spin

Trigger finger gets you into trouble every time.

At least you are now trying a little. Now, where does Paul actually state that he knew the "original apostles who followed Jesus"?

(When you discover that he doesn't, you might like to modify your approach, but appealing to the gospels will only complicate your errors. See below...)

The gospels were written after Paul and their veracity cannot be related to Paul. It is a gross blunder to attempt to understand Paul by reading him in the light of the gospels. Time is an arrow: it goes in one direction. Influence may go from Paul to the gospels but not vice versa. So forget the gospels when trying to understand Paul or you build in error. Think about minimalism a while.

What the gospels say has not been shown to be of any relevance to the period before Paul. You are merely assuming it. In doing so you mystify the texts and prevent understanding.

You are confusing what you get from Paul with other material. If you want to understand Paul you start with what he says.

If you actually read what Paul says and not what you want him to say, then you'd know he doesn't support your theory. The only thing you know about the messianists he persecuted is that they were not orthodox Jews, as he was at the time. He doesn't tell you that they knew anything about Jesus. Read Paul. Don't pervert him.

icardfacepalm:

Yes, folks, feel sorry for outhouse and his irony.

You need to know about the subject first to be able to comment.

Lovely non sequitur.

Someone who knows better than to make your mistakes.



Minimalism, as evinced from those who have worn the name "minimalist" (though not by choice), is not just about the old testament. It's a general approach to tradition literature. You plainly still haven't read Thompson's minimalist approach to christian literature.

Your assertion of ignorance is like all of your assertions: vain.

:moonie:

I get embarrassed by errors I make. You don't seem to be capable of seeing your errors.

Well, when you get some idea of evidence and the basic problems in the study of the early christian period, you'll realize just what sort of an embarrassment you are to yourself at the moment. You don't have to say that you're weak with Jesus: that's evident. But instead of trying to learn something to get past the problem, you prefer to shoot your mouth off and display that weakness to anyone within earshot.

thief of fire

Paul is clear. He only judges those inside the church.

What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?

1 Cor 5:12

That he rebukes Cephas tells us what Cephas followed.

When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong.

Galatians 2:11

Paul repeatedly spends time with Cephas and rebukes him. It's telling you something. You are cherry picking Paul's letters

spin

This is stretching your source more than reasonably. Paul says, "I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people" (1 Cor 5:9) "But I'm writing to you not to associate with anyone who... is sexually immoral..." Perhaps Cephas was sexually immoral? or the verse really has nothing to do with the issue.

Both Paul and Cephas are messianists. Paul, who became a messianist after causing trouble among the messianists, sought out messianists when he got involved with the religion, or so it seems from Gal 1. It's after that that he told them of his revelation and they went their different ways. He condemns Cephas for his inconsistency after the separation. Why did he want non-Jews to follow laws he wasn't even following? Is this the same person who had no trouble picking corn on the sabbath, now insisting on gentiles following the law?? Naaa. The developing religion just got caught in a lie.

sotto voce

Only geographically. One went east, t'other went west, but they were alike as two peas...

That was not breach of the Law.

spin

That's why Paul repudiated Cephas.

Spoken like a true sheister.

sotto voce

Now there's the acme of logical thought.

Like someone who actually knows what he's talking about.

Keep readin'.

spin

It shows that you are massaging the information rather than taking it for what it says.

No, that doesn't follow. The sheister goes for how to get the most out of the situation, not interested in the facts or the best result.

I don't stop.

sotto voce

Romans 2:1.

It follows just as soon as you prove that there was a breach of Mosaic Law, of course.

Feel free, spin. The world is your lobster. Take your time.

Make a start, sunshine.

spin

That's ironic from you.

There are two sheisterisms in the one passage. 1) but David did it (this one never works), and 2) let's obfuscate it (hopefully the judge says, "whatever he said, I'd never thought about it like that before"). Neither of them mitigate the complaint that the disciples were seen as breaking the sabbath.

I do feel free, sotto voce caro mio. I sit back and watch you cart your albatross around.

I.e. stop, so you can catch up. Do you want me to carry your albatross for you? I'd just put it down, if I were you. You'd feel a weight off your shoulders.

sotto voce

Predictable spin, eh. Pity you didn't think of it before.

The only shyster in this is you. Stop spinning around the topic just a moment, and answer the question. Was it a breach of Mosaic Law to pick corn on a Sabbath?

Oh, you can't answer that, because you haven't even started to read that Bible. If you had, you would know that it wasn't illegal to pick corn on any day, and it did not breach the Sabbath law to do so, as no fire was lit. It did breach the illegal laws of the pathetic 'Jews' who had the damnedest nerve to even live in Judaea, let alone pontificate. Jesus was far too kind. The beggars would have been put to the sword in a real Israel.

Unless he wanted to let their sins come to fruition, of course.

Oh, ha. You wince in pain while my 20 inch HE shells blow your magazine. I sank you very much.