Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 02-08-2009, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by delusional

...
Luke draws upon Mark, therefore Luke was written after Mark. Mark was written sometime between 60-65AD. By 65, according to a very strong and ancient tradition, Paul was dead (having died in the Neronian persecution).

But this tradition does not go bac to Paul. The time and place of his death is unknown.

Quote:

,,,there has never been any dispute that Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Phillipians, 1 Thessalonians and Philemon were all written by the Paul who appears in the Acts of the Apostles. ....

Sorry, this is disputed. The Paul who appears in the Acts of the Apostles may be loosely based on the Paul who wrote the letters, but the Saul-Paul of Acts is incompatible with the letter writer.

Toto · 02-08-2009, 10:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by delusional

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

You should know that the conversion of Saul/Paul was fiction as described in Acts of the Apostles.

You can believe it was an epileptic fit, you can believe what you like, but it happened, and it turned his life around. If you think you know better, YOU are the one who has got to come up with the sources.

There are 3 different contradictory stories of Paul's conversion in Acts, and he does not describe it in his own writings. The consensus of modern scholarship is that it the conversion story is dramatic fiction, possibly based on a pagan parallel.

Quote:

. . .There is the whole body of evidence in the NT testifying to his [Jesus'] existence. If you want to reject it you have got to come up with a reason for doing so other than your preconceived agenda. There arte the extant writings of first century authors like Ignatius, who apparently has no doubt about his historicity. Tacitus apparently has no doubt about his historicity. How much do you want? ...

1. The NT is not evidence. It is religious writing, with no indication that it was meant to be real history. Ignatius wrote letters that were interpolated and revised by later Christians, so of course they support Christian doctrine. Tacitus, even if his work was not forged, is only repeating second hand information. We don't know if he had doubts or not.

Jedi Mind Trick · 02-09-2009, 05:09 AM

The word "Gospel" does not universally mean a certain set of exclusive things. It simply means "good news" and could entail whatever the particular writer wanted to say that was good news.

Paul preached "my gospel" as opposed to the other gospels that were being preached by the other apostles. Paul's gospel, which seems to be original to him and opposed by the other apostles', especially James, was that the law had ceased to be binding upon the person who believes in Jesus. Also known as "salvation by faith apart from works." Therefore Paul could have received the Gospel that the other apostles preached and at the same time have a gospel that was "revealed" to him alone.

I try to not be as critical of Paul as I used to be. Maybe he had something of value that was truthful to say? I don't know.:huh:

Jedi Mind Trick · 02-09-2009, 05:12 AM

I still sometimes think he was a Roman spy, then again, perhaps not.

Jedi Mind Trick · 02-09-2009, 05:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Transient

hmm well I can speak in tongues as good as anyone else I have heard.
I was wondering where the idea came from tho - did the author of acts just make it up or is there some sort of precedent from other cultures for speaking in tongues?

It is not unknown in occult circles.

aa5874 · 02-09-2009, 06:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jedi Mind Trick

The word "Gospel" does not universally mean a certain set of exclusive things. It simply means "good news" and could entail whatever the particular writer wanted to say that was good news.

Paul preached "my gospel" as opposed to the other gospels that were being preached by the other apostles. Paul's gospel, which seems to be original to him and opposed by the other apostles', especially James, was that the law had ceased to be binding upon the person who believes in Jesus. Also known as "salvation by faith apart from works." Therefore Paul could have received the Gospel that the other apostles preached and at the same time have a gospel that was "revealed" to him alone.

I try to not be as critical of Paul as I used to be. Maybe he had something of value that was truthful to say? I don't know.:huh:

The gospel of the writer called Paul makes very little sense unless the letters are read or studied in conjunction with the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles. The letters are directly dependent on the Jesus stories.

And, even then, it would be realised that the writer was not original at all.

The very creature called Jesus Christ did not originate from the writer. The writer called Paul must have received that name Jesus Christ from the prevailing Jesus stories.

According to the writer called Paul, he was the last to SEE Jesus..

But how did he come to realise that there was a Jesus Christ that could have been seen by anyone, or even him?

It should be obvious , the writer got his information from the prevailing Jesus stories. And in a letter, the writer called Paul clearly put himself LAST.

1 Cor.15.3-8

Quote:

For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:

6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.

7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.

8 And LAST of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

Now, if Jesus Christ did not exist, the writer's revelations would be a hoax. If Jesus Christ was just a man, the revelations would be of the same fiction.

The revelations of the writer called Paul are only true if Jesus did exist as the offspring of the Holy Ghost, the son of God, resurrected and ascended to heaven.

It is not true that there could have been an offspring of the Holy Ghost, born without sexual union, son of God, resurrected and to heaven.

The revelations of the writer called Paul did NOT come from Jesus Christ of the NT.

The revelations are from the Jesus stories. The writer claimed he was last.

Paul's lies knot him up.

Doug Shaver · 02-09-2009, 06:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

That doesn't make Paul a liar.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Well the writer called Paul will have to prove he was not lying.

Nope. You're calling him a liar. You're the one with something to prove.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Some of the information found in the letters with his name are blatant fiction.

Nonsense. Some of it isn't true, but that doesn't make it either fiction or a lie.

A lie is a falsehood told with knowledge of its falsity and with intent to deceive. We have no reason to doubt that Paul actually believed everything he wrote. If he believed it, then he did not know it was false, and therefore he was not lying.

Huon · 02-09-2009, 07:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

We have no reason to doubt that Paul actually believed everything he wrote.

We don't know, and nobody shall ever know, if "Paul" actually believed everything he (or they) wrote. We have modern examples of self-proclaimed prophets (Raël, L. Ron Hubbard, for instance) who are true liars.

What can we say about Joseph Smith ? (thank you, dog-on !)

aa5874 · 02-09-2009, 07:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

That doesn't make Paul a liar.

Nope. You're calling him a liar. You're the one with something to prove.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Some of the information found in the letters with his name are blatant fiction.

Nonsense. Some of it isn't true, but that doesn't make it either fiction or a lie.

A lie is a falsehood told with knowledge of its falsity and with intent to deceive. We have no reason to doubt that Paul actually believed everything he wrote. If he believed it, then he did not know it was false, and therefore he was not lying.

A person is a liar when they tell lies. Lies are the proof.

1 Corinthians 15.3-8

Quote:

For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: 5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: 6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. 7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.

8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

The 8th verse is a lie.

Paul's lies KNOT him up.

Jayrok · 02-09-2009, 08:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jayrok

Like much of his other ideas, from Isaiah:

Isaiah 28:11 -- Very well then, with foreign lips and strange tongues
God will speak to this people.

Where does it say the apostles will speak in strange tongues? And where does it talk about the gifts of the Holy Ghost?

Only in Acts of the Apostles, not at all in Isaiah.

The question wasn't about where the Apostles got the idea of speaking in tongues. It was where Paul may have gotten it. Paul got everything from the Hebrew Scriptures (and personal revelation). He either didn't know anything about the episode at Pentacost or he didn't care to bring it up.

Paul relied heavily on Isaiah. It's possible he got the idea of speaking in tongues as a spiritual gift from Isaiah 28. He claims it is a "gift" of God in that God speaks to his people in foreign tongues through those who believe.

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

02-09-2009, 05:09 AM	#33
Jedi Mind Trick Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Indianaplolis Posts: 4,998	The word "Gospel" does not universally mean a certain set of exclusive things. It simply means "good news" and could entail whatever the particular writer wanted to say that was good news. Paul preached "my gospel" as opposed to the other gospels that were being preached by the other apostles. Paul's gospel, which seems to be original to him and opposed by the other apostles', especially James, was that the law had ceased to be binding upon the person who believes in Jesus. Also known as "salvation by faith apart from works." Therefore Paul could have received the Gospel that the other apostles preached and at the same time have a gospel that was "revealed" to him alone. I try to not be as critical of Paul as I used to be. Maybe he had something of value that was truthful to say? I don't know.:huh:

02-09-2009, 05:12 AM	#34
Jedi Mind Trick Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Indianaplolis Posts: 4,998	I still sometimes think he was a Roman spy, then again, perhaps not.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.