Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Solo · 11-21-2009, 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Sumner

This doesn't make much sense. Everything Paul is describing has Peter living in the manner of Jews.

I said to Cephas before them all, "If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?" Gal 2:14

Quote:

the entire description of the dispute indicates that Peter had given Paul the impression that the Gentile members would be accepted as equals, and that Peter would acknowledge and adhere to that. And then didn't.

I don't think you can defend this given you have misread Paul's accusation highlighted above.

Jiri

aa5874 · 11-21-2009, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by storytime

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

What vision? You think Acts of the Apostles is history? Paul explicitly rebukes Cephas (assumed to be Peter) for his hypocrisy in table manners between Jews and non-Jews in his letter to Galatians. Which contradicts the Acts of the Apostles idea that Peter came up with it first. It was Paul's idea, not Peter's.

Acts of the Apostles is mid/late 2nd century catholicizing, trying to limit the popularity of Paul and shift everything to the "historical" witnesses.

You haven't read about Peter's vision and how it was devised to change the Law of what was clean and unclean? The Gentiles were uncircumcised, "unclean". The Gentiles offered sacrifice[food] to idols. But Peter's vision said the Gentiles were acceptable to his Hebrew god.

I think "Acts of the Apostles" is myth and that myth became church history.

Paul rebuked Peter for hypocrisy; exposed Peter's hypocrisy to the other disciples in Peters presence. The argument wasn't about food laws. Peter was living in the manner of Gentiles while telling the Gentiles they needed to live as the Jews. The main topic of decention was circumcision. So what was Peter guilty of? He was telling the Gentiles that they could offer sacrifices to god while being uncircumcised. That was totally unacceptable to the Hebrew god. Paul fixed the problem by telling the Gentiles that they need not offer sacrifice in their uncircumcision due to Christ being their sacrifice.

If Acts is myth and the author dedicated virtually half of his book, about 14 chapters, to Saul/Paul, then Saul/Paul may indeed be a myth.

It must be note that the Pauline writers appear to internally confirm some of the events in Acts which now appear to be myth.

If Paul did exist, why did the Church use a book of myth as the only canonised record of the history of Paul?

storytime · 11-21-2009, 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by storytime

You haven't read about Peter's vision and how it was devised to change the Law of what was clean and unclean? The Gentiles were uncircumcised, "unclean". The Gentiles offered sacrifice[food] to idols. But Peter's vision said the Gentiles were acceptable to his Hebrew god.

I think "Acts of the Apostles" is myth and that myth became church history.

Paul rebuked Peter for hypocrisy; exposed Peter's hypocrisy to the other disciples in Peters presence. The argument wasn't about food laws. Peter was living in the manner of Gentiles while telling the Gentiles they needed to live as the Jews. The main topic of decention was circumcision. So what was Peter guilty of? He was telling the Gentiles that they could offer sacrifices to god while being uncircumcised. That was totally unacceptable to the Hebrew god. Paul fixed the problem by telling the Gentiles that they need not offer sacrifice in their uncircumcision due to Christ being their sacrifice.

If Acts is myth and the author dedicated virtually half of his book, about 14 chapters, to Saul/Paul, then Saul/Paul may indeed be a myth.

It must be note that the Pauline writers appear to internally confirm some of the events in Acts which now appear to be myth.

If Paul did exist, why did the Church use a book of myth as the only canonised record of the history of Paul?

Why did the church use a book of myth? Because they couldn't use the OT Hebrew scriptures as their own. They could only cherry pick the OT parts for use in their novel idea as an expansion to utilize their conspiracy for taking what did not belong to them in the first place -- Jerusalem. The church, for whatever political reasons, wanted that piss poor plot of land. Making themselves equal with the Jews through a faith only doctrine via the characters Peter, Paul, and others would assure their inheritance of the promised land. So they pushed the lie, and the hoaz was believed. Even today, haven't you heard Christians declare "we are Israel now"? Even today, Christians are still trying to expel the Jews and declare Jerusalem their own, through Paul's gospel. No Law, no circumcision, "it's ours by faith alone".

aa5874 · 11-21-2009, 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by storytime

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

If Acts is myth and the author dedicated virtually half of his book, about 14 chapters, to Saul/Paul, then Saul/Paul may indeed be a myth.

It must be note that the Pauline writers appear to internally confirm some of the events in Acts which now appear to be myth.

If Paul did exist, why did the Church use a book of myth as the only canonised record of the history of Paul?

Why did the church use a book of myth? Because they couldn't use the OT Hebrew scriptures as their own. They could only cherry pick the OT parts for use in their novel idea as an expansion to utilize their conspiracy for taking what did not belong to them in the first place -- Jerusalem. The church, for whatever political reasons, wanted that piss poor plot of land. Making themselves equal with the Jews through a faith only doctrine via the characters Peter, Paul, and others would assure their inheritance of the promised land. So they pushed the lie, and the hoaz was believed. Even today, haven't you heard Christians declare "we are Israel now"? Even today, Christians are still trying to expel the Jews and declare Jerusalem their own, through Paul's gospel. No Law, no circumcision, "it's ours by faith alone".

And in which century did the Church get their political power? And who gave them their political power? It was not Paul or Peter, it was Constantine.

Jesus believers of the God/man type had no power at all until Constantine.

What would the Church do without Constantine?

storytime · 11-22-2009, 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by storytime

Why did the church use a book of myth? Because they couldn't use the OT Hebrew scriptures as their own. They could only cherry pick the OT parts for use in their novel idea as an expansion to utilize their conspiracy for taking what did not belong to them in the first place -- Jerusalem. The church, for whatever political reasons, wanted that piss poor plot of land. Making themselves equal with the Jews through a faith only doctrine via the characters Peter, Paul, and others would assure their inheritance of the promised land. So they pushed the lie, and the hoaz was believed. Even today, haven't you heard Christians declare "we are Israel now"? Even today, Christians are still trying to expel the Jews and declare Jerusalem their own, through Paul's gospel. No Law, no circumcision, "it's ours by faith alone".

And in which century did the Church get their political power? And who gave them their political power? It was not Paul or Peter, it was Constantine.

Jesus believers of the God/man type had no power at all until Constantine.

What would the Church do without Constantine?

Agreed. Constantine provided the overall effectiveness of Christianity. But did he do so without having been taught the story of Peter and Paul's gospel?

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.