Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 02-22-2009, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

aa - I guess a lot of people have you on ignore. Your quote from Romans 3:7 is out of context. It actually says the opposite:

Quote:

5 But if our unrighteousness brings out God's righteousness more clearly, what shall we say? That God is unjust in bringing his wrath on us? (I am using a human argument.) 6 Certainly not! If that were so, how could God judge the world? 7 Someone might argue, "If my falsehood enhances God's truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?" 8 Why not say—as we are being slanderously reported as saying and as some claim that we say—"Let us do evil that good may result"? Their condemnation is deserved.

I do not agree with you at all.

The writer called Paul is admitting that he lied.

As I have posted before if the writer called Paul was a contemporary of a human Jesus, then everything about Jesus being raised from the dead from the writer Paul are monstrous lies.

If the writer called Paul knew Jesus was just a man and lived at the time Jesus was alive, then the writer's claim that Jesus could forgive sin was a lie.

The letters of Paul are a collection of lies, if he was a contemporary of a human Jesus.

And, by the way, it may seem to you that people have me on "ignore," but it is because they are terrified that I will expose their fallacies.

I will shred thier illogical theories to bits.

It is better when they don't reply to my post, it may save them some embarrassment.

Doug Shaver · 02-23-2009, 06:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Why does it bother you that the writer called Paul has been shown to be a liar.

He hasn't, and so it doesn't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

If the writer called Paul was a contemporary of the human Jesus, then Romans 4.24 is just a big lie.

Your reasoning is fallacious.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The writer called Paul is a fraud

You keep saying that, but you never prove it.

Obviously, you're under the impression that if you just assert something enough times, it becomes true. Just like certain apologists.

aa5874 · 02-23-2009, 07:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Why does it bother you that the writer called Paul has been shown to be a liar.

He hasn't, and so it doesn't.

The writer Paul is a liar.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Obviously, you're under the impression that if you just assert something enough times, it becomes true. Just like certain apologists.

You are the one who is asserting that Paul is NOT a liar without providing ONE single piece of evidence that the writer is truthful.

Please, provide your evidence that the writer Paul is truthful and stop wasting time.

Just saying over and over that the writer Paul is not a liar cannot contradict 1 Corinthians 15.3-8.

Quote:

3For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures;

4and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the Scriptures:

5and that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: 6after 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.

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

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

1 Corinthians 15.3-8 is a pack of lies.

Now you tell me what you know that is truthful in the letters of the writer called Paul.

Doug Shaver · 02-24-2009, 06:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

You are the one who is asserting that Paul is NOT a liar

No, I am not. As usual, you are so full of yourself that you pay no attention to anyone's posts except your own.

aa5874 · 02-24-2009, 07:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

You are the one who is asserting that Paul is NOT a liar

No, I am not. As usual, you are so full of yourself that you pay no attention to anyone's posts except your own.

Well, are you claiming that the writer uttered falsehoods but was not a liar.

Prove it.

Please, show that 1 Corinthians 15.3-8 are falsehoods but not lies.

The writer called Paul is a liar. Jesus could have only been human if he existed. The writer Paul lied when he claimed he saw Jesus, also over 500 people, in a resurrected state or after he rose from the dead on the third day.

Doug Shaver · 02-25-2009, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

As usual, you are so full of yourself that you pay no attention to anyone's posts except your own.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Well, are you claiming that the writer uttered falsehoods but was not a liar.

Yes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Prove it.

You have already asked me to do that elsewhere in this forum, and I gave you my response there.

aa5874 · 02-25-2009, 05:14 PM

As I have stated before the writer called Paul was a fraud. It would appear that the writer was part of the scheme to distort the true history of Jesus believers.

The writer Paul claimed he preached the gospel of uncircumcision and that he got his gospel from a resurrected Jesus which must be false if Jesus was just human.

But, if Acts of the Apostles and the letters of the writer Paul is examined it will be noticed that the gospel of uncircumcision was just a farce.

The writer Paul did circumcise contrary to his own gospel even after it was resolved in Jerusalem that Gentiles did not need circumcision.

Acts 15

Quote:

1And certain men which came down from Judea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. 2When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.

4And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them.5But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.

6And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.

……24Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law; to whom we gave no such commandment: 25it seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

So, Paul was chosen or confirmed to preach the gospel of uncircumcision.

And these are the words of the writer called Paul.

1Corinthians 7:18 -

Quote:

Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised.

Ga 5:2 -

Quote:

Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.

But, immediately after being chosen or confirmed to preach the gospel of uncircumcision, the writer Paul forthwith went out and circumcised Timothy.

Acts 16.1-3

Quote:

1Then came he to Derbe and Lystra: and, behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a certain woman, which was a Jewess, and believed; but his father was a Greek: 2which was well reported of by the brethren that were at Lystra and Ico'ni-um. 3Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek.

The writer called Paul is a fraud, based on Acts of the Apostles, the writer was preaching uncircumcision but yet was doing the complete opposite.

Saul/Paul’s conversion and his gospel of uncircumcision are not credible.

Paul is a fraud.

Toto · 02-25-2009, 05:18 PM

Acts of the Apostles is a fictional attempt to make Paul acceptable to the catholic church. Paul didn't write it - you can't use Acts to prove anything about Paul.

aa5874 · 02-25-2009, 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Acts of the Apostles is a fictional attempt to make Paul acceptable to the catholic church. Paul didn't write it - you can't use Acts to prove anything about Paul.

Now, since you think Acts of the Apostles is fiction, why have you not thought that Paul was a fictional first century character?

You know that both Acts and the letters with the name Paul are sanctioned by the Church.

And, of course I can use Acts of the Apostles to show that the writer called Paul is a fraud.

The church writers claimed or wrote that Acts of the Apostles and the letters with the name Paul are authentic and canonised the writings as sacred scripture.

Church History 2.17.6

Quote:

For in the Acts of the Apostles, a work universally acknowledged as authentic.....

Church History 3.3.5

Quote:

5. Paul's fourteen epistles are well known and undisputed.

The fourteen epistles are also fictional attempts to make Acts of the Apostles acceptable to the Church.

Doug Shaver · 02-26-2009, 12:11 AM

CORRECTION TO POST #76

Apologies to everyone. I was in a hurry and did not read carefully enough.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Well, are you claiming that the writer uttered falsehoods but was not a liar.

No. I am not asserting that he was not a liar. I am asserting that we are not justified in believing he was a liar unless we have proof that he did not believe what he wrote.

For me to assert "Paul did not lie," I would need evidence, and I have none. But he is as entitled to the benefit of doubt as we all are, and the benefit dictates that we assume that people believe whatever they say they believe if we lack evidence to the contrary. Assuming it does not make it so, because assumptions are not evidence of anything. They are, however, unavoidable in any historical inquiry.

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

02-25-2009, 05:18 PM	#78
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Acts of the Apostles is a fictional attempt to make Paul acceptable to the catholic church. Paul didn't write it - you can't use Acts to prove anything about Paul.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.