Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Soul Invictus · 08-18-2003, 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Doctor X
I do not think Junior ever rebukes Paul/Saul . . . unless you believe the Damascus incident that takes place after his decomposition in Acts. . . .

Certainly, Paul never claims to have met Junior . . . he even sort of boasts that his knowledge is better for having never met him. . . .

I really should stop posting away from my sources . . . danger of blathering incoherently [Nothing new.--Ed.]

--J.D.

Doctor,

You have to go through several scriptures to see it. A preacher who used to be in the Christian faith once spoke on it...I think it's on a tape I have. I'll let you know once I find it, okay.?

Wait a minute, I thought the whole Damascus incident was focused around Saul/Paul meeting Jesus...Correct me if I'm wrong, though. Could you give me a passage that shows the latter claim you made about his knowledge being better for not having met him? I had no idea about that one.

Bernard Muller · 08-18-2003, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Thanks for that passage Bernard. I'm comparing Paul's message to Jesus'. Now if I can only remember where Jesus rebuked Paul for his message...

No fat chance. How could he do that to his pal Paul!
And Paul claimed he was having the mind of Christ, even if he had inquiries about that:
2Cor13:3 "Since you seek a proof of Christ speaking in me ..."
And Jesus (in heaven!) was unlikely to go public against Paul! As a matter of fact, he never did!

Best regards, Bernard

Bernard Muller · 08-18-2003, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Wait a minute, I thought the whole Damascus incident was focused around Saul/Paul meeting Jesus...Correct me if I'm wrong, though. Could you give me a passage that shows the latter claim you made about his knowledge being better for not having met him? I had no idea about that one.

Ya, that what I understand, on the road to Damascus, and we have **three very different versions** of that, all in the same book (Acts)

(notice how I am mastering the Smilies:notworthy )

I gave you one passage already, here are other ones:

2Co11:10 "As surely as the truth of Christ is in me [Paul], nobody in the regions of Achaia [Greece] will stop this boasting of mine."

2Co12:1 "I [Paul] must go on boasting. ... I will go on to visions and revelations from the Lord."

Gal1:11-12 "I did not receive it [Paul's gospel] from any man nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ."

Is not primary evidence from the NT fun?

Best regards, Bernard

Soul Invictus · 08-18-2003, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bernard Muller
Ya, that what I understand, on the road to Damascus, and we have **three very different versions** of that, all in the same book (Acts)
(notice how I am mastering the Smilies:notworthy )

I gave you one passage already, here are other ones:

2Co11:10 "As surely as the truth of Christ is in me [Paul], nobody in the regions of Achaia [Greece] will stop this boasting of mine."

2Co12:1 "I [Paul] must go on boasting. ... I will go on to visions and revelations from the Lord."

Gal1:11-12 "I did not receive it [Paul's gospel] from any man nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ."

Is not primary evidence from the NT fun?

Best regards, Bernard

Thanks....I actually had that last one. All three Damascus accounts are in Acts aye...gotta check that out. I can master the smileys too

Bernard Muller · 08-18-2003, 06:07 PM

Quote:

and EVEN IF a "Historical Junior" existed it does not make all of the myth true. J.D.

Right on J.D.

I would go one more step: EVEN IF a "Historical Jesus" existed it does not make any myth, not even one, true.

Best regards, Bernard

Bernard Muller · 08-18-2003, 06:49 PM

Quote:

Even as a symbolic gesture, it makes no sense. Sins aren't communicable; one can't "put one's sins on another" nor can another "take one's sins away," so it's either a result of immense stupidity, pointless barbarism, or deliberate fraud in order to maintain wealth status, IMO.
Koyaanisqatsi

YA, copied and agreed!
But if you read 'Hebrews', everything makes a lot of sense, up to the time you realise the OT quotes, which the author is using in the crucial parts to support his argumentation, are totally out-of-context. More, you have to believe all that crap about Jewish animal sacrifices as required by God.

Best regards, Bernard

08-18-2003, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Doctor X

Nevertheless, "died for your sins" is indeed a late concept not supported by the Synoptics or Jn. I had heard that this was an Augustinian "thing."

It serves a recruitment purpose--look, it is not good enough that you are good, you have this SIN you must get rid of. --J.D.

It is more like a protestant thing because Catholics are still told to pick up their cross and follow Jesus.

Doctor X · 08-18-2003, 09:06 PM

Gang:

Yay! Book arrived:

Jon D. Levenson. The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son: The Transformation of Child Sacrifice in Judaism and Christianity. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993.

Will get back to you once I actually read it. . . .

Amos:

Quote:

It is more like a protestant thing because Catholics are still told to pick up their cross and follow Jesus.

Last I looked, "original sin" was still a thing in Catholicism.

--J.D.

08-18-2003, 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Doctor X

Last I looked, "original sin" was still a thing in Catholicism.

--J.D.

Original sin is a fact and will always be a Catholic thing but the idea that Jesus died for our sins (so we do not have to) is not and never was Catholic.

Origional sin just means that we are divided between our Tree of Knowledge (conscious mind) and the Tree of Life (subconscious mind) and because we are divided in our own mind are we not free in either mind and therefore are we banned from Eden. To return to Eden we must crucify our ego and place it subservient to our intuit mind and that is what redemption is all about.

Soul Invictus · 08-18-2003, 09:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Amos
Origional sin just means that we are divided between our Tree of Knowledge (conscious mind) and the Tree of Life (subconscious mind) and because we are divided in our own mind are we not free in either mind and therefore are we banned from Eden. To return to Eden we must crucify our ego and place it subservient to our intuit mind and that is what redemption is all about.

I like this philosophical outlook Amos, so I got a question for ya.
Did you come up with that?

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.