Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spamandham · 06-09-2010, 10:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

That's probably because in Paul's day, nobody was under the impression that Christ had ever lived in this world.

...or at least, not as a contemporary.

Huon · 06-10-2010, 12:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julio

Paul was a liar.
He instructed his constituency that he had received his gospel via a private revelation [Galatians 1], but there is no reference to the virgin birth anywhere in his writings.
Imagine receiving such a powerful revelation and nothing to be said about that most incredible miracle of the virginal conception!
Therefore, Paul did not receive any private revelation.
He lied.

Another possible interpretation :
When "Paul" was writing Galatians 1, the story of the virgin birth was not completely accepted, or even, it did not exist. After all, an adoptionist view could be accepted till the end of the second century.
OK, Paul was a liar, but not necessarily on this point.

aa5874 · 06-10-2010, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julio

He instructed his constituency that he had received his gospel via a private revelation [Galatians 1], but there is no reference to the virgin birth anywhere in his writings.

That's probably because in Paul's day, nobody was under the impression that Christ had ever lived in this world. Paul therefore didn't think Christ had a human mother, virgin or otherwise.

But the Pauline writer claimed Jesus was BORN of a WOMAN,(Gal.4.4) was betrayed in the night (1 Cor. 11.23), was crucified (1 Cor.1.23), had ALREADY died and resurrected (Gal 1.1)when he received information from Jesus.

It must be obvious that people MUST have heard of Jesus before the Pauline writers.

In Romans 16.7 a Pauline writer claimed that there were people in Christ before him. In Galatians 1.23, a Pauline writer claimed he NOW preached the FAITH he once destroyed and in Galatians 4.4 the same writer preached Jesus was made of a woman.

People was aware of the Jesus story even before the Pauline writings and an apologetic source claimed Paul was aware of gLuke. See Church History 3.4.8

Doug Shaver · 06-11-2010, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

That's probably because in Paul's day, nobody was under the impression that Christ had ever lived in this world. Paul therefore didn't think Christ had a human mother, virgin or otherwise.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

But the Pauline writer claimed Jesus was BORN of a WOMAN,(Gal.4.4) was betrayed in the night (1 Cor. 11.23), was crucified (1 Cor.1.23), had ALREADY died and resurrected (Gal 1.1)when he received information from Jesus.

Yeah, he said all those things. Unlike you, though, I don't interpret them the same way orthodox Christians interpret them.

aa5874 · 06-11-2010, 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

That's probably because in Paul's day, nobody was under the impression that Christ had ever lived in this world. Paul therefore didn't think Christ had a human mother, virgin or otherwise.

Yeah, he said all those things. Unlike you, though, I don't interpret them the same way orthodox Christians interpret them.

Well, that is why you have made some many errors.

You have "special" interpretations for the Pauline writings so that you can manufacture your own "special" prior outcome.

A Pauline writer claimed he was LAST to see the resurrected Jesus but with your "special interpretation" the one who was LAST now becomes FIRST.

Doug Shaver · 06-12-2010, 06:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

I don't interpret them the same way orthodox Christians interpret them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Well, that is why you have made some many errors.

Well, I guess I'll need to give that some serious thought.

aa5874 · 06-12-2010, 06:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

I don't interpret them the same way orthodox Christians interpret them.

Well, I guess I'll need to give that some serious thought.

You mean you are not serious about the way you interpret the supposed words of the Pauline writers.

A Pauline writer claimed Jesus was betrayed in the night, that Jesus was crucified, died, was resurrected.

A Pauline writer claimed Jesus must be RAISED from the DEAD for redemption of sins.

A Pauline writer claimed there were people in Christ before him, that he NOW preached the faith he ONCE destroyed and that he persecuted people who were ALREADY in the faith before him.

These Pauline writers CLEARLY show that they were AWARE of a JESUS story and that they were NOT the first.

Please give me your "special interpretation" and make the Pauline writers re-cant.

Doug Shaver · 06-13-2010, 06:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

You mean you are not serious about the way you interpret the supposed words of the Pauline writers.

No, that isn't what I mean.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.