Freethought & Rationalism Archive

kcdad · 05-22-2009, 06:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by kcdad

and you are talking to yourself... no one is listening...

This is one of the most incredible absurd statement I have come across for some time now.

You respond to my post and claim NO-ONE is listening.

Oh my God, it must be an ostrich, something got its head buried deep, with earmuffs and blindfolds on.

I didn't even read your long wordy post... I saw you were responding to someone who is ignoring you...

kcdad · 05-22-2009, 06:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Of course this is absurd as both the Gospels and Paul's letters are in absolute agreement.

hardly... Jesus says that the Jews must be law obedient, Paul says the law is death and is superseded.

show_no_mercy · 05-22-2009, 07:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by kcdad

I think is a very good question. I hear people all the time that God told them to do something or Jesus led them to make this decision or whatever...

The truth is they read something in The Bible, heard a preacher suggest something, or they just thought about it and meditated (prayed) about it and came to a decision... all rational ways to come to a decision or form an opinion, but hardly "divine revelation" in the way we think of it. But that may be EXACTLY what Paul was thinking.

According to ACTS Paul didn't read the gospels then decided to become a believer. On the Road to Damascus Paul had a revelation from the risen Lord. Later Paul met with the Apostles and IIRC, actually rebuked Peter for not following the "gospel" with respect to treatment towards the gentiles. Later Marcion perhaps twisted this passage to suggest that the Apostles didn't have the full revelation of the gospel which Paul had. Of course this is absurd as both the Gospels and Paul's letters are in absolute agreement.

Why is Acts of the Apostles considered history? It's a bit too convenient that Acts of the Apostles is a polemic against the doctrine of the Marcionites and the Ebionites - conveniently useful for a church that wants to be universal; to appeal to the lowest common denominator of Christianities.

And Paul's letters and the gospels are in "absolute" agreement? How many people did Jesus appear to according to the gospels? How many people did Jesus appear to according to Paul's letters?

spamandham · 05-22-2009, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

According to ACTS Paul didn't read the gospels then decided to become a believer. On the Road to Damascus Paul had a revelation from the risen Lord. Later Paul met with the Apostles and IIRC, actually rebuked Peter for not following the "gospel" with respect to treatment towards the gentiles. Later Marcion perhaps twisted this passage to suggest that the Apostles didn't have the full revelation of the gospel which Paul had. Of course this is absurd as both the Gospels and Paul's letters are in absolute agreement.

It's dangerous to use a text from one author to determine what a different author meant, which is why I think it's best to ignore Acts when interpreting Paul.

There are a few passages within the Pauline corpus which suggest Paul was familiar with the Gospel story, but IMHO, these are questionable.

aa5874 · 05-22-2009, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

According to ACTS Paul didn't read the gospels then decided to become a believer. On the Road to Damascus Paul had a revelation from the risen Lord. Later Paul met with the Apostles and IIRC, actually rebuked Peter for not following the "gospel" with respect to treatment towards the gentiles. Later Marcion perhaps twisted this passage to suggest that the Apostles didn't have the full revelation of the gospel which Paul had. Of course this is absurd as both the Gospels and Paul's letters are in absolute agreement.

It's dangerous to use a text from one author to determine what a different author meant, which is why I think it's best to ignore Acts when interpreting Paul.

There are a few passages within the Pauline corpus which suggest Paul was familiar with the Gospel story, but IMHO, these are questionable.

You cannot put Acts of the Apostles "on ignore". Acts of the Apostles is considered sacred scripture and canonised by the Church.

Acts of the Apostles contains the so-called post-ascension history of the disciples and the character Saul/Paul who is claimed to be the Pauline writer.

Any deviation of chronology between Acts and the Pauline must be taken very seriously, it has already been deduced that more than one person used the name Paul to write letters and that both the Pauline letters and Acts contain fiction.

Now, if the Pauline writer was a figure of history why did the church produce a book of fiction, Acts of the Apostles, to corroborate the historicity of Paul?

Fiction corroborates fiction.

If Acts of the Apostles was written after the so-called most glorious martyrdom of Peter and Paul, why did the author of Acts ignore such events where one of the criteria, martyrdom, for sainthood would have been recorded by the author of Acts?

Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline letters are inextricable linked. They are all part of the fraudulent history provided by the Church.

Justin Martyr cannot account for the post-ascension history of Jesus believers up to Nero.

Doug Shaver · 05-23-2009, 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

You cannot put Acts of the Apostles "on ignore". Acts of the Apostles is considered sacred scripture and canonised by the Church.

That's exactly what a Christian would say. A fundamentalist Christian.

Solo · 05-23-2009, 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Examine the stoning of Stephen as found in Acts of the Apostles, it was after Stephen made an apparent blasphemous statement about Jesus, the Son of man, that he was taken out of the city and stoned.

The alleged blasphemy was about God and Moses (6:11), not about Jesus.

Jiri

kcdad · 05-23-2009, 09:09 AM

"Acts of the Apostles is considered sacred scripture and canonised by the Church."

By whom? The Church. Which Church? The 4th Century Roman Catholic Church. Modern Christian scholars do not necessarily agree with that statement.

aa5874 · 05-23-2009, 09:14 PM

As I have stated before, Paul was absolutely aware of the Gospels.

The canonised Acts of the Apostles as presented by the Church to be authentic and genuine did put forward the position that Saul/Paul was aware of the Jesus story.

The author of Acts, the inseparable companion of Paul, according to the Church, did manage to give an overview of "Paul" knowledge of the Jesus story as found in the Gospels.

Paul will refer to passages found only in gMatthew, gMark, gLuke and gJohn.

Acts 13.15-42

Quote:

15And after the reading of the law and the prophets, the rulers of the synagogue sent unto them, saying, Ye men and brethren, if ye have any word of exhortation for the people, say on.

16Then Paul stood up, and beckoning with his hand said,
Men of Israel, and ye that fear God, give audience.

17The God of this people of Israel chose our fathers, and exalted the people when they dwelt as strangers in the land of Egypt, and with a high arm brought he them out of it. 18And about the time of forty years suffered he their manners in the wilderness. 19And when he had destroyed seven nations in the land of Canaan, he divided their land to them by lot. 20And after that he gave unto them judges about the space of four hundred and fifty years, until Samuel the prophet. 21And afterward they desired a king: and God gave unto them Saul the son of Kish, a man of the tribe of Benjamin, by the space of forty years.

22And when he had removed him, he raised up unto them David to be their king; to whom also he gave testimony, and said, I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after mine own heart, which shall fulfil all my will. 23Of this man's seed hath God, according to his promise, raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus:

24when John had first preached before his coming the baptism of repentance to all the people of Israel. 25And as John fulfilled his course, he said, Whom think ye that I am? I am not he. But, behold, there cometh one after me, whose shoes of his feet I am not worthy to loose.

26Men and brethren, children of the stock of Abraham, and whosoever among you feareth God, to you is the word of this salvation sent.

27For they that dwell at Jerusalem, and their rulers, because they knew him not, nor yet the voices of the prophets which are read every sabbath day, they have fulfilled them in condemning him. 28And though they found no cause of death in him, yet desired they Pilate that he should be slain. 29And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulchre.

30But God raised him from the dead:

31and he was seen many days of them which came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are his witnesses unto the people.

32And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers, 33God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.

34And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, he said on this wise, I will give you the sure mercies of David. 35Wherefore he saith also in another psalm, Thou shalt not suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.

36For David, after he had served his own generation by the will of God, fell on sleep, and was laid unto his fathers, and saw corruption: 37but he, whom God raised again, saw no corruption.

38Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins: 39and by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.

40Beware therefore, lest that come upon you, which is spoken of in the prophets; 41Behold, ye despisers, and wonder, and perish: for I work a work in your days, a work which ye shall in no wise believe, though a man declare it unto you.

42And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath.

Paul was absolutely aware of the Gospels, according to the author of Acts, he used to teach the Jews and Gentiles in the synagogues about the Jesus story and he used passages found only in the Synoptics and gJohn.

Acts 13.24-25

Quote:

24when John had first preached before his coming the baptism of repentance to all the people of Israel. 25And as John fulfilled his course, he said, Whom think ye that I am? I am not he. But, behold, there cometh one after me, whose shoes of his feet I am not worthy to loose.

Mt 3:11 -

Quote:

I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire.

Mark 1:7 -

Quote:

And preached, saying, There cometh one mightier than I after me, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to stoop down and unloose.

Luke 3.15-16

Quote:

15 And as the people were in expectation, and all men mused in their hearts of John, whether he were the Christ, or not;

John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose, he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire:

Paul even appear to be aware of the gospel of John.

John 1.19-20&26-27

Quote:

19 And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou? 20 And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not the Christ.

26 John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not; 27 He it is, who coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose.

Paul was absolutely aware of the Gospels.

Toto · 05-23-2009, 09:35 PM

The "Paul" depicted in Acts was aware of the gospels, because he was a creation of one of the gospel writers. The Paul who wrote the letters attributed to "Paul" shows no indication of knowing about the gospels.

Orthodox Christians believe that these two Pauls are the same, but most critics have decided to use the term Paul to refer to the letter writer, and concede that the Saul/Paul of Acts is a highly mythologized person, if not a complete fiction.

If you think that they are all fiction, what is your point? There was no Paul, so why would it matter if he knew the gospels?

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

05-23-2009, 09:09 AM	#348
kcdad Banned Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: illinois Posts: 688	"Acts of the Apostles is considered sacred scripture and canonised by the Church." By whom? The Church. Which Church? The 4th Century Roman Catholic Church. Modern Christian scholars do not necessarily agree with that statement.

05-23-2009, 09:35 PM	#350
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	The "Paul" depicted in Acts was aware of the gospels, because he was a creation of one of the gospel writers. The Paul who wrote the letters attributed to "Paul" shows no indication of knowing about the gospels. Orthodox Christians believe that these two Pauls are the same, but most critics have decided to use the term Paul to refer to the letter writer, and concede that the Saul/Paul of Acts is a highly mythologized person, if not a complete fiction. If you think that they are all fiction, what is your point? There was no Paul, so why would it matter if he knew the gospels?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.