spin

God, it's hard to get a simple idea through. And it's not profit that is the issue.

Paul was manipulating his readers as he saw necessary in order to keep them on the straight and narrow, so in that respect he was self-serving, but he fits into a relatively clear historical context. It's more the preservation of his writings by his heirs that is part of the issue, preservation for self-serving reasons, and what happens to the text of Paul must be considered because of the self-serving nature of its preservers.

Christian writers naturally saw everything through christian filters. Everything is interpreted as regards to christianity. Christian sources were preferred over pagan sources. This is self-serving.

You must analyze everything you use from self-serving sources rather than take it all at face value and still you can doubt the material.

(You can take Orwell's dictum, "Who controls the present controls the past" as partially reflecting the self-serving issue. The past is molded into the form acceptable to those who rewrite it. And it doesn't matter how many "scholars" believe self-serving dicta.)


spin

sschlichter

the simple ideas you have get through. what never seems to make it through is any justification for them.

Your willingness to twist and squirm like an overweight teenager getting into a prom dress so you can keep Jesus from having a brother is a perfect example. No justification historically or grammatically.

I suggest you quit trying to unshackle those bound by their presuppostions and investigate yours. At least try to reconcile your premises with the other atheists. you are claiming Paul is the basis for everything christian while your compatriots are interpolating you out of a theory.

here is one you can start with. Your willingness to butcher 1 Cor 15 in spite of the lack of evidence of interpolation is at least indirectly based on your confidence in the dating of manuscripts by authorities that presupposed the NT to be written much later than it actually was. This is a self serving source and should not be taken at face value. wouldn't you agree?

~steve

spin

Cutting through your usual waffle and errors, I'm not an atheist.

I don't know who you mean by compatriots, but I'm attempting to see Paul as the starter, not the basis for everything christian.

I don't know when the texts were written. I don't consider trying to understand 1 Cor 15 as butchery. I understand your unwillingness to interact with the source material. And I do appreciate the irony of you trying to project onto me.

Can I take it though that you now have some glimmer of an understanding of the notion of self-serving and that you can see that it needs to be considered regarding the christian literature?


spin

sschlichter

whatever you may be, it is still a valid point. these are theories being posited that are mutally damaging to each other.

yes you are, I believe that is an accurate statement. the question is why when the evidence indicates that Paul is not the starter.

I am getting more familiar with those whom are self-serving every time we talk.

spin

All theories on a subject tend to be "mutually damaging to each other", including yours. Say something useful.

There is no point in playing dumb. I have specifically used what Paul said. Remember Gal 1:11-12?? That indicates that Paul didn't consciously get his gospel from other people.

Would you call Mani a christian or would he be the starter of a new religion?

Let me put aside your deflection and ask you again: do you understand what people were trying to tell you about christian literature being self-serving?


spin

jakejonesiv

The basic discussion is about whether James was the literal biological brother of Jesus. You are clearly contradicted by Catholic scholars who insist that no, James was Jesus' cousin. You are contradicted again by the evidence that the passage is an interploation, and you are contradicted again by the fact that the text (interpolated or not) states "brother of the Lord" not "brother of Jesus."
Your position is so weak that it is vunerable to multiple objections, and the weight of the various counter arguments is cummulative.

Your position is apologetic. This is evidenced by the fact you will not consider even the mere possibilty that James was not Jesus' brother. You have arrived at your position by faith, and then arranged your defenses to support the a priori conclusion. If this is correct, then fine, you can believe whatever you want to; any more discussion is fruitless once one retreats to the comforting confines of faith. But if I have misread you, if you really are an honest seeker of historical truth, you can set me straight by identifying one statement in the Bible about Jesus that is not true.

Best,
Jake Jones IV

sschlichter

keep reading, you are close to the point where Paul confirms his message with the message of the leaders of the movement he was conscripted into.


(Gal 2:1) Then after fourteen years I went up to Jerusalem again with Barnabas, taking Titus along too. (Gal 2:2) I went there because of a revelation and presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. But I did so only in a private meeting with the influential people, to make sure that I was not running - or had not run - in vain.

(Gal 2:6) But from those who were influential (whatever they were makes no difference to me; God shows no favoritism between people ) - those influential leaders added nothing to my message. (Gal 2:7) On the contrary, when they saw that I was entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised just as Peter was to the circumcised
(Gal 2:8) (for he who empowered Peter for his apostleship to the circumcised also empowered me for my apostleship to the Gentiles)
(Gal 2:9) and when James, Cephas, and John, who had a reputation as pillars, recognized the grace that had been given to me, they gave to Barnabas and me the right hand of fellowship, agreeing that we would go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.

that is the answer to your question. Your desire to pry some sort of closure on the thread from me is self-serving.

Chaucer

Hey, now you really have my attention! On your page, it says --

Basic Beliefs
eclectic

Can you further define "eclectic"?

Thank you,

Chaucer

P.S.: To be fair to you, I provide a link to a post where I explain my own beliefs in better detail --

http://www.freeratio.org//showpost.p...7&postcount=28

Amaleq13

"conscripted"? Did you really mean "converted" or do you think Paul was required or forced to join?

sschlichter

the account of his conversion is what i am referring to as a conscription.