Toto

Susan's digression into the Jewish War has been split off here

Susan2

I would hardly think that WWII was progress or the resultant 70 million most torturous deaths.

The medical experiments alone, something that is almost always never mention were so gruesome as to be unconscionable given that they were preformed by scientists. Yes, scientists, imagine that. The intellectuals of the day.

I am not sure if any of them were ever tried as war criminals. Perhaps it is that memory that lingers in the minds of fundamentalist that causes their distrust, and aversion toward the sciences?

I am hoping you will excuse me if I can’t see the progress that took place, unless of course you are speaking in jest.


Progress?



Just about 10 years ago, + or -, a candidate for Governor in New Jersey campaigned with the secondary slogan “I feel your pain’. Born with a silver spoon, I hardly think so. In fact, the Governor refused to increase the speed limit from 55 mph to 65 mph, until caught, repeatedly, traveling at 90 mph. The chauffeur was blamed. It seems the Governor was busy in the back seat doing paper work and hadn’t noticed. Soon after when the smell died down the speed limit was increased to 65 mph.

Now an interesting question is: If this is all metaphor, do you think Jesus felt pain, let alone your pain? And if it is not metaphor do you think there are those who would be willing to do that to another human being?

Is Paul being deceitful when he dismisses gruesome physical pain for insults? Is Paul an illusionist, a bait and switcher? Is Paul practicing sorcery?

Progress?


"When you do it to the least of these you do it to me."

When a child watches their mother or father being physically beaten, do you think the child feels their pain, feels their fear, or, just shrugs it off?

Better, what would Paul do/say? Submit yourself. That is Paul’s commandment.

I Timothy 2:11-15Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 12. But I suffer (tolerate) not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 13. For Adam was first formed (planed, this is a plot), then Eve. 14. And Adam was not deceived (sin/defiled), but the woman being deceived was in transgression (sin/defiled). 15. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing (pain), if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

Are modern day Christians lying when they claim that Adam sinned too, in complete contradiction to their own scriptures?

I Peter 3:1. Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husband.........yada, yada. 2. While they behold your (the wife’s) chaste conversation (which is) coupled with fear (women are to fear, be afraid).

There are many other such violent verses against women in Paul’s writings.

If Jesus were a Jew, I am sure he knew the story of Vashti. Paul, the Jew surely did as well. And Paul the Roman knew of the Roman ways as well. Agree?

Of course we know what happened to Vashti in the Torah: Ester 1:1-22. She was slain.

Rhetoric?

Progress?


Wow, that’s a mouthful.

aa5874

Those two possibilities cannot even be considered. Psalms 69 is about the author of the Psalms, David the christ of God, (the anointed) and it begins in this fashion

Psalms 69.1-3 And the Psamist continues, Psalms 69.5 Jesus the Messiah, the Lord and Saviour was not presented as a sinnner, but born of the Holy Ghost of God.

It is most obvious that Psalms 69 had nothing whatsoever to do with Jesus the Messiah. The Psalmist did NOT even mention the words Jesus Christ anywhere or acknowledge any prophesied character called Jesus the Messiah.

The Pauline writer never acknowledged that he saw or heard from his Jesus, the Lord, Saviour and Messiah, while he lived on earth, yet this writer would claim Jesus the resurrected and ascended Messah did reveal certain information to him, but it is clear what "Paul" did.

The Pauline writer just used the words of other writers and attributed them to his Jesus, Messiah and Saviour whom he got to know after it was dead.

There is a massive historicity disconnect with the Pauline writer. This writer got his history from the dead.

andrewcriddle

I'm sorry instead of I should have said I think you may be misunderstanding what Paul is saying in the beginning of Romans 15. I would paraphrase the passage as Certainly you (SE) here is singular not plural. The RSV translates
Andrew Criddle

aa5874

The author of Psalms 69 wrote in the "first person", and in Psalms 69.9, the author cleary clearly signified that "the reproaches had fallen on ME" meaning the reproaches fell on the author of the Psalm, David the christ of God, the anointed one.

There was no mention of any of Jesus or a Messianic figure with such a name.

avi

Here's what I am misunderstanding from this thread:
Where's the data?

David Trobisch's research on Paul's letters
So far as I can determine, there is no evidence of anything by Paul or Saul, before the fourth century. The entire catalogue could be fake....
Are there any documents, written before Eusebius, still extant today, which cite writings of Saul/Paul of Tarsus, i.e. documents which acknowledge his purported existence?

Susan2

The psalm passage is very ambiguous. "The reproaches of those who reproached you, fell on me", could beg the question to do what? Avenge, which is to rule absolutely.


The reproaches of those who defiled thee, fell (hurt) me.........and so?

Or, it could also mean that the reproaches of those who reproached thee, even reproached me. Shared guilt, blame. Is Lord God, David, and Satan each have a part in the following story? And how about the Romans in the future story? And what of the common ordinary people, who were slaughtered?

I also think it could be asked another way: rather then asking who made David take an accounting, what made Davide take an accounting.

What was David's motive?

Notice that Joab asks the same thing, what is your motive?

Why didn't David tell Joab that the Lord had told him to do so? Why did David withhold that information?

Or, would Joab thought he was nuts? Or, simply because he was King, and Joab couldn't question the King?


Complete power, a theocracy with David as the King and Divine, while alive, even if only as Son?

And so David repents and acknowledges his sin?





Even the prophets are on Davids side.

David acknowledges his sin, but gets what he wants. So does YHWH.

David and YHWH are sorry, repent

NOT!


One could ask, again, and agains, and again?

Yes, I could see how someone would think that Psalm 69 is a messianic prophecy.

Jesus did the same thing, he was going to rule heaven and earth. Paul did the same thing, only he was a little smarter? Jesus could rule heaven, Paul as an unbelieve in heaven was going to rule earth.

And eventually he did? Paul was shrewd. He continued with the Jesus myth, but controlled the myth, thus ruling heaven and earth.

mountainman

An image of a spliced tape springs to mind.

ApostateAbe

Origen was earlier than Eusebius, and he makes plenty of commentaries on the Epistles of Paul. The extant manuscripts are dated to the fourth century and later because the manuscripts did not survive long. They had to be copied and recopied for the information to survive for long intact, which as you can imagine leads to many variations and doubts. The entire catalog could by fake, and in fact half of the traditional Pauline Epistles are likely forgeries. The other half are accepted by scholars of every stripe. It is the general practice of historians to accept letters as written by a man of the name contained in the leading salutations, by default, because that seems to be the most likely hypothesis. If anyone thinks that a letter is inauthentic, then the burden is on him or her to provide the evidence, and sometimes they do indeed have sufficient evidence.

aChristian

It doesn't say that in the passage. Your are confusedly reading your own ideas into the passage. Those ideas are clearly contradicted throughout the Bible. Try reading Acts, Galatians, etc.