jgreen44

I take it then that you view the contradiction I pointed out as just more Pauline double-talk.

jgreen44

Are there any Bible verses that indicate Jesus was given to Satan?

jgreen44

By offering sacrifices, the ancient Jews were also paying off Yahweh not to smite them. No?

jgreen44

Perhaps Paul did not feel obliged to argue against non-existent ideas?I learned from you that Acts is very late.

The following statement by John Chrysostom contradicts the belief that Acts of the Apostles was included in the NT canon as long ago as the 2nd century.

In the 2nd century, Irenaeus, we are told, appears to have written about Acts. Yet 200 years later John Chrysostom states that people hardly knew of the existence of the book of Acts and hardly knew its author.

Examine the words of John Chrysostom.

Homilies1 of Acts

"To many persons this Book is so little known, both it and its author, that they are not even aware that there is such a book in existence.

For this reason especially I have taken this narrative for my subject, that I may draw to it such as do not know it, and not let such a treasure as this remain hidden out of sight....."

At the end of the 4th century the Book of Acts, a book which supposedly had been included in the canon of the New Testament for 200 years, was "so little known" that it was "hidden and out of sight"? At the end of the 4th century the author of Acts, Luke, the author of the Gospel of Luke, was "so little known" that many people were "not even aware" that he or his writings existed?

As such Acts is propaganda designed to support the relatively late notion that Jesus was a Judean carpenter.

These are all much later than Paul. How would Paul argue against these people?

aa5874

You have asked a question when you should be presenting the data for your claims.

Are you aware that Paul claimed he persecuted the Churches of Christ?

Paul implied that he was not only arguing but destroying the Church.

Galatians 1:13 KJV The Christ of the Churches MUST predate Paul's Christ.

Essentially Paul's Christ is the Later Christ.

Galatians 1 You were also taught that the Pauline letters were unknown to the author of Acts. You did not learn all that I taught.

Please, read Acts again.

The Pauline letters were composed After Acts of the Apostles.
Acts of the Apostles does not state anywhere at all that Jesus was a Judean carpenter.

Acts of the Apostles is a product of fiction with the invented Activities of the Apostles including Paul. In fact, the character called Saul/Paul is mentioned more than Jesus or Peter and the author dedicated 13 chapters alone for Paul.

By the way, up to the mid 3rd century it was NOT taught that Jesus was a carpenter.

Origen's Against Celsus
You must present the evidence for your claims based on the rules of the forum.

It is already known that your claims about the Pauline Corpus are wholly unsubstantiated--completely speculative yet you repeat them.

Even in the Canon of the Church there is NO statement whatsoever that the Pauline letters were composed before Acts of the Apostles.

The abundance of evidence from antiquity support Late Pauline letters.

Chili

Nice lines! But I should add that for Paul being with Christ was to 'not preach' and so not be with them or among them now as servant instead of in freedom himself.

Paul had already died as crucified, and left religion behind that he now referrred to as inferior life as slave to the Christ in him.

Then let me add that 'the old was raised' and not left behind in this sense but was purified where he so now enjoys both as his good works in heaven as shown in Rev.14:13.

Chili

Mary is not human as sinless and sperma was not part of the act. It is about regeneration in flesh and not reproduction of flesh.

Sheshbazzar

''Paul';

A human descendant of the semen of King David (through his mother's human genealogy) and born on earth
He was born 'flesh' to suffer and die 'in the flesh', like any other human, or even his ancestor in the flesh, King David, to overcome death in the flesh, that is in his incarnate human flesh body, by the resurrection from the dead.
Paul understood this to have taken place on earth and to the human that was the son and the 'seed of David'.
There is no 'seed of David' in heaven, except it be that 'seed of David' which was first born, lived, was crucified, died, and was buried in the earth, on earth, who arose from the dead, and ascended into heaven.

The only Biblical reference to the betrayal of the Lord 'Jesus' -'that night' - is in a setting upon earth, and is found in Luke 22.

That is the basis of what 'Paul' is relating here. There is no other Biblical reference providing or supporting 'Paul'.
Furthermore, consistently throughout the Bible 'night' is a condition that is experienced by humans upon earth. (see Gen 13:9, 30:16, Ex 12:42, 2 Kings 19:35 and many more.)

Building verbal sand castles out of the symbolic language employed in Revelations does not make for good textual exegesis, but serves as the basis for some pretty piss-poor and crappy eisegesis (good for book sales)

Hebrews;
ie. Jesus had a human body that lived on earth, and that was subject to all human experiences, emotions, pains, and desires, yet triumphed over all of these very human 'infirmities' in the flesh. human flesh.


.

Sheshbazzar

She may not be now.
But in the Gospels she most certainly was understood to be, and is described as a human female who lived a life on on earth, and in the flesh, and whom was a lineal human decendent of the royal line of King David.

ApostateAbe

So, just in case "born of a woman, born under the law," really does mean a human being, we can still claim that the troubling passage was just a scribal tinkering and not written by Paul himself, and the hypothesis stands, as with any other troubling passage and any hypothesis. Sometimes, passages really are inserted (redacted) by scribes other than the author of the publication. The problem is that it is not nearly enough just to cite Earl Doherty's opinion to make that case, because he has no more qualifications on the matter than the rest of us, so it would be like me quoting a conclusion from aa5874 whenever I have a strange opinion on anything.

In the context of Galatians 4:4, there is nothing to indicate a heavenly realm where Jesus was born of a woman. On the contrary:

My point is this: heirs, as long as they are minors, are no better than slaves, though they are the owners of all the property; but they remain under guardians and trustees until the date set by the father. So with us; while we were minors, we were enslaved to the elemental spirits of the world. But when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, in order to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as children. And because you are children, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, ‘Abba! Father!’ So you are no longer a slave but a child, and if a child then also an heir, through God.

So, in the same words, Jesus was born of a woman and born under the law in order to redeem others who were under the law--that is: Jews.