing. The Romans were very intolerant of new religions, period. The bulk of early persecution was Jewish, but there was most likely a gradual increase in Roman persecution - perhaps spurred onwards by other factors as well. Unless you are talking about persecutions outside of Rome (meaning the city) I honestly don’t know what you are referring to…It’s the first historical document I can find that talks about persecuting Christians (outside of the Bible itself).

TACITUS, The Annals of Imperial Rome Book XV, chapter 47 (A.D. 64) [during the Great Fire of Rome]
...neither human resources, nor imperial generosity, nor appeasement of the gods, eliminated the sinister suspicion that the fire had been deliberately started. To stop the rumor, NERO, made scapegoats--and punished with every refinement the notoriously depraved CHRISTIANS (as they were popularly called). Their originator, CHRIST, had been executed in Tiberius' reign by the Procurator of Judaea, PONTIUS PILATUS (governor from 26 to 36 A.D.). But in spite of this temporary setback, the deadly superstition had broken out again, not just in Judaea (where the mischief had started) but even in Rome. All degraded and shameful practices collect and flourish in the capital. First, NERO had the self-admitted Christians arrested. Then, on their information, large numbers of others were condemned--not so much for starting fires as because of their hatred for the human race. Their deaths were made amusing. Dressed in wild animals' skins, they were torn to pieces by dogs, or crucified, or made into torches to be seton fire after dark as illumination.... Despite their guilt as Christians, and the ruthless punishment it deserved, the victims were pitied. For it was felt that they were being sacrificed to one man's brutality rather than to the national interest."

But I’ll drop that issue for now if you will, as we both know that the Christians were in Rome during the period that Paul was writing the letter in question here. I stressed my point because I wanted to make sure that we weren’t confusing the second century conditions and writings with the first century situation which was a bit different.

I haven't really seen him saying that at all. First of all, I don't remember Grave ever suggesting that there was a wholly different "equally accepted gospel" at Nicea.

In regards to quoting scripture with Graven you don’t get counterpoint, you get nonsense innuendo or pure hate speech: In defense of my accusation:

When you quote Paul, you get;
· So - the person who might have lied.... is assumed to be telling the truth.. because he SAYS he is? And is assumed to have been sanctioned, because he says he was?
· On the other hand, why SHOULD anyone believe Paul's words to be true? You don't read Lemony Snicket and assume that the Baudelaire Orphans are 'true'... in fact, if someone asserted they WERE, you would DEMAND reliable evidence.
I see no 'reliable evidence' for Paul's veracity.
· My point? Paul was no saint... and arguably was not a close follower of Christian teaching, by the standards measured against Jesus. Further - there is little evidence to say that Paul's ministry has any value - other than that he asserts for himself...
· Was he a bad man? Was he a good man? Did the influence of Jesus have any effect on him?
Did he ever even exist?
· If we follow ANYONE aside from Jesus, it should be James -*snip*... entirely in opposition to Paul, and, therefore, much more true to the teachings of Jesus.
· Paul is the enemy of Christlike thinking.
· I have read and studied the Pauline epistles. I think he is anti-Christ.
· I think Paul was a heretic... that's my belief

When you try to use the Gospel of John or Luke and using other books in the Bible, besides Mark or Matthew
· So - while John claims that salvation is bought with the blood of christ, Jesus doesn't say so - and so, I cannot accept John as anything more than commentator, and fallible.
· Colour your beliefs of Jesus by the other texts if you wish, but you are not a Christian if you do... just someone using his name.
· There are only two true Gospels. The other two are written by non-witnesses - and thus, should be accorded only the acuracy and relevence to which they can be corroborated with the OTHER Gospels.
· Are we quoting John? Who.. wasn't even there?
· Thus, I mentioned that your '4 Gospels' was, in terms of direct testimony of events, at best 2 Gospels.
· I have NO reason to believe those 2 Gsopels valid, either... I am just saying, they have the BEST possibility of being real witness testimony.(this one was about Mark and Matthew as well)
· I am sceptical of the words of Jesus, as recorded, too.
· John 3:16, to my mind, clearly is part of John's commentary. I'm not sure WHY anyone would believe it to be the words of Jesus... to my mind it is obviously a third-party comment. I wonder why you DO accept it as Jesus? Just because the letters are a different colour in the book?


I had to counter the suggestion that there were multiple gospels or messages or Messiahs etc., or that the pre-crusifixion passages are in some way superior :
· You are wrong. I see that the infant Christianity expanded and extrapolated, but it did not do so from one root.
· Which is part of the reason that I value the Post-Jesus scripture very differently to the Pre-Crucifixion ministry.
· I think Jesus would have refuted Paul's version of his ministry... but, of course, he couldn't, could he? I think Jesus would have had a lot to say about claims of Paul performing 'miracles'... I think Paul (and his followers who wrote records in his memory, no doubt) thought perhaps there was space for two messiahs...
· What, you mean that the words of Jesus may have actually been things he said after he died?
· My purpose is to point out that the NT may contain TWO salvation messages, basically: one from Jesus, and one from Paul.

Then it ends with: What have I refused to accept, that Jesus said?

What is this 'idol' you say I have created?

More to the point... if I had... who are you to say I am wrong?

Which passage don't I accept? Are you telling me what I believe, again?


It makes one wonder what part of the ‘scripture’ one reads: “ I have read what is in the scripture, and I see it differently to you. Perhaps if you studied it more closely, you would see it the same way?” Because after all of that, I don’t see there being much scripture left at all.



I think the main point here is that we can't argue about Paul's version of the Gospel - we don't know it. Paul didn't write a Gospel, so we can't claim that his version was any different than any of those we do have. Paul was writing commentary on the Gospel - he was discussing how he thought the good news should change the lives of the new Christians and how different teachings shoudl be applied. Paul may very well may have been working off of the same core beliefs - in fact, I find that very likely. But that doesn't mean he interpreted them in the same way. I could be wrong, but I think this is basically what Grave is trying to point out - although he seems to see more malice behind it, while I think Paul, being human, just would've been wrong sometimes. We can’t produce it as relic, but we can with logical evaluation determine what it was most likely to be and what is was not likely to be.

It could not be drastically different that what we read in Mark, a work that was produced only a short time after Paul’s death (6 years or so most likely), and in addition to that, there is the Luke version which is considered to have been penned by a disciple of Paul.

Thus, the gospel Paul used would in all likelihood not seem foreign to us, not seem alien to us, if we should be so lucky as to find a copy of it and read it. It would be illogical to assume otherwise, considering the short period of time between Paul’s death and the first writing of the first known gospel.

Or a reminder that Paul himself was fallible, possibly even to the point of changing a few details to make sure he pushed his point. It really depends on how you look at it - much as Scripture does. We don't really know and perhaps we should consider the teachings of Paul in much the same way as we would any preacher. If Paul was fallible, this is a discussion that could take a thesis and still not come to a satisfactory conclusion. For the very moment, I will recognize your position as a valid concern. Perhaps it is too broad? A precise example would be more manageable?

The only book in the bible written in Arimaic is a part of Daniel, and that's in the OT..
My bad, I was unclear. They are taking the greek, putting into the equivilant aramaic, then into whatever other language they dern well feel like (english, french, german, swahili etc.)
still fun stuff :)

Unless you are talking about persecutions outside of Rome (meaning the city) I honestly don’t know what you are referring to…It’s the first historical document I can find that talks about persecuting Christians (outside of the Bible itself).

Rome was only a small part of the Roman empire, but I suppose it really is a moot point.

In regards to quoting scripture with Graven you don’t get counterpoint, you get nonsense innuendo or pure hate speech: In defense of my accusation:

Some of those are certainly more inflammatory than I would like, but I wouldn't call them nonsense or hate speech.

We can’t produce it as relic, but we can with logical evaluation determine what it was most likely to be and what is was not likely to be.

Certainly.

Thus, the gospel Paul used would in all likelihood not seem foreign to us, not seem alien to us, if we should be so lucky as to find a copy of it and read it. It would be illogical to assume otherwise, considering the short period of time between Paul’s death and the first writing of the first known gospel.

Like I said, I don't doubt in the least that the Gospel used by Paul would be very similar to the ones we now read. It is his interpretation and application of that news that I occasionally find fault with.

If Paul was fallible, this is a discussion that could take a thesis and still not come to a satisfactory conclusion.

Like I said, the search for truth is always ongoing.

For the very moment, I will recognize your position as a valid concern. Perhaps it is too broad? A precise example would be more manageable?

I don't really have a specific example at the moment. I just feel that Paul, being human, was fallible, and very well might have gotten some things wrong. I see him much as I would a preacher giving a sermon. The preacher (depending on denomination/etc) is likely to have studied the message more than I, and so I will certainly listen to his thoughts on it with interest. However, they still must be filtered and examined in a prayerful manner before I view them as truth - and even then, having filtered and examined them myself, they are open to further discussion.

As to the validity of each gospel being true to JC:
First 4 books being the Gospels (good news) of JC. Matthew tells the story of Jesus the Savior, promised messiah of Israel from conception through resurrection. Mark tells of Jesus from babtism through resurrection as Jesus the Savior of the Gentiles. Luke also has Gentile Savior and a secondary theme of God's concern for the poor, women, outcastes etc. (these three are the synoptic gospels due to parallel structure and content)
John takes Jesus as the eternal, divind Son of God who came to earth to show God's glory in life, death, and resurrection.
see, even the apostles focused on different stuff as the important bit of JC's message/meaning.
Next is the Acts of the Apostles, the only book of the NT devoted to a historical account of the early church.
The rest of the NT is largely composed of letters of instruction and correction written by church, starting with Paul, arranged mostly by leangth.
Iand II Corinthians Paul discusses varous issues relating to Christian doctrine, morality and worship and keeping Gentile xians away from jewish xianity. Philippians urges xians to find joy in JC., Thessalonians is about what happens when JC comes back. The Timithoy's and Titus are instructions about pastoral offices and church life. Ephesians, and colossians (considered NOT to be Paul's letters, just written under his name) talk about JC as the savour who unifies and JC as the all sufficient savior of the universe.

Ok, works of the life and works of JC, and letters by Paul organizing the new religion. If Paul hadn't done it, someone else would have....oh, wait. Other people did.
The next section of NT is known as the general letters. Begining with hte Hebrews, and anonymous letter written discouraging a return to Judaism. Book of James telling what sort of life to lead, 1 &2 Peter offers giudlines for xian behavior and urges them to stay true to 'traditional' xian teachings. John combats false teachings and Jude also defends agianst false teachings.

Picking on Paul alone seems unfair. There are lots of letters in the NT telling xians how to be xian. It had to be done, the kingdom of heaven didn't come and now they had a religion with no structrue and the gospels didn't give rules and regulations, other people had to do that.
Paul felt he got his info from JC directly during his vision. That gave him the authority to teach, the ultimate authority he claimed.

More to the point, if Paul was in some way mutilating the message of xianity then God failed because he allowed a false teaching to enter the bible and Athanasius failed when he decided the letters met the three requirments to be scripture.
Paul gets flac because he didn't follow the teachings of JC? Of course he didn't, he didn't care about the life of JC because it was the death and resurrection that mattered. Jesus beat death (sin) so follow JC and you'll also beat sin.

agian, who knows if I make a point or not, its just fun and games until someone looses an eye. Then it's just fun.

Why? Just because 'he' says so?
Do you have a single reason whatsoever to suggest it might not be true? Or are you just randomly walking around accusing people of not being honest?


If you accept your math, and all the assumptions you make.
If you find a flaw in the math, let me know, I’m more than willing to take correction in this aspect of it. I’m constantly looking for improvements… But other than that, what assumptions in it did you think might be wrong?



There is no evidence, at all, that Paul dispersed the (hypothetical) contents of 'Q'. There is all kinds of evidence that Paul spread the gospel. There is all kinds of evidence that there was one Q that was the common denominator in later gospels… There is however, no archaeological reason to suggest or even hypothesize about a second Q.



Might have been aware... not 'must'. We are talking about a time before our modern mass-communications. We are talking about the Roman world that had travelers and trade from one end to the other, and Paul was not the only traveling evangelist. More than one apostle died in Rome…



Nor any reason, except your desire for it to be so, to suggest they DID have the same 'good news'. There is nothing in the historical record to suggest there was more than one ‘Good News,’ during the time frame in discussion.



The hypothetical 'Q' may be a whole canon of undiscovered literature. And it MAY have the secrets to Atlantis and Extra-Terrestrial colonization on earth, but it probably doesn’t. There is no reason to cloud the issue with outlandish and baseless suggestion/speculation.



Again - baselss assumption. If they all gained their insights from ONE witness, that witness could be wrong. There is no automatic link between 'gospels' and Jesus. Then why do you quote them when you think it might really be something Jesus said? You claim that you can see a real Jesus figure in the gospels, but you dismiss the authenticity of the books themselves. You have nothing but your own words to stand on…



The Gospels were likely written to avoid loss of knowledge during times of persecution, and when it became clear that Jesus wasn't returning anytime soon.
One hundred percent agree. That is a very likely reason that they were written.



Propose it, if you will. Doesn't make it true, or provide any evidence. There is no reason to assume that ALL Gospels were written with Paul's testimony in mind... let alone as a guiding principle. Actually it does. Mark was earliest, and it was used by both Matthew and Luke, and we know Luke was from the Roman sphere and most likely someone that followed Paul’s teaching, we can assign three gospels to one. And John is without a doubt, the easiest gospel to recognize Paul’s teaching of Salvation through forgiveness of sin via Christ the Messiah.

So what is your evidence, with the historical record in mind, of how they could possibly have been written without knowing about each other?

*snip*
agian, who knows if I make a point or not, its just fun and games until someone looses an eye. Then it's just fun.


Good enough for this thread, nicely done and funny at the end, rewarding us for reading through it :p

Picking on Paul alone seems unfair.

Certainly. There simply are more of Paul's ideas incorporated into canon than any other single evangelist. Like I said, I view preachers as most likely having some insight into the message, but certainly not as being infallible.

More to the point, if Paul was in some way mutilating the message of xianity then God failed because he allowed a false teaching to enter the bible

Why are you assuming that God specifically protected everything that went into canon? God sent Christ to provide salvation, but still left the rest up to free will. Perhaps the Scriptures were never meant to be perfect? If they were, why would one need a personal relationship with God?

and Athanasius failed when he decided the letters met the three requirments to be scripture.

Athanasius came up with those rules. They very well might have met the rules, but still not have been completely correct.

Paul gets flac because he didn't follow the teachings of JC? Of course he didn't, he didn't care about the life of JC because it was the death and resurrection that mattered. Jesus beat death (sin) so follow JC and you'll also beat sin.

You have contradicted yourself. You cannot state that Paul didn't care about the life and teachings of JC and then said to follow JC. There is nothing to follow, if not the life and teachings.

D’oh! You are so mean! j/k They just peaked in with a little bit of interest and typed a little post and you jumped all over them! And it was such a nice post too! :P


Why are you assuming that God specifically protected everything that went into canon? God sent Christ to provide salvation, but still left the rest up to free will. Perhaps the Scriptures were never meant to be perfect? If they were, why would one need a personal relationship with God?

Athanasius came up with those rules. They very well might have met the rules, but still not have been completely correct.

Religious reason why. Because Jesus said that if they came together, two of them came together specificaly, in his name and asked for something it would be given to them… and there, in Nicaea, they had something like 318 of them and I'll strongly propose the idea that they prayed for guidance :D

Besides, without good quality scripture, future generations would have a harder time justifying and being inspired to find their ‘personal relationship with God.’

Non-religious reason, it the original Christian writings, whether they liked it or not, there is no older Christian writings around.


You have contradicted yourself. You cannot state that Paul didn't care about the life and teachings of JC and then said to follow JC. There is nothing to follow, if not the life and teachings.
That’s not right. There is tons and tons of stuff to follow. Jesus didn’t write anything down because he either knew it would be written after-the-fact, OR that’s not why he was here. Jesus didn’t change the Law, he completed it, brought it to fruition Paul seem to have spoken about that a lot. And, again, Paul says he did share the gospel, this might be a non-issue. He shared a pre-Mark gospel and probably understood it quite well.

D’oh! You are so mean! j/k They just peaked in with a little bit of interest and typed a little post and you jumped all over them! And it was such a nice post too! :P.
awww, thank you. For you, a fluffle :fluffle:

And Dem, I don't say Paul didn't follow the teachings, just not the life. Remember, the way JC lived was second to the ressurection. JC beat death (sin) so he must be the dude to follow. The message given during his life is important, the ressurection is key, the rest is filler.
And we agree about scripture, flaw happens, so a choice has to be made:
1) Divine inspiration makes all parts of the bible valid and true
or
2) A work of fiction inspired by what we hope are true events riddled with inconsistancy and failings.

Me, I go for fiction, cause I'm not religious. There may be Gods, but why encourage them by believing? :)

I only got to page six or so of this, so forgive me if the random points I'm covering have already been covered/refuted ad nauseum by someone else.

Jesus was highly unlikely to have been an Essene. While there are some doctrinal issues they share, that's true of almost any two Jews of the time period; just because Jesus and a Samaritan would agree upon the existence of Yahweh does not make Jesus a Samaritan.

The Essenes were a warrior cult first and foremost. That is one of the main reasons why they were so stringently opposed to sexual relations among members of their order of any kind; according to Levitican law, a person who engages in sexual relations is ritually impure, and ritual impurity is not something you want to be while you are fighting a battle for your God. As such, the Essenes condemned sexual licentiousness to avoid having their warriors made ritually impure.

Compare this with Jesus' teachings, and it's fairly easy to see why Jesus cannot be considered an Essene, or even closely related to an Essene. By and large, he condemned organized violence, which the Essenes promoted and excelled at. He opposed fighting the Roman Empire on religious grounds, whereas the Essenes actively revolted on religious grounds about 50 years after Jesus' death. Jesus didn't seem to have any a priori objections to sex, just adultery, whereas the Essenes were against sexual contact of any kind.

Moreover, the Essenes were far, far from Jesus' teachings on matters of the soul and resurrection, primarily because the Essenes, like most Jews of the time, had no conception of the soul and resurrection was seen as purely a bodily resurrection that would occur at Final Judgement. The whole notion of heaven and a soul are drawn not from Jewish theology, but Greek philosophy; Jesus' notion of the soul and heaven have far more in common with Plato's Form of the Good than they do with anything that existed up to that point in Jewish theology. This could be interpreted as one of the main reasons for division between Jesus and the Pharisees/Sadduccees: not as a matter of one group misunderstanding the intent of God's law, but a war over the degree of influence Hellenistic thought should have on Jewish religion.

[QUOTE=Xenophobialand] *snip* QUOTE]

I was all ready to jump into this when you started with the Essenes being warriors... However, you had me convinced you weren't off the wall by the end of it. Nice post.

One note: I'd still bet a small wager that John the Baptist was an outcast Essene :p

Nah, it is in Mark as well, at least in the propositions of it's existence that I've read.

However, I'll resubmit the idea that the “Q” could have been the oral version of the gospel before it was recorded. Various Jewish disciplines, the essenes being one, required the memorization of entire OT books. If “Q” existed (written or oral), it was/is likely to be smaller than Mark is. I find it entirely plausible to wonder if the apostles wouldn't allow anyone to evangelize if they couldn't recite the entire Q by heart. It would easily fit within their cultural framework and tradition to 'expect' it of anyone who thought themselves ready to evangelize.

Q is not in Mark, that's what makes Mark different from the other synoptic gospels. I don't think you know as much about Q as you think you do...

Q is not in Mark, that's what makes Mark different from the other synoptic gospels. I don't think you know as much about Q as you think you do...
Oh no no, although I'm not a fan of the straight Two Source Theory, it doesn't mean I'm not aware of it. I prefer the Farrer Theory, it is that Mark was used to inspire Mathew and then both were used to inspire Luke. However, I have no problem adjusting this to assume that Q may have existed as a common denominator for Mark and Matthew, and, thus, you wouldn't be able to see where Q is in Mark because it's likely the closest thing to Q and without Q, there is no way of knowing where Mark isn’t Mark, get it?




p.s., that’s twice now you’ve implied I should do more studying, such as, the first time you said it straight up, that I should study the history sometime (like I never heard of Q) and then this time, suggesting that I don’t know Q as well as I might.

The truth is, there are various theories about Q and it might entirely be a self-imagined ghost of nothing. But I like the Farrer theory myself because it doesn’t require Q, and yet, in my version of it, I say/think that Mark might just be the actual Q itself as a written version of an oral Q tradition.

But either way, I do believe that we can talk AND disagree without pretending that there is a single right answer in regards to a hypothesized work that might not even exist. If the school you go to only teaches one theory about it, you should go pick up some more publications and find out how many scholars vehemently battle over such things.

Oh no no, although I'm not a fan of the straight The Two Source Theory, it doesn't mean I'm not aware of it. I prefer the Farrer Theory, it is that Mark was used to inspire Mathew and then both were used to inspire Luke. However, I have no problem adjusting this to assume that Q may have existed as a common denominator for Mark and Matthew, and, thus, you wouldn't be able to see where Q is in Mark because it's likely the closest thing to Q and without Q, there is no way of knowing where Mark isn’t Mark, get it?




p.s., that’s twice now you’ve implied I should do more studying, such as, the first time you said it straight up, that I should study the history sometime (like I never heard of Q) and then this time, suggesting that I don’t know Q as well as I might.

The truth is, there are various theories about Q and it might entirely be a self-imagined ghost of nothing. But I like the Farrer theory myself because it doesn’t require Q, and yet, in my version of it, I say/thing that Mark might just be the actual Q itself as a written version of an oral Q tradition.

But either way, I do believe that we can talk AND disagree without pretending that there is a single right answer in regards to a hypothesized work that might not even exist. If the school you go to only teaches one theory about it, you should go pick up some more publications and find out how many scholars vehemently battle over such things.

I go to a crappy public school, I've learnt the "Q" theory by reading a popular copy of it and by reading my good old New Jerome Biblical Commentary. As far as I've read the Q hypothesis is now agreed upon by 80 to 90 percent of scholars, because there are very few holes in it. I cannot believe that Matthew and Mark were used by Luke because stories and sayings from the M source are not found in Luke. Luke seems like a chap who would have put in the gospel almost every source available, he was that thorough. I can't see why he'd leave out the M stuff unless he didn't actually have it.

[EDIT] Anyway, I've gotta go, telegram me if you want a more detailed conversation. I've been waiting for months to find someone to discuss the Q hypothesis with at an intellegent level.

*snip*
Feel free to contact me here when you want, I'll let you spar/practice/beat-on-me with you ideas if you like... I don't favor many of the extreme Q1, Q2 and Q3 layer suppositions, as they seem to me a "Bible-Code" type of rediculousness and Da Vinci Code conspiracy full of seeing hidden messages where there are none etc., But I'm aware of them and I can listen and counter in that field if the need should exist.

Provided you are aware that I've pretty much come to the conclussion you aleady know, I think Q is in reality the pre-Mark and that is an unwritten but memorized oral tradition they simply called 'the gospel,' and the Good News.


EDIT: as to the 80-90% stuff, well, that depends what camp you're standing in when you hear them talk. If you've read one book, then I'm sure he was trying to convince you to his side, but the truth is, even in that field speciality, there are at least a half a dozen theories.

Because Graven has implied indirectly, but via his accusation of their unreliability and he didn't believe them to be accurate comments about other scripture, implying that since the council of Nicaea had favored Paul’s teachings over some other imagined by him equally accepted gospel, that this 'other' Jesus-Messiah stuff was dismissed and covered up somehow.


You make it sound like I'm saying there was some big Pauline conspiracy. I think that Paul had a big effect, before AND after Nicaea, but I don't recall saying that there was an organised dismissal and cover-up.

I might have said that Nicaea effectively set the stamp on a more Pauline creed, but that is nothing like the same thing.


Thus, to refute that claim, I’m reminding the participants of this conversation that Paul’s writings are in fact older than any of the gospels, which one's do we suppose could be more authentic than the ones we have now? Which ones could have been lost before Paul? None. They didn’t exist, it’s a baseless accusation.

For example: It’s an attack on the very integrity of Paul being able to write anything at all. Yet, you quote Jesus from scripture, scripture that was written later by people that supported Paul’s ministry. You have no archaeological reason to suggest anything to the contrary, only contrary opinion that it MUST have been different than what Paul says. When I quote Paul, it’s challenged as not being believable, if I quote Luke or John, it’s belittled as not eye-witness, if quote Jesus, its commentary… And then when I say you make too many rules for the discussion that I end up with half a book that you may or may not allow as legitimate and authentic passage, you say; when did I say you can’t use other scriptures? Uh huh… okay then.


I think it funny you say that no 'gospels' could have been lost before Paul wrote his testimony... I wonder if you thought that through?

I don't attack Paul's "integrity to write anything at all" (whatever THAT means)... I just question the validity of his perspective.

You claim that the Gospels were "written later by people that supported Paul’s ministry"... once again, a baseless assumption. I see no passage in any of the Gospels that condones Paul's teaching.

Have I said that Paul was "not being believable"? Just because I don't trust his work, doesn't make it 'unbelievable'.

I hardly think it is "belittling" Luke or John to say they were not eye-witnesses... or are you arguing that they WERE eye-witnesses?

I have disagreed with ONE passage of Jesus - which I think is commentary. I have not argued any other parts as commentary, have I?

Look at the passage in question... see if you can see what I see - even if you don't 'believe' it. Can you see where I could 'see' a 'short-answer' from Jesus to Nicodemus, followed by a series of comments by John?

I haven't ruled out any scripture... I haven't 'set' any rules.


That ‘some evidence’ you admit to is the entire evidence that supports any idea of a Q existing ever, anywhere. Without that ‘some’ evidence, there is no speculation of Q to begin with. How could Paul have shared the ‘gospel’ if there wasn't at least one version of it, but if there was more than one version of Q the very evidence that we have that suggests it might have existed would not exist.

As to Paul saying he shared the gospel, what was the gospel, if it’s not the Good News Story? And what is that story if Jesus wasn’t resurrected?

There is some evidence that a 'Q' document (or set of documents) may have existed.

There is NO evidence to firmly state that 'Q' was ONLY one document. There certainly seems to be leeway to assume that different Gospels were influenced by different sources.

We don't have any record of what 'gospel' Paul 'preached'. If there WAS a 'Q' document, it isn't necessarily what Paul discussed. In fact, there is NO reason to believe it would have been. All we can guess is that Matthew and Luke were both influenced by that text (or texts). We don't know what OTHER texts they also read... and we have NO record of what Paul actually 'preached'.

[QUOTE=Xenophobialand] *snip* QUOTE]

I was all ready to jump into this when you started with the Essenes being warriors... However, you had me convinced you weren't off the wall by the end of it. Nice post.

One note: I'd still bet a small wager that John the Baptist was an outcast Essene :p

Thanks. I suppose its possible that John was an Essene, or at least influenced by them. Although I'm not nearly as familiar with the Gospels as I should be, John never came across to me as particularly Hellenistic in his religious views. Jesus by contrast was very Hellenistic; he might best be described not as an Essene but as a Cynic philosopher, because the use of parables and the wandering lifestyle, as well as the use of double-entendres, are all hallmarks of followers of ancient Cynicism.

On the main topic, Grave_n_Idle, I'm not entirely sure why you are so against Pauline interpretation of scripture, as you are unclear, or more likely I simply don't understand. As I understand Paul, he is not arguing purely for faith as the means of salvation as opposed to good works (which would be opposed to Christ's actual teaching) so much as he is arguing that you must do the right thing for the right reason, namely out of a spirit of faith, love, and hope. If you are doing the right thing simply because it will make everyone else think more highly of you and nothing else, or because it will otherwise be profitable for you, then Paul would say that you are not really being a Christian, and on that count, I tend to agree.

In regards to quoting scripture with Graven you don’t get counterpoint, you get nonsense innuendo or pure hate speech: In defense of my accusation:


First: Thank you, Ph33rdom. Perhaps unintentionally, I believe you have presented me a gift... I appreciate your little 'archive' of my comments. You have sincere thanks for your work.

Second: "Nonsense innuendo"? Eye of the beholder, perhaps.

Third: "Pure hate speech"? I surely didn't see that... harsh words, I feel.


It makes one wonder what part of the ‘scripture’ one reads: “ I have read what is in the scripture, and I see it differently to you. Perhaps if you studied it more closely, you would see it the same way?” Because after all of that, I don’t see there being much scripture left at all.


Take it how you want it, Ph33rdom... look at the logic behind my thoughts. I examined the text as a whole... and there are parts that I find 'debatable'... those aren't exempted from the analysis... they are questioned AS A RESULT of the analysis.


We can’t produce it as relic, but we can with logical evaluation determine what it was most likely to be and what is was not likely to be.

It could not be drastically different that what we read in Mark, a work that was produced only a short time after Paul’s death (6 years or so most likely), and in addition to that, there is the Luke version which is considered to have been penned by a disciple of Paul.

Thus, the gospel Paul used would in all likelihood not seem foreign to us, not seem alien to us, if we should be so lucky as to find a copy of it and read it. It would be illogical to assume otherwise, considering the short period of time between Paul’s death and the first writing of the first known gospel.

If Paul was fallible, this is a discussion that could take a thesis and still not come to a satisfactory conclusion. For the very moment, I will recognize your position as a valid concern. Perhaps it is too broad? A precise example would be more manageable?

Still making assumptions... which is fine... and very nice assumptions they are.

But you must admit, we really have no idea what might have been contained in 'Q', if it existed... we have no idea which Gospels MIGHT have been closer to 'Q', or whether Paul had any dealings with 'Q', at all.

All we know for sure, is that there are some similarities in some of the texts, that are best explained by one or more common sources.

To try to make more than that, you have to start making assumptions.

Do you have a single reason whatsoever to suggest it might not be true? Or are you just randomly walking around accusing people of not being honest?


I have no reason to believe it, without corroboration. What can I say, I am a sceptic. (He doesn't have to be 'dishonest'... he could just be wrong.)


If you find a flaw in the math, let me know, I’m more than willing to take correction in this aspect of it. I’m constantly looking for improvements… But other than that, what assumptions in it did you think might be wrong?


Well, for starters... let's look at Paul's 14 years...


There is all kinds of evidence that Paul spread the gospel. There is all kinds of evidence that there was one Q that was the common denominator in later gospels… There is however, no archaeological reason to suggest or even hypothesize about a second Q.


No - there is evidence that MIGHT suggest that Paul spread the Gospel... all we know for sure, is that he talked about it.

Not talking about a 'second Q'... another of your strawmen, I'm afraid. I'm just not convinced that there is ANY reason to suspect ONE lost source of inspiration... when it is JUST as likely, that several texts (or traditions) might have been picked over in the guise of 'Q'.


We are talking about the Roman world that had travelers and trade from one end to the other, and Paul was not the only traveling evangelist. More than one apostle died in Rome…


Travelling from one end to the other, yes... but slowly.


There is nothing in the historical record to suggest there was more than one ‘Good News,’ during the time frame in discussion.


Nor evidence to the contrary.

The fact that there were later schisms suggests it is at least POSSIBLE that several versions of 'Good News' made the rounds.


And it MAY have the secrets to Atlantis and Extra-Terrestrial colonization on earth, but it probably doesn’t. There is no reason to cloud the issue with outlandish and baseless suggestion/speculation.


Of the suggestions so far made, I'd argue that I made one fairly resonable one, and you followed up with two 'sarcastic' possibilities.

You score no points for strawmen.


Then why do you quote them when you think it might really be something Jesus said? You claim that you can see a real Jesus figure in the gospels, but you dismiss the authenticity of the books themselves. You have nothing but your own words to stand on…


We have one part where I actually questioned whether Jesus said what is attributed to him. You need to stop manufacturing your straw army.

The other texts may be unreliable... may be questionable... maybe I should look at them with some scepticism? I do... but there are some parts that I find MORE questionable than others.


One hundred percent agree. That is a very likely reason that they were written.


And yet, you make it sound like they were written to somehow 'justify' Paul... or maybe I misunderstand?


Actually it does. Mark was earliest, and it was used by both Matthew and Luke, and we know Luke was from the Roman sphere and most likely someone that followed Paul’s teaching, we can assign three gospels to one. And John is without a doubt, the easiest gospel to recognize Paul’s teaching of Salvation through forgiveness of sin via Christ the Messiah.

So what is your evidence, with the historical record in mind, of how they could possibly have been written without knowing about each other?

More assumptions... We don't know that Matthew and Luke 'used' Mark... we can speculate... but it is JUST as likely, that Mark ALSO drew from a source, and THAT source influenced Matthew and Luke... or influenced ANOTHER work, which influenced Matthew and Luke...

We don't know what Luke's position was vis-a-vis Paul... for all we know, he could be 'Stalin' to Paul's 'Lenin'.

What is my evidence that they could have been written without knowing each other? The same as yours, actually... there seems to be common source material... which suggests one or more 'basic' sources, rather than direct communication.

In my response, I submit for your review, a scholarly view of Paul

Greg Garrison is a reporter for The Birmingham [Ala.] News), Interviews
John Dominic Crossan, who has a reputation as a liberal theologian for his role in the Jesus Seminar…


"I do not agree that there's a discontinuity between Jesus and Paul, that Paul disagreed with Jesus, or that Paul started Christianity," said Crossan, professor emeritus of biblical studies at DePaul University and author of "In Search of Paul: How Jesus' Apostle Opposed Rome's Empire with God's Kingdom."


…Paul then picked up what Jesus had been saying and began to take it to a non-Jewish audience.
"Jesus insisted that the kingdom of God had already begun," Crossan said. "People were called to participate in it. Paul is saying the same thing. Jesus was preaching among Jews. Paul was out there among the pagans in the Roman empire."

Crossan, an expert in Greek, Latin, Hebrew and Aramaic, insists that of the 13 letters attributed to Paul, seven were written by him, six were not.
Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians and Philemon are indisputably Paul, he said. Scholars agree that 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus were probably written by one of Paul's followers and attributed to him, Crossan said. Ephesians, Colossians and 2 Thessalonians may also be by someone other than Paul, he said. Some scholars make that judgment based on changes in tone, language and theological emphasis. "He doesn't use key terms he's used before," Crossan said.

By disputing Paul's authorship, the scholars sidestep controversial views on the role of women in the church traditionally attributed to Paul. They note he emphasizes gender equality in other passages, including 1 Corinthians 7.
Conservative scholars, like Beeson Divinity School Dean Timothy George of Samford University, question those assumptions.

"I wouldn't say it's a consensus," George said. "Among those who question the Pauline authorship, it's a majority. Where the Bible attributes authorship, those who accept the full trustworthiness of the Bible accept that on face value when there's no overwhelming evidence otherwise. When you say it's a different style, tone, or mood, we don't always write in the same pitch or tone, so why would the apostle Paul over a lifetime?"

But there's no question about the importance of Paul's far-flung missionary journeys that began in the '40s and his letters written in the '50s, the earliest written testimonies to Jesus.

The new scholarly trend seems to give Paul a lot of credit for maintaining the theological consistency of Jesus' message, while making it appealing to a new audience and giving it the impetus that would take it to the world.
"If you ask me what Jesus would have said to Paul," Crossan said, "I think he would have said, `Thank you.'"

Now before you go of and do a search on John Dominic Crossan, and the fact that he is a revisionist Jesus historian, I’ll save you the effort. I disagree with Mr. Crossan already, but I felt that this very fact enhances rather than diminishes him as a witness for the defense of Paul and this discussion…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dominic_Crossan

Now if you start quoting his older works, like the seminar stuff or something along the lines of saying it was more likely that Jesus’ body was left out scavengers, and whatnot, fine… But the topic of this thread is Paul, Saint or Satan, and Paul’s credibility as an actual follower of Jesus message has been question and Mr. Crossan is in a position clarify some answers for us in that regard.

In my response, I submit for your review, a scholarly view of Paul

Greg Garrison is a reporter for The Birmingham [Ala.] News), Interviews
John Dominic Crossan, who has a reputation as a liberal theologian for his role in the Jesus Seminar…



Now before you go of and do a search on John Dominic Crossan, and the fact that he is a revisionist Jesus historian, I’ll save you the effort. I disagree with Mr. Crossan already, but I felt that this very fact enhances rather than diminishes him as a witness for the defense of Paul and this discussion…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dominic_Crossan

Now if you start quoting his older works, like the seminar stuff or something along the lines of saying it was more likely that Jesus’ body was left out scavengers, and whatnot, fine… But the topic of this thread is Paul, Saint or Satan, and Paul’s credibility as an actual follower of Jesus message has been question and Mr. Crossan is in a position clarify some answers for us in that regard.

Strange to relate, I wasn't going to do a search on this Crossan figure. He is entitled to his own opinions, just as you are, and just as I am. I would consider it fairly poor debate practise to try to defeat the source, rather than the position maintained.

Of course, I might question the 'validity' of research that I KNEW was being conducted for entirely financial gain - but, I have no reason to suspect that here... so, I am happy to accept Crossan at face value.

I am curious that you usually seem to argue that I am problematic to debate with because, as you allege, I excise parts of scripture... and yet (when it serves your perceived cause) you happily cite an individual who disclaims Pauline authorship for nearly half of the Pauline texts.

Mr Crossan thinks that Paul was some natural heir to Jesus, and that Jesus would have approved of Paul's ministry. I do not. It's that simple. We both have our evidences to support our claims... and I happily accord Mr Crossan the RIGHT to believe what he does, even though I believe he is wrong.

What you might want to bear in mind, though, is the opening statement of the article you posted:

""I do not agree that there's a discontinuity between Jesus and Paul, that Paul disagreed with Jesus, or that Paul started Christianity," said Crossan, professor emeritus of biblical studies at DePaul University and author of "In Search of Paul: How Jesus' Apostle Opposed Rome's Empire with God's Kingdom."

This assertion neatly points out that I am not unique. The simple fact that Mr Crossan feels the need to illustrate how he believes he can respond to certain claims... gives credence to the fact that those perceptions ARE extant.

So - scholarly circles ARE divided over whether Paul is a natural successor to Jesus, over whether their ministries 'agree', even over whether 'christianity' as we see it is a peculiarly Pauline concept.

Your cited article shows that I am not alone... there is clear division over the issues I have discussed here. And, the fact that such debate CAN exist, is clear testimony to the fact that your assertions (and those of the late, lamented Tekania) of my position being unteneble and nonsensical, are unfounded. If there WAS no room for debate, there would be no debate.

*snip*
I am curious that you usually seem to argue that I am problematic to debate with because, as you allege, I excise parts of scripture... and yet (when it serves your perceived cause) you happily cite an individual who disclaims Pauline authorship for nearly half of the Pauline texts.

You previously seemed to be posting with an overall abusive tone, some air of arrogance and a method of attacking the other person instead of their issue. You stopped doing that, so I stopped attacking you for it and started debating with you instead ...

There doesn't seem to be much else I can say now though, besides I’m glad it seems to be resolving civilly now. I understand what you are saying, and I now believe that you understand what I am saying, and we continue to disagree, thus, until further evidence, like the Holy Ghost decides to give you an un-asked for epiphany or something :) then I’ll just respectfully disagree.

If you bring more material to the table though, I’ll continue to debate it’s meaning :D

You previously seemed to be posting with an overall abusive tone, some air of arrogance and a method of attacking the other person instead of their issue. You stopped doing that, so I stopped attacking you for it and started debating with you instead ...

There doesn't seem to be much else I can say now though, besides I’m glad it seems to be resolving civilly now. I understand what you are saying, and I now believe that you understand what I am saying, and we continue to disagree, thus, until further evidence, like the Holy Ghost decides to give you an un-asked for epiphany or something :) then I’ll just respectfully disagree.

If you bring more material to the table though, I’ll continue to debate it’s meaning :D

I don't think I was being abusive, and I think that some people mistake difference of opinion for arrogance.

It seems evident to the 'average' Christian that Jesus taught salvation through the Pauline principle of vicarious substitution... this view would not be considered 'arrogance' by the average Christian.

I don't think Jesus had that as his message, and my certainty of that fact is somehow considered arrogant, when the opossing view wouldn't be...

My other thought is that I have never debated a person rather than their issue. I have been told that people hope I will 'eventually learn better' (or words to that effect), and yet it appears I am not allowed to return the thought. I have been told that my theology is flawed, my discernment is faulty, my belief is misplaced... etc.

The nearest I can think of to a debate on the person rather than their argument, is my closing comment to Tekania - who, I believe, took an immature stance in their parting shot - which is pretty much the limit of what I said.

But, I don't want to argue the rights or wrongs of it all, I just want to set out that I don't think I have been quite the cad you seem to paint me.

Regarding a couple more of the Pauline v's Christian contradictions... now that we have pretty much agreed-to-disagree on what we had already:


One: Matthew 5:17-8 "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled".

versus:

Colossians 2:14 "Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross";

Jesus says that he has come to preserve Mosaic Law, Paul says that Jesus came to destroy Mosaic Law.


Two: Romans 3:23-5 "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God";

versus:

Luke 15:21 "And the son said unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in thy sight, and am no more worthy to be called thy son".


Jesus tells the story of the prodigal son earning redemption through atonement, Paul teaches that we are redeemed through a 'gift'.

Jesus says that he has come to preserve Mosaic Law, Paul says that Jesus came to destroy Mosaic Law.

I disagree, both of them are saying the same thing here. But by ‘fulfillment’ it means to finish, to complete, to be done with. Like cooking in the kitchen. The first part is following a recipe, assembling the ingredients of the concoction in the proper amounts. Once they are ready they are placed in the oven, the recipe following section is then fulfilled and put away and a new phase takes its place (baking).

One: Matthew 5:17-8 "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled".

In the same that there was a time before the law, Abraham did not have the Law but he walked with the blessings of God, and similarly, the Law given through Moses was not intended to last forever but was a stop gap measure, a promise of things to come and the salvation that was to take place at it’s (the promise) fulfillment. And thus, Jesus said he was the resurrection (when Lazarus was raised) , he didn’t say that he controlled it or that he could call on it, but he said that he was the resurrection itself. The fulfillment of the promise given through Moses was himself.


Jesus tells the story of the prodigal son earning redemption through atonement, Paul teaches that we are redeemed through a 'gift'.

Actually the son in that story (the younger son) does not receive redemption by atonement at all. He only returns and says he’s sorry. He does nothing to deserve to be forgiven at all and the Fathers love forgives him and welcomes him back, as a gift (as Paul said). In fact, to prove the point of unearned forgiveness, the older son in that story complains that the younger Son doesn’t deserve to be forgiven at all (and he’s not, just like all of us, we can’t ‘earn’ forgiveness), but the Father tells the angry older brother to relax; 'My son,' the father said, 'you are always with me, and everything I have is yours. 32But we had to celebrate and be glad, because this brother of yours was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.

Paul and Jesus, same message both times.

I disagree, both of them are saying the same thing here. But by ‘fulfillment’ it means to finish, to complete, to be done with. Like cooking in the kitchen. The first part is following a recipe, assembling the ingredients of the concoction in the proper amounts. Once they are ready they are placed in the oven, the recipe following section is then fulfilled and put away and a new phase takes its place (baking).

One: Matthew 5:17-8 "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled".

In the same that there was a time before the law, Abraham did not have the Law but he walked with the blessings of God, and similarly, the Law given through Moses was not intended to last forever but was a stop gap measure, a promise of things to come and the salvation that was to take place at it’s (the promise) fulfillment. And thus, Jesus said he was the resurrection (when Lazarus was raised) , he didn’t say that he controlled it or that he could call on it, but he said that he was the resurrection itself. The fulfillment of the promise given through Moses was himself.



Actually the son in that story (the younger son) does not receive redemption by atonement at all. He only returns and says he’s sorry. He does nothing to deserve to be forgiven at all and the Fathers love forgives him and welcomes him back, as a gift (as Paul said). In fact, to prove the point of unearned forgiveness, the older son in that story complains that the younger Son doesn’t deserve to be forgiven at all (and he’s not, just like all of us, we can’t ‘earn’ forgiveness), but the Father tells the angry older brother to relax; 'My son,' the father said, 'you are always with me, and everything I have is yours. 32But we had to celebrate and be glad, because this brother of yours was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.

Paul and Jesus, same message both times.

I totally disagree. Jesus says he comes to fulfill the 'Law', when ALL is fulfilled - for example, when heaven and earth pass. Paul says it has already been done through Jesus' sacrifice.

The Prodigal Son declares he is sorry, and he is forgiven by the father... his apology is his atonement. Perhaps he didn't 'deserve' forgiveness, but it is granted. Paul sets forth a non-apologetic version of forgiveness.

I totally disagree. Jesus says he comes to fulfill the 'Law', when ALL is fulfilled - for example, when heaven and earth pass. Paul says it has already been done through Jesus' sacrifice.

I understand what you are thinking, but why does heaven and earth itself have to pass away to complete that statement? I stand by my earlier example.



The Prodigal Son declares he is sorry, and he is forgiven by the father... his apology is his atonement. Perhaps he didn't 'deserve' forgiveness, but it is granted. Paul sets forth a non-apologetic version of forgiveness.

Ah, no. Paul says repeatedly that you have to ask, you must apologize and come to the cross for forgiveness, you don't just get it. But it is a gift when you recieve it, because you don't deserve it.

Acts 2:38, "Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." (NIV)

John 5:24 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.

Romans 6
15What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! 16Don't you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey—whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness? 17But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you wholeheartedly obeyed the form of teaching to which you were entrusted. 18You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness.


Just pointing out that it was more than Paul saying this stuff, and some Paul explanation.