Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Steven Carr · 05-01-2010, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brianscott1977

When Paul says 'Not I, but the Lord', he is referring back to commands of Jesus, and the substance of those commands can be found in the Gospels.

Really?

As Christians demonstrated in Revelation that they got commands from the Lord by revelation and visions, as Paul spoke in tongues, claimed to get revelation and to have gone to the third Heaven, if Paul claimed that 'Not I , but the Lord says...', then he may have been just tripping, as Christians did.

Kapyong · 05-01-2010, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brianscott1977

When
I know of no valid reason to doubt Paul’s veracity,

Believers love that word "valid". They use it all the time.

Here it means :
While there ARE reasons to doubt Paul, those reasons are not "valid" to me, therefore Paul is right.

Kapyong

aa5874 · 05-01-2010, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brianscott1977

When Paul says 'Not I, but the Lord', he is referring back to commands of Jesus, and the substance of those commands can be found in the Gospels.

Who can claim that his veracity is unquestionable – that he really believed that he was quoting Jesus? Who can claim that anyone’s veracity is unquestionable without at least some leap of faith? How can I be sure that the person who posted the OP is in fact the same person who normally posts under the name Steven Carr, and not someone else who has stolen Steven Carr’s password?

My approach is to say that unless there is some reason, some evidence, to question a person’s veracity then I assume that, at least from the person’s point of view, he or she is being honest. I know of no valid reason to doubt Paul’s veracity, so I think that he believed that he was repeating the commands given by Jesus.

But, there are things that a Pauline writer claimed that is not corroborated by the author of Acts. Surely you cannot claim that both the author of Acts and the Pauline writers were truthful.

There are valid reasons to doubt the Pauline writers, even scholars have suggested that the name Paul must NOT be trusted as the author of ALL the Epistles.

brianscott1977 · 05-01-2010, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Quote:

Originally Posted by brianscott1977

When Paul says 'Not I, but the Lord', he is referring back to commands of Jesus, and the substance of those commands can be found in the Gospels.

Really?

As Christians demonstrated in Revelation that they got commands from the Lord by revelation and visions, as Paul spoke in tongues, claimed to get revelation and to have gone to the third Heaven, if Paul claimed that 'Not I , but the Lord says...', then he may have been just tripping, as Christians did.

As far as I can remember the phrase, “not I, but the Lord” is found only in First Corinthians 7:10, in which Paul writes specifically about the commands Jesus gave concerning marriage and divorce. The clear connections between the words of Paul and Jesus in this case make it difficult to think that Paul is referring to anything other than the commands Jesus gave while on Earth.

brianscott1977 · 05-01-2010, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kapyong

Quote:

Originally Posted by brianscott1977

When
I know of no valid reason to doubt Paul’s veracity,

Believers love that word "valid". They use it all the time.

Here it means :
While there ARE reasons to doubt Paul, those reasons are not "valid" to me, therefore Paul is right.

Kapyong

So what are the reasons to doubt Paul in this case?

darstec · 05-01-2010, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brianscott1977

Quote:

Originally Posted by darstec

I've got news for you. You would not have made that cute little speech if you actually read the Pauline epistles. For you see, at least one of the epistles whose author used Paul's name states he is a liar. That comes from the author himself. Ergo you have very good reasons for questioning his veracity.

There’s not much about anything I do that is “little,” but I’m going to take cute as a complement. Thank you!

So, what exactly are you referring to in Paul’s letters?

I am referring to the fact that at least one of the writers using the name of Paul admitted he is a liar. He is all things to all people. In other words he is willing to lie to pretend he is part of each and every groupl.

spamandham · 05-02-2010, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brianscott1977

My approach is to say that unless there is some reason, some evidence, to question a person’s veracity then I assume that, at least from the person’s point of view, he or she is being honest. I know of no valid reason to doubt Paul’s veracity, so I think that he believed that he was repeating the commands given by Jesus.

Paul is a delusional megalomaniac. If he were alive today, he'd be one of those lunatics leading a suicide cult waiting for aliens to show up, and serving poison kool-aid to his followers.

It makes no sense at all to take his claims of authority at face value and try to anachronistically shoe-horn them into the later gospel stories.

aa5874 · 05-02-2010, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by brianscott1977

My approach is to say that unless there is some reason, some evidence, to question a person’s veracity then I assume that, at least from the person’s point of view, he or she is being honest. I know of no valid reason to doubt Paul’s veracity, so I think that he believed that he was repeating the commands given by Jesus.

Paul is a delusional megalomaniac. If he were alive today, he'd be one of those lunatics leading a suicide cult waiting for aliens to show up, and serving poison kool-aid to his followers.

It makes no sense at all to take his claims of authority at face value and try to anachronistically shoe-horn them into the later gospel stories.

"Paul" was not a delusional megalomaniac.

The Pauline writers are part of the fraud to present bogus information about the history of Jesus believers.

There is just no external corroborative source of antiquity that can indicate that there was a lunatic called Paul who asked any JEW or non-JEW to worship a character called JESUS CHRIST as the son of a God, that circumcision was not necessary for salvation of all mankind, and that ONLY a belief that JESUS was the EXPECTED CHRIST and was raised from the dead was all that was needed for SALVATION.

If the Pauline writers were alive today they would be like those who are employed by the government or POWERFUL POLITICIANS to FABRICATE or PLANT "EVIDENCE".

Romans 13:1-6 -

Quote:

1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

I think Paul would have been an employee of the POLITICAL POWER if he was alive today.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.