FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 12-23-2008, 03:21 PM   #51
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GakuseiDon View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
To be accurate, no, he doesn't say that he preaches the same faith that he persecuted. The assemblies in Judea do. And this is what I like about Amaleq13, his willingness to believe people who'd never met Paul.
Oh c'mon spin. Is that a serious comment? I've seen you being stubborn before, but you're close to joining mountainman and aa__ in the :deadhorse: stakes. Are you saying that the assemblies in Judea are lying? Or that Paul is lying? Either way, why on earth is Paul reporting it as if it were the truth?
Doh! Gak, do you have to reduce the possibilities to just "lying"? That's as shallow as those people you are complaining about. It is one of the most normal situations that different people have different perspectives on issues, especially if one doesn't have the whole story as in the case of the people of the assemblies of Judea. They didn't even know Paul by sight: 'they'd only heard it said, "The one who formerly was persecuting us is now proclaiming the faith he once tried to destroy."' How accurate do you expect their judgment to be?

If Paul doesn't even seem to know what a messiah was, given that he calls Jesus a messiah (despite the fact that Jesus died without achieving the tasks of the messiah and would obviously have been perceived by ordinary Jews if anything as a false messiah), you can understand that there would have been confusion about who believed what at the beginning.

But I don't understand this necessary talk of lies: it's very reductive. It's almost down to either someone is telling the whole truth or total fraud. Things are usually a little more complicated.

(Well, really, I do understand, but it's pretty useless.)


spin
spin is offline  
Old 12-23-2008, 05:37 PM   #52
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GakuseiDon View Post
... Are you saying that the assemblies in Judea are lying? Or that Paul is lying? Either way, why on earth is Paul reporting it as if it were the truth?
And why does Paul have to say "I assure you that, before God, I am not lying?" Did someone accuse him of lying?

What is so unthinkable about the idea that people shade the truth or otherwise just don't tell you everything?

Do we know that Paul is reporting what is in Galatians 1:23, as opposed to a later editor, even assuming that Paul wrote this letter? We know suspiciously little about Paul's alleged career as a prosecutor from his own letters, and the whole story does not make a lot of sense.

I do not understand how this subject can be so heated, given the lack of real information.
Toto is offline  
Old 12-23-2008, 08:21 PM   #53
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GakuseiDon View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
To be accurate, no, he doesn't say that he preaches the same faith that he persecuted. The assemblies in Judea do. And this is what I like about Amaleq13, his willingness to believe people who'd never met Paul.
Oh c'mon spin. Is that a serious comment? I've seen you being stubborn before, but you're close to joining mountainman and aa__ in the :deadhorse: stakes. Are you saying that the assemblies in Judea are lying? Or that Paul is lying? Either way, why on earth is Paul reporting it as if it were the truth?
Because he may have been lying. It is not impossible for an author to lie. And, the author of Acts, claimed to be a companion of Saul/Paul, contradicted Paul's chronology.

The letter writer called Paul claimed over 500 people saw Jesus after he was resurrected and that he himself saw Jesus , too. Why is that not a lie?

You think the horse is dead? It is a lie.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 12-23-2008, 09:02 PM   #54
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 5,714
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by GakuseiDon View Post
Oh c'mon spin. Is that a serious comment? I've seen you being stubborn before, but you're close to joining mountainman and aa__ in the :deadhorse: stakes. Are you saying that the assemblies in Judea are lying? Or that Paul is lying? Either way, why on earth is Paul reporting it as if it were the truth?
Doh! Gak, do you have to reduce the possibilities to just "lying"? That's as shallow as those people you are complaining about. It is one of the most normal situations that different people have different perspectives on issues, especially if one doesn't have the whole story as in the case of the people of the assemblies of Judea. They didn't even know Paul by sight: 'they'd only heard it said, "The one who formerly was persecuting us is now proclaiming the faith he once tried to destroy."' How accurate do you expect their judgment to be?
When Paul reports that the "churches of Judea which were in Christ" were saying that Paul was now proclaiming their faith, do you think he actually believed what he wrote?

Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
If Paul doesn't even seem to know what a messiah was, given that he calls Jesus a messiah (despite the fact that Jesus died without achieving the tasks of the messiah and would obviously have been perceived by ordinary Jews if anything as a false messiah), you can understand that there would have been confusion about who believed what at the beginning.
Yes, it would have been a stumbling block for ordinary Jews.
GakuseiDon is offline  
Old 12-23-2008, 10:38 PM   #55
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GakuseiDon View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
Doh! Gak, do you have to reduce the possibilities to just "lying"? That's as shallow as those people you are complaining about. It is one of the most normal situations that different people have different perspectives on issues, especially if one doesn't have the whole story as in the case of the people of the assemblies of Judea. They didn't even know Paul by sight: 'they'd only heard it said, "The one who formerly was persecuting us is now proclaiming the faith he once tried to destroy."' How accurate do you expect their judgment to be?
When Paul reports that the "churches of Judea which were in Christ" were saying that Paul was now proclaiming their faith, do you think he actually believed what he wrote?
The particular assemblies of Judea were messianic. Paul proclaimed what he thought was messianic. What's the problem?

Quote:
Originally Posted by GakuseiDon View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
If Paul doesn't even seem to know what a messiah was, given that he calls Jesus a messiah (despite the fact that Jesus died without achieving the tasks of the messiah and would obviously have been perceived by ordinary Jews if anything as a false messiah), you can understand that there would have been confusion about who believed what at the beginning.
Yes, it would have been a stumbling block for ordinary Jews.
Including ordinary messianic Jews and including the followers of what John the Baptist was proclaiming.


spin
spin is offline  
Old 12-24-2008, 08:58 AM   #56
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Eagle River, Alaska
Posts: 7,816
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
To be accurate, no, he doesn't say that he preaches the same faith that he persecuted. The assemblies in Judea do.
To be accurate, Paul says this is what the assemblies in Judea believed.

Quote:
And this is what I like about Amaleq13, his willingness to believe people who'd never met Paul.
Paul never met Paul?

Do you ever make a claim in this discussion that actually connects to the text?

Quote:
I guess when you define all the terms to suit yourself you can hide any problem from yourself.
Why bother with such transparent falsehoods? Anyone can see that I have not changed the definition of any terms. I've taken Paul at his word and made sense of it. You've taken selected bits and made an incoherent mess.

Quote:
We see Paul's gospel when he contrasts faith in christ crucified with torah observance.
No, we see Paul's gospel when he contrasts his message about faith in Christ crucified against their insistence on observance. When will you stop making false claims about Paul's letters?

PAUL NEVER DEFENDS CHRIST CRUCIFIED

You want this to be true but there is simply no text to support it no matter how many times you repeat the falsehood.

If he doesn't defend such an absurd notion to Jews so concerned about orthodox appearances, it can only be because the absurd notion was accepted by them.

PAUL ALWAYS DEFENDS WHAT HE THINKS BELIEF IN CHRIST CRUCIFIED MEANS

That is what the texts state no matter how many times you claim otherwise.

Quote:
Now, you'll swear blind that Paul is only contrasting christ crucified with torah observance because the first christians didn't understand the significance of their own belief in christ crucified.
That was certainly Paul's position but I only hold it because that is what Paul tells us. :huh:
Amaleq13 is offline  
Old 12-25-2008, 05:30 AM   #57
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaleq13 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
To be accurate, no, he doesn't say that he preaches the same faith that he persecuted. The assemblies in Judea do.
To be accurate, Paul says this is what the assemblies in Judea believed.
So you blunder and respond to being caught out by being a pedant.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaleq13 View Post
Paul never met Paul?
Typically dumb.

The people who'd repeated that Paul was now proclaiming what he'd persecuted had never met Paul. Doh!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaleq13 View Post
Do you ever make a claim in this discussion that actually connects to the text?
Did you get your qualifications from a Corn Flakes packet? You're sure not demonstrating the ability to read.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaleq13 View Post
Why bother with such transparent falsehoods?
Not the best description of yourself I've heard.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaleq13 View Post
Anyone can see that I have not changed the definition of any terms.
Yeah. Paul's gospel. Your version certainly ain't no gospel there. And you say that it's his mission to the gentiles, but then, no it's his understanding of the significance of christ crucified. Hell tomorrow it'll be something else.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaleq13 View Post
I've taken Paul at his word and made sense of it. You've taken selected bits and made an incoherent mess.
Rubbish. You've basically said he couldn't express himself and then said what he meant. His gospel wasn't so much the gospel as a little bit of the picture.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaleq13 View Post
No, we see Paul's gospel when he contrasts his message about faith in Christ crucified against their insistence on observance. When will you stop making false claims about Paul's letters?
Just keep watching the hands folks. Is it under the right hand cup, the middle cup or the left cup?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaleq13 View Post
PAUL NEVER DEFENDS CHRIST CRUCIFIED
Perhaps you think if you say it louder you'll make it sound more relevant?

Perhaps he and the people in Jerusalem believed in logical positivism as well, as he never defends logical positivism either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaleq13 View Post
You want this to be true but there is simply no text to support it no matter how many times you repeat the falsehood.
Your use of "falsehood" has an oddly religious sound about it.

As has been pointed out to you by others Paul says that although christ crucified was preached to the Galatians they seem to be turning away from that message (3:1). Someone has been turning them away from Paul's message, which includes christ crucified.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaleq13 View Post
If he doesn't defend such an absurd notion to Jews so concerned about orthodox appearances, it can only be because the absurd notion was accepted by them.
His argument with the Jews was about the necessity for his communities to be circumcised (to be torah observant). The Jews wouldn't need to get any further. This is something about which you are impervious to understanding. To be a Jew means foremost to observe the torah. Paul doesn't require that of his communities so to Jewish eyes he's getting it all wrong. For some reason you insist that they need to get past this sticking point. Why?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaleq13 View Post
PAUL ALWAYS DEFENDS WHAT HE THINKS BELIEF IN CHRIST CRUCIFIED MEANS
So, christ crucified isn't part of his gospel but the meaning of christ crucified is. Hmmm. :constern02:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaleq13 View Post
That is what the texts state no matter how many times you claim otherwise.
The Jerusalem group are Jews. The people disturbing the Galatians were Jews. Christ crucified is a stumbling-block to the Jews. Messianists believe in a messiah, but Paul believed in a dead one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaleq13 View Post
Quote:
Now, you'll swear blind that Paul is only contrasting christ crucified with torah observance because the first christians didn't understand the significance of their own belief in christ crucified.
That was certainly Paul's position but I only hold it because that is what Paul tells us. :huh:
You wish. Paul's revelation was of the son given to him by god. The subject of the revelation was Jesus. He says that he got Jesus from the revelation. That excludes your route.


spin
spin is offline  
Old 12-25-2008, 09:15 AM   #58
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Eagle River, Alaska
Posts: 7,816
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
So you blunder and respond to being caught out by being a pedant.
I didn't blunder. Check again. You tried to play pedant and failed.

Quote:
Typically dumb.
Typically juvenile and substance-free response.

Quote:
The people who'd repeated that Paul was now proclaiming what he'd persecuted had never met Paul.
And they couldn't possibly trust those who had? You've devolved into know-nothing skepticism. Paul simply couldn't make the claim unless it was true. If you didn't have such a personal stake in your conclusion, you might recognize the fundamental flaws in your position.

Quote:
Your version certainly ain't no gospel there.
If you don't understand that being free from the requirements of the Law is "good news" to gentile converts, I can't help you.

Quote:
And you say that it's his mission to the gentiles, but then, no it's his understanding of the significance of christ crucified.
Paul's revelation was a specific message for a specific audience.

I've tried repeatedly and with the smallest words possible but you still can't get it right? And you blame your lack of comprehension on me when others have had no problem successfully following?

Pathetic.

Quote:
Hell tomorrow it'll be something else.
No, it will still be the same, as it always has been and you will still pretend not to understand it because you still have nothing substantive to offer against it.

Quote:
Perhaps you think if you say it louder you'll make it sound more relevant?
No, just hoping to penetrate your skull with the fundamental flaw in your reasoning. I think I'll need a drill. And a small explosive charge.

Quote:
Your use of "falsehood" has an oddly religious sound about it.
Sadly, that is yet another example of your poor reading comprehension skills. I'm afraid you won't be able to drag that tired ad hominem out in place of a substantive argument against me.

You can still use it on Ben or Don, though. :rolling:

Quote:
As has been pointed out to you by others Paul says that although christ crucified was preached to the Galatians they seem to be turning away from that message (3:1). Someone has been turning them away from Paul's message, which includes christ crucified.
Again, there is no evidence that Paul ever felt compelled to defend "Christ crucified" so you need to try again. Since Paul only defends his interpretation, that must be the lost faith to which he refers.

This is the mistake you (repeatedly) make when you (repeatedly) ignore the fact that there simply is no evidence for your beliefs about the texts.

Quote:
His argument with the Jews was about the necessity for his communities to be circumcised (to be torah observant).
Yes and it had nothing whatsoever to do with defending the notion of a crucified messiah. And it continues to be unbelievable that he would not have that notion challenged if it wasn't accepted and it continues to be unbelievable that he wouldn't defend the notion if it had been challenged.

You've got not evidence for your beliefs about the texts.

Quote:
The Jews wouldn't need to get any further. This is something about which you are impervious to understanding.
Only because it is counter to everything I know about psychology, argumentation, and religious believers. Nobody stops with one criticism when others are available and certainly not when it involves something so inherently absurd to Judaism. It is simply unbelievable to suggest they would focus solely on torah adherence while ignoring a crucified messiah unless they accepted the latter. Yet you still try to sell it as though it made sense. :huh:

Quote:
So, christ crucified isn't part of his gospel but the meaning of christ crucified is.
It is difficult to believe you could honestly be this confused.

Christ crucified is the gospel Paul persecuted, then preached.

The meaning of Christ crucified is Paul's unique gospel.

The meaning of Christ crucified is what is being attacked.

The meaning of Christ crucified is what is defended.

There is no indication that Christ crucified was ever attacked by Paul's Galatian opponents.

Quote:
Christ crucified is a stumbling-block to the Jews.
We've already seen that Paul is referring to unbelieving Jews and Greeks there. You are getting confused. Again or more, take your pick.

Quote:
Messianists believe in a messiah, but Paul believed in a dead one.
So did his opponents who wanted gentile converts to appear observant so that his opponents might not get persecuted for their faith in the cross.

The pieces fit and the story works.

You simply cannot say the same. :wave:
Amaleq13 is offline  
Old 12-25-2008, 10:46 AM   #59
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaleq13 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
So you blunder and respond to being caught out by being a pedant.
I didn't blunder. Check again. You tried to play pedant and failed.
It's alright there, Amaleq13. You don't admit anything. You said:
It resolves the apparent contradiction of Paul claiming to preach the same faith he persecuted and preaching something he obtained from no man but by revelation.
Where does Paul claim he preached the same faith?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaleq13 View Post
Typically juvenile and substance-free response.
One cannot trust a statement that fullfils what it claims to criticize.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaleq13 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by spin
The people who'd repeated that Paul was now proclaiming what he'd persecuted had never met Paul.
And they couldn't possibly trust those who had?
We don't work on trust, Amaleq13. We have to use evidence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaleq13 View Post
You've devolved into know-nothing skepticism. Paul simply couldn't make the claim unless it was true. If you didn't have such a personal stake in your conclusion, you might recognize the fundamental flaws in your position.
As you don't understand the issue, let me help: we are dealing with perceptions and perceptions don't necessarily fit reality. When you don't know exactly what those assemblies believed, your reconstructions cannot be verified. However, when you assume them, you stop being meaningful.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaleq13 View Post
If you don't understand that being free from the requirements of the Law is "good news" to gentile converts, I can't help you.
Perhaps you missed the fact that Paul was using the term in a specific manner (Gal 1:6-9).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaleq13 View Post
Paul's revelation was a specific message for a specific audience.
Piffle. Paul's revelation is of Jesus Christ, for "god revealed his son to me".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaleq13 View Post
I've tried repeatedly and with the smallest words possible but you still can't get it right?
I got right the various things you said at different times, but repeating something that has no relevance to the text isn't particularly useful.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaleq13 View Post
And you blame your lack of comprehension on me when others have had no problem successfully following?
When you show you have read the text, you might be able to whinge a little more credibly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaleq13 View Post
Pathetic.
Uh-huh.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaleq13 View Post
No, it will still be the same, as it always has been and you will still pretend not to understand it because you still have nothing substantive to offer against it.
Deep analysis.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaleq13 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by spin
Perhaps you think if you say it louder you'll make it sound more relevant?
No,...
Then stop shouting.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaleq13 View Post
Quote:
Your use of "falsehood" has an oddly religious sound about it.
Sadly, that is yet another example of your poor reading comprehension skills. I'm afraid you won't be able to drag that tired ad hominem out in place of a substantive argument against me.
If the foo shits, wear it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaleq13 View Post
You can still use it on Ben or Don, though. :rolling:
What you don't understand is that it wouldn't have any real significance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaleq13 View Post
Again, there is no evidence that Paul ever felt compelled to defend "Christ crucified" so you need to try again. Since Paul only defends his interpretation, that must be the lost faith to which he refers.

This is the mistake you (repeatedly) make when you (repeatedly) ignore the fact that there simply is no evidence for your beliefs about the texts.
For some unaccountable reason you seem to think that just because Paul didn't argue something against the Jerusalem people, they must have accepted that something. It is simply a logical fallacy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaleq13 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by spin
His argument with the Jews was about the necessity for his communities to be circumcised (to be torah observant).
Yes and it had nothing whatsoever to do with defending the notion of a crucified messiah. And it continues to be unbelievable that he would not have that notion challenged if it wasn't accepted and it continues to be unbelievable that he wouldn't defend the notion if it had been challenged.

You've got not evidence for your beliefs about the texts.
This waffle of yours to a comment of mine that you truncated, ignoring the rest, didn't need to be said, as the rest makes it superfluous. Here it is again:

Quote:
Originally Posted by spin
His argument with the Jews was about the necessity for his communities to be circumcised (to be torah observant). The Jews wouldn't need to get any further. This is something about which you are impervious to understanding. To be a Jew means foremost to observe the torah. Paul doesn't require that of his communities so to Jewish eyes he's getting it all wrong. For some reason you insist that they need to get past this sticking point. Why?
Any response to this yet?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaleq13 View Post
Only because it is counter to everything I know about psychology, argumentation, and religious believers. Nobody stops with one criticism when others are available and certainly not when it involves something so inherently absurd to Judaism. It is simply unbelievable to suggest they would focus solely on torah adherence while ignoring a crucified messiah unless they accepted the latter. Yet you still try to sell it as though it made sense. :huh:
Oh for chrissake, don't try to convince anyone that you don't understand the notion of people talking at cross purposes.

If you know the Monty Python sketch about the dead parrot, you have a man who goes into a pet shop to complain that the owner had sold him a dead parrot
Mr. Praline: I wish to complain about this parrot what I purchased not half an hour ago from this very boutique.

Owner: Oh yes, the, uh, the Norwegian Blue...What's,uh...What's wrong with it?

Mr. Praline: I'll tell you what's wrong with it, my lad. 'E's dead, that's what's wrong with it!

Owner: No, no, 'e's uh,...he's resting.

Mr. Praline: Look, matey, I know a dead parrot when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now.

Owner: No no he's not dead, he's, he's restin'! Remarkable bird, the Norwegian Blue, isn'it, ay? Beautiful plumage!

Mr. Praline: The plumage don't enter into it. It's stone dead.
Paul wants to talk about the "beautiful plumage". The Jews are only interested in the fact that the parrot is dead. The one thing that is required of a Jew is torah observance. This one thing is negated by Paul.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaleq13 View Post
It is difficult to believe you could honestly be this confused.

Christ crucified is the gospel Paul persecuted, then preached.
I know you claim this. You have yet to show any evidence for this claim, yet you repeat it and repeat it and repeat it ad nauseum. Repeating it won't make it any more credible.

Tell me this, why doesn't Paul use the name Jesus in any context that deals with the pillars or anyone else in the letter besides the Galatians and himself? His revelation was of Jesus Christ and it was from Jesus Christ that the Galatians were turning away.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaleq13 View Post
The meaning of Christ crucified is Paul's unique gospel.
So why was the revelation of Jesus Christ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaleq13 View Post
The meaning of Christ crucified is what is being attacked.
Where?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaleq13 View Post
The meaning of Christ crucified is what is defended.
No, what was being defended was Paul's hold on his Galatians through his gospel -- against torah observance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaleq13 View Post
There is no indication that Christ crucified was ever attacked by Paul's Galatian opponents.
There was no indication that sheep shagging was ever attacked by Paul's Galatian opponents, so they must have accepted that as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaleq13 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by spin
Christ crucified is a stumbling-block to the Jews.
We've already seen that Paul is referring to unbelieving Jews and Greeks there. You are getting confused. Again or more, take your pick.
Umm, Jews who didn't believe what?

Dead christs are false christs to your average Jew. However, there is no reason why the Jerusalem group needed to contemplate Paul's theological views, when he wouldn't endorse torah observance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaleq13 View Post
Quote:
Messianists believe in a messiah, but Paul believed in a dead one.
So did his opponents who wanted gentile converts to appear observant so that his opponents might not get persecuted for their faith in the cross.
Still as unsubstantiated as when you first said it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaleq13 View Post
The pieces fit and the story works.
Says Amaleq13 chipping the corners off the square peg.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaleq13 View Post
You simply cannot say the same. :wave:
Umm, "the same"? See, I can.

As I see the data, of course I can say that the pieces fit and the story works. You make a mess out of god's revelation to Paul of Jesus Christ.


spin
spin is offline  
Old 12-25-2008, 07:05 PM   #60
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Eagle River, Alaska
Posts: 7,816
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
Where does Paul claim he preached the same faith?
Where he proudly describes his reputation for doing so.

Quote:
...we are dealing with perceptions and perceptions don't necessarily fit reality.
That is certainly true of your perceptions of the evidence!

Quote:
When you don't know exactly what those assemblies believed, your reconstructions cannot be verified.
I know that his opponents certainly would have included objections to such a belief had they not accepted it.

I know that, had they offered objections to such a fundamental belief, Paul would have presented a defense.

I know that Paul never defends Christ crucified.
Amaleq13 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:38 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.